Photographing birds by accident

As a rule, if a bird ends up in any photograph I take, it is there by accident rather than by design. I have been wondering, though, whether I should change that and try to take some deliberately. I joined a camera club a few months back and have seen pretty ordinary looking (to me) photos of birds getting high marks from judges in inter-club competitions - the most recent being at Rochdale on Tuesday this week.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting for one moment that taking photos of birds is easy, I am certain it is technically very challenging. Having said, a photo of some bird sitting in a tree doing nothing in particular doesn't seem, to me, to have the same level of artistic merit as many photos I see that are judged to be of lesser worth in competitions. The same also seems to be true, to a degree, of photos of pet dogs and monkeys at zoos. I do find this a little confusing.

Anyway, I think maybe it is time I had a go at generating a few photos of birds deliberately, rather than discovering one or two in a photo and then having to clone them out!

My first job, I guess, is to decide which lenses I have that are remotely suitable. I have a Pentax FA 100-300mm f/4.7-5.8 that I use from time to time - but it's rather soft at the long end. I also have a XR Rikenon 300mm f/4.5 APO which is sharp but generates quite a bit of blue/purple fringing at apertures under about f/16 at high contrast edges (such as birds against the sky). OK, scratch two lenses!

I have a very old (circa 1963) T-mount Tamron 400mm f/7.5 that I haven't used much since I bought it a couple of years back but which I remember being quite sharp. This afternoon, I dug it out and took a few test shots. I also tried it out with an old Tamron 2X teleconverter that I have lying around and was quite surprised by the results.

This is a shot taken at f/11 1/100sec, ISO 3200 with the Tamron 400 and teleconverter (so 800 overall) of a neighbours door that is maybe 70 or 80 yards away, on an overcast, misty, drizzly afternoon through a double glazed window.




It has been processed a little to reduce noise - but there was surprisingly little CA and almost no fringing. It doesn't look so bad to me. When mounted on a tripod, along with a DIY long lens support that I cobbled together last summer, the outfit will look more than a bit Heath Robinson, but maybe it'll do the job - well enough perhaps to give me a flavour of what this birding business is all about.

So, what gear should I really be using to give me a realistic chance of capturing one or two decent photos of our feathered friends?

Andrew

Hi Andrew.

Everyone has different opinions as to what setup is best but it is always a personal choice (influenced, of course, by cost).

I got my DA 55-300 mainly for photographing wild birds and birds of prey. That is quite a good lens for that purpose.
I've previously posted several such shots on the Gallery.

However, just to be different, I've posted one today that I took last week whilst on holiday in Devon & Cornwall. For ease of use and 'travelling light' I fitted my cheap Cosina 28-210 as a general purpose lens. It is a bit soft wide open but following your advice on a diffent thread (about the DAL 18-55) I simply switched to Av and stuck the lens on f/8 (sorry Smeggie !)

I've posted the full image so you can see the total field that I saw from the wall beside the river with the lens at full 210mm extension. However, even when the image is blown up to 100% it is quite reasonable and remember this was hand held.

Sometimes it is just a case of being in the right place at the right time and that's where the GP lens is handy. Not the best but best not to miss the shot ?

Good luck
Peter

I know that the DA 55-300 is highly regarded, but don't know how it compares, at the long end, with the FA 100-300 that I have. If the reviews on the american PentaxForum are to be believed, there might not be much advantage to be gained by swapping to the 55-300, though I am rather tempted by the more usable short end.

I've just had a look at a few of yours taken with the 55-300 at 300mm and they look sharper than I can get with the FA lens I have, though its hard to tell with such small images.

Andrew

This is a difficult one but I suspect that the Sigma 150-500 which is a lens I don't have will be mentioned/recommended

I have considered this lens but never got around to it as I don't use long lenses that often and can't see the point of having a lens costing £500 to £700 ish sitting idle on my shelf for 90% of the year

I have the Sigma 70 - 300 apo dg macro but anything over 200mm and the quality drops

I also have a Pentax m 200mm f4 - I like it a lot but fringing can be an issue, I also have a Tokina 300mm f5.5 - craking little m42 jobbie and then I have an NPS 400mm f5.9 nice and sharp but the contrast needs boosting in pp and fringing is well controlled - the point I am making rather poorly is that you may well find your Tamron 400mm pefectly ok for what you want at least for the time being

I have sets on my flickr page for each lens if you want a nosey at the results I have from these mf lenses

Cheers


Stu

I would look no further than a Sigma 150-500. It is a superb lens for birding, needs a fair bit of light and it's quite heavy, but image quality is excellent. The 55-300 is superb too, very sharp, but it's not long enough.

The images below were shot with the 150-500, through a double-glazed window.







Regards
David

Images of "birds on sticks" as some judges like to refer to them, aren't really intended to be "artistic" Most are presented as Natural History shots and comparing them to other types of photography is like comparing chalk to cheese, but at the end of the day everything is subjective to ones own tastes and often the judges, personally I would soon rather look at a mediocre shot of a bird on a stick that some over manipulated arty-farty image.

As for your search for a lens, if you wan't to capture birds doing something (flying?) then your going to need the fastest and longest lens you can afford, although many of us tend to manage quite well with the Sigma zooms, the 150-500 or 50-500

Having said that and not wanting to put you off but you need to master taking shots of birds doing nothing before progressing further

Yes, this is a worry that I have. If I were to buy a Sigma 150-500, I doubt that I'd use it often enough to justify having bought it - impressive though David's shots are.

Andrew

Hi Andrew, there's no need to spend £500 to £700, my Sigma 150-500 cost £450 second hand and it is as good as new, having been used only a couple of times before I bought it on the Forum.

Also, if you don't spend this sort of money you will always be compromising - you could try a teleconverter on the 55-300 (which I did), but it's a compromise and I abandoned this approach as the image quality was poor. I'm very happy with the 150-500 and I think for £450 it was exceptional value for money.

Regards
David

I think it's true what has been said about bird photography not generally being done to be artistic. I started to do it as a hobby when dog walking - when you tend to travel the same route a lot it's good to have something else to do at the same time. There are plenty of challenges and it can be fun and frustrating too - just spend half an hour trying to catch swallows in flight. There are pluses and minuses with big heavy lenses and [because I'm not trying to produce large prints etc.] I've always found a smaller lighter lens which you can hand hold, together with a bit of cropping, a better option. Just look at a pre digital 'how to' bird photography book and most amateurs had nothing longer than 300mm unless it was a mirror lens. How much you spend is really dependent on how serious you become. I did use a Sigma 120-400mm for a bit and that was'nt bad at all if a tad heavy. Some snaps here, mostly taken with a 55-300mm - frustratingly slow to focus at times which is it's main drawback, otherwise it compares very favourably with the offerings from Canon and Nikon which I've also used.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/greypoint/sets/72157625545931009/with/5527646032/

The 55-300mm is in a different league altogether from the
Pentax FA 100-300mm f/4.7-5.8 and it does work well with
either the Jessops 1.7x TC or the Pentax MF 1.4x-s.

I've got the Sigma 150-500mm, but it's too heavy to carry
any distance.

'

What I was really pondering about was why it is that a photograph of just about any bird, sitting in a tree and doing nothing in particular, seems to score more highly in inter-club competitions than I would have expected.

Maybe it is my expectation that is at fault - but it does seem to me that if a photo of anything feathered is sharp and tolerably well composed, it is assured of a high score - which doesn't seem to be true of any other subject.

Andrew

One obvious difference is that the 55-300mm seems capable of taking photos that are sharp at the long end, at a sensible aperture, whereas the FA lens isn't. Photos taken at 300mm with the FA lens get sharper as the aperture gets smaller, all the way to f/16 and possibly beyond - the hallmark of indifferent glass.

Andrew

i suppose winning photo competitions depends on the criteria of the judges - technically good but boring or possibly less technically good but interesting - getting both right being the ideal but hardest! The main rule of bird photography is, the better the light the fewer birds you'll see!!

Your Judges obviously like Birds, try visiting a few YPU clubs, the attitude many YPU judges is as previously said "bird on a stick" and I have seen many superb images dismissed simply because the bird was simply sat in a tree.

Birds are very difficult subjects to master, they don't stay in one place very long, they tend to move about unpredictably and they rarely turn to face the direction you want them to, even more so when your trying to get a good shot, add to that the fact they like to sit in trees with all manner of branches and leaves either in the way or casting unwanted shadows or forming distracting backgrounds. I say Bravo that the Judges in your area still recognise this.

It could be argued that other types of photography are easy by comparison, with still life and studio work the photographer has full control of lighting and subject and has unlimited chances to get the right shot, similar can be said of landscape photography, all the photographer has to do is compose the shot and wait for the light, that barn in the middle of the field isn't going anywhere and it's certainly not going to turn it's arse on him or move further up the field

Open category competitions are extremely difficult as the judge has to determine which image deserves the most merit, does he go for the landscape sunrise knowing that the photographer had to be up at 3am and travel 100 miles to be in the right place at the right time, or does he commend the wildlife shot knowing the photographer had spent hours upon hours in a bird hide freezing his bits off, or even the studio shot where the photographer has had the patience to coax an unwilling child or teenager into posing for the shot the parents want. You pay the Judge and he make his choice.

Unfortunately personal preference of the judges can have a much bigger effect than it should. I've heard tales of a local judge that always marks down pictures of cats... Judges are human so this is only to be expected to some extent.

I'm lucky enough to have both the 55-300 and the 150-500. The 55-300 is light enough to live in my camera bag (much lighter than my old F100-300) whilst the Bigmos is heavy enough that it stays at home much of the time. When I have it with me it does brilliantly, even if it is less than 10% of the time, the difference it makes at airshows, motor racing, and with wildlife makes it worth the cost.
Thinking about it, the Bigmos may only be with me 5% of the time I've got my camera, but it's with me for nearer 30% of the photo's I've taken in the last year...