1st bird photo taken with d90 / 70-300mm cc please

all i see for your post is: Users/richarddave/Pictures/iPhoto Library_2/Modified/2009/Roll 62/CSC_0269.JPG

here is the photo:

Seems a bit soft and noisy. Is this a crop of the original? What were the camera settings? Are you referring the to new 70-300VR?

Small bird photography is very difficult. Hats off to those who can do it well. Keep practicing. For top quality, you need to get close enough to fill the frame. For a small bird, that means you'd need to be within 10-15 feet with a 300mm lens. Not an easy thing to do, especially with woodpeckers.

yes, shot with new 70-300 vr, yes it was cropped. settings were iso 400, ap priority, spot meter, fine jpeg,.. thanks for looking.

Not bad at all, though I agree that for a bird this size you can't be much more than 10 feet away at 300mm. With this lens you really need to stop down to f7.1-f8 for any kind of feather detail. That means you almost never have enough light, so you have to start using a flash for fill. Good first attempt and you will surely improve with practice.
--
Lora

I've been on Dpreview since June 2006. Unfortunately, some posting history has been lost along the way...

lac111 says - "Not bad at all......"
You can't be serious.
It is not sharp, not even close. Nothing else matters.

cary

Getting the eye in sharp focus makes all the difference in the world.

cary smith said:

lac111 says - "Not bad at all......"
You can't be serious.
It is not sharp, not even close. Nothing else matters.

Click to expand...

Nothing else matters? Even if this were razor sharp it has a whole host of issues, so why not be encouraging for a first attempt? I think the OP has potential. I've certainly seen awful first attempts, which this is not IMO. I do know something about taking bird shots...
--
Lora

I've been on Dpreview since June 2006. Unfortunately, some posting history has been lost along the way...

lac111 said:

cary smith said:

lac111 says - "Not bad at all......"
You can't be serious.
It is not sharp, not even close. Nothing else matters.

Click to expand...

Nothing else matters? Even if this were razor sharp it has a whole host of issues, so why not be encouraging for a first attempt? I think the OP has potential. I've certainly seen awful first attempts, which this is not IMO. I do know something about taking bird shots...

Click to expand...

Right. It is a bird photo. If it is not sharp, forget about everything else.

First it has to look sharp. Then we can talk about the other "whole host of issues".

The OP has potential only if they can tell an unsharp photo from a sharp one. And know how to make a sharp photo. To put up an unsharp bird photo -here- is indeed very close to being "awful". As it started to download and I saw the head and it was not sharp I did not even finish the download.

cary

I think you missed the focus. If that's your first bird shot, then here an advice: use selective focus point on your camera, focus with the selected point on the head, and then play with aperture as you wish to blurr the background.
I believe you missed the focus on this shot, which is why it is not sharp.

My 2cts...
--
Younes ( Paris, FR)
K100D, 70-300,18-55

thanks for encouraging comments, here is one more.

This one is much better for me

shoot in raw and select the sharpness as you like, try to focus on the eye and use a tripod if you can. If you are on tripod turn VR off

keep on trying!

I have to agree. Composition is great, but without tack sharp focus it's just a tossable photo. The 70-300, as great as it is, has a reputation of being soft at 300, so you need to crank that sucker up to at least f/8 to compensate. If you're hand holding the lens and VR is on make sure you have it on continuous focus. At that focal length and even at f/11 breathing and any back and forth motion by you using AF-S is enough to put the bird out of focus. So use AF-C. Also, because of all of the above, do these shots in bursts so that out of 5 shots, hopefully 1 is tack sharp. Don't be discouraged... many landscape/bird photographers take thousands of images and only consider 10 to be display worthy. You have the eye, you just have to work on the technical aspect. But the great thing is that while doing so you have fun! Cheers!

cary smith said:

Right. It is a bird photo. If it is not sharp, forget about everything else.

First it has to look sharp. Then we can talk about the other "whole host of issues".

The OP has potential only if they can tell an unsharp photo from a sharp one. And know how to make a sharp photo. To put up an unsharp bird photo -here- is indeed very close to being "awful". As it started to download and I saw the head and it was not sharp I did not even finish the download.

cary

Click to expand...

--
Ancient Canadian proverb: 'Don't eat yellow snow.'
D300 and assortment from FE to 200mm

for me, I prefer to be encouraging.

True that these are not all that sharp. I have this lens and I LOVE it, but it is a bit misleading. Some people buy it thinking that it is going to be the end all be all for birding. The problem is that you still have to creep in really close to get those "National Geographic" type shots.

I enjoy taking this lens to the Zoo - it gets you in pretty close on those lions and polar bears and such.

For the OP, I would keep practicing. you need to hold it very, very steady as you push the button. The VR helps, but any shake will blur the image. Also, try and get it spot on focused. The other posters are totally correct. For animal shots, the eye, above all else, needs to be tack sharp.

Good luck

Some of the overall lack of sharpness is related to loss of resolution from heavy cropping as the OP stated. I haven't been participating on here that much in the past few months and things certainly have changed. Where are the people that always tell everyone their photos are good no matter what? This reminds me more of the way it was prior to a couple of years ago on here, rather unforgiving. Interesting...
--
Lora

I've been on Dpreview since June 2006. Unfortunately, some posting history has been lost along the way...

panning with 18-105.. i like this one. cc please .. & thx lori

Yes, this last one (third) by OP is better than first two. But totally different subject matter, this last one is not really a -bird- photo!!!!

Now getting back to our discussion -

rich7196 said:

Some of the overall lack of sharpness is related to loss of resolution from heavy cropping as > the OP stated.

Click to expand...

True, cropping never helps sharpness. Here's a bird photo, Little Bee-eater, South Africa, I took last Sep using D200 with in fact our subject 70-300mm at 300mm. ( I don't like to carry large tele prime lenses). This is a small bird, 15cm, 6 inches. We were I think about 10 meters away from it, nice, rather close. Anyway, this shot is -very cropped- to about 1/4 the field of view or about as if a 600mm lense. Shot at 300mm, f8, 1/1000, ISO500. The cropping has of course hurt its sharpness but I think it is still acceptable (just barely).



.
.

rich7196 said:

I haven't been participating on here that much in the past few months and things certainly have changed. Where are the people that always tell everyone their photos are good no matter what?

Click to expand...

Perhaps their mothers no longer visit the forums??? If you want nothing but praise for you photos, show them to your mother or family
.

rich7196 said:

This reminds me more of the way it was prior to a couple of years ago on here, rather unforgiving. Interesting...

Click to expand...

I've been here since 2005 and don't remember this as such as you do. "Unforgiving"?? When an poster requests CC do you think we should "forgive" what's wrong with their image??

Peace, sister, and all, have great Holidays and Merry Christmas.

cary