Photography of Loons

It makes me wonder why the new Nikon D5500 has like 39 focal points and the D5100 has only 11. Can this work against you with a telephoto lens?
You can probably select any one of those 39 points. Thus you don't have to have the focus point in the center of the image. For sitting wildlife, I will often move the focus point (for example on this birds eye). Focus was critical, since even the front of the 3 inch suet log is not in focus given the shallow depth of field.







--
drj3
 
Beautiful photo and nice explanation.

I saw the same with the loons. Only a few inches away would be out of focus.

Do you use single point focus, by moving the focus point to the left with the left/right/up/down keys, or do you trust your eyes to do manual focus?
 
FamilyPhotographer said:
Beautiful photo and nice explanation.

I saw the same with the loons. Only a few inches away would be out of focus.

Do you use single point focus, by moving the focus point to the left with the left/right/up/down keys, or do you trust your eyes to do manual focus?
I move the focus point with the keys on my camera. I do check focus and correct if necessary (the EVF allows me to magnify), but that is mainly when I am focusing with things in front of the target.













--
drj3
 
It is easy to move focus points when the subject is close, much more difficult when further out like the OP's shots. For one thing the focus point can be quite a bit different in size than the indicator shows.
Moving the focus point is less important for distant targets ( I am not sure why it would be more difficult - possibly differences in the specific camera). Given the images the OP posted, you could simply use the center focus point/points (given the greater depth of field at those distances slight movement would not affect the focus so you could focus and recompose if you have time). I personally always do a quick 2X multiply focus check (toggle with front button) and manually correct if there is time, but that would not be possible with the OP's camera.

I was simply responding to the question of why more focus points. For closer targets with a shallow depth of field, the ability to move the focus point is critical, since even slight movement with focus and recompose will cause missed focus when depth of field can be much less than one inch.
 
Beautiful photo and nice explanation.

I saw the same with the loons. Only a few inches away would be out of focus.

Do you use single point focus, by moving the focus point to the left with the left/right/up/down keys, or do you trust your eyes to do manual focus?
I move the focus point with the keys on my camera. I do check focus and correct if necessary (the EVF allows me to magnify), but that is mainly when I am focusing with things in front of the target.





--
drj3
Wow. Fantastic shots!



How do you magnify with the Electronic View Finder (EVF)?

For my Nikon D5100 do I put it in Live View and zoom in on the focal point?

I didn't know it could do that?

With lively moving and diving loons that must take a lot of patience and trial and error
 
I have used he area editing in Lightroom for opening up the dark head and bright eyes and it was quite easy even for me.

I really like all of your Loon photos. This is a particularly interesting nature subject and has great emotional appeal to nature lovers and bird watchers.

Wouldn't it be great if a sound track of their plaintiff call could be added?

Look forward to seeing more.
 
Here is my webpage that has links to audio of loons

This should take you back to nature!
 
Last edited:
You do realize that camera uses a smaller sensor than yours which means depth of field is broader so more of the picture is in focus (cell phones with their tiny sensors, everything is in focus) so critical focus is not as important.
That's interesting that a smaller sensor helps the focus. Does it make that much difference?

Sensor Size

Nikon D5100 APS-C 23.6x15.6mm

Olympus E-M1 Four thirds 17.3x13mm

Also some other strengths of the Olympus at this link

Focus Points

Nikon D5100 11

Olympus E-M1 81
 
It can make a difference especially with close in subjects...that is why focus is so important with full frame sensors (4X the size of the Oly).
There is much confusion about sensor size and depth of field. The OP used a 300mm lens, my images were with a 283mm lens. The mFTs will actually have a more shallow depth of field (because of the crop) than the Nikon, but will have a less wide field of view. The Nikon will have a field of view equivalent to a 450mm lens, the mFTs will have the field of view of a 566mm lens.

The mFTs depth of field would be deeper than a FF or APS crop sensor with field of view equivalent to that of a 566mm lens.

For example, based on the DOFMaster calculator. A 300mm lens on the Nikon at f5.6 from 120 inches will have a depth of field of .83 inches, the mFTs sensor with a 280mm lens will have a depth of field of .72 inches.

The images I posted thus have a more shallow depth of field, not a deeper one.

For the hummingbird and woodpecker images, the approximate depth of field was about 2/3 of an inch (1/3 in front and 1/3 behind). For the attached bee, the total depth of field is about .15 inches, unfortunately not large enough for the full bee to be in focus. Focus is critical for all long telephoto lenses, including mFTs crop sensors.







--
drj3
 
Thanks, why are many of your photos at 283mm? Seems like an odd focal length.

How in the world did you focus on a bee?
 
Last edited:
Thanks, why are many of your photos at 283mm? Seems like an odd focal length.

How in the world did you focus on a bee?
I use a 50-200mm lens with a 1.4 TC which gives the 283mm focal length (and loss of 1 stop). I use CAF, but my lens has mechanically linked focus, so I manually focus to approximate focus and then let the camera autofocus. The hard part is getting the bee in the EVF, once I do that I can follow it, sometimes for a few seconds. Fortunately many insects move in predictable directions which helps with keeping the insect in view. The hardest for me are flying butterflies (no predictable movement) and flying midges (that is completely manual focus and low success rate).
 
Very interesting! I've never used Continuous Auto Focus (AF-C) on my Nikon D5100, although it has it. I've always used Automatic Auto Focus (AF-A), which tries to turn on AF-C if a moving subject is somehow detected.

I found a youtube that demos the "Back Button Continuous Auto Focus" on the Nikon D5100 at this link

Thanks so much for bringing this to my attention! I wonder how well it works on loons.

I have to believe it would be better than using "shutter release auto focus".
 
Last edited:
I downloaded a 30-day free trial of Lightroom CC. If I purchase a license I will for sure buy the desktop version, but the trial comes in the cloud. No way do I want to pay $10/month forever. Amazon has LR 6 for $144. I would be done paying in 14 months.

Lightroom is amazing. There are so many more adjustments than in Nikon NX2

Before

17fdc0721eb94ddfbb46a388a47d9772.jpg

After making many adjustments in Lightroom CC I probably made too many adjustments, but for my first attempt in Lightroom, trying everything, it shows that so much can be done.

fd9ede9313b94f59854df78e7aec9d4a.jpg

In the second version I can see the eye of the loon, water is more blue, wings are more clear.

I tried out most of the adjustments and backed off what didn't help.

Here is a shot of the before and after user interface, for anyone else like me wondering if Lightroom is worth it.

145c2732b6b84f9989d90ddb5fdb563d.jpg

This zoomed in shot shows I over-processed some adjustments

1bf03b694d5040b584be1b81691616e7.jpg

Maybe I can wish for Lightroom for Christmas! :-)
 
Last edited:
Glad your are test driving Lightroom. It is a great tool, and personally, I’d rather invest my time in learning software that I will be using in the long run rather than bounce around between cheap alternatives.

It takes a bit of practice to learn how far to go in post processing. As you noted, you probably went too far in this case, but the original image had some challenges due to the lighting. When the original shot is well exposed and the light is favorable, you will find that only minor tweaks are necessary and you can focus on enhancing an image rather than fixing it. Of course, it takes persistence and a cooperative subject to get that good starting point.

Your processed version is an improvement, but the white balance seems to be on the cool side. The white belly of the loon looks blue. You can fix that easily with either a global white balance change, or an adjustment brush. Anyway, it’s a nice shot. I wish I had loons here locally. They are beautiful birds.
 
Thanks for the encouragement and advice!

Yes the loon's belly is too blue. After I increased the exposure level, the lake turned very light, so I tried to bring back some blue to the highlights. The highlights were mostly defined as the lake, but also some of the loons belly.

Is there a better way to make the lake blue again, without making the loon's belly too blue?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the encouragement and advice!

Yes the loon's belly is too blue. After I increased the exposure level, the lake turned very light, so I tried to bring back some blue to the highlights. The highlights were mostly defined as the lake, but also some of the loons belly.

Is there a better way to make the lake blue again, without making the loon's belly too blue?
I think the water looks about right, so maybe just use an adjustment brush on the belly... on the one brush you could play with the sliders for temp, tint, saturation, and vibrance.
 
Thanks, I wondered if I had overdone the overall adjustment to the water.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top