Just exactly how close are people getting to these small birds?

[Penn_Wildlife]

Hi! I have enjoyed photography for many years, and have gotten more serious over time. I usually concentrate on landscape and travel, but a few recent trips have given me the bug for animal photography. I love being in the wilderness, and I love photography, so why not mix the two? I also have extensive hunting experience, particularly in archery, so I know how to be silent, move quietly, stalk game, and get in close.

To further this goal of animal photography (particularly birds), I got a Sony a7iii and the 200-600mm G OSS lens. Based on field experience, it seems that most of these "pin sharp" photos of small birds, with every feather in full glorious detail, grains of sand on the beak, and what-not, seem to have been taken from 8 feet away.

Even with this lens at 600mm, and even if using APS-C mode (900mm effective FOV), a small bird 30 feet away is basically 1% of the frame, so there goes the detail.

I see these YouTube videos where people are using contrived perches, feeders, and so on. That doesn't interest me. I'm much more of a naturalist, so I plan to use hunting skills to get close to the animals. Larger game such as whitetail deer look fine. So do larger birds like herons and cranes, due to the scale of the animal, even from across a pond or in the air.

However, my photos of warblers, etc., leave a lot to be desired, as I have noted above. Even with a good focus and a tripod and 1/1000th or faster shutter, if the bird is 30 feet away, it's no use.

What's the story with these "amazing" bird photos of tiny birds? Are they all taken from 8 feet away, or what?

Thanks!

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

Ok, every country is different, this is about Western Europe. Many of these frame filling birds come from hides/blinds. There they are within 15 feet, sometimes at 5 which is more than enough.

However, all images look the same. From my country, I can tell which hide was used when looking at the branches, background, small pond etc. Sometimes it's fun and when it's really hot the shade is welcome but overall it is boring as hell to be in a hide for hours. More experienced birders/photographers use hides to catch up with old friends.

Some use their own camouflage to get close. That works if you like to wait for hours. There may be problems in public terrain but in the US it should be possible to find good places.

Since I'm a naturalist like you I prefer to hike for days in nature, enjoy and see what I'll encounter. The good: you see animals that will never visit hides, you see behavior that never happens close to a hide. The bad is that many shots are at larger distances. Over here small birds at 30 feet at least, raptors at hundred of yards. So you have to accept the fact that the majority of your images will be record shots.

However, 1-3 times a day you have a rare encounter, that's special and close enough for good details. On average one of these encounters is ruined by the photographer him/herself, simply because you only have a few seconds to grab the camera, you are not concentrated enough, choose the wrong settings, make too much noise etc.

On average, one of them is lost because of bad light, bad background or interfering objects, other animals. You name it, it will happen.

Leaves us hardworking wildlife photographers with one opportunity that (hopefully) brings us a few keepers a day.

Never mind, for me it's worth it, being in nature is enough already, the rest is a gift

--
TheBlackGrouse

 

[missedshot]

Hmm, that has been my question also for years. You'd think with decent equipment one would get "lucky" occasionally. I think lens quality, zoom vs. prime, may be a factor.

I would be curious what percentage of final "quality" is achieved in post, after the original shot.

Oops, sorry I didn't respond to the main question. Couldn't delete.

 

[JasonTheBirder]

Even with this lens at 600mm, and even if using APS-C mode (900mm effective FOV), a small bird 30 feet away is basically 1% of the frame, so there goes the detail.
[...]
What's the story with these "amazing" bird photos of tiny birds? Are they all taken from 8 feet away, or what?

Thanks!

Hah! Bird photography. 8ft might be a bit restrictive, maybe 10-12. I'm not used to feet so I measured 30ft on my measuring tape, and there's little chance of getting a good shot at that distance of really small birds.

I've been photographing birds for about four years, and almost never use blinds, and I don't like feeders either. But here are some basic tips:

1. You need to spend a LOT of time outdoors, walking around. It helps if you actually like birds and want to find them or list/twitch them. That is my main motivation. Usually on a birding trip to a great location I usually come back with keepers, but often those are not of small birds! If you want to bring back some good shots go out for 2-3 hours somewhere.
2. Birds will come close to you. In the spring, warblers have their breeding plumage and are more bold. So it is much easier to get a shot from 8 feet or even less!
3. Birds have different tendencies at different times. After a rain they will behave differently than in really dry weather.
4. Actually learn about your subject. Rails are easier to see in the morning I've often found. Warblers in the spring. Ducks in the fall (in north america). Waterbirds/shorebirds in the summer in Australia on water. Honeyeaters (Australia) in certain types of trees when they bloom. Use eBird to find out where certain species are being seen

I would say finding the correct location is pretty important. For example, around my house I can see Ring-billed Gulls in the air sometimes. If I took a shot of those they would be very low-resolution because they are always high in the sky. But I know of a place where the water is shallow and the gulls dive in and feed on invertebrates. Then you can get great shots at 200-300mm!

I would say, to become good at bird photography also, you need to find a location and visit it at least three times. After that you'll begin to notice where the best spots are, where birds tend to settle. After a while, I can say, "yep, I know the Double-crested Cormorant will be on that rock" or "this is a tree that Yellow-rumped Warblers really like" or "the Lesser Scaups love this pond and they won't fly away no matter what".

 

[357mm]

Hi! I have enjoyed photography for many years, and have gotten more serious over time. I usually concentrate on landscape and travel, but a few recent trips have given me the bug for animal photography. I love being in the wilderness, and I love photography, so why not mix the two? I also have extensive hunting experience, particularly in archery, so I know how to be silent, move quietly, stalk game, and get in close.

Me too.

To further this goal of animal photography (particularly birds), I got a Sony a7iii and the 200-600mm G OSS lens. Based on field experience, it seems that most of these "pin sharp" photos of small birds, with every feather in full glorious detail, grains of sand on the beak, and what-not, seem to have been taken from 8 feet away.

Yep, closer the better.

Even with this lens at 600mm, and even if using APS-C mode (900mm effective FOV), a small bird 30 feet away is basically 1% of the frame, so there goes the detail.

I'm glad you mentioned this. A common misunderstanding is that you can twist on a 100-200 telephoto lens and get great bird photos. Some can and do, but longer the better and you're discovering that even 600mm is mighty short when it comes to small critters or even large critters at a distance.

I see these YouTube videos where people are using contrived perches, feeders, and so on. That doesn't interest me. I'm much more of a naturalist, so I plan to use hunting skills to get close to the animals. Larger game such as whitetail deer look fine. So do larger birds like herons and cranes, due to the scale of the animal, even from across a pond or in the air.

Hunting areas tend to make birds/animals skittish and flee at first sight of you. If you can photo somewhere(park, refuge) where it's safe for the birds, and they're familiar with people, then you'll be able to approach much closer. You can also use your vehicle as a blind if possible.

However, my photos of warblers, etc., leave a lot to be desired, as I have noted above. Even with a good focus and a tripod and 1/1000th or faster shutter, if the bird is 30 feet away, it's no use.

That's only 10 yards and is mighty close for small, wild birds unless they're on a nest or being fed routinely. Most of the warblers I've seen are in the treetops or limbs and branches are shielding them from view. Luck plays into getting a nice shot.

What's the story with these "amazing" bird photos of tiny birds? Are they all taken from 8 feet away, or what?

Probably a lot are. Folks will go to a lot of work setting up just the right perch, using bait, and wait for long periods of time to get the perfect shot. What you see might be just one frame of several thousand shots and quite a bit of post processing.

Of course, there are lots of really great photographers that are in the right spot at the right time and make the most of the opportunity. Wildlife don't shoot itself.

Thanks!

By the way, welcome to the DPReview forums. Hopefully you'll be able to share some tips during your journey.

 

[bgbgbgbgbg]

Most of my best small bird photos are taken with in 15ft or so and you still have to crop some for them to look good. I go hiking at least 5 days a week and always bring my camera so I'm prepared if by some chance a bird comes close. Most warblers eat small insects so baiting them is not really an option. I find during spring migration I have about 1 week or so to get warbler shots before they move further north to breed and at this time they are mainly interested in refueling for their trip and couldn't care less about me. Some feed only in the tree tops and those I never get shots of but some do feed lower and with those you just have to be patient and wait for them to get close to you and be ready to shot. Here's a few examples :




A flock of Kinglets were feeding on gnat swarms by a creek. I prefocused on this distance and waited until one happened to land and I got this shot.




This gnatcatcher happened to land right in front of me while I was hiking and got this shot. pure luck




This warbler was hunting in an oak and again I prefocused and waited and it happened to hop right to where I was looking.




This warbler is the same situation. They flitting about feeding, I waited until one landed near me and took the shot.




Again, this Redpoll landed right in front of me while I was walking. Posed for a second and I was lucky to get the shot.



Most of the time - probably 99% of the time I don't get anything but because I have my camera and am patient I occasionally get lucky. You know what they say - Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

Brent

 

[KiloHotelphoto]

Well they are probably huge crops with 600 F4’s and even maybe with a 1.4tc. and really good post processing skills.



And for ever one really sharp picture they probably have a lot more that aren’t that you never see. And they probably put in the time, a lot of sitting and waiting for the birds to get comfortable with them there and they get closer.

 

[bobgilbody]

I stun the little bastards with nerve gas, then mount them as lifelike as possible.

Hope this helps.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

Most of my best small bird photos are taken with in 15ft or so and you still have to crop some for them to look good. I go hiking at least 5 days a week and always bring my camera so I'm prepared if by some chance a bird comes close. Most warblers eat small insects so baiting them is not really an option. I find during spring migration I have about 1 week or so to get warbler shots before they move further north to breed and at this time they are mainly interested in refueling for their trip and couldn't care less about me. Some feed only in the tree tops and those I never get shots of but some do feed lower and with those you just have to be patient and wait for them to get close to you and be ready to shot. Here's a few examples : (...)

That's the way to do it, hiking 5 days a week with a camera

Again, this Redpoll landed right in front of me while I was walking. Posed for a second and I was lucky to get the shot.

Most of the time - probably 99% of the time I don't get anything but because I have my camera and am patient I occasionally get lucky. You know what they say - Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

Brent

Well, as I like to say, you make your own luck by hiking as much as possible, being patient and you have to be prepared for the shot the whole day.

Redpolls are quite rare over here and I've had a similar experience. Once in a while one lands in front of you, not even at 10 feet. Then you have a few seconds before it's gone.

Good image by the way!



--
TheBlackGrouse

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

I had a Great Horned Owl nest nearby for years, and I used to go shoot it with a variety of cameras and lenses. Also used a sitting owl for many lens tests, looking for feather detail.

One day I did a comparison test between three similar resolution cameras with different crop factors and the same lens with a 1.4 teleconverter mounted. 12mp D700 with Nikon 300F4. 12mp D300 and 10mp V1. Crop factors:

D700 + 300f4 + 1.4TC -1x, true 420mm

D300 + 300f4 + 1.4TC -1.5x, equivalent to 630mm

V1 + 300f4 + 1.4TC - 2.7x, equivalent to 1134mm

On the V1, my 300f4 'became' an 810F4.

At the nest sight there were basically two sight lines. I set up from a usual spot and used a 50mm lens (on DX) for this shot to give a sense of scale:

Here is a thumbnail of the scene using 300mm on FX, uncropped, then the D300, then V1.

D700, 300F4+1.4tc = 420mm

D300, 300F4+1.4TC = 630mm

V1, 300f4 + 1.4tc = 1134mm

As you can see, even with the 2.7x crop factor, 420mm of lens doesn't fill the frame with a large bird at this distance. I do have one wonderful 10mp V1 shot of a sitting owl where I was able to frame the bird from top to bottom without cropping. (Here: http://www.cjcphoto.net/lenstests/v1/images/page11.html)

Small birds? Need to be much, much closer, or have a lot more lens. Nikon P900/950 or P1000 (2000mm, 2000mm and 3000mm zooms) will get there on lens alone. Otherwise think fieldcraft, blinds, feeders and luck. And a lot of cropping.



--
Phoenix Arizona Craig
www.cjcphoto.net
"In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not."

 

[Penn_Wildlife]

Ok, every country is different, this is about Western Europe. Many of these frame filling birds come from hides/blinds. There they are within 15 feet, sometimes at 5 which is more than enough.

This is good to know! Nobody seems to include that crucial bit in the other technical EXIF data they post with the images.

Some use their own camouflage to get close. That works if you like to wait for hours. There may be problems in public terrain but in the US it should be possible to find good places.

This is likely what I'll do when I find that getting close is desirable or feasible.

Never mind, for me it's worth it, being in nature is enough already, the rest is a gift

This is the attitude I'm going to roll with. I love hiking, backpacking, and just being out in nature. When I'm fortunate enough to be close to an animal, I don't always take a photo, but often enough, I do. Now that I've learned that 600mm is still pretty "short", as it were, I'll do with what I have, when I can!

Thank you!

 

[Penn_Wildlife]

Even with this lens at 600mm, and even if using APS-C mode (900mm effective FOV), a small bird 30 feet away is basically 1% of the frame, so there goes the detail.

[...]

What's the story with these "amazing" bird photos of tiny birds? Are they all taken from 8 feet away, or what?

Thanks!

Hah! Bird photography. 8ft might be a bit restrictive, maybe 10-12. I'm not used to feet so I measured 30ft on my measuring tape, and there's little chance of getting a good shot at that distance of really small birds.

Thank you for confirming!

You need to spend a LOT of time outdoors, walking around. It helps if you actually like birds and want to find them or list/twitch them. That is my main motivation.

This will work fine! I love being outside, and hiking is my second favorite hobby, behind photography.

Birds will come close to you. In the spring, warblers have their breeding plumage and are more bold. So it is much easier to get a shot from 8 feet or even less!

This is good news. I'm looking at throw-down blinds and ghillie suits for when I'm stationary. I have been observing birds, and I notice they tend to hang around near the same little area. For instance, on several recent hikes, I've seen what I believe is the same yellowthroat on the very same bush, and I read that they are territorial.

I would say finding the correct location is pretty important...

I would say, to become good at bird photography also, you need to find a location and visit it at least three times. After that you'll begin to notice where the best spots are, where birds tend to settle. After a while, I can say, "yep, I know the Double-crested Cormorant will be on that rock" or "this is a tree that Yellow-rumped Warblers really like" or "the Lesser Scaups love this pond and they won't fly away no matter what".

Many thanks for this advice! I've begun to keep some rudimentary records, too. Someone once told me that a short pencil is better than a long memory!

Take care! (Now, on to shop for the ghillie suit...)

 

[Penn_Wildlife]

Hmm, that has been my question also for years.

I'm glad it wasn't just me!

You'd think with decent equipment one would get "lucky" occasionally. I think lens quality, zoom vs. prime, may be a factor.

Well...having shot for years on a variety of small to medium point-and-shoot, DSLRs, and mirrorless, I can say for sure that every forum post that ever said "gear doesn't matter" is simply insane. Now that I have a full frame camera and this good lens, the difference it makes in my ability to get a really nice shot is a order of magnitude better. This is especially true because of the incredible high ISO performance of the Sony a7iii. I could also cite its superb auto-focus, including the lock-on feature for birds in flight. Many shots I have taken in the first week of ownership of this camera are literally impossible on my other kits.

I would be curious what percentage of final "quality" is achieved in post, after the original shot.

I feel that it still takes a good photo to come out good in post (althought you can overcome some small amount of evil with raw). The focus and exposure need to be spot on most of the time. No amount of structure, sharpening, or microcontrast can fix a bad focus. Similarly, pulling exposure in post is just the same as pumping the ISO in camera, most of the time. So, those tack-sharp bird photos are pretty impressive from out of the gate, in my opinion! I just didn't realize they were from 5 feet away when I plunked down my money. I had this idea that birds across the yard would fill half the frame, but they look more like a Christmas ornament on the tree at 600mm.

In summary, I'm thrilled with this camera, but the bird thing was vexing me! They are SO. SMALL.

Nobody pixel-peeps the snout on a tack-sharp fully-body photo of a bison, and that's about how large a little bird is, just for instance.

 

[Penn_Wildlife]

Even with this lens at 600mm, and even if using APS-C mode (900mm effective FOV), a small bird 30 feet away is basically 1% of the frame, so there goes the detail.

I'm glad you mentioned this. A common misunderstanding is that you can twist on a 100-200 telephoto lens and get great bird photos. Some can and do, but longer the better and you're discovering that even 600mm is mighty short when it comes to small critters or even large critters at a distance.

I learned this very quickly, much to my credit card's chagrin! The lens felt huge for one day, but now it's just part of the kit.

Hunting areas tend to make birds/animals skittish and flee at first sight of you. If you can photo somewhere(park, refuge) where it's safe for the birds, and they're familiar with people, then you'll be able to approach much closer. You can also use your vehicle as a blind if possible.

I had such fun in the nature preserves and coastal areas around Hilton Head last September! The shorebirds there are very habituated and compliant. We were shooting Great Herons from 8 feet away no problem. The roseated spoonbills were not habituated, as they seem to move through the area quicker and spend less time, so those were challenging to get within 100 yards of. A blind or similar would have helped for those, too.

Most of the warblers I've seen are in the treetops or limbs and branches are shielding them from view. Luck plays into getting a nice shot.

I can see that this will be part of the fun! In non-warbler mode, I had a few sharp photos of a robin the other day, on several perches, but somehow, in every single one, he managed to have his beak behind a tiny stick or something. It gave me a good laugh.

By the way, welcome to the DPReview forums. Hopefully you'll be able to share some tips during your journey.

Thank you very much! I will certainly try.

 

[bobgilbody]

I find your inane post objectionable. Anyone that would use nerve gas on little birds should be shot.

I will now provide a sensible answer:

1. Use of lenses plus 100 mm is cheating.

2. Use of auto focus is cheating.

3. Use of a camera is cheating.

A true birder uses a sketch book and pencil. Colours are remembered and filled in later.

I drew this a while ago but I believe it explains the technique:





This image was created using a 2H pencil and A4 sketch pad. I filled it in later with crayons. I did have to photograph the 'image' in order to post it here.

I would point out that I crawled for 6 months through snake infested bush to get to see the bird.

As a skilled bushman this was not a problem for me.

 

[gavin]

My seagull and small egret photos on the beach, I am about 4-5 feet away with 100-400mm

--
My photos are at https://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz

 

[Penn_Wildlife]

Most of my best small bird photos are taken with in 15ft or so and you still have to crop some for them to look good. I go hiking at least 5 days a week and always bring my camera so I'm prepared if by some chance a bird comes close.

Beautiful shots! Thank you for the distance information. This confirms my observations. It's amazing just how short 600mm really is!

 

[Penn_Wildlife]

As you can see, even with the 2.7x crop factor, 420mm of lens doesn't fill the frame with a large bird at this distance. I do have one wonderful 10mp V1 shot of a sitting owl where I was able to frame the bird from top to bottom without cropping. (Here: http://www.cjcphoto.net/lenstests/v1/images/page11.html)

Awesome photo of the owl!

Small birds? Need to be much, much closer, or have a lot more lens. Nikon P900/950 or P1000 (2000mm, 2000mm and 3000mm zooms) will get there on lens alone. Otherwise think fieldcraft, blinds, feeders and luck. And a lot of cropping.

For now, my wallet is limited to the 600mm, so it's going to be fieldcraft/blinds/luck for the little birds, and archery-style tactics for the larger game.

 

[Penn_Wildlife]

Beautiful! The detail in the little feathers is terrific.

 

[Morris0]

I find your inane post objectionable. Anyone that would use nerve gas on little birds should be shot.

I will now provide a sensible answer:

1. Use of lenses plus 100 mm is cheating.

2. Use of auto focus is cheating.

3. Use of a camera is cheating.

A true birder uses a sketch book and pencil. Colours are remembered and filled in later.

I drew this a while ago but I believe it explains the technique:



This image was created using a 2H pencil and A4 sketch pad. I filled it in later with crayons. I did have to photograph the 'image' in order to post it here.

I would point out that I crawled for 6 months through snake infested bush to get to see the bird.

As a skilled bushman this was not a problem for me.

Lovely Bob yet he is asking about small birds.

Morris