Osprey with the 800mm f/11

Wanted to see how it would do in the field. First effort was a disaster (okay, I'm being a drama queen). I saw an osprey bringing a catch back to the nest, but I couldn't focus. I finally remembered to check the AF/MF switch. Sure enough, I had accidentally turned it to MF. It seems to be a little too easy to move.

I did get some osprey bif shots using electronic shutter. It hit the 20 fps rate as promised. There was no blackout or freezes. Lag was not an issue either in electronic or mechanical. These were my biggest concerns. Tracking ability is more dependent on my ability to keep up rather than the camera's.

I wrote this in another thread: I got the rated 12fps mechanical and 20 fps electronic. I was shooting raw plus highest-quality jpg. I haven't played with the RAW yet. Will save that for when I have more time.

It does slow down as the battery drains, but for me, that was after about 1200-1500 shots.

Over 3000 shots with one battery and it's still showing about 1/3 power. It took no video, at least not intentionally.

Here is a representative series of 10 shots taken from a shoot of over 60 (over 3 seconds). They're not all in focus. I think most of the lack of clarity was due to my lack of skill. I probably also could have used a higher shutter speed. I think that my keeper rate will improve with practice These have all been cropped. The ones that are not centered were ones where the bird got close to the edge of the frame.

Eye focus for birds works especially for static birds and slow-moving birds. To be honest, I could not tell how well it worked while tracking the osprey since I was focused on keeping the bird in the frame. Eye focus works best when the subject is in the center square focus area which covers about 1/2 the frame.

Here are a couple of bonus duck shots. These are uncropped.

A couple of more thoughts. My in-focus rate when tracking BIF is at least as good as what I've gotten with the Nikon D850 and 500mm pf. And that camera is limited to 9fps.

I am absolutely blown away by how lightweight this combo is. I don't know if the IQ is better than the EF 100-400L + 2x TC. However, I do know that that combo will not track nearly as well as the RF. The ability to go into the field with a fast-focusing, fast-tracking 800mm without a heavy tripod or monopod is phenomenal. I found myself saying, "oh yeah, this shot would look better in portrait" and simply, quickly, and easily switching orientations.

So far, with this type of shooting, I don't think that I'm giving up much IQ. The following isn't a scientific comparison. The settings are different, but I'm not shooting f/11 if I don't have to, so the following is a realistic comparison of how I shoot.

Here's a great blue enjoying breakfast. The first shot is a D850/500mm pf and the second is the 800mm f/11. Neither shot is cropped.

and

Thanks very much posting this!

If you are like me you are new to shooting this type of photography.

And you are using a $900 800mm lens!  How often do you see those?

Those photos are great and I've seen much worse from very experienced shooters with very expensive lenses.

Terry Danks wrote:

Those herons just amaze me that they don't choke to death swallowing what they do!

Your 800 results look very encouraging. My 800 is due next Thursday. My days of hauling about a 600/4/Gitzo/Wimberley are done!

Agreed. I hope you like the 800 like I do.

I've handled a 600/4, and have been tempted, but the weight has totally deterred me.

I was very noncommittal about the 800.  I was thinking about holding out until Canon releases a DO lens similar to Nikon's 500 pf.  But this mornings shoot is convincing me to hang on to the 800. I keep asking myself, "how can it be this lightweight?!!"

Willow w wrote:

If you are like me you are new to shooting this type of photography.

And you are using a $900 800mm lens! How often do you see those?

Those photos are great and I've seen much worse from very experienced shooters with very expensive lenses.

Well, not a complete newbie. I recall trying to shoot birds with my 40D and 70-300 over a decade ago. I then graduated to the 70-300L. The closest I've had to a professional wildlife lens is the 500mm pf, which I got in November. December was my first visit to a wildlife preserve for the purpose of shooting birds. And the first osprey shots that I consider keepers were taken about three weeks ago.

So, not a complete newbie, but clearly not an expert.

And while the lens is not expensive, the camera certainly is!

Georgeee wrote:

Very encouraging. How is eye tracking ? With a zoom lens, you can zoom in after "lock" the bird. How hard to aim at the bird when it flies fast at 800mm?

I think eye focus is good for bif--it's definitely good for still and slow-moving critters-- but as I stated earlier, my focus was elsewhere when I was tracking the osprey.

The camera is really smart.  It will lock on to an eye or the body of a fast-moving critter.   I use to have the 7D M II and almost never got birds in focus probably because I was using the cheap (and slow) Tamron 150-600. This is way too easy!

Okay, that's an exaggeration.  The initial acquisition is difficult.  With smaller birds I often didn't catch them in time to acquire focus.   It's alway best to pick the bird up some distance away and hope that it turns in your direction. The duck I tracked for about 5 secs and was fortunate that it turned in my direction. My success rate with the ducks (there were two of them) were much lower probably because my shutter rate was too low (1/1000sec). Mid range distance was best.  When the duck got to close--within 20-30 feet of MFD--in-focus rates dropped dramatically.

In short, getting in-focus shots for birds that suddenly came into view was virtually non-existent, and birds that got too close were also challenging. Nonetheless, I did not feel like the 800mm was causing me to miss shots because it was too long.

RH McClasan wrote:

A couple of more thoughts. My in-focus rate when tracking BIF is at least as good as what I've gotten with the Nikon D850 and 500mm pf. And that camera is limited to 9fps.

I am absolutely blown away by how lightweight this combo is. I don't know if the IQ is better than the EF 100-400L + 2x TC. However, I do know that that combo will not track nearly as well as the RF. The ability to go into the field with a fast-focusing, fast-tracking 800mm without a heavy tripod or monopod is phenomenal. I found myself saying, "oh yeah, this shot would look better in portrait" and simply, quickly, and easily switching orientations.

So far, with this type of shooting, I don't think that I'm giving up much IQ. The following isn't a scientific comparison. The settings are different, but I'm not shooting f/11 if I don't have to, so the following is a realistic comparison of how I shoot.

Here's a great blue enjoying breakfast. The first shot is a D850/500mm pf and the second is the 800mm f/11. Neither shot is cropped.

Thanks for your pics & thoughts! Nice to hear RF 800mm is fast enough (AF) for BIF, at least with R5 (or R6). I wonder how much "worse" it would be on R...? Not speaking about fps, just AF.

RH McClasan wrote:

Georgeee wrote:

Very encouraging. How is eye tracking ? With a zoom lens, you can zoom in after "lock" the bird. How hard to aim at the bird when it flies fast at 800mm?

I think eye focus is good for bif--it's definitely good for still and slow-moving critters-- but as I stated earlier, my focus was elsewhere when I was tracking the osprey.

The camera is really smart. It will lock on to an eye or the body of a fast-moving critter. I use to have the 7D M II and almost never got birds in focus probably because I was using the cheap (and slow) Tamron 150-600. This is way too easy!

Nice to hear this too. 😀 I also had 7d2 + Tammy 150-600 original, and found it hopeless for BIF  I bought 400mm 5.6L and it was much better. Now I'm shooting with R + Sigma 150-600C and it beats 7d2 + 400L in BIF. Hopefully that RF 800 beats Sigma! 😉 (on R, so far)

Okay, that's an exaggeration. The initial acquisition is difficult. With smaller birds I often didn't catch them in time to acquire focus. It's alway best to pick the bird up some distance away and hope that it turns in your direction. The duck I tracked for about 5 secs and was fortunate that it turned in my direction. My success rate with the ducks (there were two of them) were much lower probably because my shutter rate was too low (1/1000sec). Mid range distance was best. When the duck got to close--within 20-30 feet of MFD--in-focus rates dropped dramatically.

In short, getting in-focus shots for birds that suddenly came into view was virtually non-existent, and birds that got too close were also challenging. Nonetheless, I did not feel like the 800mm was causing me to miss shots because it was too long.

Bhotoz wrote:

RH McClasan wrote:

Georgeee wrote:

Very encouraging. How is eye tracking ? With a zoom lens, you can zoom in after "lock" the bird. How hard to aim at the bird when it flies fast at 800mm?

I think eye focus is good for bif--it's definitely good for still and slow-moving critters-- but as I stated earlier, my focus was elsewhere when I was tracking the osprey.

The camera is really smart. It will lock on to an eye or the body of a fast-moving critter. I use to have the 7D M II and almost never got birds in focus probably because I was using the cheap (and slow) Tamron 150-600. This is way too easy!

Nice to hear this too. 😀 I also had 7d2 + Tammy 150-600 original, and found it hopeless for BIF I bought 400mm 5.6L and it was much better. Now I'm shooting with R + Sigma 150-600C and it beats 7d2 + 400L in BIF. Hopefully that RF 800 beats Sigma! 😉 (on R, so far)

I've never used the R.  I was planning to rent one this weekend for a trip to Yosemite to use with an RF 15-35 but canceled due to the risk of flying during the pandemic. Ironically, I'm still waiting on the 15-35, but I would have had the R5 plus the 800.

Everyone here says that the Osprey photos are great, excellent ...
I don't see this at all, they are soft, lack in detail and contrast, I would not be happy with the IQ of that lens.

Jozef.

Jozef M wrote:

Everyone here says that the Osprey photos are great, excellent ...
I don't see this at all, they are soft, lack in detail and contrast, I would not be happy with the IQ of that lens.

Jozef.

I think it's a little early to say the lens IQ is bad. The OP has only had it for a day. Some of the shots in the sequence are OOF/motion blurred which is totally normal for a burst sequence and shooting at those shutter speeds.

BIF with an F/11 lens is a pretty tall order and it's compelling to see it can do it at all. I look forward to seeing more images out of the lens and I appreciate the post.

Jozef M wrote:

Everyone here says that the Osprey photos are great, excellent ...
I don't see this at all, they are soft, lack in detail and contrast, I would not be happy with the IQ of that lens.

Jozef.

Jozef,

Thank you for your comments. In fact, I am quite happy with these shots. My purpose for taking these shots was not to enter them into a contest or publish them in National Geographic. They are clearly not at that level. Who expects a 7MP image (with the bird covering maybe 3.5MP of the image) to be perfect anyway?

Perfection was not my goal. Rather, my goal was to test the tracking ability of the lens and see what IQ it produced. If I could have gotten the osprey to fly a lot closer, the color and contrast would have been better. I doubt that the lens matches a 600mm f/4 prime shooting an osprey in flight at the same distance. But I don't think anyone expects it to do so. I think that the lens IQ is about that of a 100-400L with a 2x TC attached. For me, that is fine. I know that with the excellent IQ and tracking ability and closer proximity to the BIF, I won't need to crop it to less than MFT in size (with far less MP!). Only then can you you make a true evaluation of what the lens can do. For me, knowing how much I needed to crop--and knowing that my technique can be much better--I'm convinced that the lens can produce better. No, it may not be up to Nat. Geo. standards, but I don't need it to be. YMMV.

So, unlike you, I am happy with this set.

Robert

RogerZoul wrote:

Considering the price of that lens, these are excellent results! Thanks for posting.

Thanks!

I guess it's easy to miss the point especially if you have $13k invested in exotic glass...