Birds of Prey in Flight with R5 and RF 100-500

I started a similar thread in the Nature and Wildlife forum but then thought those of you eyeing the R5 or the RF 100-500 might be interested, as well.

The below shots of a Harris's hawk and a barn owl were all taken in poor light, as evidenced by the high ISOs. Yet, the Canon combo performed VERY well.

I am a long-term Nikon shooter who is still fairly new to the Canon world (and still uses Nikon for most of my shots), but the experience had me grinning ear to ear, especially when I overheard a Nikon Z6ii shooter saying he got "one good shot" from several of the hawk's flights, where I had a whole series where every single shot was right on target. Same with the owl, which had a rather unpredictable flight pattern: not a single shot in one whole series was a miss.

Yes, the R5 is a great body to have and the 100-500, in spite of its hefty price, is worth owning!

The settings I use for fast-flying birds are as follows:

• Tv mode, shutter speed set to 1/3000s, ISO set to Auto
• Shutter mode set to Electronic
• Servo AF
• AF method set to Face Tracking
• Subject to detect set to Animals
• Case 3
• Switching tracked subjects set to 0
• Initial Servo AF pt for Face Tracking set to Auto

I have two back buttons set so I can quickly switch AF method if required, but for this type of shooting that's only for initial focus acquisition, if required at all. Hope this helps. Keep in mind you'll need a large memory card and plenty of time for culling.

Doylestown wrote:

What was your distance from the subjects?

Between about ~9.5m/29ft and ~14.5m/47ft, according to the EXIF data.

EDIT: Just realized I overlooked one. The second image of the hawk was shot at about 19m/58ft.

lokatz wrote:

I started a similar thread in the Nature and Wildlife forum but then thought those of you eyeing the R5 or the RF 100-500 might be interested, as well.

The below shots of a Harris's hawk and a barn owl were all taken in poor light, as evidenced by the high ISOs. Yet, the Canon combo performed VERY well.

I am a long-term Nikon shooter who is still fairly new to the Canon world (and still uses Nikon for most of my shots), but the experience had me grinning ear to ear, especially when I overheard a Nikon Z6ii shooter saying he got "one good shot" from several of the hawk's flights, where I had a whole series where every single shot was right on target. Same with the owl, which had a rather unpredictable flight pattern: not a single shot in one whole series was a miss.

Yes, the R5 is a great body to have and the 100-500, in spite of its hefty price, is worth owning!

Nice shots, I started with Canon in 2004 and left in 2014 for Nikon now I am actually thinking of moving back to Canon but waiting to see what the Z9 brings before I do. I am eyeing the R5 and the RF 100-500 but how is the background blur at 500mm?

Very nice pictures. I note that only one of them was taken at focal lengths greater than about 185 mm, and that one only a little past 200mm. Therefore, I'm wondering how well, or actually how much better, these would have looked if they had been shot wide open, at f/2.8, on an RF 70-200 f/2.8 zoom instead. Certainly the bokeh would be potentially better with "blurrier" backgrounds, plus a lot smaller and lighter lens to carry around. If most of your shooting is done at these shorter than 200mm focal lengths, I'd advise that you should add that 70-200 lens to your bag or sell the 100-500 and buy the 70-200.

Of course, YMMV.

SpartanWarrior wrote:

Nice shots, I started with Canon in 2004 and left in 2014 for Nikon now I am actually thinking of moving back to Canon but waiting to see what the Z9 brings before I do. I am eyeing the R5 and the RF 100-500 but how is the background blur at 500mm?

Thanks.  The bokeh is what you'd expect from an f/7.1 lens:  not bad, actually quite decent, but also not what you are going to get from a faster lens. That is where money makes the difference:  as pricey as the RF 100-500 is, it is a steal when you compare it to f/2.8 or f/4 teles.

lokatz wrote:

SpartanWarrior wrote:

Nice shots, I started with Canon in 2004 and left in 2014 for Nikon now I am actually thinking of moving back to Canon but waiting to see what the Z9 brings before I do. I am eyeing the R5 and the RF 100-500 but how is the background blur at 500mm?

Thanks. The bokeh is what you'd expect from an f/7.1 lens: not bad, actually quite decent, but also not what you are going to get from a faster lens. That is where money makes the difference: as pricey as the RF 100-500 is, it is a steal when you compare it to f/2.8 or f/4 teles.

So I'm guessing the bokeh between the f7.1 and the f5.6 would be about the same?

David Franklin wrote:

Very nice pictures. I note that only one of them was taken at focal lengths greater than about 185 mm, and that one only a little past 200mm. Therefore, I'm wondering how well, or actually how much better, these would have looked if they had been shot wide open, at f/2.8, on an RF 70-200 f/2.8 zoom instead. Certainly the bokeh would be potentially better with "blurrier" backgrounds, plus a lot smaller and lighter lens to carry around. If most of your shooting is done at these shorter than 200mm focal lengths, I'd advise that you should add that 70-200 lens to your bag or sell the 100-500 and buy the 70-200.

Of course, YMMV.

We're all different, and that is perfectly fine.  For my part, I have been contemplating getting a 70-200 occasionally but, time and time again, came to the conclusion that I have absolutely no use for it.

On this particular day, I shot just under 2,500 images, 62 of which I declared keepers (I prefer to keep the bar pretty high).  Since I happened to have my Nikon D850 with the 500mm PF along for the event, that one pretty much got all 500mm shots of the day.  The remainder was spread between 145 and about 400mm.  Not ideal with a 70-200.

The reason the BIF shots were taken at rather short FLs is simply that the birds' flight paths were unpredictable, so I went fairly wide in order to keep the birds in the frame, preferring to crop as necessary afterwards.

Nope, I'm not going to give up the 100-500.  Being limited at 200mm is almost useless when you shoot birds.

SpartanWarrior wrote:

So I'm guessing the bokeh between the f7.1 and the f5.6 would be about the same?

I'd say so.  Maybe it is a MITE more pleasant with my Nikon 500mm f/5.6, but that could be the result of my imagination.  Definitely not enough of a difference to worry about it.

lokatz wrote:

SpartanWarrior wrote:

So I'm guessing the bokeh between the f7.1 and the f5.6 would be about the same?

I'd say so. Maybe it is a MITE more pleasant with my Nikon 500mm f/5.6, but that could be the result of my imagination. Definitely not enough of a difference to worry about it.

Exactly what I thought, I just sold my 500 PF lens.

So, first I'll say, nice photos taken under demanding lighting, and of course beautiful birds.

I waited to see if anyone else commented on something I noticed: there is substantial "rolling shutter distortion" in the first photo of the Harris's Hawk. It is the apparent disparity in the size of the wings and wing tips. It's something I've noticed in my photos of Peregrine falcons when using the electronic shutter. I think I also see less of it but still some in a couple of the other photos where the posture and position of the bird kind of hides it.

So, this is not a criticism but a comment. My Peregrine falcon photos have been limited in recent months (since shortly after getting my R5) due to the loss of our long-standing local breeding pair. However, a new pair is eying the eyrie and is around some days for a little R and R and a little flying around. I started shooting using the electronic shutter and then started noticing the rolling shutter effects.

I'm open to more education about rolling shutter effects but it must be dependent on the the speed and direction of the image motion across the image plane of the sensor during electronic exposure. That of course can be dependent in sometimes complex ways to the direction of motion of the bird, the speed of the bird and the size of the bird's image on the sensor. Once I started noticing it in images I began to see lesser versions in other images.

An example of a Peregrine taking off from a standing position:

This bird was slow moving for a Peregrine since it is not yet in typical Peregrine fast flight. Nonetheless, both wings appear exaggerated in length and in the width at the tips. The bird's left wing shows more of the distortion but essentially both show the effect. In looking at several similar photos I think the exaggeration is at least partly due to the movement of the wing being considerably swifter than the overall movement of the bird.

Don

Those are a great group of shots!