My first bifs

Jack'll do

that I'm not too embarassed to post !
I've actually photographed a few birds flying that I thought were pretty neat until I discovered DGRIN :rolleyes However after reading a lot of advice and tutorials/suggestions on this board I think I've improved. I am absolutely blown away by the more experienced wildlife photographers' results posted here and realize now that there's a difference between "taking pictures" and "making photographs". So here goes my first tentative steps.
The following were taken on the south shore of Long Island New York. Nikon D80 18-135 kit lens handheld.

Comments/critiques/suggestions much appreciated.

Great Egret (f5.6 1/3200 135mm iso 500)


Ring billed gull (f5.6 1/800 62mm iso 500)


Herring gulls


Ring billed gull immature ?


Ring billed gull

Giphsub

Some good shots there Jack! Just jump in, I did and the comments you get from everyone help you learn even more!

Jack'll do

Giphsub wrote:

Some good shots there Jack! Just jump in, I did and the comments you get from everyone help you learn even more!

Thanks Mike
This site is certainly a wealth of information.

Harryb

You're off to a good start.

Skippy

Jack'll do wrote:

that I'm not too embarassed to post !
I've actually photographed a few birds flying that I thought were pretty neat until I discovered DGRIN However after reading a lot of advice and tutorials/suggestions on this board I think I've improved. I am absolutely blown away by the more experienced wildlife photographers' results posted here and realize now that there's a difference between "taking pictures" and "making photographs". So here goes my first tentative steps.
The following were taken on the south shore of Long Island New York. Nikon D80 18-135 kit lens handheld.

Comments/critiques/suggestions much appreciated.
Great Egret (f5.6 1/3200 135mm iso 500)
Ring billed gull (f5.6 1/800 62mm iso 500)
Herring gulls
Ring billed gull immature ?
Ring billed gull

Those BIF's are not easy to get.
Luck seagulls hang around and keep coming and going.
You at least get a few chances at getting one

I like the #3rd and #4th shots .... Skippy
.

Jack'll do

Harryb wrote:

You're off to a good start.

Thanks Harry. I really wished I had a longer lens for some of the shots.

Jack'll do

Skippy wrote:

Those BIF's are not easy to get.
Luck seagulls hang around and keep coming and going.
You at least get a few chances at getting one

I like the #3rd and #4th shots .... Skippy
.

Thanks Skippy. It helped that there was an old fella throwing bread to the gulls. I took over 150 pictures (many OOF, or with blown hilites) and will be posting more of the keepers.

Ric Grupe

Considering the focal length of your lens (kinda short for birds) and no image stabilization (or whatever Nikon calls it), these ain't bad. You had to be fairly close which means you had to pan quickly. Backing off a little with a longer lens makes panning easier...but, avoiding handshake blur harder. Always a trade off!

Jack'll do

Ric Grupe wrote:

Considering the focal length of your lens (kinda short for birds) and no image stabilization (or whatever Nikon calls it), these ain't bad. You had to be fairly close which means you had to pan quickly. Backing off a little with a longer lens makes panning easier...but, avoiding handshake blur harder. Always a trade off!

Thanks Ric
I really need a longer lens but am undecided whether to go with a fixed 300mm or some combination of variable plus teleconverter. This lens was the kit lens that came with the camera. I should have bought the body alone and researched a separate lens purchase. I was quite close to these birds, in fact most of the shots were taken at 62-70mm. Am I wrong in worrying that at this range with a 300mm fixed lens I would only capture a portion of the subject? Moving back much was not an option here.

bfjr

Harryb wrote:

You're off to a good start.

Ric Grupe

Jack'll do wrote:

Thanks Ric
I really need a longer lens but am undecided whether to go with a fixed 300mm or some combination of variable plus teleconverter. This lens was the kit lens that came with the camera. I should have bought the body alone and researched a separate lens purchase. I was quite close to these birds, in fact most of the shots were taken at 62-70mm. Am I wrong in worrying that at this range with a 300mm fixed lens I would only capture a portion of the subject? Moving back much was not an option here.

I fooled around with zoom lens and wish I had gone straight to the 300 with a 1.4tc. Gulls are relatively easy to approach and capture. When you try for others you will need the longer lens and crave for even longer ones!:D