Osprey

double_entendredouble_entendre Gene pool chlorinatorPosts: 113Registered Users Major grins
edited July 16, 2018 in Wildlife

Can't decide how happy I am with this shot. Beautiful bird came by while I was photographing an egret and took position in a snag. I took a fair number of photos while waiting for his eventual departure.

The focus isn't so good on the wings, though the shutter speed was up there--1/800. Can't decide if I like it because it conveys motion or don't like it because it isn't frozen.

Would also love some feedback on the crop job. The full-size, uncropped photos are here.

Camera is a D7000 with a 300mm f4 Nikkor lens. (That I need to send for repair because it's got a crack on the front element--separate post to come. Only time I've been happy to have a crop sensor, I guess.)

C&C welcome.

Comments

  • DyunDyun CAPosts: 38Registered Users Big grins

    I knew I recognized that branch! :D I also shoot at Bolsa Chica wetlands on occasion. I used to shoot with a D7000 and 300mm f/4D + 1.4TCII. It was a nice combo.

    I would have used a shutter speed much faster than 1/800s. I use at least 1/2500s in good light to freeze the action. If you want to show movement, in that case you'd need to use a slower shutter speed than 1/800s to show more significant movement in the wings. Not sure it works well with birds coming toward you. Panning with a slow shutter speed is more effective on a bird that's flying from right to left or left to right so that the body stays in focus, but wings show motion.

    Although crop sensors are not as clean as full frame, there's no denying that if you're on a budget, it's the best way to get closer to wildlife. That's why I ended up buying a D500 last year. I tried coping with the lack of reach by buying a 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR and a Nikon 1/4TCIII to use with my D750, but the TC got in the way of AF speed as well as light. It's just better to shoot with a crop sensor + long lens for 1.5x magnification without having to sacrifice the AF. For everything else the D750 is magnificent, but for reach.... unless I want to crop into 80% of the images, DX is a better option.

  • Tony BrittonTony Britton Major grins Central Coast of CaliforniaPosts: 340Registered Users Major grins

    Super shots of this intensely beautiful bird!

  • double_entendredouble_entendre Gene pool chlorinator Posts: 113Registered Users Major grins

    @Dyun said:
    I knew I recognized that branch! :D I also shoot at Bolsa Chica wetlands on occasion. I used to shoot with a D7000 and 300mm f/4D + 1.4TCII. It was a nice combo.

    Hey, neighbor! :smile:

    I just have the 300mm and a third rate off-brand 2x multiplier that I've tried using, but like you note, crushes the speed to the point where it's less than helpful.

    I would have used a shutter speed much faster than 1/800s. I use at least 1/2500s in good light to freeze the action. If you want to show movement, in that case you'd need to use a slower shutter speed than 1/800s to show more significant movement in the wings. Not sure it works well with birds coming toward you. Panning with a slow shutter speed is more effective on a bird that's flying from right to left or left to right so that the body stays in focus, but wings show motion.

    One of my observations from taking these photos (I've got plenty more that aren't very compelling) is that a ball head would be very helpful. I bought a travel tripod recently for a motorcycle trip to Vancouver Island that had a ball head on it and it was great. The tilt/pan head works great for horizontal format, but for vertical format not so much.

    I'll have to try again with a different shutter speed, though I guess it'll take some luck to see if he wants to come by and then to fly on cue. Probably a lot to ask.

    Although crop sensors are not as clean as full frame, there's no denying that if you're on a budget, it's the best way to get closer to wildlife. That's why I ended up buying a D500 last year. I tried coping with the lack of reach by buying a 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR and a Nikon 1/4TCIII to use with my D750, but the TC got in the way of AF speed as well as light. It's just better to shoot with a crop sensor + long lens for 1.5x magnification without having to sacrifice the AF. For everything else the D750 is magnificent, but for reach.... unless I want to crop into 80% of the images, DX is a better option.

    I've never quite gotten the crop sensor "advantage" concept. It always seemed to me that with an FX lens and DX camera, you're just leaving pixels off the frame. Cropping a full frame picture amounts to the same thing, no?

    If I were more flush with cash, I'd upgrade, but I just changed employers, so the short term outlook is thin. But the long term outlook is less so. Looking forward to a D850 and 600mm f4 someday........

    Thanks for your thoughts! Really appreciate it.

    @Tony Britton said:
    Super shots of this intensely beautiful bird!

    Thank you for the kind words! :blush:

  • DyunDyun CAPosts: 38Registered Users Big grins

    Well, look at it this way. With the D500, I get 21 megapixels at 1.5 magnification. With the D750 I have to crop into the image until I only have 10 megapixels left to get the same "reach". Is the 10 megapixel image much worse than the 21 megapixel image? Definitely not at web sizes if I decide to downsize the image to 2000 px max for example, but at 100% view the D500 image does contain slightly more detail. The D500 is not as great with IQ as the D750 pixel for pixel, but if I need to crop, it ends up coming out on top.

  • JonaBeth RussellJonaBeth Russell Major grins MauiPosts: 708Registered Users Major grins

    I dig these, thanks for sharing! Personally, I like the shutter drag to create the blurred wings, but would like to see the eye / head remain sharp. Prolly shutter around 1200 would do great.

    Nice set, regardless!

  • double_entendredouble_entendre Gene pool chlorinator Posts: 113Registered Users Major grins

    @Dyun said:
    Well, look at it this way. With the D500, I get 21 megapixels at 1.5 magnification. With the D750 I have to crop into the image until I only have 10 megapixels left to get the same "reach". Is the 10 megapixel image much worse than the 21 megapixel image? Definitely not at web sizes if I decide to downsize the image to 2000 px max for example, but at 100% view the D500 image does contain slightly more detail. The D500 is not as great with IQ as the D750 pixel for pixel, but if I need to crop, it ends up coming out on top.

    Ok. I'm really trying to figure this out and I like to think I'm reasonably smart. (We'll disregard evidence to the contrary. :D )

    I think part of the answer comes down to how many megapixels we're comparing.

    If I compare the D7000 (16.2MP) to the D850 (45.7MP) I want, I think I'll still get better resolution. My math:

    The D7000 has 42,188 pixels per mm of sensor. The D850 has 52,894.

    If I crop the D850 to the same sensor size as the D7000, I still get more pixels to work with (16.2MP vs. 20.3MP).

    I do that right?

    Thanks!!!!

  • DyunDyun CAPosts: 38Registered Users Big grins
    edited July 22, 2018

    I'm terrible at math and I'm not sure I'm reading it correctly, so I'm the wrong person to ask that question. :D

    Here's what I do know; The D850 is a different story from the D750, and would do better than the D7000 as far as reach and resolution goes. You get 19.4 megapixels with the D850 in crop mode, vs. 16 megapixels with the D7000. That's about 3.4 megapixels more resolution and about the same DR with the D850. If you're shooting with the D500, you get 21 megapixels vs. 19.4 from the D850, but the IQ from both at this resolution is almost the same. Did I come anywhere close to answering your question? :D

    By the way, I went out to the wetlands with the D500, 200-500mm and a 1.4TCIII two or three days ago. I would not have been able to get shots this detailed with the D750 from the distance that I did, due to the lesser reach.

  • double_entendredouble_entendre Gene pool chlorinator Posts: 113Registered Users Major grins

    @Dyun said:
    I'm terrible at math and I'm not sure I'm reading it correctly, so I'm the wrong person to ask that question. :D

    Here's what I do know; The D850 is a different story from the D750, and would do better than the D7000 as far as reach and resolution goes. You get 19.4 megapixels with the D850 in crop mode, vs. 16 megapixels with the D7000. That's about 3.4 megapixels more resolution and about the same DR with the D850. If you're shooting with the D500, you get 21 megapixels vs. 19.4 from the D850, but the IQ from both at this resolution is almost the same. Did I come anywhere close to answering your question? :D

    By the way, I went out to the wetlands with the D500, 200-500mm and a 1.4TCIII two or three days ago. I would not have been able to get shots this detailed with the D750 from the distance that I did, due to the lesser reach.

    --snip--

    Lovely pics! Can you share the ISO and f stop you used? That lens is a bargain used (for values of bargain = $1,100), especially compared to $12k for the 600mm. I've thought about going that direction, but worry (probably unnecessarily) about having to crank up the ISO to get a high shutter speed.

    I'm not following your math, unfortunately. I just calculated the pixels per square millimeter and then figured out what it would be if the D850 were cropped down to the D7000's sensor size. Hmmmm. Need to do some more googling. :lol:

  • DyunDyun CAPosts: 38Registered Users Big grins

    Here's a copy-paste from Nikon's tech specs for the D850: DX-format (L) 5,408 x 3,600 (19.4 million)
    Here's a copy-paste from Nikon's tech specs for the D7000: (L) 4,928 x 3,264
    Basically you get a smaller image with the D7000 than you do with a D850 in DX/crop mode.

    If you click on the bird images and click on the "i" icon in the lower right corner, it will give you the full EXIF info, including f/stop and ISO. The Nikon 200-500 certainly is a bargain. Very sharp even wide open and fully extended. I do love it. At f/5.6 in good light, your ISO shouldn't be too high. Most of my images end up anywhere between ISO100 and 2,800. This is super easy to clean up in DxO PhotoLab Elite with their "prime" noise reduction. It works REALLY well. Just check out this D7000 ISO 6400 shot. I know it's not much to look at, but for that high of an ISO, it's not bad!

  • double_entendredouble_entendre Gene pool chlorinator Posts: 113Registered Users Major grins

    @Dyun said:
    Here's a copy-paste from Nikon's tech specs for the D850: DX-format (L) 5,408 x 3,600 (19.4 million)
    Here's a copy-paste from Nikon's tech specs for the D7000: (L) 4,928 x 3,264
    Basically you get a smaller image with the D7000 than you do with a D850 in DX/crop mode.

    If you click on the bird images and click on the "i" icon in the lower right corner, it will give you the full EXIF info, including f/stop and ISO. The Nikon 200-500 certainly is a bargain. Very sharp even wide open and fully extended. I do love it. At f/5.6 in good light, your ISO shouldn't be too high. Most of my images end up anywhere between ISO100 and 2,800. This is super easy to clean up in DxO PhotoLab Elite with their "prime" noise reduction. It works REALLY well. Just check out this D7000 ISO 6400 shot. I know it's not much to look at, but for that high of an ISO, it's not bad!

    O

    Good grief. Far more than not bad.

    I may have to “invest” in a 200-500.

Sign In or Register to comment.