American Kestrel

[zulu42]

I've been hoping to spot one of these again. Very neat to see and shoot. But, still just can't get close enough with 300mm. I've been wishing for a longer lens every time I shoot birds.

Anyway, C&C always valued and thanks for looking!

ISO 3200 f/5.6 1/2000

same settings

 

[Cortian]

Nice captures, z42.

I know what you mean about a longer lens. *sigh* I can't spend any more on camera gear atm, 'cept maybe for a speedlight. (Not hideously expensive.) Someday, though...

 

[WesternGuy]

Neat shots, unfortunately they look a bit fuzzy - handheld(?). Can I see a 500/600 in your future?

WesternGuy

 

[Cortian]

Neat shots, unfortunately they look a bit fuzzy - handheld(?). Can I see a 500/600 in your future?

I suspect part of it is the ISO: 3200. There's only so much noise reduction can do.

The other part perhaps being the same issue I have: Needs either more lens, more pixels, or both. I'm pleased with my macro, portrait-range, and landscape shots. Not so much with telephoto shots

They're both nice captures, nonetheless, IMO.

 

[zulu42]

Thanks, gents. They were handheld, but I think I lost the sharpness through high ISO and extreme crop. Here's the un-cropped image:

I've got enough pixels, need more lens. Leaning toward the Tamron 150-600.

 

[bulldurham]

Some cameras like the D500 will handle ISO 3200 without nearly the noise issue you are having BUT there are limitations regardless of ISO adaptability, pixel size and lens when it comes to enlarging an image from what you are showing as your original. The Kestrel is only about 1/470 of the entire image area which equates to the proverbial needle in a haystack. It's fun to shoot but it's not an image you'll ever be able to print.
If you decide on a 150-600, I'd go with the second generation Tamron or the Sport Sigma though the Sigma is a real beast to carry around all day..
If you are shooting a Nikon, the 200-500 is great and certainly my lens of choice for the D500.

 

[zulu42]

Thanks @bulldurham and I love the frame!
I'm shooting a D800 which isn't the best birding camera for sure.
The Nikon 200-500 is in consideration. One review I read said the Tamron (g2) acquired focus faster and image quality was virtually the same. It also is reportedly weather sealed where the Nikon is not.
I do carry it around all day, and I don't stay in one spot. I put some miles in, so carrying a lens like this will be a big change regardless of which I end up with.

I appreciate your time in commenting.

 

[bulldurham]

I've had the 200-500 out in some pretty nasty weather without issue. Not sure who wrote the review on the 200-500 but I find it to be far superior at all focal ranges to the Tamron and Sigma. The Tamron is too soft in the middle for my tastes and the Sigma is just too damn heavy.

I shot the D800 for nearly two years before upgrading to the D810 and it was a pretty decent birder though not the faster focus lock for sure.

The D500 will track a bird through and around underbrush, trees, etc and recapture each time with no loss of frame capture. I loves it, I just loves it.

 

[zulu42]

Very interesting. That's why web reviews are hit or miss. I've looked at so many, I can't remember which review that was. Maybe DPreview.

 

[Dean_Gretsch]

They are beautiful little birds for sure. I have used an older Sigma 170-500 and still gotten nothing any better than your shot

 

[zulu42]

Thanks, Dean.

So, here's the question: is this shot a keeper if it was at 500mm?

 

[Cortian]

So, here's the question: is this shot a keeper if it was at 500mm?

You can take what you have and blow it up by 66% to see what you'd have. If I did it right, it'd be something like this

except with better definition, because blowing something up digitally can't create pixels there were never there.

How it would crop down would be dependent on too many variables to say.

 

[bulldurham]

This shot doesn't work with any lens unless you are closer. It might be a tad cleaner with less ISO and with a better piece of glass but at this distance with a bird that's slightly larger than a Robin, you're simply not going to get a print quality shot.