First birds shots are mushy; need some help

[gckless]

Ok, not complete mush, but not where I think they should be.

I've never shot birds before, I've barely shot at all this year and I'm getting the itch again. Got up before the sun did, went out to the local river where I know herons (egrets? Not really clear on the difference) like to fish, and started scouting. Scared a couple of the birds off while trying to find some spots, and then I basically went up and down the river trying to find more. Don't think I seen the same one twice. A couple let me get sorta close around 0900 once the sun was up, but I was pretty much packing up by then.

Technical side: all were shot with a Nikon D7200 and 200-500mm f/5.6, on a monopod. All were shot wide open, so I'm not going to post that for every shot. Some are definitely underexposed, I was pretty scared of blowing out the white birds, I'm not super awesome with manual lol, and I was also trying to keep ISO level down while keeping shutter speed high.

Some of these are somewhat sharp, but some are just unacceptable. I didn't get a single one I was proud of, maybe I'm too critical of sharpness. I don't know why some weren't good, as you'll see I was using similar settings throughout. I was using a high shutter speed to try to eliminate camera shake as the culprit, and at 1/3200 I wouldn't think that's an issue. Some of the shots I can barely make out feathers. The ones that are sharp are the ones where the birds were closest to me, so is it simply a subject distance thing? Or what other things could it be?

TL;DR: how can I get sharper shots? Or, are these fine, and I'm simply expecting too much?

These are SOOC JPEGs.

#1) 1/800th, ISO640, 500mm
DSC_2918 by Gilbert Kless, on Flickr

#2) 1/1600th, ISO640, 390mm
DSC_2950 by Gilbert Kless, on Flickr

#3) 1/3200th, ISO640, 500mm
DSC_2963 by Gilbert Kless, on Flickr

#4) 1/2000th, ISO320, 500mm
DSC_2992 by Gilbert Kless, on Flickr

#5) 1/3200th, ISO200, 440mm
DSC_3099 by Gilbert Kless, on Flickr

#6) 1/3200th, ISO200, 440mm
DSC_3100 by Gilbert Kless, on Flickr

#7) 1/3200th, ISO200, 440mm
DSC_3116 by Gilbert Kless, on Flickr

#8) 1/3200th, ISO200, 440mm
DSC_3130 by Gilbert Kless, on Flickr

#9) 1/3200th, ISO200, 400mm
DSC_3141 by Gilbert Kless, on Flickr

#10) 1/2000th, ISO160, 410mm
DSC_3169 by Gilbert Kless, on Flickr

 

[weepete]

what focus mode and AF point were you using?

 

[JoeW]

Let me offer some general thoughts about shooting birds (and please, no puns about hunting folks)....

1. It really pays to have serious equipment for this. A professional body and a professional quality 500-600mm zoom really are huge for this type of photography. That's b/c you usually can't very close, you want to be as sharp as possible, you need to focus quickly, you need to focus from a distance, light is often poor, and you're often having to do stuff that results in a ton of noise. I know we'd all love to have a professional quality 600mm zoom and a professional photojournalism body like a D5 (so we can crank up the ISO to 64000 and still not have much noise). But I've found for the vast majority of themes (landscape, abstract, interiors, street photography, some sports, etc.) I can get by with an teleconverter...or a 200/300mm option (and then crop)...or shoot with a wide-open aperture...or a slower shutter speed. Not so with wild birds. You usually can't get close (so you need 500mm or 600mm), they are skittish and take flight quickly (or tracking them accurately is a b*tch) so you need superb autofocus, it's often low light or high dynamic range so you usually aren't shooting at ISO 100 or 200 when the sun isn't up yet or it's near sunset. Unless you can find a way to "stack the deck" by shooting in a zoo, or with birds used to humans, or near a feeder so you're effectively "baiting" or subjects, it's very hard to consistently shoot wild birds with a body that doesn't give you high ISO with no noise, and a great long-distance zoom.

2. I tend to shoot aperture priority. But the settings I was encouraged to shoot on (using a 500mm lens) were to set ISO around 1000 or even 1600 or 2000, aperture somewhere between 5.6-8 (especially if it's a bird that may take flight easily like a Malachite Kingfisher or something very small) and to shoot on manual (so the camera isn't having to do a lot of adjustments...set the ISO, the aperture, and go for it unless your bird does something like fly in to a backlit sunrise (which then has you cursing and readjusting).

3. Depending upon the type of bird, a tripod (set so you can pan evenly and easily) or a beanbag to use against a tree or your car door) can be invaluable.

4. Yes, I'd under-expose by a stop for the white birds (like a bald eagle or an egret). Otherwise the white features will get blown out.

5. The other advice I always got about shooting birds was "fill the frame with your subject." Which means you'd need to crop aggressively with your shots (or get a bigger lens) and also worry about grain/noise unless you're shooting with a body that will either give you massive megapixels (after shooting birds in Africa, I understand why the D810 or D850 are attractive to people who shoot wildlife) or have a body that is very forgiving about high ISOs.

6. I've seen a couple of photographers mount their camera on a tripod, put on a trigger, focus on a nest or popular feeding spot, and then walk away 50 feet and use a wireless trigger (this can be especially good with hummingbirds) while they sit in the warmth of their car drinking coffee or munching on a crunchy biscotti. And then wait a while. This is the concept of a wildlife hide.

7. Last thought: shooting sports and wildlife really benefit from having a body that gives you a high fps option. You'll hammer out 9 shots in a second, discover that #1, 2, 3, 4 are "bleh", #5 is great, #6 is sharp but no good, #7 is great, and the bird is clipped in #8, and 9. The 6 fps you get with the D7200 is good but not great I think for this kind of work.

Okay, final advice....look for ways to stack the deck if you don't have a great fast ultra-long lens and a body that gives you 20,000 ISO with minimal grain. Do get out there at dawn (when so many feed). Look for popular spots for birds to feed (near a nesting area or a tidal pool or shallow area, eagles will get near a dam for instance), be patient and practice tracking birds in flight while focusing (recognizing that your first 150 shots will be sh*t) b/c your focus is on the background trees), look for ways to manage the noise (a better body? borrow a longer piece of glass? shoot on a clear morning that gives you 2 stops extra of light?), stabilize your camera so you can go with a wider aperture (to get more light and lower your ISO) but that may mean having to not shoot birds in flight so you can go with lower shutter speeds and still get sharp shots. Be patient and be prepared to spend 30 minutes waiting for a bird to venture your way rather than moving around and being forced to shoot from further out.

 

[zombiesniper]

All of these are set to private on flickr. So without zooming in. These look as sharp as I'd expect.

 

[gckless]

what focus mode and AF point were you using?

Tried manual, AF-C single and AF-C d9, AF points all over. Didn't seem to make much difference.

Let me offer some general thoughts about shooting birds (and please, no puns about hunting folks)....

1. It really pays to have serious equipment for this. A professional body and a professional quality 500-600mm zoom really are huge for this type of photography. That's b/c you usually can't very close, you want to be as sharp as possible, you need to focus quickly, you need to focus from a distance, light is often poor, and you're often having to do stuff that results in a ton of noise. I know we'd all love to have a professional quality 600mm zoom and a professional photojournalism body like a D5 (so we can crank up the ISO to 64000 and still not have much noise). But I've found for the vast majority of themes (landscape, abstract, interiors, street photography, some sports, etc.) I can get by with an teleconverter...or a 200/300mm option (and then crop)...or shoot with a wide-open aperture...or a slower shutter speed. Not so with wild birds. You usually can't get close (so you need 500mm or 600mm), they are skittish and take flight quickly (or tracking them accurately is a b*tch) so you need superb autofocus, it's often low light or high dynamic range so you usually aren't shooting at ISO 100 or 200 when the sun isn't up yet or it's near sunset. Unless you can find a way to "stack the deck" by shooting in a zoo, or with birds used to humans, or near a feeder so you're effectively "baiting" or subjects, it's very hard to consistently shoot wild birds with a body that doesn't give you high ISO with no noise, and a great long-distance zoom.

2. I tend to shoot aperture priority. But the settings I was encouraged to shoot on (using a 500mm lens) were to set ISO around 1000 or even 1600 or 2000, aperture somewhere between 5.6-8 (especially if it's a bird that may take flight easily like a Malachite Kingfisher or something very small) and to shoot on manual (so the camera isn't having to do a lot of adjustments...set the ISO, the aperture, and go for it unless your bird does something like fly in to a backlit sunrise (which then has you cursing and readjusting).

3. Depending upon the type of bird, a tripod (set so you can pan evenly and easily) or a beanbag to use against a tree or your car door) can be invaluable.

4. Yes, I'd under-expose by a stop for the white birds (like a bald eagle or an egret). Otherwise the white features will get blown out.

5. The other advice I always got about shooting birds was "fill the frame with your subject." Which means you'd need to crop aggressively with your shots (or get a bigger lens) and also worry about grain/noise unless you're shooting with a body that will either give you massive megapixels (after shooting birds in Africa, I understand why the D810 or D850 are attractive to people who shoot wildlife) or have a body that is very forgiving about high ISOs.

6. I've seen a couple of photographers mount their camera on a tripod, put on a trigger, focus on a nest or popular feeding spot, and then walk away 50 feet and use a wireless trigger (this can be especially good with hummingbirds) while they sit in the warmth of their car drinking coffee or munching on a crunchy biscotti. And then wait a while. This is the concept of a wildlife hide.

7. Last thought: shooting sports and wildlife really benefit from having a body that gives you a high fps option. You'll hammer out 9 shots in a second, discover that #1, 2, 3, 4 are "bleh", #5 is great, #6 is sharp but no good, #7 is great, and the bird is clipped in #8, and 9. The 6 fps you get with the D7200 is good but not great I think for this kind of work.

Okay, final advice....look for ways to stack the deck if you don't have a great fast ultra-long lens and a body that gives you 20,000 ISO with minimal grain. Do get out there at dawn (when so many feed). Look for popular spots for birds to feed (near a nesting area or a tidal pool or shallow area, eagles will get near a dam for instance), be patient and practice tracking birds in flight while focusing (recognizing that your first 150 shots will be sh*t) b/c your focus is on the background trees), look for ways to manage the noise (a better body? borrow a longer piece of glass? shoot on a clear morning that gives you 2 stops extra of light?), stabilize your camera so you can go with a wider aperture (to get more light and lower your ISO) but that may mean having to not shoot birds in flight so you can go with lower shutter speeds and still get sharp shots. Be patient and be prepared to spend 30 minutes waiting for a bird to venture your way rather than moving around and being forced to shoot from further out.

Great info. Some things I knew and reassures me, some I didn't, so thanks for typing all that out. A lot of what you pointed to is gear, and I don't doubt that at all. And that's the easy answer, means I don't have to work as much on technique! But reason I'm a bit disappointed, and why I started this thread, is because I used to shoot racing with this same body/lens, and get much sharper shots. Sure, a car is a different beast than a bird, but sharp is sharp, right? Maybe I just can't expect to be able to resolve the detail I'm used to seeing around here from people with much better rigs than mine.

All of these are set to private on flickr. So without zooming in. These look as sharp as I'd expect.

Sorry about that, should be all changed now. But that's good news I guess. Maybe I'm just expecting too much for my level of gear.

 

[weepete]

Looks to me that from a technical standpoint you are doing everything right and that lens is pretty sharp even wide open. So the only thing I could see as the issue would be the size of the birds in the frame, a lot of them seem to be about 1-5% of the frame and that just means there are not a lot of pixels on the bird to resolve that detail. I think if you get a bit closer so that the bird takes up 1/8th of the frame or more you'll get more detail in the birds. Ultimatley sometimes birds are just too far away!

 

[astroNikon]

I don't know specifically about that lens, but at those higher shutter speed did you turn OFF the VR ?

And use the camera's preview to check the focus point on each and every picture. AFC-Single will be your friend for the further shots. Everything else may hinder the focus point. Plus I noticed (in old threads of mine too) that if you shoot at the head the camera may focus on the stuff behind the bird if the head is too small. So learn to look at your images and figure out the problems on focus.

If you use LightRoom you can get a plugin to look at focus points.

We like to zoom in to images and inspect things. So if they are private your posted images don't allow us to do much except look at it "as is".

What size JPEGs is your QUALity set to ??

 

[gckless]

I don't know specifically about that lens, but at those higher shutter speed did you turn OFF the VR ?

And use the camera's preview to check the focus point on each and every picture. AFC-Single will be your friend for the further shots. Everything else may hinder the focus point. Plus I noticed (in old threads of mine too) that if you shoot at the head the camera may focus on the stuff behind the bird if the head is too small. So learn to look at your images and figure out the problems on focus.

If you use LightRoom you can get a plugin to look at focus points.

We like to zoom in to images and inspect things. So if they are private your posted images don't allow us to do much except look at it "as is".

What size JPEGs is your QUALity set to ??

Sure did turn off VR. I actually played with it a little, just to see if there would be any difference. I couldn't see a difference from the back of the screen, but I did leave it off after that. Usually ~1/800th I'll turn it off.

I'll go back and see where the focus point was on these. I did notice what you mentioned, when I would focus on the head it would actually choose what's behind it if it was higher contrast. I think I only noticed it with the white heron, not a whole lot for the system to pick up on that bird. But I after that I started to point to the body on those, so that may well have been the issue for a couple of these shots. I'll see what I can find.

I fixed the permissions on Flickr after zombiesniper mentioned that. Should be good, showing public for me.

Large JPEGs, fine quality.

 

[astroNikon]

I fixed the permissions on Flickr after zombiesniper mentioned that. Should be good, showing public for me.

Large JPEGs, fine quality.

Ok.
I tried to download a file to look at it but couldn't. Also the file size (at least on the first one) seems smaller than Large Fine.

 

[gckless]

I fixed the permissions on Flickr after zombiesniper mentioned that. Should be good, showing public for me.

Large JPEGs, fine quality.

Ok.
I tried to download a file to look at it but couldn't. Also the file size (at least on the first one) seems smaller than Large Fine.

Hmm, I'm not sure why you can't. I tried to directly upload them here too, I keep getting a security error after the upload finishes and doesn't actually upload. I'll keep trying.

These averaged 16MB or so. The bird against the sky is like 12, and a couple were up at 18. Is that not right?

 

[zombiesniper]

Sorry about that, should be all changed now. But that's good news I guess. Maybe I'm just expecting too much for my level of gear.

Have looked at them in flickr and for the most part they look about as good as you're going to get without spending $10,000+ on just a lens.

Before buying new gear ensure you've looked at everything you can do first to help. First I would direct you to a great post.

Capturing distinctive bird images

If you are confident that it is the gear that is letting you down welcome to to the prime lens club.

 

[gckless]

Sorry about that, should be all changed now. But that's good news I guess. Maybe I'm just expecting too much for my level of gear.

Have looked at them in flickr and for the most part they look about as good as you're going to get without spending $10,000+ on just a lens.

Before buying new gear ensure you've looked at everything you can do first to help. First I would direct you to a great post.

Capturing distinctive bird images

If you are confident that it is the gear that is letting you down welcome to to the prime lens club.

I've been following Mr. Rowe for a little while, never saw that post though. His stuff is amazing, inspiring for sure. Thanks for pointing me there.

And that's good news I guess, that these photos are what I should be expecting. I mean it's the easy answer, that I have my technique at a decent level and it's simply the gear, but then it's also bad because of what an upgrade costs. I can't spend $5k+ on a lens, so I just need to focus on getting better with what I have. Gear doesn't make photos right? Can make them easier, but nothing I shot really provoked an emotional response, which is what we're all after I think. Just gotta focus on practicing and capturing better moments.

 

[Derrel]

I thought thee looked about as good as a top-level APS-C camera could do at those types of distances, at the variuous ISO levels; I can see a loss of acutance at ISO 640 as opposed to the ISO 200 shots; that is going to be noticeable on APS-C OR on FX...but the ISO 640 will look a bit worse on APS-C than on a modern, hiogh-0MP FX Nikon like a D750 or D820.

But, really, I think for SOOC JPEG these are good. I would wager you could get a sliught bit crisper images if you would shoot in .NEF mode, and the carefully convert the NEF files to JPEGS...as good as modern cameras are, most have a slightly less-than-ideal image when shooting in SOOC JPEG mode as opposed to raw image mode.

A single-length 500mm lens would likely do better than the zoom, but still: the biggest issue is HOW FAR away the birds are in most of these: you really want to be closer to the subjects in order toget a bigger bird image in-camera.

 

[zombiesniper]

Just gotta focus on practicing and capturing better moments.

This is always going to make the biggest difference. Learn what the habits are of the birds in your area. Where they nest, eat and at what time. Find locations that you can get to, where you can get close enough without spooking them.
Sometimes luck is your friend but only persistence and a willingness to learn will get you constantly good shots.

 

[JoeW]

Don't take my comments as saying that the only way to get good bird photos is with a pro body and a 600mm zoom that is fast. This is a genre where your equipment matters tremendously. But if you've got a D7200 and a 200mm zoom, then you have to stack the deck in your favor.

1. Think about a hide (so birds get closer).
2. Do a lot of scouting to find ideal spots...not just spots where birds feed or nest but ideal spots for good light or where you might be able to get close. And maybe give up shooting in low light situations.
3. Think about setting up a tripod and then triggering the shutter wirelessly from 50 feet away.
4. Recognize you've got a smaller window to play with: you can't jack up ISO without a lot of noise on the D7200, you don't have a fast ultra zoom. So you may want to shoot only in really strong light (so you don't have to go with ISO 3200 or 6400) in order to get a fast shutter speed. Or use a teleconverter (recognizing that this will mean you'll be too slow to capture good shots in flight) but will be able to fill the frame with your subject.

All of these are frustrating b/c they demand more patience than this genre typically calls for and you'll likely have a higher percentage of rejects than if you were shooting with a better body and lens. What you're having to do is compensate for your equipment limitations by planning, patience, and utilizing what options you do have creatively.