Maximum Reach?

[eaj101]

I've been trying to shoot nesting owls. The nest is 80' up in a tree and the closest I can get (or would want to. I don't want to injure them) is @80 yards away on a hillside. There's a fire road with hikers and mountain bikers between us, so I'm sure i'm not bothering them. The nest was occupied last year as well and the owlets left around the second week of May. It's a great scene, the owlets are a couple of weeks old right now, white fluff balls.

So, I can't get closer. I'm using two setups, a Nikon Z7+600 f/4D+TC20, and an Olympus M1 mkII+300 f/4+TC20. Big tripod and gimbal, remote release. Neither Nikon nor Olympus TCs can be stacked (You can remove the tab on Nikon TCs that keeps them from stacking).

I'm not really happy with the image quality with either rig, which is probably as much due to my technique as anything else.

So a question to the group: what would you do with the situation?

 

[Barbara]

I'm wondering whether at least part of the problem is air currents between you and them. Have you tried different times of day?

 

[Chad Huff]

I've been trying to shoot nesting owls. The nest is 80' up in a tree and the closest I can get (or would want to. I don't want to injure them) is @80 yards away on a hillside. There's a fire road with hikers and mountain bikers between us, so I'm sure i'm not bothering them. The nest was occupied last year as well and the owlets left around the second week of May. It's a great scene, the owlets are a couple of weeks old right now, white fluff balls.

So, I can't get closer. I'm using two setups, a Nikon Z7+600 f/4D+TC20, and an Olympus M1 mkII+300 f/4+TC20. Big tripod and gimbal, remote release. Neither Nikon nor Olympus TCs can be stacked (You can remove the tab on Nikon TCs that keeps them from stacking).

I'm not really happy with the image quality with either rig, which is probably as much due to my technique as anything else.

So a question to the group: what would you do with the situation?

At some point, to far is just to far for a quality image. There are a ton of variables that effect IQ, atmospheric condition, Technique, light, gear, etc... but 80 yards is pretty far for an owl sized bird in a nest high up in a tree. This might be one of those images where the memory is better than any image you will ever make of it. Kind of a bummer, but its awesome you get to see it!

Are they GHOs? If so, they'll start moving around the tree quite a bit pretty soon. They may even climb down to lower branches (or maybe even the ground) and maybe you'll get a better situation to safely shoot them from. That would be cool.

 

[Marcus Slade]

I'd say you're pushing the envelope with the physics of the situation but should still be somewhat doable. Couple of suggestions: one technique I've used quite successfully shooting perched owls (albeit much closer than 80 yards) is using a remote trigger as you're doing, with extremely slow shutter speeds (have to because I'm invariably battling low light at the corners of the day), down to about 1/2 sec. While there will be many shots that are throw aways if there is the slightest bit of movement by the birds, I have many shots that are tack sharp with favourable compositions too when they hold themselves still, as they typically do. What I do find is that all forms of VR and/or IBIS need to be switched off when shutter speeds are that low and magnification is that high otherwise that alone will wreck the images. You can test that in Live View and by seeing how much movement is evident with VR turned on and off. And, as alluded to, try shooting as much as you can at the corners of the day when the atmospheric interference is likely to be minimized.

 

[eaj101]

@Hut2 - very cool owlets!

Yep, Great Horned Owl(ets). Maybe only 50 yards

Time of day - unfortunately they don't get active at this point until almost sundown. The air is pretty clear and usually in the 60s, so no real thermal currents. But the light goes pretty quickly, and pretty soon I'm at ISO 10000.

@Marcus Slade I hadn't tried dropping the shutter speed, nor turning VR off, but I'll try both

Regardless of the photos, it's really something to be able top watch them regularly. I'm looking forward to them getting out of the nest a little, though the tree is a Monterey Pine and there aren't any lower branches.

This is yesterday evening, almost 7PM. Nikon Z7, 600 f/4 + TC20. f/8, 1/400, ISO 8000, cropped

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

:

 

[eaj101]

That's a very lovely moment you photographed. Very nice

Thank you.

Anybody ever tried digiscoping? The thought has occurred...

 

[Chad Huff]

Very cool moment with the mother nestling the owlets. Yeah, its cool to watch them.

 

[Marcus Slade]

@Hut2 - very cool owlets!

Yep, Great Horned Owl(ets). Maybe only 50 yards

Time of day - unfortunately they don't get active at this point until almost sundown. The air is pretty clear and usually in the 60s, so no real thermal currents. But the light goes pretty quickly, and pretty soon I'm at ISO 10000.

@Marcus Slade I hadn't tried dropping the shutter speed, nor turning VR off, but I'll try both

Regardless of the photos, it's really something to be able top watch them regularly. I'm looking forward to them getting out of the nest a little, though the tree is a Monterey Pine and there aren't any lower branches.

This is yesterday evening, almost 7PM. Nikon Z7, 600 f/4 + TC20. f/8, 1/400, ISO 8000, croppedView attachment 35587:

Ah, that's wonderful. I hear you on the high ISO with low light. Anyway, with the technique I mentioned, you could drop shutter speed five or six stops, get your ISO down to 500 or 250 with a shutter speed of 1/25 or lower (accepting that there will be blurred throw away shots) and when she holds still you'll get keepers...and you will buy yourself much more flexibility on the crop because your noise will be so much lower. Good luck and looking forward to seeing more of the GHOs.

 

[Chad Huff]

Thank you.

Anybody ever tried digiscoping? The thought has occurred...

I have never tried that before. would be fun sometimes I think.

Yes, I've done it a LOT with both a Nikon point and shoot, and an iPhone on a Vortex Razor HD scope... Its neat to have some of those videos, but the "stills" quality isn't what most people are accustomed to with a DSLR or Mirrorless... The video quality isn't either, but somehow that matters less to me with video. Definitely not close to HD even, much less 4K or higher. Still fun and cool to shoot. Its pretty good at things like wolves at 3/4 of a mile or so, lol... You still have to deal with atmospheric disturbance, which to me is the biggest challenge with using focal length as a tool to "maximize reach"... You really can't outshoot nature. Heat shimmer is heat shimmer and there isn't anything you can do about it but get closer (which isn't always possible).

 

[eaj101]

Yes, I've done it a LOT with both a Nikon point and shoot, and an iPhone on a Vortex Razor HD scope... Its neat to have some of those videos, but the "stills" quality isn't what most people are accustomed to with a DSLR or Mirrorless... The video quality isn't either, but somehow that matters less to me with video. Definitely not close to HD even, much less 4K or higher. Still fun and cool to shoot. Its pretty good at things like wolves at 3/4 of a mile or so, lol... You still have to deal with atmospheric disturbance, which to me is the biggest challenge with using focal length as a tool to "maximize reach"... You really can't outshoot nature. Heat shimmer is heat shimmer and there isn't anything you can do about it but get closer (which isn't always possible).

You're right, too much air is a problem that often gets ignored. But I often find that my biggest need for 'more' is within 50-80 yards. Amazing how small birds really are

 

[Chad Huff]

You're right, too much air is a problem that often gets ignored. But I often find that my biggest need for 'more' is within 50-80 yards. Amazing how small birds really are

Yeah, I think that is the proper use of "maximum focal range", filling a frame when you are already close enough... Still, 4/5's of a football field is a long way for birds, and, to me, making the shot wider and about the subject in its habitat is a better choice than cropping and asking to much of the lens. 30-40 yards is pretty far for a small subject, but at least a 600mm can fill more of the frame without heavy cropping.

I think you mentioned you also shoot M4/3's is that right? Do you have any of those images of the owls to share? I'd be curious what the image quality is on those if you'd care to post them.

Chad

 

[eaj101]

Yeah, I think that is the proper use for "focal range" filling a frame when you are already close enough... Still, 4/5's of a football field is a long way for birds and I often find making the shot wider, and about the habitat is a better choice than cropping and asking to much of the lens. 30-40 yards is pretty far for a small subject, but at least a 600mm can fill more of the frame without heavy cropping.

I think you mentioned you also shoot M4/3's is that right? Do you have any of those images of the owls to share? I'd be curious what the image quality is on those if you'd care to post them.

Chad

As requested. Taken the day before yesterday. OM-D M1 mkII, 300 f/4, TC20, 1/125, f8, ISO 400, Cropped to 3500x2300.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

All told I think the Olympus looks better, but it's not a straight up comparison. The light was better, ISO lower. Still, m4/3 held its own.

 

[Chad Huff]

As requested. Taken the day before yesterday. OM-D M1 mkII, 300 f/4, TC20, 1/125, f8, ISO 400, Cropped to 3500x2300.
View attachment 35604

All told I think the Olympus looks better, but it's not a straight up comparison. The light was better, ISO lower. Still, m4/3 held its own.

Thanks. That is a sharper image for sure, colors are pretty nice. Its good to see a more straight comparison, at least this is the same scene, even if the light is different.

I have an Olympus "Test and Wow" reserved for a shoot I have the first week of May with some baby Red Foxes. Hopefully the foxes cooperate, I'm interested to see how it goes for myself.

 

[fcotterill]

I drew up these graphics last year to help planning ahead and above all scope out investments in an optimal lens system. This more recent comparison is more relevant for these questions about 'reach' ie to compare the optics to achieve magnification of representatively sized subjects wrt distances & crop factor:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[eaj101]

I drew up these graphics last year to help planning ahead and above all scope out investments in an optimal lens system. This more recent comparison is more relevant for these questions about 'reach' ie to compare the optics to achieve magnification of representatively sized subjects wrt distances & crop factor:

View attachment 35608

To clarify, the intent of this is to represent what would be required to fill the frame with the subject at those distances?

 

[Marcus Slade]

You're right, too much air is a problem that often gets ignored. But I often find that my biggest need for 'more' is within 50-80 yards. Amazing how small birds really are

Here's two examples of slow shutter speed shots, the Barred owlets (no crop) being at least 50 yards away in their nest and the mature Barred Owl (minimal crop to clean edges) being much closer. Greens in the first appear a little saturated because I was literally shooting through a gap framed by the leaves close by. Both shot on my D850 in Live View with Velo remote trigger, all VR switched off. Interestingly, with the mature Barred Owl, I captured just three frames before she flew off...two of which are blurred but this remains one of my faves.

600mm f4+ 1.4 TC, 1/5 sec, f8, ISO 250

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

600mm, 1/8 sec, f4, ISO 720

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[fcotterill]

To clarify, the intent of this is to represent what would be required to fill the frame with the subject at those distances?

Correct for 6 different sized subjects as proxies

Blue encodes a magnified image of ~14mm across (approx 1/2 the longer axis of the FX frame );

Black encodes a magnified image of ~10mm across (so approx 1/3 the longer axis of the FX frame)

 

[Calson]

For seemingly static subjects I find I need a minimum shutter speed of 1/80s to avoid motion blur from slight head movements. Certainly 1/250s is plenty fast enough for the owlets in the nest. I prefer noise to motion blur and so will use a higher ISO without a second thougth to be able to use the shutter speed needed.

As others have mentioned it is often good to shut off the VR with most cameras. The VR or image stabilization takes priority over the camera's autofocus system and will result in a delay and sometimes in image destabilization.

The last time I was attempting to photograph wolves in Yellowstone the best images were taken by people using P&S cameras with a spotting scope.

There was an owl nest on the side of a wildlife refuge office I visited a few years ago. So many people had come to see the owls that the parents abandoned the nest and the owlets died.

 

[eaj101]

Thanks for the ideas.

I want to b clear that the owls aren't at risk in this situation at all. They used the same nest last year and a wide fire road that's heavily used by dogs, mountain bikers, runners, and everything else runs fifty feet from the bast of their tree. I have noticed that the owls pay more attention when a little dog happens to come by. Watching a big GHOW sit up and peer down at a chihuahua...

 

[Roy]

I've been trying to shoot nesting owls. The nest is 80' up in a tree and the closest I can get (or would want to. I don't want to injure them) is @80 yards away on a hillside. There's a fire road with hikers and mountain bikers between us, so I'm sure i'm not bothering them. The nest was occupied last year as well and the owlets left around the second week of May. It's a great scene, the owlets are a couple of weeks old right now, white fluff balls.

So, I can't get closer. I'm using two setups, a Nikon Z7+600 f/4D+TC20, and an Olympus M1 mkII+300 f/4+TC20. Big tripod and gimbal, remote release. Neither Nikon nor Olympus TCs can be stacked (You can remove the tab on Nikon TCs that keeps them from stacking).

I'm not really happy with the image quality with either rig, which is probably as much due to my technique as anything else.

So a question to the group: what would you do with the situation?

At that distance - Whatever you do will be a compromise.
Most third party teleconverters like the Kenko are not as good as the Nikon ones but they usually can be stacked.
I would probably try my old 1000mm reflex nikkor with a 2x or 3x teleconverter on my heaviest tripod.
And then my wife would probably make me look silly with her Nikon P950..

 

[Rohinton Mehta]

Thanks to everyone for your responses.
I wanted to show you how small the bird is when photographed with a 500 mm lens at an approximate distance of 35-40 feet. The image is 36 x 24 mm. In Photoshop, you may view it at actual size. (Here we see it much larger than it really is due to the difference in the resolution of Photoshop image (300 dpi) compared to whatever the resolution may be of this website).
How would you go closer to such subjects without them flying away? This was photographed in someone's home garden (where I couldn't possible set up a hide)

 

[Steve W]

Thanks for the ideas.

I want to b clear that the owls aren't at risk in this situation at all. They used the same nest last year and a wide fire road that's heavily used by dogs, mountain bikers, runners, and everything else runs fifty feet from the bast of their tree. I have noticed that the owls pay more attention when a little dog happens to come by. Watching a big GHOW sit up and peer down at a chihuahua...

Mmmm chihuahua.... snack size......

 

[Steve W]

The human eye is an amazing thing. You look at something, say a bird, and you “see” the birds and filter out a lot of the rest. Put the same bird in a viewfinder and it suddenly seems to shrink.

 

[GrandNagus50]

Yes, I've done it a LOT with both a Nikon point and shoot, and an iPhone on a Vortex Razor HD scope... Its neat to have some of those videos, but the "stills" quality isn't what most people are accustomed to with a DSLR or Mirrorless... The video quality isn't either, but somehow that matters less to me with video. Definitely not close to HD even, much less 4K or higher. Still fun and cool to shoot. Its pretty good at things like wolves at 3/4 of a mile or so, lol... You still have to deal with atmospheric disturbance, which to me is the biggest challenge with using focal length as a tool to "maximize reach"... You really can't outshoot nature. Heat shimmer is heat shimmer and there isn't anything you can do about it but get closer (which isn't always possible).

Another vote for "too much air" as a perennial problem. "Distance is the enemy of image sharpness" is one of my adages. While in Nome recently, I found that heat shimmer was consistently a problem even at fairly close distances (under 25 feet), as there was often snow on the ground or otherwise ground that was very cold, and then the sun heatiing the air above it, creating turbulence. More than a few image sequence that I had thought would be pin sharp were definitely not, and it was not my "technique," as everyone in the group had the same problem.

Unfortunately, in a lot of situations you have no choice but to shoot at a distance, and in the case of a nest, ethics dictate that you not approach too close. The welfare of the birds comes first.

Doug Greenberg

 

[DRwyoming]

Thanks to everyone for your responses.
I wanted to show you how small the bird is when photographed with a 500 mm lens at an approximate distance of 35-40 feet. The image is 36 x 24 mm. In Photoshop, you may view it at actual size. (Here we see it much larger than it really is due to the difference in the resolution of Photoshop image (300 dpi) compared to whatever the resolution may be of this website).
How would you go closer to such subjects without them flying away? This was photographed in someone's home garden (where I couldn't possible set up a hide)

Yeah, small to medium sized songbirds tend to need a lot of lens and or very close working distances. It's one reason teleconverters attached to long lenses are used so often when photographing small birds with 700-1000mm of focal length being common. The good news is that mirrorless cameras work quite well with good quality teleconverters. I use my 500mm PF with Nikon's 1.4x or 1.7x TCs all the time and sometimes even with the 2x TC though I prefer the 1.4 or 1.7 if possible.

The other good thing about longer focal length lenses for small subjects is they give you a lot of bang for your buck. For instance a 1.4x TC increases the area your small subject takes up by 2x, not 1.4x. IOW, from an area perspective a 1.4x TC doubles subject area in the frame and a 2x TC quadruples subject area in the frame. Of course that's not a TC specific thing, doubling the focal length also quadruples the subject area in the frame.

But even with a lot of focal length it really pays to get closer to small subjects. Sometimes that can mean working from a blind (hide) which can be as simple as shooting out an open door or window of a house or other building. I also find I get a lot of small bird portraits when I just sit quietly in the yard not far from feeders or frequently used perches and after a bit the birds will return to their normal habits and pretty much ignore me unless I move suddenly or make a lot of noise.

Also a blind doesn't have to be a complete free standing tent, anything that breaks up your form can help. I've sometimes just hung a sheet between two posts or draped across a couple of tall chairs and stood behind that with just my upper body, camera and head sticking up and that can work really well.

And one trick that can help with a wide variety of wildlife photography is find places where there are a lot of subjects as your odds go up dramatically in situations like that. So for backyard birds it might mean placing interesting perches near well stocked and well placed feeders or it might mean visiting a park that has a lot of bird activity near trails or board walks or near ponds with a lot of bird activity in places where the birds are accustomed to people being around.

It's easy to see one off wildlife subjects when out hiking but it's much harder to capture really interesting images in those opportunistic situations, at least for fast moving birds nervous to your presence compared to either setting up good shooting conditions (e.g. feeders and perches for backyard birds) or going to place with large numbers of reliable subjects.