What about the 100-400 with No TC on the mk 2? for small birds where you can't get close but are not unreasonably far away? Have you tried that?
Tom
Options when a bird is too far.
- Thread starter Milos
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
What about the 100-400 with No TC on the mk 2? for small birds where you can't get close but are not unreasonably far away? Have you tried that?
Tom
I use a tc 1.4 all the time. If the light is good, you get an excellent image . The image below was with the tc on my 500 PF. Quality is noticeably better than a crop. You get more pixels on the subject. I even cropped this image a little.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I do not have the 180-600 zoom so my comments are not based on personal experience but on what I have read in reviews.
It is my understanding the 180-600 is not as effective with a tc attached as a 600mm prime lens with tc.
To me the first step for getting to distant birds is to have a lens that is effective at 800mm. The better the lens the more you can crop.
Again, from what I have read the most effective lens at 800mm is probably the F mount 800mm f5.6. Those lenses are extraordinarily expensive bought new but you can actually get deals on them used. But you have to deal with the weight and also have to use the FTZ adapter.
Beyond that the three most effective options are the 600mm f4 tc, the 400mm f2.8 tc or the 800mm pf. Those are listed in order of higher price first. As I understand it from reviews, ranking them in IQ in order of IQ performance at 800mm the order is 800mm pf, 600mm tc and 400mm tc. I emphasize this information is only a summary of what I read and not based on personal experience. I also understand the difference in performance among these three lenses at 800 is pretty minimal.
Certainly any of these four lenses will be ideal for getting after distant subjects.
There is also the issue of maximum aperture when shooting at 800. The F mount 800, the 400mm tc and the 600mm tc will all get you 800 at f5.6. The 800mm pf is one third of an F stop narrower at f6.3.
The 600mm pf is also a lens to consider for 800mm but if you add the 1.4 tc to the equation your aperture drops to f9.
For me price is a major issue and I went with the 800mm pf. I have been very happy with that lens. I am considering eventually adding either the 400mm tc or 600mm tc but that is not in the cards at this point.
It is my understanding the 180-600 is not as effective with a tc attached as a 600mm prime lens with tc.
To me the first step for getting to distant birds is to have a lens that is effective at 800mm. The better the lens the more you can crop.
Again, from what I have read the most effective lens at 800mm is probably the F mount 800mm f5.6. Those lenses are extraordinarily expensive bought new but you can actually get deals on them used. But you have to deal with the weight and also have to use the FTZ adapter.
Beyond that the three most effective options are the 600mm f4 tc, the 400mm f2.8 tc or the 800mm pf. Those are listed in order of higher price first. As I understand it from reviews, ranking them in IQ in order of IQ performance at 800mm the order is 800mm pf, 600mm tc and 400mm tc. I emphasize this information is only a summary of what I read and not based on personal experience. I also understand the difference in performance among these three lenses at 800 is pretty minimal.
Certainly any of these four lenses will be ideal for getting after distant subjects.
There is also the issue of maximum aperture when shooting at 800. The F mount 800, the 400mm tc and the 600mm tc will all get you 800 at f5.6. The 800mm pf is one third of an F stop narrower at f6.3.
The 600mm pf is also a lens to consider for 800mm but if you add the 1.4 tc to the equation your aperture drops to f9.
For me price is a major issue and I went with the 800mm pf. I have been very happy with that lens. I am considering eventually adding either the 400mm tc or 600mm tc but that is not in the cards at this point.
Milos
Member
Yes, I know 180-600 with TC is not the best option but this is only temporary until I save more money for the 800 lens.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
Steve,
Don't forget "time for an environmental shot! ...."
Which actually makes sense sometimes. Usually not
but sometimes.
I agree - although there's a fine line between environmental and too far awaySteve,
Don't forget "time for an environmental shot! ...."
Which actually makes sense sometimes. Usually not
StefanSC
Well-known member
The best option is usually to get closer to the bird. As the old adage goes... If you're images aren't good enough, you aren't close enough*.
Second best option is to get a longer lens.
If the first two options don't work, then comes option 3:
Get a better lens, use a TC with it and either crop or use a higher density sensor. The emphasis here is on the "better lens" part as not all lenses are equal in image quality, not all lenses behave the same when used at longer distances (older Nikon F lenses and 1x0-600mm zooms are somewhat prone to poor performance when the subject is more than 100 yards away) and not all lenses handle TC's the same.
So you want a lens that can easily out-resolve your sensor wide or near wide-open so it can handle a TC and still provide ample detail for the crop (e.g: Olympus 300mm f4 is such a lens).
Finally, think on how to obtain the best pixels possible. Get your technique on point, keep your ISO as low as possible, avoid motion blur and keep heat haze effects in mind.
*P.S.A: some birds can be dangerous if approached... for example swans have been known to attack humans and a male swan can easily break someone's arm. So be very careful when approaching a subject and watch your step.
nmerc_photos
Well-known member
The best option is usually get closer. If I cannot do that, I use this order:
In camera crop
1.4x TC
In camera crop + 1.4x TC
2x TC
In camera crop + 2x
2x + 1.4x
In camera crop + 2x + 1.4x
and finally one I haven't seen mentioned - is swap to video. I find pictures are a lot harder to get right at distance and in low light - but in both situations, filming video often works out. For low light, video enables you to use 1/250s or 1/60s instead of 1/1000+ usually. And for distance, for whatever reason when I find pictures aren't good enough the video does seem to be good enough.
In camera crop
1.4x TC
In camera crop + 1.4x TC
2x TC
In camera crop + 2x
2x + 1.4x
In camera crop + 2x + 1.4x
and finally one I haven't seen mentioned - is swap to video. I find pictures are a lot harder to get right at distance and in low light - but in both situations, filming video often works out. For low light, video enables you to use 1/250s or 1/60s instead of 1/1000+ usually. And for distance, for whatever reason when I find pictures aren't good enough the video does seem to be good enough.
BarryR
Member
ALWAYS take the shot...
Think of that fuzzy out of focus Bigfoot Photo...
ALWAYS take the shot with what you have...
Think of that fuzzy out of focus Bigfoot Photo...
ALWAYS take the shot with what you have...
ricardo00
Well-known member
When a bird is really far away and I have planned for it (ie. knew that it was going to be far), I use my 800mm PF lens plus the 2.0 TC, and then crop. For example, a peregrine falcon nest on a cliff or burrowing owls that have a fence around them to keep photographers away, etc so one can't get closer. So shooting at 1600mm!
EricKlees
Well-known member
I think once you get to be a seasoned wildlife photographer, you will become much more selective in what you'll find what is acceptable for you to take photos of.
For example, I live only 25-30 minutes from Conowingo Dam is Maryland. But I get VERY close Eagle shots 30 min and 1.5 hours from the dam. I'm talking i can get to within 50 feet of Eagles on the ground, sit down and they walk up to me within 30 feet on there own. I also get them in unique environments like open marshes where they fish just 50-100 feet in front of me.
With these incredible opportunities, when I'm at Conowingo Dam with friends and they are shooting Eagles 250-500 yards away, I find myself just watching much of the time. I shoot the Z9+Z800mm bi6t I find myself cropping as much as 100% at times so it has to be interesting behavior to shoot for me like Eagles fighting, talon locks or mid air fish stealing. I've sold 100% crops at 24x36 with fantastic detail still, though I generally try to keep my crops to about 60% or less for prints I'm selling
My point is you will find that if you ever ask yourself what to do when the subject is that far, then it's just to far.
Not even still, when the subject is in the edge of the SD to lock on and is locking them losing lock, i switch to DX and the SD just snaps to and locks the eye instantly. I'm not a big fans of TC's with the kids of light and IQ. I'm totally fine with a track sharp image at 19.2mp
For example, I live only 25-30 minutes from Conowingo Dam is Maryland. But I get VERY close Eagle shots 30 min and 1.5 hours from the dam. I'm talking i can get to within 50 feet of Eagles on the ground, sit down and they walk up to me within 30 feet on there own. I also get them in unique environments like open marshes where they fish just 50-100 feet in front of me.
With these incredible opportunities, when I'm at Conowingo Dam with friends and they are shooting Eagles 250-500 yards away, I find myself just watching much of the time. I shoot the Z9+Z800mm bi6t I find myself cropping as much as 100% at times so it has to be interesting behavior to shoot for me like Eagles fighting, talon locks or mid air fish stealing. I've sold 100% crops at 24x36 with fantastic detail still, though I generally try to keep my crops to about 60% or less for prints I'm selling
My point is you will find that if you ever ask yourself what to do when the subject is that far, then it's just to far.
Not even still, when the subject is in the edge of the SD to lock on and is locking them losing lock, i switch to DX and the SD just snaps to and locks the eye instantly. I'm not a big fans of TC's with the kids of light and IQ. I'm totally fine with a track sharp image at 19.2mp
Last edited:
Woody Meristem
Well-known member
The 100-400mm alone is my usual use for small birds because they're almost always in woodland or brushy areas so I don't want to lose a stop of light with the 1.4x TC -- then I'll crop. I don't have the 150-400mm with the internal 1.4x TC since most people who have both lenses have led me to believe that the IQ from the 150-400mm wouldn't worth the $5,500 extra cost and increased weight. Others would certainly disagree and believe the internal 1.4x TC and f/4.5 are worth the extra cost.
With the 75-300mm I'll use the camera's internal 2x TC and shoot JPG LSF and RAW ( the camera's internal TC won't give a 2x RAW image, just JPG). I usually shoot JPG anyway but if the TC's JPG images aren't good enough I'll edit the RAW photo.
I don't understand the idea of a 100% crop at 24x36. Even for Sony's 61MP sensor, a 24x36 print would still be basically the entire sensor at the dpi photo printers I have used require (240) and would be more pixels than say any of the 45.7 MP sensors offer.
It takes surprisingly little resolution for a print to appear sharp, given the right viewing distance. But I also don't understand what 100% crop is in this context. Usually it is meant to indicate no resizing of the pixel dimensions or that 1 pixel of the image equals 1 pixel of the screen.
www.pointsinfocus.com
Print Resolution Calculator • Points in Focus Photography
Calculate the minimum resolution required for a print at a given print size and viewing distance.
www.pointsinfocus.com
It takes surprisingly little resolution for a print to appear sharp, given the right viewing distance. But I also don't understand what 100% crop is in this context. Usually it is meant to indicate no resizing of the pixel dimensions or that 1 pixel of the image equals 1 pixel of the screen.
Print Resolution Calculator • Points in Focus Photography
Calculate the minimum resolution required for a print at a given print size and viewing distance.
I know that it is possible for a printed image to look okay at a lower resolution, but professional photo labs I have used require 240 or 250 dpi and limit the sizes of prints based on the file resolution based on that threshold. Perhaps it would be possible to extend the sizes using lower resolutions if I had a high quality printing machine of my own.
This is a good reference. They must make an assumption about viewing distance. For the 24 x 30 mentioned they say 1550 x 1937 pixels, so that would look sharp at about 5 feet.
Image file specifications | Bay Photo Lab
Image file specifications is a web page that can be viewed at Bay Photo Lab.
art.bayphoto.com
EricKlees
Well-known member
You're thinking about removing 100% of the pixels as in a 100% crop. In photography that's not the same thing but what you can do which is a much easier representation is if you're in Lightroom if you go to the development module if you click on your image it zooms in so to speak. So if you look at the top left corner where it shows the preview image and it'll show you 100% and then to the right of that it'll say whatever custom percentage you want it to be like 200% whatever the case may be so if you're cropping in when you click on that that's 100% that's a 100% crop so for a 45 megapixel sensor like the z9 it would be roughly 2400 pixels on the long end.
Just like Steve did and I believe his Z 800 mm review where he shows in the video like a 200% crop. The resolution on crops of around 200% would be somewhere around 800x1200 where the original resolution on the z9 is 8256x5504
I agree with @hef19898 (and a few others) - incorporate the bird’s environment into the photo. Photos with birds in them don’t always have to be dominated by the bird. Besides that, sometimes all the fieldcraft in the world won’t allow you to get closer to the bird. (The bird is flying through the middle of a wide ravine. Or above a body of water in a protected wildlife area with restricted access to the water.)
And, as @Steve suggested, maybe taking the photo isn’t worth it. Wait until a bird flies much closer to you before trying to take a photo of it. And if the bird doesn’t get closer, that’s the way things go sometimes. I have on occasion gone out and taken few or no photos of birds because the opportunities were not there. It happens.
And, as @Steve suggested, maybe taking the photo isn’t worth it. Wait until a bird flies much closer to you before trying to take a photo of it. And if the bird doesn’t get closer, that’s the way things go sometimes. I have on occasion gone out and taken few or no photos of birds because the opportunities were not there. It happens.
fulltimewanderer
Well-known member
Continue to follow and track the subject. Be patient maybe just maybe an opportunity may come your way. Sometimes patience can be very rewarding. Enjoy the moment.
Then you may want to read my thread where I tested this exact thing: https://bcgforums.com/threads/z-180-600-teleconverter-test.36343/
I listened to Andy (Wildman) Rouse talk about the in-camera "Digi-converter" on the OM-1 mk 1 that provides a magnified image in-camera.. He indicates that the function works on stationary subjects and the camera needs to be held very steady even possibly using a monopod or tripod. He indicated the Bird Subject ID really didn't work in this mode and the result was a .JPG file.
The OM-1 mk 2 also has a High-Res mode that takes 5 shots (handheld) or 7 shots (tripod) and creates a 50mp (handheld) or a 90mp (tripod) RAW file. Bird subject ID works fine.
True, High-Res mode, which many cameras have, takes a few seconds to in-camera process so you can't snap off a burst of shots like you can with the "Digi-Converter" but Andy indicated that the percent of keepers with "Digi-converter" is like 10% while my experience with High-Res (hand-held) is if the camera is steady you get a good RAW image (50mp) that you can crop far more than OM1's 20MP native file.
I know other cameras have this High-Res feature. Any experience with the resultant images?
Regards,
Tom
The OM-1 mk 2 also has a High-Res mode that takes 5 shots (handheld) or 7 shots (tripod) and creates a 50mp (handheld) or a 90mp (tripod) RAW file. Bird subject ID works fine.
True, High-Res mode, which many cameras have, takes a few seconds to in-camera process so you can't snap off a burst of shots like you can with the "Digi-Converter" but Andy indicated that the percent of keepers with "Digi-converter" is like 10% while my experience with High-Res (hand-held) is if the camera is steady you get a good RAW image (50mp) that you can crop far more than OM1's 20MP native file.
I know other cameras have this High-Res feature. Any experience with the resultant images?
Regards,
Tom
arbitrage
Well-known member
Buy a sharp lens and just crop the crap out of it. 
OR....buy a sharp lens, stick a 2xTC on it and then crop the crap out of it.....
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
OR....buy a sharp lens, stick a 2xTC on it and then crop the crap out of it.....
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I think the 1.4TC does a great job on the 600PF, might even be shaper than without it! If a bird is too far away, then it's been said, it's too far away for a good shot. But, a "good shot" could be a relative term, as your idea of one and my idea of one could be very different. I'm a "fill the frame" type shooter but I see a lot of shots where people say they are happy with the shot and I would not be able to say that as the subject is too small in the frame for my taste.
Depends on the lens. At the moment I only have the Nikon 1.4x which works well with a decent lens, like all Nikon tele lenses.
I may get the 2x and in extreme situations use it with the 600PF, 800PF or 600Tc.
That being said, if it's too far away so, even with an extender, I would have to crop away so much that the resulting image is below 6MP (still OK for internet usage), I will probably not take the shot at all unless it was an unusual species, very strange behaviour of if I just wanted a shot to identify the species (a more common scenario when traveling and I don't know the local birds as well as the ones here in Central Europe).
I may get the 2x and in extreme situations use it with the 600PF, 800PF or 600Tc.
That being said, if it's too far away so, even with an extender, I would have to crop away so much that the resulting image is below 6MP (still OK for internet usage), I will probably not take the shot at all unless it was an unusual species, very strange behaviour of if I just wanted a shot to identify the species (a more common scenario when traveling and I don't know the local birds as well as the ones here in Central Europe).
realspeed
Well-known member
another option is to run like hell to get nearer before it flies away