Tips for pelagic seabird photography - Nikon Z AF modes and Lens Choice

[Hypoleucos]

Hi all,
I have recently traded in my 500PF and gone all Z, with a 70-200 2.8, and a relatively new 600 6.3 PF that I've been using for a few months. Love both lenses on land, and on either a Z8 or Z9 they are fantastic and I get a good hit rate and am very happy (and lucky I know)! I'm after advice on two things however from those used to shooting fast moving seabirds from rocky boats - lens choice and the best AF modes. Compared to past trips using a 500PF on my Z9, my keeper rate has plummeted with either the 600PF (too much lens I think to track the birds) or the 70-200 with a 2xTC to get to 400 (images are disappointingly soft and perhaps I'm also taking a hit on AF speed with the TC?). I am practising the usual caveats of position (standing, bending with knees rather than sitting, waiting for top of swell for a still moment etc) and am a realist knowing that I'll get a much lower hit rate than on stable land. It's the lower hit rate compared to the 500PF that has me thinking. Two questions:

- I am considering either the 400 4.5, or the 100-400mm zoom as a 'boat' lens. I'm hesitant about the zoom as i) I'm mainly at 400 anyway and use the 70-200 for macro/landscape etc already, and ii) it's a pump action zoom and I've had problems with dust in the sensor in the past. Plus the 400 prime would take a 1.4TC better it seems and might be a great lens for spotlighting, rainforest, and other lower light situations with the extra aperture over the 5.6 zoom. Does anyone have experience with either and advice on which option might work best?

- For focusing, I am usually in a Wide AF mode and, when I get a good head/eye lock handing over to AutoAF. I find that this works well for birds above the waterline against a sky, but for more challenging scenarios among the waves focus is slipping as soon as birds drop under the horizon, and grabbing those on the surface, particularly smaller guys like storm-petrels is very tough. Any tips here? I'm thinking I might be better not handing off in that scenario and even dropping subject detection entirely for smaller birds in the waves and running with a custom Wide box inbetween small and large to simulate the old 'dynamic' AF of DSLRs. In any case curious as to what other photographers recommend in this situation.

Would appreciate any tips from the BCG experts, it's certainly great fun to be doing pelagics again and I'm keen to keep practicing!
Paul

 

[ajrmd]

Pelagics are as fascinating to observe as well as photograph. Which lens to use would depend on the distance and 600 mm is a reasonable FL. For birds against the sky, Auto Area works extremely well. The greatest deficiency of the z8/z9 IMHO is subject detection of birds near water. Whether they are diving or flying close to the deck, it just doesn’t track them all that well. You can try with Wide area S/L and by turning SD on/off. Compared to my Canon/Sony gear, the keeper rate in this situation is much lower and if anyone has a secret sauce to improve the Nikon af in these settings, I would love to know.

 

[Hypoleucos]

Pelagics are as fascinating to observe as well as photograph. Which lens to use would depend on the distance and 600 mm is a reasonable FL. For birds against the sky, Auto Area works extremely well. The greatest deficiency of the z8/z9 IMHO is subject detection of birds near water. Whether they are diving or flying close to the deck, it just doesn’t track them all that well. You can try with Wide area S/L and by turning SD on/off. Compared to my Canon/Sony gear, the keeper rate in this situation is much lower and if anyone has a secret sauce to improve the Nikon af in these settings, I would love to know.

Thanks for that, on one hand good to know it is not just me, but also sad as fixing my technique is the easiest thing(!). Appreciate the response on FL as well, hopefully someone else has some proven methods, otherwise I'll try switching SD on/off more regularly.
Kind regards,
Paul

 

[Alistair]

I regularly shoot sea and shore birds. I use the 400/4.5, 800pf and Tamron 150-500. Mostly I shoot from a sit-on canoe often on somewhat choppy seas. The 400/4.5 is my favourite lens but sometimes I use the others when I need more or less reach. I mostly use auto area with subject detection, especially on choppy seas as the canoe is bobbing up and down so fast, the whole area is needed. I find it works great. Not sure why you are having problems but it could be that the AF is locking onto water splashes? Or maybe the light direction on the water is wrong for the AF system. Try moving around a bit until the sun of more at your back, and this generally solves both problems and will generally give better images anyway. I do not like using the Tamron very much but I do think a zoom is useful in these situations. The 100-400 might be good for this purpose although I feel it is rather expensive for what it is. Mind you, so is the 400/4.5 I guess but it is such a nice lens IMO.

 

[Hypoleucos]

Thanks Alistair,

Wow, those shots are all great, but the fluttering are amazing! You're the second to recommend the 400 as amazing, so I'm tempted. I do find that the AF jumps onto small splashes at the top of waves. I'll definitely think about lighting and see if that makes a difference next time. Appreciate you taking the time to respond and show me what's possible, some great food for thought thank you.
Kind regards,
Paul

 

[Len Shepherd]

- I am considering either the 400 4.5, or the 100-400mm zoom as a 'boat' lens. I'm hesitant about the zoom as i) I'm mainly at 400 anyway and use the 70-200 for macro/landscape etc already, and ii) it's a pump action zoom and I've had problems with dust in the sensor in the past. Plus the 400 prime would take a 1.4TC better it seems and might be a great lens for spotlighting, rainforest, and other lower light situations with the extra aperture over the 5.6 zoom. Does anyone have experience with either and advice on which option might work best?

On this detail I use the 70-200 primarily for sport and the 100-400 for both landscape and macro.

There are plusses and minuses for either choice as a one lens option.

For "macro" I consider the 70-200 gets a good part of the way there with a closest subject width of 7.5 inch at 1 foot 7 inches focus distance - without using a TC or a DX crop.

The 100-400 covers a "more macro" 4 inch wide subject at an often helpful greater focus distance of 3 feet 3 inches at 400mm.

With my strong interest in close up work at a modest distance for dragonflies and butterflies the 100-400 is my primary zoom choice for this.
The 100-400 gets me a 3 inch wide subject with the 1.4x Z TC though sometimes at 560mm combined hand held and locating an insect can be challenging.

With either choice each zoom performs extremely well.

 

[Hypoleucos]

On this detail I use the 70-200 primarily for sport and the 100-400 for both landscape and macro.

There are plusses and minuses for either choice as a one lens option.

For "macro" I consider the 70-200 gets a good part of the way there with a closest subject width of 7.5 inch at 1 foot 7 inches focus distance - without using a TC or a DX crop.

The 100-400 covers a "more macro" 4 inch wide subject at an often helpful greater focus distance of 3 feet 3 inches at 400mm.

With my strong interest in close up work at a modest distance for dragonflies and butterflies the 100-400 is my primary zoom choice for this.
The 100-400 gets me a 3 inch wide subject with the 1.4x Z TC though sometimes at 560mm combined hand held and locating an insect can be challenging.

With either choice each zoom performs extremely well.

Thanks Len, those are some handy figures to have. I don't do a lot of macro but would like to. Urrgh, the more I get into photography the more I understand that there will always be another lens! Hahaha. Will keep thinking, thank you.

 

[Ralph]

I regularly shoot sea and shore birds. I use the 400/4.5, 800pf and Tamron 150-500. Mostly I shoot from a sit-on canoe often on somewhat choppy seas. The 400/4.5 is my favourite lens but sometimes I use the others when I need more or less reach. I mostly use auto area with subject detection, especially on choppy seas as the canoe is bobbing up and down so fast, the whole area is needed. I find it works great. Not sure why you are having problems but it could be that the AF is locking onto water splashes? Or maybe the light direction on the water is wrong for the AF system. Try moving around a bit until the sun of more at your back, and this generally solves both problems and will generally give better images anyway. I do not like using the Tamron very much but I do think a zoom is useful in these situations. The 100-400 might be good for this purpose although I feel it is rather expensive for what it is. Mind you, so is the 400/4.5 I guess but it is such a nice lens IMO.

Awesome set Well done.

 

[EricBowles]

How far offshore are you going to be? What size ship will you be on? What birds are expected?

About 15 years ago I spent one week as the photographer for a research vessel for a one week trip off the coast of Georgia and the Carolinas. We were out at the edge of the Gulf Stream and many days we would see a very small number of birds. We spent 8-9 hours a day on deck and tried to record and photograph every bird we saw. Photos were important for both identification and documentation. Several of the birds we photographed never land on the continent of North America - just a few islands for a short period and the rest of the time on the water. Most of the birds were flying at a long distance from the ship and made a single pass without getting within 150 yards. I had longer lenses, but used a 300mm f/4 handheld with DX crop. My tripod and monopod were not workable due to the constant rise and fall of the ship, so handholding was required.

Today I'd probably prefer the 400mm f/4.5, but would take a 600mm PF if you have that lens. Longer focal lengths can make it harder to find the subject in the frame, and I'd prefer a shorter focal length for the increased field of view. A shorter field of view means you may be cropping - but you'll get something while birds are flying past. But if you are photographing perched birds or birds on the water rather than flying, a longer focal length makes sense for tight, frame filling images. If you have a trip planned for nearer shore, sometimes birds follow the boat hoping for food. That can mean a shorter lens is still frame filling, but the birds can move from side to side very quickly. Again - a lens can be too long.

The size of the boat makes a difference. There is a big difference between a kayak near shore and a ship with 30-40 people that travels 20-30 miles off shore. The larger ship is going to position you far above the water - which leads to more in flight shots rather than shooting down on the subject.

Some pelagic trips include chumming to attract seabirds. If that is taking place on your ship, you may want a wider lens because you'll have plenty of close birds while near shore.

Whatever you do, be sure you bring a rain cover for the camera and lens, lens wipes and cleaner to clean salt or spray off your lens, and a small lint free towel to blot moisture. Plan to avoid leaving anything on deck where it can be kicked or damaged. On deck, make sure you only have the gear you will be using.

 

[Ad Astra]

Thinking back to your experience with the 500PF how much did the subject fill the frame? If you were cropping a lot with the 500PF then it sounds like 600mm is a better choice, but if you were filling the frame at 500mm then it sounds like the 400 f4.5 would be a good choice with a slight crop.

For auto area I use the custom size option and have a long length and short height shape which fits sea birds in flight better than the default auto areas. I used to have issues with the white areas on the sea but I have noticed this issue has gone way with the latest firmware, worth checking both your camera and lenses are up to update with firmnware.

 

[Mdf123]

For birds on or near the surface of the water I also use a custom wide (horizontal) but short focus area with bird recognition activated when using the Z8. ( the standard one preprogrammed by Nikon works fine) It definitely reduces the number of out of focus shots you get from the camera locking on the water rather than the bird.

 

[wotan1]

There are certain lenses that are magic combinations. I call them magic because the lenses offset each other’s weakness and the gaps are filled very nicely.

The combination of the 70-200 and the 400mm f4.5 are one such combination. The other I really like is the 400mm f4.5 and the 800mm f6.3.

Once you get out to 600mm shooting while moving becomes more challenging. There is a limit to what image stabilization can do whether it is in body or aided by the lens.

I used to own the 600. It is a remarkable lens but I found it to be limited compared to other lenses.

Any lens 600mm or longer tends to encounter all sorts of problems inherent in the nature of shooting long focal lengths with high megapixel cameras.
Atmospheric diffraction, slight movement of twitchy subjects, even thermal differences from a lens with a different temperature than the ambient air can affect sharpness. Steve has written extensively on this phenomenon. Certainly taking pictures from a moving boat fits within that category of difficult conditions.

Both the 70-200 and the 400 are less subject to the long-lens “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” than the 600 PF. They would give you better flexibility in that environment.

The 600 of course has better reach and you can keep the 600 and work with a TC when you are stable enough and need to get longer. But if you want to use the 600 out at 800mm you need to add a 1.4x tc. This means your maximum F stop is now 9.

If you have the 400 and need to go longer you can cover 600-800 with the 400 with a combination of a tc and cropping/dx. It will not be as sharp as the 600 but it will work.

However, if you have to go out to 800 you will find the 800mm f6.3 pf works better than the 600. It is an inherently sharper lens and you get f6.3 at 800. I am aware of no one who sells an 800mm camera lens with a wider aperture than f5/6.

So the 400 and 800 work ideally together because the 800 will handle any reach the 400 won’t reach and the 400 will cover everything up to 800 well enough.

 

[ajrmd]

I regularly shoot sea and shore birds. I use the 400/4.5, 800pf and Tamron 150-500. Mostly I shoot from a sit-on canoe often on somewhat choppy seas. The 400/4.5 is my favourite lens but sometimes I use the others when I need more or less reach. I mostly use auto area with subject detection, especially on choppy seas as the canoe is bobbing up and down so fast, the whole area is needed. I find it works great. Not sure why you are having problems but it could be that the AF is locking onto water splashes? Or maybe the light direction on the water is wrong for the AF system. Try moving around a bit until the sun of more at your back, and this generally solves both problems and will generally give better images anyway. I do not like using the Tamron very much but I do think a zoom is useful in these situations. The 100-400 might be good for this purpose although I feel it is rather expensive for what it is. Mind you, so is the 400/4.5 I guess but it is such a nice lens IMO.

Yes, it really depends on subject distance, the type of boat, etc. At sea or even near cliffs, it’s rare to get in that close. A 400 f/4.5 might work, though a 600 might be better. Alternatively, one could employ a 180-600. Yes, in the ideal world one would position the boat with optimal sun/wind directions though that’s not always possible. Again, my experience with the z8 has been comparatively less than optimal and AA frequently fails when shooting against the water with wavelets, specular highlights, etc. Wide/custom areas work ok, though their not optimal either.

 

[nmerc_photos]

if you can handle the size/weight, I'd pick the 180-600 as the lens for the job. and that's having owned every Nikon Z tele.

pretty much the only time I value a zoom lens is when shooting from a boat. my experience is mostly whales, but it has some overlap with pelagic birds as well.

when action is fast, and subjects can pop up from seemingly anywhere - being able to zoom out to 180 to locate the subject, then inwards toward 600 for the picture is super helpful.

I would find the 600PF too frustratingly unaccommodating for the job at hand. The 100-400 works great for large mammals like whales, dolphins, etc. but leaves a lot to be desired for birds. The 180-600 would be perfect.

If for some reason you're not wanting the 180-600, I would choose the 400 4.5 over the 100-400. I find the IQ to be much better, especially with a TC attached. 400 4.5 is wide enough that you shouldn't miss too many shots (certainly a significant amount less than the 600PF), and IQ should be very good.

 

[BLev65]

I also shoot a lot of birds, many of them pelagic species. I really don't think this is a lens choice issue, but more of an atmospheric condition issue.
When shooting from a canoe or kayak, I am relatively close to the birds and marine mammals that I photograph. On these occasions, I have used... 200-400 f4VR, 200-500 f/5.6, 180-600Z, 400 f4.5, 400 f4.5 w/ 1.4x, 100-400S, and 100-400S w/ 1.4x. To be honest, I can't tell the difference between the images because I tend to be close enough where the AF locks on. These are ideal conditions. For this photography, I use the custom wide horizontal frame that extends as far as it can across the frame. I rely on bird or animal subject recognitions, AFC, back-button focus, and 10-20 fps. I've used similar settings for whales, dolphins, otters, and eagles when shooting from a zodiac.
The success rate will likely go down if you are shooting from the deck of a ship. I have experienced this in the past, especially when it is very sunny outside. There will be a pronounced heat differential between the water and the atmosphere. Furthermore, you will be shooting at a downward angle at the birds. All of this means that you will be shooting through aerosolized water vapor and this interferes with the AF. Furthermore, a high sun angle will create speculars of light... this will also cause your AF to fail.

When shooting birds, work to get low on them, and your AF will improve.
bruce

 

[Hypoleucos]

How far offshore are you going to be? What size ship will you be on? What birds are expected?

About 15 years ago I spent one week as the photographer for a research vessel for a one week trip off the coast of Georgia and the Carolinas. We were out at the edge of the Gulf Stream and many days we would see a very small number of birds. We spent 8-9 hours a day on deck and tried to record and photograph every bird we saw. Photos were important for both identification and documentation. Several of the birds we photographed never land on the continent of North America - just a few islands for a short period and the rest of the time on the water. Most of the birds were flying at a long distance from the ship and made a single pass without getting within 150 yards. I had longer lenses, but used a 300mm f/4 handheld with DX crop. My tripod and monopod were not workable due to the constant rise and fall of the ship, so handholding was required.

Today I'd probably prefer the 400mm f/4.5, but would take a 600mm PF if you have that lens. Longer focal lengths can make it harder to find the subject in the frame, and I'd prefer a shorter focal length for the increased field of view. A shorter field of view means you may be cropping - but you'll get something while birds are flying past. But if you are photographing perched birds or birds on the water rather than flying, a longer focal length makes sense for tight, frame filling images. If you have a trip planned for nearer shore, sometimes birds follow the boat hoping for food. That can mean a shorter lens is still frame filling, but the birds can move from side to side very quickly. Again - a lens can be too long.

The size of the boat makes a difference. There is a big difference between a kayak near shore and a ship with 30-40 people that travels 20-30 miles off shore. The larger ship is going to position you far above the water - which leads to more in flight shots rather than shooting down on the subject.

Some pelagic trips include chumming to attract seabirds. If that is taking place on your ship, you may want a wider lens because you'll have plenty of close birds while near shore.

Whatever you do, be sure you bring a rain cover for the camera and lens, lens wipes and cleaner to clean salt or spray off your lens, and a small lint free towel to blot moisture. Plan to avoid leaving anything on deck where it can be kicked or damaged. On deck, make sure you only have the gear you will be using.

Thanks Eric,

Very useful tips. Boats vary, but typically we're 10-15 persons on anything up to a 15m vessel. It's the rolling deck scenario as the boat heads out to sea to reach the shelf and 'true' pelagic birds, spends a few hours on the shelf with bait/oil slick going, then back in, so 8-9hrs on the boat looking for pelagics. Similar to what you were doing, the best birds don't always hang around!

I'm thinking I need more practise with the 600 and it's narrower field of view on a boat, don't see the issue on land, but on a boat I'm probably too slow, so a wider field of view seems likely to be a help. I found the 2TC on 70-200 certainly easier to get the bird in shot, just wasn't sharp enough for me. In any case note your support for the 400 4.5, yet to hear a bad thing about that lens.

Many thanks for the detailed reply, very much appreciated,
Paul

 

[Hypoleucos]

Thinking back to your experience with the 500PF how much did the subject fill the frame? If you were cropping a lot with the 500PF then it sounds like 600mm is a better choice, but if you were filling the frame at 500mm then it sounds like the 400 f4.5 would be a good choice with a slight crop.

For auto area I use the custom size option and have a long length and short height shape which fits sea birds in flight better than the default auto areas. I used to have issues with the white areas on the sea but I have noticed this issue has gone way with the latest firmware, worth checking both your camera and lenses are up to update with firmnware.

Thanks Ad Astra,
Definitely cropped a lot on land at times, hence one of the reasons for the tradein to the 600PF. On sea I think it was also mixed and some cropping at times, in general small, distant storm-petrels need cropping and fast flying petrels zooming past at distance, but then you get the boat lovers that may be a few metres above deck! Thinking back I believe that I'm just not able to track the birds as well with the newer lens. Part of that I guess is the focal length, and part practise I suspect, as that 500PF was glued to my eye for many years!

Interesting recommendation about the auto area custom size - another comment along those lines below, will definitely try that too, thank you! Firmware is up to date and one of the reasons I'm puzzled by the poor performance against waves - it is so good now on land that I've started to trust Auto AF!

Many thanks,
Paul

 

[Hypoleucos]

For birds on or near the surface of the water I also use a custom wide (horizontal) but short focus area with bird recognition activated when using the Z8. ( the standard one preprogrammed by Nikon works fine) It definitely reduces the number of out of focus shots you get from the camera locking on the water rather than the bird.

Excellent, thank you, will definitely try this!

 

[Hypoleucos]

There are certain lenses that are magic combinations. I call them magic because the lenses offset each other’s weakness and the gaps are filled very nicely.

The combination of the 70-200 and the 400mm f4.5 are one such combination. The other I really like is the 400mm f4.5 and the 800mm f6.3.

Once you get out to 600mm shooting while moving becomes more challenging. There is a limit to what image stabilization can do whether it is in body or aided by the lens.

I used to own the 600. It is a remarkable lens but I found it to be limited compared to other lenses.

Any lens 600mm or longer tends to encounter all sorts of problems inherent in the nature of shooting long focal lengths with high megapixel cameras.
Atmospheric diffraction, slight movement of twitchy subjects, even thermal differences from a lens with a different temperature than the ambient air can affect sharpness. Steve has written extensively on this phenomenon. Certainly taking pictures from a moving boat fits within that category of difficult conditions.

Both the 70-200 and the 400 are less subject to the long-lens “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” than the 600 PF. They would give you better flexibility in that environment.

The 600 of course has better reach and you can keep the 600 and work with a TC when you are stable enough and need to get longer. But if you want to use the 600 out at 800mm you need to add a 1.4x tc. This means your maximum F stop is now 9.

If you have the 400 and need to go longer you can cover 600-800 with the 400 with a combination of a tc and cropping/dx. It will not be as sharp as the 600 but it will work.

However, if you have to go out to 800 you will find the 800mm f6.3 pf works better than the 600. It is an inherently sharper lens and you get f6.3 at 800. I am aware of no one who sells an 800mm camera lens with a wider aperture than f5/6.

So the 400 and 800 work ideally together because the 800 will handle any reach the 400 won’t reach and the 400 will cover everything up to 800 well enough.

Thanks Wotan, love the quote of outrageous fortune, brilliant! Also like your thinking, very helpful, thank you for taking the time to reply. I think for most things I do 800 is going to be too big, so will get there with a TC on the 600 when the light is good enough to take the aperture hit as you point out.
Thanks for the advice,
Paul

 

[Hypoleucos]

Yes, it really depends on subject distance, the type of boat, etc. At sea or even near cliffs, it’s rare to get in that close. A 400 f/4.5 might work, though a 600 might be better. Alternatively, one could employ a 180-600. Yes, in the ideal world one would position the boat with optimal sun/wind directions though that’s not always possible. Again, my experience with the z8 has been comparatively less than optimal and AA frequently fails when shooting against the water with wavelets, specular highlights, etc. Wide/custom areas work ok, though their not optimal either.

Thanks ajrmd, agree that there is a trade-off. For me I'm thinking an 180-600 is going to be getting into the too heavy side of things, largely for travel. I get that it is flexible, but as I'm mainly chasing birds when overseas the 600PF is/will be the go to when I'm in open country with good light. The 70-200 becomes an 'elephant' lens for the big stuff or landscape, then I'm missing something in the middle for challenging scenarios like boats, rainforests and nocturnal photography without flash. I'm leaning more the the 400 for it's TC ability and better aperture, recognising I can use the 70-200 for closeup on the rare occasions I'm doing frogs or the like...

 

[Hypoleucos]

if you can handle the size/weight, I'd pick the 180-600 as the lens for the job. and that's having owned every Nikon Z tele.

pretty much the only time I value a zoom lens is when shooting from a boat. my experience is mostly whales, but it has some overlap with pelagic birds as well.

when action is fast, and subjects can pop up from seemingly anywhere - being able to zoom out to 180 to locate the subject, then inwards toward 600 for the picture is super helpful.

I would find the 600PF too frustratingly unaccommodating for the job at hand. The 100-400 works great for large mammals like whales, dolphins, etc. but leaves a lot to be desired for birds. The 180-600 would be perfect.

If for some reason you're not wanting the 180-600, I would choose the 400 4.5 over the 100-400. I find the IQ to be much better, especially with a TC attached. 400 4.5 is wide enough that you shouldn't miss too many shots (certainly a significant amount less than the 600PF), and IQ should be very good.

Many thanks, I like that range and take your points, it is rather humbling trying to find subjects on a rocky boat that is for sure! I'm just thinking that the 180-600 is very heavy (my back is on it's way out), and that won't help target acquisition in heavy swells. A friend has that lens though so I'll give it a go. Interesting comment on the 1-400, we do see quite a few cetaceans but I'm squarely in the bird camp, so happy to miss the odd whale shot if it gets me some feathered pics...

Appreciate your comments, thank you,
P

 

[Hypoleucos]

I also shoot a lot of birds, many of them pelagic species. I really don't think this is a lens choice issue, but more of an atmospheric condition issue.
When shooting from a canoe or kayak, I am relatively close to the birds and marine mammals that I photograph. On these occasions, I have used... 200-400 f4VR, 200-500 f/5.6, 180-600Z, 400 f4.5, 400 f4.5 w/ 1.4x, 100-400S, and 100-400S w/ 1.4x. To be honest, I can't tell the difference between the images because I tend to be close enough where the AF locks on. These are ideal conditions. For this photography, I use the custom wide horizontal frame that extends as far as it can across the frame. I rely on bird or animal subject recognitions, AFC, back-button focus, and 10-20 fps. I've used similar settings for whales, dolphins, otters, and eagles when shooting from a zodiac.
The success rate will likely go down if you are shooting from the deck of a ship. I have experienced this in the past, especially when it is very sunny outside. There will be a pronounced heat differential between the water and the atmosphere. Furthermore, you will be shooting at a downward angle at the birds. All of this means that you will be shooting through aerosolized water vapor and this interferes with the AF. Furthermore, a high sun angle will create speculars of light... this will also cause your AF to fail.

When shooting birds, work to get low on them, and your AF will improve.
bruce

Hadn't considered this but that makes a lot of sense, add in diesel fumes from the back of the boat at times too and conditions are less than ideal. Great to hear another vote for horizontal wide Auto area, keen to try that next time. I hadn't considered those light conditions and resultant haze, but makes sense. Will definitely aim to get lower and try to minimise this.

Thank you!
P

 

[BLev65]

Hadn't considered this but that makes a lot of sense, add in diesel fumes from the back of the boat at times too and conditions are less than ideal. Great to hear another vote for horizontal wide Auto area, keen to try that next time. I hadn't considered those light conditions and resultant haze, but makes sense. Will definitely aim to get lower and try to minimise this.

Thank you!
P

I'm glad that these tips resonate with you... I think if you stay low, you'll find that your in-focus rate will increase... and yes, stay away from the exhaust from the boat engines.
Good luck,
bruce

 

[EricBowles]

I'm glad that these tips resonate with you... I think if you stay low, you'll find that your in-focus rate will increase... and yes, stay away from the exhaust from the boat engines.
Good luck,
bruce

Bruce makes a good point about staying low. The reason that works is your backgrounds and out of focus areas have more separation and are less likely to pick up alternate subjects.

Whether that works depends on your ship. My ship was a bit taller above the water and we spent 6 consecutive nights on board. I found little consistency as to the location of birds relative to the ship - while some were viewed behind the ship, it was pure coincidence and just as many were viewed from each of the other sides. I ended up spending most of my time higher at the front and sides so I had a wider field of view.

Pelagic birding and bird photography trips are a lot of fun but very challenging. One technique you might use is to program a button to switch to DX. That gives you more ability to see the subject when it is distant and small in the EVF. More importantly - it's a quick adjustment you can make after finding the bird in the full frame viewfinder.

It's a lot better to have a couple of lens options than to have the wrong lens. It only took me a few hours on deck to decide my longest lens and a tripod were the wrong tools. I was struggling too much to find a bird in the viewfinder. I was very glad to have something shorter and wider - to allow me to photograph something rather than missing the only bird I saw in an hour long period.

We saw lots of birds near land - leaving the harbor and returning to the harbor. But those birds were relatively ordinary. The exceptional birds were sea birds that did not approach land.

One more idea if you are serious about birding. I used a Nikon GP-1 to capture GPS coordinates in every image. We had the ship's electronic log which recorded the GPS coordinates throughout our trip and could be used to match the time of the image to the location, but having the embedded coordinates in every file was a lot simpler. Of course, we were outside cell phone range so that tool was of no use.

 

[macwalter]

If one is used to the 500pf the 600pf is the same thing only a bit better imop. I love the 400f4.5 and if you are in a small boat and can get close it will do you well and it handles the 1.4 tc better then the 100-400 although it will work as well. If you are on a larger boat I would use the 600pf with greater reach and it also handles the 1.4tc well and I find on boats I usually need more reach not less. Having shot for years in the 400-500mm range it didn’t take long to adjust to the 600mm range although I do still struggle a bit at 840mm on fast subjects that are close. Also wind and waves makes a big difference As does light angle.