a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I think you mean my wife's shot of the meadow lark. As I mentioned, her skills as a photographer are minimal and that is made much worse because she is unable to hold the camera steady, won't use a VF, won't use the various techniques I suggest for limiting the motion of the camera. She shoots almost exclusively from the passenger seat of our SUV.

And that is the point. She uses the P900 and gets a reasonable percentage of shots which look very good on her 1920 x 1200 monitor. She uses the "P" setting almost exclusively and would shoot full auto except that for birds it's often better to use spot focus and for that camera, spot focus requires "P". Shots that would require cropping on my camera don't need it.

Those who use much "better" cameras will be critical of the sharpness and other features of the final JPG but shots like that lark are quite pleasing to the viewer on the intended device and in many cases are much better than could be obtained with a shorter effective lens length, regardless of IQ.

This one of an egret is only at 320 mm equivalent. That's why a bridge camera is so desirable. It gives the ability to use almost any focal length in order to frame the photo as you wish. As before, this is SOOC. The eastern Phoebe is at full zoom (2000 357 mm = aov of 2,000 mm FF).

From a technical point of view, the P900 is a marvel. She's going to buy the P1000 any moment, now.

Her talent, which is considerable, is that she has an uncanny feel for what the bird will do before the bird does it.

(Download)


(Download)

Bipod

Please don't take offense, but there is something missing in these photos.
Sure, I agree: that P900 is a great photographer! (Just don't ever blow up the image.)

These photos go a long way towards documenting the existence of birds.
They are almost as good as the ones of rocks taken by the Mars lander.

But we already knew there are birds on Earth. We didn't need any
more photographic "evidence", Just trying to "bag" images of
critters is more like hunting than photography.

Might we want instead to take a photo that says something about its
subject--that shed some light on why the viewer should care beyond,
"Oh, look, there's s a bird! How cute!" Bird + bokah doesn't give
the viewer much to think about.

"You push the button---we do the rest" -- Eastman Kodak marketing slogan

Chosing the exposure, focal plane, depth of field etc. is part of the
process of the photographer deciding how he wants to portray the subject.

One reason to eschew very long lenses is that they don't leave the photgrapher
a lot of choices: in many cases bird + bokah (in low contrast and possibly
also high ISO) is all that is possible.

If the bird were exhitibing some behavior, that might still be interesting.
If the location and date were documented, that might be of interest to
an ornothologist or wildlife biologist.

Collecting stamps is a lot ore fun than looking at someone's stamp collection.
Looking at "mug shots" of birds on a computer monitor is just not my idea
of a good time -- or of photography.

A photograph is a message. Make sure your's doesn't say "Exhibit A: Bird".

hankswan

I am always amazed that reasonable people and very experienced photographers do not think about the movement of the camera when holding it, at these high magnifications. Pick up a pair of binoculars, maybe 10x or 20x and try to hold the image still. Most likely even supporting the camera on a firm surface you can still see movement in the binoculars. (You can see a steady vibration, and realize that it is you heart beat!). If you want to shoot at these magnifications a (very good one!) tripod and remote shutter release are essential. I do own a Nikon P900 and love it. You just have to be realistic about the quality of the photo you will get with these extreme focal length lenses. IMO

1