Toment Loc: FL, IL

Aperture and Focal length, experiment as suggested by Gene51

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

Hi Shootist, The photo composition is nice although the photo is a bit soft & noisy - probably due to crop you put on the image. It also may be that the lens is a bit soft at 600mm but that can be tested pretty easily by placing the camera on a tripod and shooting a fixed object at different focal lengths to see what you get. Do you use any sharpening & noise reduction software like Nik by Dxo? If not you should consider it. I'm not a big Gimp fan for post on photos either.

Chuckwal Loc: Boynton Beach Florida

like the image
chuck

tdekany Loc: Oregon

With BIF, I have to disagree. I have seen numerous snapshot shooters who, when switching to a D500 are now producing fantastic photos.

davidb1879

I think your bird is very good. If you want to upgrade your equipment check the net to find photos taken with the Nikon 200-500mm. I have seen and heard very good things about the Tamron 150-600. That lens has two versions. I saw an excellent bird that was taken with the less expensive version of the lens. Good luck. Davidb1879.

joe p Loc: Philadelphia, PA

You didn’t mention the support system that you’re using. What tripod and head are using for that lens. Support is very important with Long telephoto lenses.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

..

foxfirerodandgun Loc: Stony Creek, VA

OK...................In photography terms, what is a GAS attack?

HT

GAS = Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

It’s sometimes called NAS: Nikon Acquisition Syndrome, or CAS: guess what that is :)

HT

IMHO you still have a way to go with your current technique. Focus on your photography basics (your image under is exposed to begin with) and field craft (learn how to get birds close).

And when you do consider a change in your gear, make it a change worth doing. The lens your considering is an improvement on your current lens, true. But it’s not a magnitude better. I’d wager if you splashed out on that particular new lens now, nothing substantive will change with the quality of your images.

Have you considered for example a second hand prime, for example? Or camera support perhaps?

Gear versus technique is always a vexed discussion. The truth is, technique plus gear is virtuous circle. People who point to pros with a low end camera achieving better images than amateurs with the very best of gear frequently ignore the reality of the years of experience a gifted photographer has invested in. And no photographer, however gifted will ever get an even a barely acceptable BIF using a pinhole camera...photography is a system of systems, the photographers eye and personal gifts/experience together with the right gear.

May I humbly suggest you invest some of your hard earned on tutorials/training/gaining experience before worrying about a slightly better lens than the one you’re using now?


Kind Regards

foxfirerodandgun Loc: Stony Creek, VA

THANK YOU! I occasionally get a case of both GAS & NAS. The latter seems to be in full bloom currently.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

The bluebird is exquisitely captured and this is better than the pictures in the handbooks people buy to spot birds with--that is a legit market. Just as pictures of people fall into many categories (medical illustrations, advertising, modeling, portraits, movies, sports, journalism, tourism--and there are different categories of portraits), so do pictures of animals. To be honest, in all my decades I never took a picture of a bird, and when I started coming here I was surprised how many do. I did not take pictures of cats, either, until I got one. My cat pictures fall either into traditional portrait styles, or into candid, existing light photography; I don't need long tele lenses or anything else special.

I don't think Adams photographed birds, either. Might we ask why?

Adams said (long ago) that it had been a very long time since the quality of photographs depended on the quality of lenses, and others here seem to agree in principle (as I do). But the types of photograph make different demands. I am not sure a proper portrait can be taken of a bird, because a first rate portrait reveals something of personality, character, or emotions. I think there is something tongue-in-cheek about formal portraits of dogs, cats, horses, because--well, they aren't really people, are they? If a bird does something newsworthy, like pulling the President's hair, that is one type of picture.

But I think digital photography has affected style and taste in photography. Overcooking can be a flaw, but it is also perhaps an essential feature of photography today that it look more like Oz than Kansas. That kept me away from digital for a long time. Now the public is getting used to it, or expects it. It is not merely a question of whether to look natural or real--that was always a question that was both relative and subjective. Much more color or much more resolution, or contrast, etc., may enhance some artistic efforts, and detract from others. But it was no long ago that some people put gauze over the lens, or Vaseline, for their artistic purposes. One even touched it up with sandpaper.

Some digital cameras let you shoot square format, which is a promising idea for many animals (such as birds)--good enough for Hasselblad and Rolleiflex. It changes the whole dynamic.

ackhack Loc: nantucket/ Venice Fl

Equiment vs ability. My .02 cents. What I have found after shooting for a number of years wildlife and portraits is the quality of the glass. You take that for what its worth, but a 600 f4 will blow your pictures out of the water. A Prim lens is always better them a Zomm. we all cheat! We buy what we can afford. We want the excellent shot but are not willing to chock up 10k or more for that lens another option is the 400/ 2.8 ... either one with a 1.4 or even a 2 is still a great lens but it must be a canon or Nikon. So you are left with what can I do. I am with you! I am trying to figure the same out right now. My shoulders can no longer handle to weight of the big boys, so I shot with an iPhone and buy professional images. Unless you can justify to your self a 10 or 12 k lens. Good Shooting.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

. Waite, Sony now has a 400mm f/2.8. There are now options other than canon or Nikon, and considerably lighter. Talk about “gas”!

sunsandwater

I would personally be very happy with this shot