I'm not sure to say if that is really neat or it will cause me nightmares.

It does look good.

This is indeed a fence post and moving a tiny bit would have changed it a lot. I was being lazy, sitting on the top step by my coffee. Moving down two steps and over a little would indeed have improved it.

Appreciate the thoughts. And, you are 110% on tunnel vision. I think that even extends well beyond the shot. I often go back and look at some old images I liked and can't believe that I didn't notice some of the stuff in them.

Thanks. I get a few minutes into a video and I decide to run out without finishing it. I'm not a model student in any way.

Like almost every time I try a new genre of photography, I have a lot more respect for it after.

Thank you!

That is neat. The ones I just saw around here still don't have that plumage.

Thank you both. So, I agree theses are too loose, but that was user error. Given proper composition, the background is less of a thing.

They are smart too. In backyard without camera and one is sitting very close...

Ok, COVID has me pointing my focus point on birds more recently. I've mainly done sports and am learning birds and how hard they are.

That said, I've learned that some of the basic "sports" paradigms apply. Plan, anticipate and get a good background. I'm not good at any of these with birds yet.

For the background with birds (maybe most wildlife), what is generally considered a good starting point (like the rule of thirds for example)? A busy, colorful environment, or more mono-tone with the bird being the subject?

I've decided that I need to get more eye-level and closer (same with sports). I don't like the "bird in the sky", but I don't know about the other types of backgrounds. Curious if the crew has ideas. Below are two examples from this weekend, but I don't know if either background is good. The Tern should be much tighter, but I was lazy and didn't get closer.

If you have favorites, or favorite photographers, point me at them. I'm right on the edge of getting interested in chasing birds more. I'm about to start planing my location to set up backgrounds, but I don't think I know what is good for the birds as I'm getting blan or busy.

Blan background with bird as subject

(Download)

Busier with more of the environment

(Download)

Nice shots.

I also realized how many shots of bird butts I got. Side profile and facing you are harder than they look.

That is neat. There is a guy who does that (well used to) down on the boardwalk in PB. The people watching all like it and the kids have a ton of fun.

Nice captures.

Small world. I didn't grow up here, but have been here for a bit now. The Safari Park is much more spread out out. I think that lens would be good there. I hope you can get there soon.

Didn't know about that one, but I really like his other stuff. Thanks.

Thanks.

I thought about fine tuning the AF, but I figured with 5.6, it wasn't worth the effort on a lens for one day. On still subjects, I got some super sharp shots. Most of my bird issues were user error. I actually made an AF tool out of cardboard for long range tests, dialing in can make a huge difference. We're friends, and more important is our wives are friends, so I can always tinker with it again.

I've used the D7200, and I think it would be a nice match with this lens in a lot of situations. Happy shooting.

A few weeks ago I got a picture of a hummingbird and the challenge was that it was the only bird I saw for about 2 hours. I got lucky.

Yesterday, I gave it another go, and within an hour, I saw a lot more. This time, they liked the far side of the bush, or got too hidden in the flowers. Like other aspects of photography, there is a lot to learn and prepare for just to click the old button.

I had traded lenses with a friend so we could both do some testing. I used his 200-500/5.6. It is really a nice lens. Compared to my 300/2.8, the AF was a little slower and it wasn't quite as sharp, but I still liked it. The primes like teleconverters much more, but it was a fun lens. After my morning coffee looking for hummingbirds, I explored two other areas near by. I should have gone earlier in the day and at low tide (again, learning more about this).

All were shot with my D500 and the 200-500/5.6. I kept it at 500mm and never saw a reasons to change. SS was 1/1250 -> 1/2000 and auto ISO. ISO varied maybe 100 to 6400.

Going from 2.8 to 5.6 on our foggy day required more ISO, so I dropped the shutter a little. I was surprised that the difference between say 400 and 500 wasn't that dramatic. More for sure, but not like the change from say 100 to 200 (which makes sense as the percentage change is smaller).

Anyway, that is my long ramble for now.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Very nice. I've realized how hard it is to get birds after a few of my own tries.

Longer lenses (like a 500mm) have much less correction. Wider, like a fisheye or my 16mm benefit from it a lot.

I'd guess that lens just doesn't need much, so you don't notice much.