Optimal Aperture for Birds in Flight - Time to reconsider Shooting wide open?

[Henry Domke]

Many expert bird photographers shoot birds in flight with their aperture set wide-open 95% of the time. Why?

Historically shooting wide open allowed you use shutter speeds that would reduce motion blur on the subject. With today’s cameras the ISO can be safely dialed up to let you pick shutter speeds 1/2500 and higher.

Many photographers are uncomfortable with higher ISO setting since they don’t want the added noise and reduced dynamic range that are associated with higher ISO settings. However, cameras such as the 1DX can easily shoot at ISO 3200 without meaningful image degradation. That assumes that you are shooting RAW and that you’re using the latest software to process the images.

Long lens have a very shallow depth of focus. Using a 600mm f4 lens with a 1.4 teleconverter (840mm) wide open (f/5.6) the depth-of-focus is about 4-inches when shooting a bird 50-feet away. Increasing the aperture to f/10 doubles the depth-of-focus to about 8-inches. *

It seems to me that by doubling the depth-of-focus you should have more “keepers”; by that I mean the number of times that they eye of the bird is tack sharp. In addition other important parts of the bird such as the beak are more likely to look good.

Another benefit of shooting wide open is the blurred background; the bokeh. However, when using super telephotos, the background is still nicely blurred at f/10. James Shadle documented this well in the thread “How Aperture Selection Affects DOF and Background” http://bit.ly/1f9DlIp

Some lenses need to be stopped down 1 or 2 f-stops for optimal sharpness. That is not to be the case with the super telephotos. However, neither do you loose anything up by stopping down. Bryan Carnathan writes in his review of the Canon 600 f/4 II: “Stopping down to narrower apertures makes very little difference in resulting image quality - other than some vignetting clearing in the corners.” http://bit.ly/1btisHF

Isn’t it time to reconsider shooting wide open all the time for BIF?

*Note: I used the DOFMaster App on my iPhone to determine depth of focus. They don’t have 840mm as focal length choice so I picked 800mm.

[arash_hazeghi]

your assumptions are not exactly correct, you seldom shoot flight at 50 ft. with a 600m lens, at that distance it is not only hard to track but you will clip the wings for most birds.

For typical flight distance DOF is not a limiting factor, plus you only need to get the head sharp. changing aperture will hardly affect your keeper ratio.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Henry, The factor that you are missing is the camera to subject distance. The farther the subject is from the camera the greater the depth-of-field at a given aperture. Let's take a look at d-o-f with a full frame camera like the 1D X, a 1.4X TC, and the 600 f/4L IS II, a combination that I use frequently, most recently at Bosque del Apache NWR. At a distance of 80 feet, reasonable for a goose or a crane, d-o-f at f/5.6 is 1 foot, 50% in front and 50% behind the point of focus. At f/8 with everything else the same, the total d-o-f is 1.42 feet. So the gain in d-o-f from f/5.6 to f/8 is a small one. My gut feeling and I am pretty sure that Arash feels the same way is that numbers aside you will have plenty of d-o-f for flight when working wide open. That said I do work at f/7.1 or f/8 (or f/9 or f/10 with the 2X TC) when doing flight and when I have enough light.

You can plug in your own gear and your own numbers here (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html).

It will be interesting to see what others have to say.

[arash_hazeghi]

I agree with Artie. I never had a missed flight shot because of DOF. I only stop down when shooting perched birds that are closer than my lens's long focus range I.e. closer than 16m ~50 ft.

[Bill Jobes]

Another factor to consider is the impact of F/stop on the lens and camera's ability to autofocus.

Is my assumption correct that more light hitting the AF sensor results in more in-focus keepers ?

I have always tended to shoot wide open, which is F/8 on a 600mm F/4 lens with a 2X converter.

Some lens/body combinations do not perform AF well stopped down below F/8.

[Jim Neiger]

Henry,

Here is an excerpt from my e-book "Flight Plan - How to Photograph Birds in Flight"

Aperture setting
The aperture setting, in addition to being one of the exposure controls, also controls depth-of-field. Most of the time when photographing birds, you want enough depth of field to render the important part or parts of the subject sharp. You may wish to try and render only the head in sharp focus or you may wish to render the entire bird in sharp focus.

Sometimes, there are situations that require more depth-of-field than your lens will deliver wide open, that is, at its largest aperture. This may occur when the subject is at close range, when the subject is very large in the frame, or when there are two or more subjects not on the same plane. These situations may require you to use a smaller aperture, that is, to stop down, in order to have enough depth-of-field to cover the bird or birds.

Another factor is the camera's crop factor. If you compare images from a camera with built-in crop magnification to images from a full frame camera with the same field of view, the crop camera will have greater depth of field.

Here are some general, rule-of-thumb aperture setting recommendations for rendering the entire bird relatively sharp when it occupies about 50% of the frame.


<tbody>
Camera's crop factor

Minimum aperture



1.6 crop camera:

F5.6




1.5 crop camera:

F5.6




1.3 crop camera:

F7.1




Full frame camera:


F8



</tbody>

[Jim Neiger]

Another factor to consider is the impact of F/stop on the lens and camera's ability to autofocus.

Is my assumption correct that more light hitting the AF sensor results in more in-focus keepers ?

I have always tended to shoot wide open, which is F/8 on a 600mm F/4 lens with a 2X converter.

Some lens/body combinations do not perform AF well stopped down below F/8.

Bill,

The aperture is wide open during tracking and focusing. It is only closed down during the actual exposure of the image.

[arash_hazeghi]

Another factor to consider is the impact of F/stop on the lens and camera's ability to autofocus.

Is my assumption correct that more light hitting the AF sensor results in more in-focus keepers ?

I have always tended to shoot wide open, which is F/8 on a 600mm F/4 lens with a 2X converter.

Some lens/body combinations do not perform AF well stopped down below F/8.

No Bill, regardless of chosen aperture camera always focuses wide open. The aperture only closes to the selected value when the shutter opens.

[Henry Domke]

...you seldom shoot flight at 50 ft. with a 600m lens, at that distance it is not only hard to track but you will clip the wings for most birds.
Arash, eventually I hope to have more songbird pictures; both in flight and perched. I am particularly interested in warblers.
I would assume that those pictures would be much closer than 50-feet.

However, practically speaking you don't get pictures of songbirds in flight unless you use elaborate set-ups. I like the idea of "wandering around" in the right habitat to find my subjects.

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, eventually I hope to have more songbird pictures; both in flight and perched. I am particularly interested in warblers.
I would assume that those pictures would be much closer than 50-feet.

However, practically speaking you don't get pictures of songbirds in flight unless you use elaborate set-ups. I like the idea of "wandering around" in the right habitat to find my subjects.

Hi Henry,

That's quite a different subject.

Song birds in flight at close range is a very difficult subject with a 600mm, it is possible but it will need many tries to get one frame sharp. You will probably be fine with DOF as most song birds are tiny, your main challenge would be to center the bird in the finder and lock focus on it in time. Song birds typically don't hover so it makes it extra difficult

For that kind of subject your best bet is to setup a perch, use a short lens and just prefocus on the perch where the bird lands or takes off, or use focus trap technique. Take a look at Alan Murphy's excellent work. I think he uses a 85mm lens to get those great song bird flight shots. I think he explains his song bird technique in his guide/news letter.

Good luck

[Henry Domke]

...the gain in d-o-f from f/5.6 to f/8 is a small one...
The d-o-f at 80-feet is (as you said) 1-foot, but at f/10 it is 75% more (1.78-feet). That's not small!

At f/10 more of the bird would be in focus. Isn't that desirable? Aren't there times when you end up focusing on the wing and that throws the eye out-of-focus?

However, I don't have much experience at this and you and Arash and others do. What I'm hearing is that you just don't gain much going beyond f/5.6 in most circumstances. That helps! I'm just trying to understand the pros and cons of shooting wide open.

[Henry Domke]

Jim - Thanks for reminding me that your rule-of-thumb suggestion is to use an aperture setting of f/8 for a full frame camera when your subject fills half of the frame. I was just wondering what the pros and cons of using higher apertures might be.


I should mention that your eBook "Flight Plan - How to Photograph Birds in Flight" has been a great resource. Among other things your book let me know in practical terms how and why to hand hold super telephoto lenses for birds in flight. That has been a revelation!


I also found Arash Hazeghi's "Canon EOS AF Guide for avian in flight photography" to be tremendously helpful in explaining the nuances of the remarkably complex issues involved with auto-focus on the newer Canon cameras. That book (especially table 2.1) helped me understand the benefit of using a 1DX. Now after using the 1DX for a week I can see what he was talking about.


Lastly, Artie Morris's "EOS-1D X Autofocus Guide" helped me set up all the custom menus and buttons on the 1DX that I borrowed this week. Without it I don't think I would have been giving the camera a fair test.

[Bill Jobes]

Thanks Jim. That clarifies my mis-understanding.


Bill,

The aperture is wide open during tracking and focusing. It is only closed down during the actual exposure of the image.

[Bill Jobes]

Thanks, Arash. I mis-understood the mechanics of it all.


No Bill, regardless of chosen aperture camera always focuses wide open. The aperture only closes to the selected value when the shutter opens.

[Roman Kurywczak]

What is missed in this whole conversation is the benefit of zoom lenses. i think farming (aka large crops) have a place in photography with the new magapixel cameras'......but I am an old school film shooter and don't want to "farm" or rebuild wing tips......so I use a zoom lens to achieve these results. No camera or lens will make you a better photographer.....but you should ask how much of a crop it is and what the settings were.....then...listen. this has always been my stance with zoom lenses.

[Jim Neiger]

What is missed in this whole conversation is the benefit of zoom lenses. i think farming (aka large crops) have a place in photography with the new magapixel cameras'......but I am an old school film shooter and don't want to "farm" or rebuild wing tips......so I use a zoom lens to achieve these results. No camera or lens will make you a better photographer.....but you should ask how much of a crop it is and what the settings were.....then...listen. this has always been my stance with zoom lenses.

Non of the quality zooms have enough focal length for me. If I need to crop when shooting a 600mm with or without TCs a zoom won't help. It would be nice when subjects get very close though. I own a 100-400mm and almost never use it.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Jim,
I've had my Sigma 300-800mm almost 8 years and have great results. Sigma has even made 30x40 light-box prints for the NY photo expo.....no one said they weren't sharp. Is the Canon 600mm sharper.....no doubt as it is a prime and I hope so for $5,000 more. You also only have 600mm and 840mm in that lens......I cover it all except for 40mm extra reach you have.

You should look at the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8.....you'll never use the 100-400mm again.

[Gary Kinard]

Interesting discussion. So many people think BIF is difficult? IMO it is the easiest type of bird photography. Except small birds. These big raptors are slow, DOF is not a concern. I just don't get it at all. I tried it once and it was so boring compared to small bird photography. The only ingredient is the camera and lens. I shot maybe 1000 pics of raptors in one day and I finally just stopped and went home bored. All in focus and no problem. In all backgrounds you could imagine.

People tend to think to much and read to much into it. Either not trying it or giving up.

Personally when I see a BIF at this point, if it is with a camera other than a 1D series or Nikon equivalent, and a newer super telephoto lens I look and send a comment. Very talented individual indeed. If with the newer equipment I am not impressed at all.

With the new equipment that these company's are putting out. Any one, and I mean any one can do this with no problem.

More important at this stage is Post processing. Taking the pics is a snap.

[Roman Kurywczak]

That's funny Gary! We share a somewhat similar philosophy.....but if your last two sentences are true.....then where are your images to back up the statement? I have and see many small bird images from Texas on a stick......and even here in NJ....so if BIF is so "easy".....where are your images to back it up? I personally think landscape photography is harder and I have all the genre's of photography......but we have been down this path before here. If you are going to make a definitive statement such as easy....then your images should back it up.....just sayin'.

[Gary Kinard]

I didn't make a blanket statement. I put my flickr site down. Got a few pics there. I shoot a few raptors. But like the smaller birds.
Am heading back at the end of January. If any around I will shoot a few hundred shots and send them to you.. LOL Just not my thing. Bores me to tears.
Just saying!

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos
www.birdsthatfart.com

[Arthur Morris]

Interesting discussion. So many people think BIF is difficult? IMO it is the easiest type of bird photography. Except small birds. These big raptors are slow, DOF is not a concern. I just don't get it at all. I tried it once and it was so boring compared to small bird photography. The only ingredient is the camera and lens. I shot maybe 1000 pics of raptors in one day and I finally just stopped and went home bored. All in focus and no problem. In all backgrounds you could imagine.

People tend to think to much and read to much into it. Either not trying it or giving up.

Personally when I see a BIF at this point, if it is with a camera other than a 1D series or Nikon equivalent, and a newer super telephoto lens I look and send a comment. Very talented individual indeed. If with the newer equipment I am not impressed at all.

With the new equipment that these company's are putting out. Any one, and I mean any one can do this with no problem.

More important at this stage is Post processing. Taking the pics is a snap.

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos)
www.birdsthatfart.com (http://www.birdsthatfart.com)

Gary. Even though sharp well exposed flight images are a dime a dozen, there are many who find creating even those a great challenge and rightfully so in my book. The trick is to realize that a lot more than sharp and well exposed to creating a great flight image; the major factors involved include the quality and direction of the light, the background, and most importantly the wing position and pose. On average I delete probably 97 out of every sharp, well exposed flight images. The very best folks are able to maximize their percentage of great flight images by pressing the shutter speed only when the bird is in the ideal photographic zone, Not to mention that strength, stamina, and superior hand-eye coordination are needed in addition to the right gear....

[Gary Kinard]

I agree with that. As usual great advice. I am heading back to the raptor site next month, and will give it another shot. I just started BIF when I got the 1D, and only went out one time. I deleted a 32 Gb card full, went out one afternoon about 4.00. It was so easy I just gave it the short shirt. Even blogged about it.

Most of my shooting is usually very poor lighting. I will head out next month and stay a month or so and see how it goes at the raptor site here in Thailand. If I think I am wrong I will definitely come back and say so.

Cheers, Gary

[Arthur Morris]

Wrong about what?

[Gary Kinard]

The OP is asking why do you use the setting you use for BIF and is it time to reconsider the settings? He went on to explain what he thought was a good case. For changing the way you shoot BIF?

After using the new equipment and trying it for a few months which include some BIF shots. It is not important what the settings are, within reason IMO. Looking at it as a technical only point of view. The new equipment has taken the technical skill out of photography IMO. As far as getting a sharp shot goes.

For me, it has also taken the thrill out of looking at a beautiful BIF photo. If taken with the new equipment, it kills if for me. Those days of the great shots are over. Even beginners like me can take sharp shots. Maybe not perfect science wise. Maybe not publication wise. But sharp, with very little skill.

Wrong? I think it was a technical question not a science or knowing when and how to photograph the bird for the perfect pose. You are really into the perfect pose, for the perfect looking shot. Not me, I like looking at the equipment being used and by how difficult it must of been.

I'll get killed for this but, I liked your older stuff better. I even like the new blured shots... LOL
I am personally considering down grading to a very basic screw AF lens and basic camera just for fun. I thought the new stuff would satisfy me but it has done just the opposite. Crazy i know. I know allot of guys over here that use MF with older lenses that just blow me away. Especially the retired Japanese people. What a informed and technically savvy crowd. And not because they do not have the money to buy the new stuff. I am kinda going in that direction...

Cheers, Gary

[Arthur Morris]

HI Gary, Here is why you are wrong: I've looked at your Flickr images. Not many flight shots, and nothing that I would call beautiful; and certainly nothing close to being a great flight image. Sharp? Yes. Otherwise it seems that you did not read or understand what I wrote in Pane #21.

Have you seen the flight images here by Arash Hazeghi and the other skilled flight shooters?

You are of course free to photograph what you want to, and I saw many new and different birds on your site, including several quite beautiful ones and more than a few excellent images.

[Gary Kinard]

Sorry Authur, IMO you are wrong. I went out and shot a few shots this week. Just to make sure I was not going senile in my old age. Shooting these big raptors is a cake walk. Whether beautiful or publication worthy ( who cares ). It takes no technical skills to get these pics of big birds flying.
I am back to my original conclusion after trying it again. The only thing that matters at this point is post processing.

Arash takes some beautiful pics for sure. But with the equipment he uses it is a shoe in.

Post processing is the number one problem in amateur photography IMO.
Actually after trying it one more time this week. I will go one step farther and say. There is no way a professional photographer can keep up with the current retiring bird photographer. Too many strikes against you guys.

Just my opinion but after I tried it again I am more convinced than ever.

Cheers, Gary

[Arthur Morris]

Sorry Authur, IMO you are wrong. I went out and shot a few shots this week. Just to make sure I was not going senile in my old age. Shooting these big raptors is a cake walk. Whether beautiful or publication worthy ( who cares ). It takes no technical skills to get these pics of big birds flying.
I am back to my original conclusion after trying it again. The only thing that matters at this point is post processing.

Arash takes some beautiful pics for sure. But with the equipment he uses it is a shoe in.

Post processing is the number one problem in amateur photography IMO.
Actually after trying it one more time this week. I will go one step farther and say. There is no way a professional photographer can keep up with the current retiring bird photographer. Too many strikes against you guys.

Just my opinion but after I tried it again I am more convinced than ever.

Cheers, Gary

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos)
www.birdsthatfart.com (http://www.birdsthatfart.com)

Gary, you are of course entitled to believe what you want but it would be nice if you actually read what I wrote about making greatflight images not being easy no matter the gear. Again, as I said, you are right, getting sharp images of birds in flight is relatively easy with today's gear. It's getting great images that is difficult. If you have one great one I invite you to post it here. And no matter the gear, making great flight images is never a shoo in. (Note: no size 10 /12 wide here.)

And taking it one steop further, I have no idea in the world what this means " There is no way a professional photographer can keep up with the current retiring bird photographer."

[Arthur Morris]

Non of the quality zooms have enough focal length for me. If I need to crop when shooting a 600mm with or without TCs a zoom won't help. It would be nice when subjects get very close though. I own a 100-400mm and almost never use it.

Hey Jim, In some situations the Canon 200-400 can be amazing for flight. Being able to add the TC with the flick of a lever for 280-560 and the ability to zoom easily in or out as needed is a huge plus. All when the birds are close of course.

[Jonathan Ashton]

An interesting thread, going back to the original pane Henry, I would suggest one factor to remember is magnification and in a way I think this is similar to what him Neiger was talking about.

The DOF is related to magnification, this is constant regardless of lens focal length. In other words FOR A GIVEN APERTURE if you have a large bird 2/3 filling the frame with a 600mm or 300mm lens or a small bird 2/3 filling the frame with either lens the DOF will be the same, the distance will of course vary but if the size is the same the magnification will be the same.

I have just been reflecting on BIF images as I am returning to The Gambia at the end of January and hope to get many flight shots there and I have been looking at my previous images and f5.6 with a 500mm lens with a 7D looks like a reasonable starting point. Does this help? http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/116837

[Arthur Morris]

To simplify what Jon said, "If the size of the subject in the frame is the same, the depth of field at a given aperture is identical regardless of the focal length. The longer the focal length the narrower the angle of view.... This generally leads to cleaner looking backgrounds that folks usually attribute to a smaller d-o-f....

[Gary Kinard]

Gary, you are of course entitled to believe what you want but it would be nice if you actually read what I wrote about making greatflight images not being easy no matter the gear. Again, as I said, you are right, getting sharp images of birds in flight is relatively easy with today's gear. It's getting great images that is difficult. If you have one great one I invite you to post it here. And no matter the gear, making great flight images is never a shoo in. (Note: no size 10 /12 wide here.)

And taking it one steop further, I have no idea in the world what this means " There is no way a professional photographer can keep up with the current retiring bird photographer."

Sorry Authur, I rarely come to this site. I stay so busy playing with these birds and cameras, I forget about these posts.
No big deal man. I did read what you wrote. And I have a different view. No sweat.

Have a good one, Gary

www.birdsthatfart.com
www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos