Avocet

[arash_hazeghi]

here is another image of the American Avocet, this bird is different than the last one I posted, it is further into molting and the neck area is getting somewhat pale and dark. light angle is not 100% optimal and some shadows are present, nevertheless I like the color palette in the BG



shot with A9II and 600GM + 2X TC. ISO-1000 f/8 at 1/2500 sec hand held processed in C1P

[Ian McLachlan]

Terrific.Any cropping ?if not far away. Great BG.The greens help reckon as well.

[Aditya Sridhar]

Looks good Arash, but I feel like your other Avocet images were sharper and had more detail. The wing position and colors are great though. I'd be tempted to clone out the imperfections on the wings, but a strong frame nonetheless.

[arash_hazeghi]

Looks good Arash, but I feel like your other Avocet images were sharper and had more detail. The wing position and colors are great though. I'd be tempted to clone out the imperfections on the wings, but a strong frame nonetheless.

Thanks Aditya, they are equally sharp and detailed the molting stage is different which causes differences in the appearance of the bird. the wing does not have an imperfection, it's natural.

[arash_hazeghi]

Terrific.Any cropping ?if not far away. Great BG.The greens help reckon as well.

Thanks Ian, it's about 50% of the original close to MFD.

[gail bisson]

Great frame!
Love the wing position and the slightly incoming angle.
I assume you meant 1/2500 ? and not 1/250.
The BG colors are beautiful and compliment the bird perfectly.
Nice and sharp.
Looks like you are now a Sony boy and with good reason!
Gail
PS Thanks for the link on the Hoodman loupe.

[Joseph Przybyla]

Hi Ari, wonderful flight image. Wing position, techs, and background all look great. I have never seen a image of a Avocet in flight before until your posts. Thank you for sharing.

[David Roach]

Love, love, love the BG and the pose. The eye could use just a little more sharpening and the lighter parts of far wing look smudged (NR?) or maybe just out of the DOF. Love this canvas overall. TFS

[arash_hazeghi]

Great frame!
Love the wing position and the slightly incoming angle.
I assume you meant 1/2500 ? and not 1/250.
The BG colors are beautiful and compliment the bird perfectly.
Nice and sharp.
Looks like you are now a Sony boy and with good reason!
Gail
PS Thanks for the link on the Hoodman loupe.

1/2500sec :bg3:

[John Mack]

Fancy. Nice downstroke pose. Framing and light are both right on. Killer background as well.

[Robert Kimbrell]

Love the frame Arash. The background blends so well the the birds colors. Nice pose and flight path. The far wing looks just a little soft, but a beautiful image.

[arash_hazeghi]

Love the frame Arash. The background blends so well the the birds colors. Nice pose and flight path. The far wing looks just a little soft, but a beautiful image.

thanks Robert, the far wing is obviously outside DOF. you cannot get the far wing sharp in a down stroke BIF unless it is too far away. what matters for BIF is getting the head sharp and if you are lucky the near wing too :w3

best

[Dorian Anderson]

I am familiar how hard it is to get both wing tips in focus, so this is a strong result. The BG looks great, and I like the eye level view. I agree this image isn't quite as sharp as some of your previous, but it's still really nice.

[arash_hazeghi]

I am familiar how hard it is to get both wing tips in focus, so this is a strong result. The BG looks great, and I like the eye level view. I agree this image isn't quite as sharp as some of your previous, but it's still really nice.

Hi Dorian, looking at RAW it is definitely as sharp on my 4K NEC, as I mentioned it must be an illusion from the plumage. As you know I instantly delete files that aren't tack sharp and the Sony AF system appears to immune to getting the kind of soft images Canon does. what a waste of time it was...glad I don't have the deal with it anymore. :D

[Dorian Anderson]

Hi Dorian, looking at RAW it is definitely as sharp on my 4K NEC, as I mentioned it must be an illusion from the plumage. As you know I instantly delete files that aren't tack sharp and the Sony AF system appears to immune to getting the kind of soft images Canon does. what a waste of time it was...glad I don't have the deal with it anymore. :D

You are lucky to have endless funds to deploy on gear. I’m more fortunate than most and still have a only a fraction of your purchase power. Switching systems once - let alone twice in a year - is impossible for me and most others. Until my circumstances change, I’ll be forced to struggle along with the same useless Canon gear I’ve been using for years. It’s depressing to know I’ll never make another decent image........

[arash_hazeghi]

You are lucky to have endless funds to deploy on gear. I’m more fortunate than most and still have a only a fraction of your purchase power. Switching systems once - let alone twice in a year - is impossible for me and most others. Until my circumstances change, I’ll be forced to struggle along with the same useless Canon gear I’ve been using for years. It’s depressing to know I’ll never make another decent image........

I think you got this the wrong way or I may have done a bad job conveying my message.

it’s not about purchasing power or money even a Nikon D500 ($900) plus a 500 PF ($3.5K) gets much better results than the 1DXII when it come to dynamic BIF frames. I think you have way more than that in your gear already ;) You can easily convert your DO to this combo if you wish.

also canon is not useless it does get the shot but definitely needs more tries and misses more when shooting BIF. So you need more time and effort to make up for it

what I wanted you to know is that the SONY’s AF does not really give semi soft images like the canon did. This is just because of the different technology and using the image sensor to focus. It’s either sharp or totally OOF when its AI algo doesn’t recognize the subject. So you don’t really have to deal with those soft files that we often have to sharpen and see if it makes it or not at least not because of focus. Just a side note.

best

[Dorian Anderson]

I think you got this the wrong way or I may have done a bad job conveying my message.

it’s not about purchasing power or money even a Nikon D500 ($900) plus a 500 PF ($3.5K) gets much better results than the 1DXII when it come to dynamic BIF frames. I think you have way more than that in your gear already ;) You can easily convert your DO to this combo if you wish.

also canon is not useless it does get the shot but definitely needs more tries and misses more when shooting BIF. So you need more time and effort to make up for it

what I wanted you to know is that the SONY’s AF does not really give semi soft images like the canon did. This is just because of the different technology and using the image sensor to focus. It’s either sharp or totally OOF when its AI algo doesn’t recognize the subject. So you don’t really have to deal with those soft files that we often have to sharpen and see if it makes it or not at least not because of focus. Just a side note.

best

Thanks for the clarification. It's just difficult because at the instant I achieved my ideal Canon kit (100-400 II, DO II, 600/4 II, 5D4, 1DX2), it became evident Canon was falling behind in the AF department. Birds in flight are a significant part of what I do - thought by no means the only part - so there wasn't the same push to switch to Nikon when you, Salem, Isaac, and Artie did. Plus, I wasn't in a financial position to take a bath on gear then (or now). I figured I would hang onto my current kit while mirrorless was developed and adopt that platform (Canon or other) in 5 years or so. Well, it looks like Sony has brought the mirrorless along faster than I expected, so I don't think it makes sense to start investing in Nikon knowing Sony is now the AF (and TC) leader. I totally understand what you are saying about the Canon AF. If I'm given only a single pass from fast/small subject, I'm not confident I'm going to get the frame I want. Some of that is me, but I know the frustration when I put the AF point right on the bird and the camera still doesn't track it as I'd like.

I am thinking about divesting from some of my Canon gear in the near future, and I would probably hold what funds I raise as cash until I'm ready to make another purchase. The Sony is super attractive to me. Not only is it mirrorless and gives me 20 FPS, but the 2x seems to work wonders. I'm not one of those shooters who drives up to a location and shoots only what's within 100 yards of the car. I do a ton of exploring on foot (and by boat), and the reduced weight would be a huge benefit to me, especially since I never use a tripod (at least outside the tropics). Less weight would also make international travel easier. I'm envious of those who can move between systems, but I have to be VERY careful about it as I am effectively an unemployed writer. Most of my gear was amassed when I had income, and my DX2 was a kind and very-unexpected gift from my wife for my 40th birthday 18 months ago (I'm not sure how she'd feel about me selling it!). So, I kinda need to continue with what I have for the moment, minus what I can start to sell off. The 400 DO II and 5D4 would be the first to go as they get the least use. I do use the 100-400 a lot while I am birding, mostly to document unusual sightings.

All of this is to say that I'm not emotionally-wed to Canon or believe it the best gear on Earth; It's what works financially at this moment while giving me more-than-adequate performance for most of what I do, BIF notably accepted when the other systems are considered. I'm incredibly fortunate to have the kit I do, and I try to spend my time thinking what I can do with it versus what I can't. I just think a bit of perspective needs to be maintained when we're talking about cameras which cost more than many people make in a year. Cheers!

[Jack Backs]

Just stunning. Killer background.

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks for the clarification. It's just difficult because at the instant I achieved my ideal Canon kit (100-400 II, DO II, 600/4 II, 5D4, 1DX2), it became evident Canon was falling behind in the AF department. Birds in flight are a significant part of what I do - thought by no means the only part - so there wasn't the same push to switch to Nikon when you, Salem, Isaac, and Artie did. Plus, I wasn't in a financial position to take a bath on gear then (or now). I figured I would hang onto my current kit while mirrorless was developed and adopt that platform (Canon or other) in 5 years or so. Well, it looks like Sony has brought the mirrorless along faster than I expected, so I don't think it makes sense to start investing in Nikon knowing Sony is now the AF (and TC) leader. I totally understand what you are saying about the Canon AF. If I'm given only a single pass from fast/small subject, I'm not confident I'm going to get the frame I want. Some of that is me, but I know the frustration when I put the AF point right on the bird and the camera still doesn't track it as I'd like.

I am thinking about divesting from some of my Canon gear in the near future, and I would probably hold what funds I raise as cash until I'm ready to make another purchase. The Sony is super attractive to me. Not only is it mirrorless and gives me 20 FPS, but the 2x seems to work wonders. I'm not one of those shooters who drives up to a location and shoots only what's within 100 yards of the car. I do a ton of exploring on foot (and by boat), and the reduced weight would be a huge benefit to me, especially since I never use a tripod (at least outside the tropics). Less weight would also make international travel easier. I'm envious of those who can move between systems, but I have to be VERY careful about it as I am effectively an unemployed writer. Most of my gear was amassed when I had income, and my DX2 was a kind and very-unexpected gift from my wife for my 40th birthday 18 months ago (I'm not sure how she'd feel about me selling it!). So, I kinda need to continue with what I have for the moment, minus what I can start to sell off. The 400 DO II and 5D4 would be the first to go as they get the least use. I do use the 100-400 a lot while I am birding, mostly to document unusual sightings.

All of this is to say that I'm not emotionally-wed to Canon or believe it the best gear on Earth; It's what works financially at this moment while giving me more-than-adequate performance for most of what I do, BIF notably accepted when the other systems are considered. I'm incredibly fortunate to have the kit I do, and I try to spend my time thinking what I can do with it versus what I can't. I just think a bit of perspective needs to be maintained when we're talking about cameras which cost more than many people make in a year. Cheers!

I hear you dude, one the plus side sony A9 is quite a bit cheaper than the pro Canon/Nikon DSLR's plus the 2nd high res body (D850/5D) can be simply swapped by a $500 2X TC so the overall cost of the SONY system is actually lower than either Canon or Nikon. I was thinking if the DO is something you don't use often maybe you can convert it to the Nikon PF just to cover the BIF until Canon comes out with a pro mirrorless (R5 is rumored to be announced soon). the big ticket item is actually the lens and Canon do have the 600 III but it's not an RF lens so I am not sure how it's going to perform with an adaptor and all that. indeed we are forunute to be healthy in this situation and be able to talk about cameras and photography. lucky and appreciative

you gotta keep that 1DXII for a while, haha it's your wedding ring now!

cheers