Big apertures & small birds

Small birds are some of my favorite subjects. But to fill the frame, you have to get very close. One I took recently was of a flycatcher, at 560mm f/8 and about 3 meters. (crop body)

As probably just about anyone else here, I lust for the fast supertelephotos. With fast-moving subjects, a fast aperture certainly sounds attractive.

But it occurs to me, they might not be all that useful for the tiny guys. (Bear with me, I've never used one)


First, in the previously mentioned conditions, I calculate DoF (with a standard CoC) at 7mm. If I had an f/4 lens I would have been at f/5.6, with a DoF of 5mm, or the thickness of 3 nickels! You can't even have the whole head in focus with that little DoF. So, I wonder if I had such a lens, if I would be forced to stop down all the time anyway. (Optical sharpness would be superb, of course) The one possible mitigation I can think of here is smaller birds will probably be printed smaller, which increases the size of the CoC & therefore perceived DoF in the final print, thus affording the use of big apertures.

Second, I just noticed the MFD of the 400 DO II is 3.3 meters! The rest of the long supertelephotos all have similar max magnification factors, too. Smaller subjects + smaller prints allow cropping, of course. But I find myself thinking of the guy I ran into, visiting a vagrant warbler, who missed all his best shots because the subject came right up to his blind, way inside his MFD!

Of course, there's still plenty of advantages too. The aforementioned optical sharpness. Focusing speed/accuracy. The ability to use 2x TC's and retain AF. The option of sacrificing DoF when you'd otherwise have no shot due to weak light. Option of more background blur, many little birds like dense vegetation and often have busy backgrounds.

A long f/4 lens is not in my near future, but I got to wondering just how useful they actually are for little birds, and hoped to get your comments!

Hi Patrick,

Unfortunately your analysis is wrong on multiple fronts, e.g. incorrect DOF calculation. You can definitely get sharp images with sufficient DOF wide open with a super telephoto lens unless the bird is sitting on your lens which will not happen in the field. Just check the avian forum for samples. Here is an example for you https://ari1982.smugmug.com/Portfoli...ds/i-WXjJ7L2/A

This kind of analysis from behind a computer or on internet forums will usually not get you far. It seems to me what you really need is a workshop with a professional who can teach you how to properly do a setup and photograph small song birds. If you are really interested in this craft I think this is the right path for you. After figuring out your setup, you can then decide what kind of gear works best for you based on the exact details of your setup.

good luck

Hey Patrick, small songbirds are fun aren't they!

I use 700mm (500mm f/4 II + 1.4TC) and I would not want less. I did use the 100-400L successfully for years but the longer reach has helped tremendously.

I think you should simplify your approach in photographing these little guys. You are over-analyzing things IMO. I do not worry about dof for the most part and will photograph at a wide open aperture most of the time (or close to it). Set the ISO for the light I have and only play with the SS if the light varies. The only exceptions are if the perch is thicker and I want it all sharp, or for tight head and shoulder portraits (which is rather rare with songbirds, at least the small ones such as warblers).

Arash is correct that learning setup photography is the way to go. I rarely stay inside the forest to photograph them. I setup in clearings or meadows next to forests. This gives me the benefit of choosing the perch, BG (which will be distant enough to render it blurred even with shorter focal lengths), light angle. Even skulkers that like dense vegetation will often times come out to setups.

All the "fast supertelephoto" lenses allow you to stop down. What's your point? Raise the ISO and stop down, if you must.

I think Patrick is concerned about DOF with super telephoto lenses. However this is simply not an issue because A) even in a setup you are rarely shooting at MFD, in most setups birds are at least 8-10m away and B) Usually the attractive shots are the frames with the bird parallel to the back of the camera so even if the DOF is narrow most of the bird will be sharp and C) Viewer's eyes are usually drawn to the birds head/eye so as long as the critical focus is right on this spot the image will look sharp enough and appealing to most viewers

of course there are exceptions to all of the above but on average DOF is not an issue.

Great reasons Arash, I'll buy all those. Thanks.

David, speaking generally I am learning to get enough light (to keep fast SS & low noise). Part of my learning has been looking at examples, and sometimes I'm amazed at how much light you guys are able to harvest. I was wondering if big apertures are routinely part of that equation- or if you have to stop down often, e.g. to keep sufficient DoF. It sounds like DoF isn't a big challenge though, unlike other disciplines like macro & landscape.

Daniel, thanks! I appreciate the input. I probably am over-complicating, I'm an engineer and I'm naturally drawn to the math in photography. I confess I've been deriving LVs for many of the photos here, in hopes of measuring the light you guys shoot in :bg3: It actually has been a little helpful, it proves to me that the experienced folks are able to "find" several stops more light than I.

Hi Patrick,

I am also an engineer/device research scientist by day. In the past I used to work on developing image sensor technologies when it was still a hot topic. Having 10+ years of experience in both photography and heavy R&D in related fields under my belt, I can tell you there is little correlation between what seems to be engineering-style analysis and actual field photography. The reason behind this is that field photography is not a controlled experiment. There are just too many factors that complicate the practical photography beyond the simplified analysis one can think about. Your DOF calculation above is one example that could be misleading you. Field experience usually trumps all kinds of analysis one can think about. So the best and the only way to find the best approach for photographing a particular subject is to rely on the proven methods used by folks skilled in this art as your starting point and then evolve your technique as you gain more practical experience.

hope this helps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

Field experience usually trumps all kinds of analysis one can think about. So the best and the only way to find the best approach for photographing a particular subject is to rely on the proven methods used by folks skilled in this art as your starting point and then evolve your technique as you gain more practical experience.

---

Right, that's why I was asking :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Shyvers

Great reasons Arash, I'll buy all those. Thanks.

David, speaking generally I am learning to get enough light (to keep fast SS & low noise). Part of my learning has been looking at examples, and sometimes I'm amazed at how much light you guys are able to harvest. I was wondering if big apertures are routinely part of that equation- or if you have to stop down often, e.g. to keep sufficient DoF. It sounds like DoF isn't a big challenge though, unlike other disciplines like macro & landscape.
.

---

I don't know your equipment Patrick, but perhaps you're too concerned about ISO and noise. Particularly in good light, most cameras have pretty stunning performance at ISO 800, which will give you potential for both small aperture and high SS. I run into people rather frequently, trying to shoot birds at ISOs down at 100 and 200, when they have a camera that yields excellent results at ISO 800 and higher.

David, I shoot a 7DII & 100-400 II. I'm not afraid to go above base ISO, but many of my shots are around f/8, ISO 6400, 1/250-1/500s, and I have also come to learn I need to keep my SS higher still, where possible.

To be clear I am not thinking, "aha a supertelephoto will fix this"- that's 1 stop, and I would need 5 stops to get to ISO 800, 1/1000s.

I recently learned that front lighting is ~1 stop brighter than side lighting. (That wasn't obvious to my eyes, the lying tricksters) As Arash points out, simply following the wisdom of "point your shadow at your subject" would have fixed this.

I hadn't touched setup photography yet, but I am going to try to learn.

Thanks again.

Arash, I will try to avoid too much engineering-style analysis :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Shyvers

David, I shoot a 7DII & 100-400 II. I'm not afraid to go above base ISO, but many of my shots are around f/8, ISO 6400, 1/250-1/500s, and I have also come to learn I need to keep my SS higher still, where possible.

To be clear I am not thinking, "aha a supertelephoto will fix this"- that's 1 stop, and I would need 5 stops to get to ISO 800, 1/1000s.

I recently learned that front lighting is ~1 stop brighter than side lighting. (That wasn't obvious to my eyes, the lying tricksters) As Arash points out, simply following the wisdom of "point your shadow at your subject" would have fixed this.

---

I also shoot the 7D MkII and find it to have excellent IQ at ISO 800 and very good IQ at ISO 1600. I use ISO 6400, but only for "documenting" a find. Of course, if I coyote leaped 5-feet in the air to snatch a pheasant cock from midair at twilight, I'd proudly keep that and show it off as something you don't see so often. Generally, however, going above ISO 1600 is where the deterioration get unacceptable, even with competent NR.

well, with the 7DII and shooting at 1/250-500, f8, and ISO-6400, you have very little chance of getting images that would be considered "high quality" IMO. Not sure what is the shooting conditions. The number one skill that I have learned is to get close to birds in favorable light. I think many people who are new to this hobby (myself included in the early years) tend to ignore the field craft and just want to get the "best" gear. They tend to think that if only they can get the 600f4 II or the 1DX, they would get that shot. Getting good bird image at ISO-6400 requires a lot more skills than most people have. I know my limit and rarely shoot above ISO-3200 even with the 1DX. I have seen images posted on the internet and at this forum at ISO-6400 and 7D2, but i have never got anywhere close to such images.

Yes, ISO 6400 isn't that great! Even if my shots aren't great yet, it at least "documents" cool birds as David mentions, and lets me practice other skills like fast tracking & focus acquisition on difficult targets (redstarts come to mind)

I do OK at getting close to birds, that's actually one of my favorite parts. But what I think I need to focus on now is favorable light. I know that fancier gear won't solve my problems there.

Actually, on the subject of improving, can anyone suggest a resource to learn proven methods for advancing my handholding? E.g. drills or muscle groups to develop. Or is that one I can only work on through field experience. I haven't found much info on handholding beyond the fundamentals- elbows against ribs, viewfinder against eyebrow, stable stance, left hand under lens, be gentle with shutter button, and hold your breath between shots. Maybe it's unrealistic to hope I could learn to shoot tack sharp at lower shutter speeds, but it seems like an extremely valuable skill, worth a lot of effort investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Shyvers

Actually, on the subject of improving, can anyone suggest a resource to learn proven methods for advancing my handholding? E.g. drills or muscle groups to develop. Or is that one I can only work on through field experience. I haven't found much info on handholding beyond the fundamentals- elbows against ribs, viewfinder against eyebrow, stable stance, left hand under lens, be gentle with shutter button, and hold your breath between shots. Maybe it's unrealistic to hope I could learn to shoot tack sharp at lower shutter speeds, but it seems like an extremely valuable skill, worth a lot of effort investment.

---

I shoot 99.9% of my shots hand held, usually with a 500mm on my 7D2, with and without TCs. I'm 68, but have a linebacker build and was forced by couches, as a youth, to do lots of weight lifting. Also, I spent several summers as a roofer, shoveling thousands of pounds of gravel over the course of each summer. I did no training, other than using the lens. However, I've spoken to men and women using lenses like yours and mine hand held and I've yet to find anyone that did any off-camera exercise. I know a woman that routinely shoots with a 1D4/500mm combination hand held and she tells other women to just start doing it and concentrate on getting better. If you do it regularly, you'll get stronger fast.

Practice on things like the moon and slow moving birds. Let your elbows free when they need to shoot above shoulder level. The 100-400/II is a great lens with a very effective IS. Just be aware and still try to keep your SS up over 1/1000-sec., when possible. Still, the IS is so good that you can go really low for a stationary subject. I have a sharp picture of the moon that I took hand held, with a 500/f4-II, a 2.0x TC-III at 1/40-sec. When I did that, I'd taken over 100,000 hand held, super-tele images. I routinely shoot the moon with a 1000mm set up at ISO 800, f/8 and 1/800-sec.

Here's one from March at 700mm:

https://c6.staticflickr.com/2/1447/2...606d8f1e_b.jpgWaxing Gibbous Moon by David Stephens, on Flickr