Bird size in the frame??

[shane shacaluga]

At the moment I am having a few problems with my bird in flight shots mainly due to loss of IQ from heavy cropping.

I would like to know how big in the frame you want the bird to be to ensure good quality. Is there a rule, e.g. if the bird does not cover a quarter of the frame its too far, or something similar?

Maybe by posting a few originals plus the final shot as posted here would be good for me to get an idea.

I am beginning to realise that a lot of shots I am making are not even worth taking, as a big crop is going to be required and I will end up even more frustrated when I try to process it.

Thanks for your help

[Daniel Cadieux]

Hard to put a percentage because it depends on what you want to depict and how you want to depict it, but a general rule I'd say is that if your main reason for cropping is to get the bird bigger in the frame then it is too small to begin with or you do not have enough focal length. I strive to crop only to help the composition...

I am beginning to realise that a lot of shots I am making are not even worth taking, as a big crop is going to be required and I will end up even more frustrated when I try to process it.

That line you wrote is an important one and comes with experience. At first I used to pull the trigger on lots of what I thought were "OK but not great opportunities", but soon realized how disappointing it was most of time when reviewing the images on my computer.

[John Chardine]

Hi Shane- It sounds like you are making the natural progression wildlife photographers make- deciding when to press the shutter button and realising it's sometimes not worth it.

In my opinion, I don't think there's a hard and fast answer to your question. Some bodies take a crop much better than others and I think this is improving with technology. It's all about how many pixels you have on subject and the quality of those pixels. You can lay more pixels over your subject by using getting closer, using a longer lens, or using a body with a higher count of good quality pixels. Of all these, I don't think there is a substitute for getting close to your subject, of course with the caveat of not getting too close that you cause disturbance. My experience in Mediterranean countries is that getting close can be quite a challenge, so next would be to use a long lens.

Over the time I've owned my Canon 1D mark IV I have been quite impressed with its ability to hold a crop. I'll try to find an example and post later.

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks Daniel. I wish for that too. At the moment to be able to do that I need some more reach.

I know a lot of comments are made about getting closer to the subject, but these migrating raptors dont generally fly that low and they dont stop at all.

Drove my car to the top of a mountain yesterday, spent all morning waiting and when they started passing, the sun was right over us so got a lot of backlit birds!! LOL

They passed quite close so going again in a few days

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks John, I think our messages crossed paths. As mentioned, at the moment I am shooting migratory raptors and you either stand in their flight path (determined by the wind) or you dont have a chance

I will do my best with the tools I have now but will try and upgrade to a longer lens soon

;)

[John Chardine]

That's a tough subject Shane. As I am sure you are aware, migrating raptors don't move unless the conditions are right and they tend to be once the day has warmed a bit and the thermals are there for them to take advantage of. This can mean a bad sun angle and harsh light. Not sure if this is what you see in your area.

[shane shacaluga]

Thats exactly what I see, also now when its too cloudy and the birds cannot see mainland europe from morocco they hold until there is a break in the clouds. then they all leg it!!

I have managed a lot of shots like this one

its taken from my facebook but so you get an idea of heavily backlit birds

[Sam Maggio]

I try to get the subject to fill at least half the frame, then when I crop in the image is still pretty good. Anything less than half your Rollin' the dice....;)

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks a lot for the comments. I am beginning to realise this and not taking some shots has made me a happier person

no more downloading the shots to my PC to be brutally disappointed :D

[Dan Brown]

Get as many pixels on the bird as possible, either with a bigger lens, more mpx (D800?) or by getting closer. I mention the Nikon D800, at 36mpx, it is a different animal as you can get away with larger crops but you still will want to get as many pixels on the bird as possible to take advantage of what the camera can do. I am keeping captures that I never would have with the smaller mpx bodies, particularly if they are of subjects not photographed before. This makes editing a little different for me, as I have to think about the crop potential.

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks

Would you consider the D800 to have a better crop potential than a D7000?

I thought pixels were the same size but I guess the sensor makes large crops more useable as there would be less noise and grain.

please confirm if this is the case

[Dan Brown]

Thanks

Would you consider the D800 to have a better crop potential than a D7000?

I thought pixels were the same size but I guess the sensor makes large crops more useable as there would be less noise and grain.

please confirm if this is the case

I can't speak for the D7000 and noise, crop etc, but the D800 files (exposed to the right) hold up to an amazing crop %!! I think you are right though, the D7000 would have the same pixel per square area as the D800

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks. I may be getting a D800 soon unless nikon surprises with the D300 replacement. The 500 f4 will come a bit later.

[Dan Brown]

Thanks. I may be getting a D800 soon unless nikon surprises with the D300 replacement. The 500 f4 will come a bit later.

Have you considered the new D7100?

[shane shacaluga]

I have considered it too. Not sure if it will handle high iso as nicely as the D800 though

[John Chardine]

Shane- When I think of "high-ISO" I think of 3200 and up. Do your really think you will need that?

There should be some RAW images from the cameras you are looking at available on the web, including the D7100 (dpreview.com?) which you can download and decide for yourself.

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks John. The issue is that i dont really trust those images. Could have been manipulated or be using the in camera nr

as to whether i will need iso 3200, well it would increase the my ability to get a good shot early morning or late evening when i am most usually out in the field. Or let me get high shutter speeds with a higher fstop when using a teleconvertor. I also want the camera to handle shadows better than the D7000 as i find i get loads if grain when i try and recover areas in shadow especially dark underwings.

i would also rather upgrade to something a lot better not just a little bit better than my current body.

Thanks for your help ;)