Less is more (1 Viewer)

Normally bird photographers have the desire to use more millimetres during shooting. When you have a 200 millimetre lens, you want a 400 mm lens; of course with an extender and a body with a crop factor so as to have a good range. Once the 400 mm lens is in your possession, you're already dreaming of a 500 mm lens. The more millimetres the better! I myself reach 1120mm with the combination of 500 mm (lens) x 1.4 (extender) x 1.6 (crop factor of my body).

However, size doesn't necessarily determine quality. Also with few millimetres one can take nice and particularly creative photos...

More on my website: http://www.birdshooting.nl/index.php/en/blog-en/173-less-mm-is-more

Lovely pictures, Chris - but I would argue that the backgrounds are much cleaner with the longer lenses.
I bought a 400mm lens rather than a 500 or 600 to stop myself trying to aim for too much reach - birds way away in the sky, for example. but now I have a x2 Nikon teleconverter which adds value to the pictures when stopped down and in top-quality light (which we don't get much of here in northern England).
I certainly think your low angle pictures are the way to go, too. A real bird's eye view.

Chris van Rijswijk said:

Normally bird photographers have the desire to use more millimetres during shooting. When you have a 200 millimetre lens, you want a 400 mm lens; of course with an extender and a body with a crop factor so as to have a good range. Once the 400 mm lens is in your possession, you're already dreaming of a 500 mm lens. The more millimetres the better! I myself reach 1120mm with the combination of 500 mm (lens) x 1.4 (extender) x 1.6 (crop factor of my body).

However, size doesn't necessarily determine quality. Also with few millimetres one can take nice and particularly creative photos...

More on my website: http://www.birdshooting.nl/index.php/en/blog-en/173-less-mm-is-more

Click to expand...

For some reason Mcafee doesnt want me to look at your site

If you want to fill the frame with your subject there is only one way to do it. You will have to get close enough!

You can use focal length and/or cut down the physical distance to the subject to get there.

Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages and do not always and everywhere work

Even with a long focal length lens (500mm) one will still have to use field craft, i.e. patience and stealth, to get the frame filled as much as possible. Even when boosting focal length with crop factor, stacking converters etc.one will have to keep the distance as short as possible to avoid atmospheric conditions to kill the shot.
So a 10000 mm lens -if there would be one- would not get around the problem of thermal air movement etc. even if the frame is filled from a distance. Neither will it be possible to set up remote cameras or hides in all locations, and then there are species that should be watched and photographed from a safe for them distance!

"If the bird flies away, you were to close" is for me an unacceptable approach or excuse! You missed the shot -or you got the ones you wanted and tried to do even better, but the bird lost valuable energy making its escape -not to mention the stress that started long before it decided to take off. Now multiply that by the number of times that happens during the day with the same or different watchers/photographers and you end up with a seriously disadvantaged or even dead bird.

seaspirit said:

....... and then there are species that should be watched and photographed from a safe for them distance!

"If the bird flies away, you were too close" is for me an unacceptable approach or excuse! You missed the shot -or you got the ones you wanted and tried to do even better, but the bird lost valuable energy making its escape -not to mention the stress that started long before it decided to take off. Now multiply that by the number of times that happens during the day with the same or different watchers/photographers and you end up with a seriously disadvantaged or even dead bird.

Click to expand...

Great Point. Absolutely, to me, ALL species deserve to live their lives unmolested from the ambitions of photographers .... The first priority is to do no harm whatsoever, rather than get the shot. If you you walk away with no shot, then at least you have the satisfaction of not disturbing the species.

One of the most satisfying series of shots I have ever taken was of a couple of kangaroos seeking refuge from the day. It took me 2hrs to meticulously crawl on my belly completely undetected to within 20m or so, take my shots entirely unobtrusively, and then spend another 1&1/2hrs to remove myself entirely with just as much care. The kangaroos never even knew I was there! ) Apart from the great shots, the most satisfying thing by far, was not disturbing them at all, and them being completely unaware of my presence. :t:

Check out my gallery to see the photos .....


Chosun :gh: