North East London yesterday an Accip. flyby? (1 Viewer)

[KenM]

Noted two Buzzards yesterday soaring high in non-concentric circles (opposing), looked at the right hand bird it was a slightly tatty individual.
I then looked at the second bird, as I was hoping to see a pale morph variant that I’d seen same place on Saturday last,(1st image).
However looking at the other bird, I noted it was slightly smaller, alarm bells rang I thought Peregrine before realising it was an Accip!
As is invariably the case, the images aren’t perfect.
So what do my playmates think…😮

 

[PYRTLE]

I think you'll get grief for posting poor boc images, the Ken display season has started for 2024 to start with. However, the left hand bird is a Buzzard whilst the right is as you say, an Accipiter species inviting identification comments, hopefully the larger of our two native species, as it looks large* and silvery grey.

* Single birds notoriously difficult to judge size! Who said that?

 

[Alexander Stöhr]

Hello Ken,
do you have more pictures of the Accipiter?

Like presumably you (who saw the bird in the field) and Pat, I get a Goshawk vibe.

Important caveat: I learned from recent threads here, that I based my IDs in the field mainly on jizz, structure (and flight style). And skipped/didnt pay enough attention in plumage details. Thanks for that you know and time to look Sparrowhawks and Goshawks again more closely.

 

[MacNara]

Noted two Buzzards yesterday soaring high in non-concentric circles (opposing), looked at the right hand bird it was a slightly tatty individual.
I then looked at the second bird, as I was hoping to see a pale morph variant that I’d seen same place on Saturday last,(1st image).
However looking at the other bird, I noted it was slightly smaller, alarm bells rang I thought Peregrine before realising it was an Accip!
As is invariably the case, the images aren’t perfect.
So what do my playmates think…😮

Since one photo was 'Saturday (1st image)' and one was 'Yesterday' would it really be so much trouble to actually show the full images rather than these miniatures?

I used to think that You KenM were just sad, but now I think you are deliberately trolling again and again. You already knew what these birds were before you posted. Why did you start this thread?

I don't think you have any 'playmates' here. Anyway you have one less now.

 

[KenM]

Since one photo was 'Saturday (1st image)' and one was 'Yesterday' would it really be so much trouble to actually show the full images rather than these miniatures?


These are the full images!


1st. bird is a pale morph Common Buzzard wished the image could have been better.

2nd.image is just that, with the “encounter described”.

Sorry you’ve had a bad day!😩

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

as it looks.......silvery grey.

I'm not so sure the colours and patterns in the picture reflect what Ken actually saw, Ken would be able to confirm I'd have thought.

'Looks like it's just me but I get the impression of a smaller, compact bird with a short neck, i.e. Sparrowhawk.

One of the identifying features is that a Sparrowhawk has what looks like a narrower, pinched base to the tail, which you don't see in Ken's bird; but I've just been looking at various pictures of Sparrowhawks and you don't see it in some of them either.

Other features, e.g. bulging secondaries in Goshawks, a more or less evenly heavy body in Goshawks; I don't think you (general you) can tell from Ken's picture.

It looks to me that in Ken's bird there is more of a curve from chest to bill that is more typical of a Sparrowhawk with its deep chest.

'Will be interesting to hear what the experts have to say.

 

[kb57]

If you don't have a laptop or desktop, buy an SD card to lightning reader for your phone. If you shoot in RAW, use a program like Snapseed to convert the images. Then upload to BF - it accepts much higher resolution images than it used to.
I don't know about Android phones, but I'm sure a similar process applies.

 

[Bismarck Honeyeater]

I am confused.

The Buzzard photo said to be taken locally on Saturday is numbered 4529
The Accipter photo, stated as being taken locally yesterday is numbered 3664
Yet on another thread, your Parakeet photos, also stated to have been taken locally yesterday are numbered 5646 and up.

Being generous, I wonder if you have mistakenly slipped in a Goshawk photo from sometime ago and somewhere else?

 

[Butty]

. . . - one which, unfortunately, isn't

soaring

A flying raptor is normally at its easiest - and most tempting and most useful - to photograph when it's soaring, as you said your Accipiter was. So, I guess, you presumably did photograph it soaring? If so, could you post a few of those photos too?

 

[KenM]

I am confused.

The Buzzard photo said to be taken locally on Saturday is numbered 4529
The Accipter photo, stated as being taken locally yesterday is numbered 3664
Yet on another thread, your Parakeet photos, also stated to have been taken locally yesterday are numbered 5646 and up.

Being generous, I wonder if you have mistakenly slipped in a Goshawk photo from sometime ago and somewhere else?

Ah-ah! the sleuths of BF!

The images were all taken at the times “stated”.
I don’t know why the jpeg numbering is out of time sequence, not being a “techy” all I can suggest is, that I do an awful lot of deleting, whether this alters the numbering sequence I wouldn’t know….do you?

 

[KenM]

. . . - one which, unfortunately, isn't

A flying raptor is normally at its easiest - and most tempting and most useful - to photograph when it's soaring, as you said your Accipiter was. So, I guess, you presumably did photograph it soaring? If so, could you post a few of those photos too?

Two dots in the sky, both birds going in opposing circles on the same plane.
Buzzard on the right going right, with a natural impediment also to my the right, with forest edge to my immediate left into the direction that the Accipiter was heading…out of sight!
A grey background sky, camera sensor not focusing on subject as is often the case against
that type of background, when the subject is small.
Thus a lot of time was spent getting FA from the
camera, ending up with fewer useable images than I would have wished for….do you get the picture now Butty?

 

[Butty]

So by the time you got your posted photo the bird was not soaring. Presumably.

 

[KenM]

So by the time you got your posted photo the bird was not soaring. Presumably.

Correct, it was disappearing in the direction of the canopy.

 

[Bismarck Honeyeater]

Ah-ah! the sleuths of BF!

The images were all taken at the times “stated”.
I don’t know why the jpeg numbering is out of time sequence, not being a “techy” all I can suggest is, that I do an awful lot of deleting, whether this alters the numbering sequence I wouldn’t know….do you?

They are not jpeg numbers, they are the numbers given by your camera.

 

[Butty]

it was disappearing in the direction of the canopy

Looks as though it's not far off being overhead - and travelling sideways-on to you.

 

[KenM]

They are not jpeg numbers, they are the numbers given by your camera.

Accepting “the stated” then how do you explain the sequenced numbering?

I’ve looked at the DSCO numbering-

Pale phase Buzby DSCO 4529 on Sat.at 16.06

Accipiter DSCO 5976 on Wednesday at 14.02

Alex.Parakeet DSCO 5649 on Wednesday at 08.25

I can’t explain why the Accip. is sequentially ahead of the Parakeet, possibly your rationale is adrift somewhere?

FWIW, I’ve had a couple private messages giving an opinion on the subject bird.
My take is that, it’s a sad state of affairs when some of the readership feel uncomfortable in expressing an opinion on BF publicly and feel that they can only go private.

😮

 

[kb57]

I agree with you that it is unfortunate when people get aggressive / sarcastic about ID photos. It also puts people off from sticking their necks out and submitting an opinion which may later be shot down in flames. However, we've all misidentified stuff, and the learning experience can be chastening, but hopefully you do learn from it and become a better birder.
I think it would help if you did give your opinions on ID - after all, you were the person who actually saw the bird, and can give some indication of scale, especially as you had a common buzzard to compare it with. If you think it was a goshawk then why not just say so, and say why you think that, rather than just treating it as a competition to identify fuzzy photos? If you're not sure, and we've all been in that situation with distant raptors observed for a short timespan, then just record it as Accipter sp. and leave it at that.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Accepting “the stated” then how do you explain the sequenced numbering?

I’ve looked at the DSCO numbering-

Pale phase Buzby DSCO 4529 on Sat.at 16.06

Accipiter DSCO 5976 on Wednesday at 14.02

Alex.Parakeet DSCO 5649 on Wednesday at 08.25

I can’t explain why the Accip. is sequentially ahead of the Parakeet, possibly your rationale is adrift somewhere?

FWIW, I’ve had a couple private messages giving an opinion on the subject bird.
My take is that, it’s a sad state of affairs when some of the readership feel uncomfortable in expressing an opinion on BF publicly and feel that they can only go private.

😮

The thread has got a bit off track talking about picture numbers and the like (I know you didn't bring that up by the way).

As far as I can tell, the purpose of this sub-forum is to post a picture and ask for advice/opinions and so I'm not seeing any problem.

What were the opinions sent to you? Looking at the number of people reading this thread, there has been anything up to 40 at a time, that would suggest some people would like to know what the bird is; and 143 people have viewed your picture.

To me, the bird does look like it has a broad tail base suggesting Goshawk and a short neck suggesting Sparrowhawk. But, looking at countless pictures online it's not always clear, e.g. Sparrowhawk's don't always clearly show a narrow tail base (I suppose it depends on angle). Would you describe those secondaries in your bird as 'bulging'? I wouldn't, but again, doing some online reading tells me that it differs from Goshawk to Goshawk with birds of a certain age more likely to display those bulging secondaries.

Some people would like to know what the bird is, and the important question is: why? Maybe some of the more experienced can pass down a bit of their knowledge here.

 

[lou salomon]

I'd tentatively call this an adult female Sparrowhawk. Note that at this time of year undertail coverts use to be fluffed a bit (in both species) and thus creating a broader hip. Tail corners look pointed to me. Arm looks short, and in such a gliding position secondaries usually bulge a lot more in Goshawk. Head looks small but not protruding much from shoulders. But, as has been multiply said on here, single shots of distant Accpiters can be hell of misleading. In such case best is always a series of pics.

 

[Butty]

Accipiter DSCO 5976 on Wednesday at 14.02

Is this the photo that you meant to post and that relates to this ID query? It's not the filename of the photo that you did post. Have you posted the wrong photo by mistake?