Odd BOP from Friday…just found during editing session of SD card. (1 Viewer)

[KenM]

During a four day break in Shropshire Wed-Sat last week, I was attempting to shoot a distant “appearing and disappearing” Cuckoo, high on the hillside.
Many burst shots were negative (ie no apparent subject in the frame), these were all believed to have been deleted at the time.
However, I’ve since found a “missed burst of frames” amongst the subjects, acknowledge that the resolution is ####!…but it’s got me puzzled?

Cheers

 

[Mike Crawley]

it’s giving me a very slight Hobby-ish vibe

 

[KenM]

it’s giving me a very slight Hobby-ish vibe

Certainly has a falcon “feel” to it, what concerns is, the apparent “pale” head and darker underbody/wings, assuming the tonal values are about right and relative?

 

[tconzemi]

Pale head, here due to large white cheek patch is a typical feature of Hobby, Everything else is artefact

 

[KenM]

Pale head, here due to large white cheek patch is a typical feature of Hobby, Everything else is artefact

How might one rule this in/out Tom?

 

[tconzemi]

How might one rule this in/out Tom?

With this kind of picture, not at all except by Occam's razor

 

[KenM]

With this kind of picture, not at all except by Occam's razor

Just to put “the suggestion” into some sort of context Tom, I’ve just found out that there has been a roost of “10 RFFalcons” at Carlton marshes over this past week.
Some 160 kms due East of “mystery bird” and to add…another two birds (to my knowledge) passing Landguard Point Suffolk over the last few days!
Might appear that these prolonged Easterlies are having some effect?😮

 

[Bismarck Honeyeater]

With the pointed tail-end being the only feature noticeable, and the colouration being unreliable, along with just the one angle of view available to study. Why is it not a Kestrel?

 

[THE_FERN]

With this kind of picture, not at all except by Occam's razor

tail length?

 

[KenM]

With the pointed tail-end being the only feature noticeable, and the colouration being unreliable, along with just the one angle of view available to study. Why is it not a Kestrel?

I don’t know just how “unreliable” the general tonal value is, over such a distance, think you might want to take that up with Sony?

I’m seeing a general rufous mid-tone underbody, contrasting against a concave white head, not an impression I might expect from a Kestrel?
With realistically just 3 birds in the frame,
I found it “odd”, that it seemed more biased towards one of the candidates than the others,
not to mention the unprecedented? “roost” 160 kms to the East fuelled by persistent strong winds from the said compass point….just saying.

 

[Bismarck Honeyeater]

I don’t know just how “unreliable” the general tonal value is, over such a distance, think you might want to take that up with Sony?

I’m seeing a general rufous mid-tone underbody, contrasting against a concave white head, not an impression I might expect from a Kestrel?
With realistically just 3 birds in the frame,
I found it “odd”, that it seemed more biased towards one of the candidates than the others,
not to mention the unprecedented? “roost” 160 kms to the East fuelled by persistent strong winds from the said compass point….just saying.

The colours in the images supplied are unreliable from the viewpoint of assessing the colour in real life.

Just look at the shade of blue of the sky, it’s five different colours in the five images. Which one is real, if any?

So the colouring of the bird in the images cannot be relied upon for an accurate assessment.

Sony, or any other manufacturer cannot deliver 100% accuracy of colour when shooting a moving bird at range against a blue sky with the object lit from above.

Of course the dark tipped bunched primaries are also supportive of the identification as Kestrel.

Often (usually) it is best to put down the camera, and just watch the bird, when the identification will soon be apparent.

Retrospectively trying to identify a bird on one (with respect, and taking lighting, distance etc. into account) poor quality image, without any clues on size, jizz, accurate colouration, is usually a pointless exercise.

 

[KenM]

The colours in the images supplied are unreliable from the viewpoint of assessing the colour in real life.

Just look at the shade of blue of the sky, it’s five different colours in the five images. Which one is real, if any?

So the colouring of the bird in the images cannot be relied upon for an accurate assessment.


Sony, or any other manufacturer cannot deliver 100% accuracy of colour when shooting a moving bird at range against a blue sky with the object lit from above.

Of course the dark tipped bunched primaries are also supportive of the identification as Kestrel.

Often (usually) it is best to put down the camera, and just watch the bird, when the identification will soon be apparent.

Retrospectively trying to identify a bird on one (with respect, and taking lighting, distance etc. into account) poor quality image, without any clues on size, jizz, accurate colouration, is usually a pointless exercise.

The irony of this exercise is that “I never saw the bird!” with the naked eye!
Only when editing the SD card some 3 hours later, that I spotted the image in the bottom left hand corner of the frames.

Having used the camera for several years now I’ve become accustomed to its quirks and merits, particularly when shooting at distant birds in the sky.
Of course I’ve “lightened” the image to extract as much resolution as possible, this you can see with the different shades of blue in the sky.
That withstanding you might note, that the subject’s body colour to include contrasting white head is relatively consistent throughout.

Dependant on the strength of the light source relative to the subject, it has consistently given the correct body colour even at distance, indeed it’s surprised me time and time again.

However on the other hand, it has failed (not infrequently) to register the “subject” in the viewfinder to the point of refusing to shutter release!
This prompts me to keep hitting the shutter till I see an image in the VF.

My initial assessment was of it looking more like female RFF than Kestrel, then I began to wonder why the pixcellated odds might be…favouring RFF over Kestrel with an almost gingery tint to the underbody against such a pale/white head.
Had it been a Kestrel, it would have looked like one…imo it just doesn’t.

 

[tconzemi]

One more time in clearer words:
single images of this quality are very deceptive
Hobby is not more than an educated guess
Colours are all wrong for sure
Kestrel stays possible, and same is true for RFF

 

[jogresh]

With the pointed tail-end being the only feature noticeable, and the colouration being unreliable, along with just the one angle of view available to study. Why is it not a Kestrel?

That was my first impression.. 🤔🤷‍♂️