A distant NELondon Accipiter this morning. (1 Viewer)

[KenM]

Hello,

yes, iirc Ken once said its a Sony Cybershot RX10 M4.

Regarding your Goshawk from post #12: it has a juvenile plumage (1cy or 2cy, depending on the date), please compare: Northern Goshawk flight identification and ageing in the UK - Revised and updated (excellent, thanks!)

Please post the originals Ken! Please note, that even the shape/proportions of your bird can be distorted in BOC, not speaking of colouration/darkness and loss of fine details like the barring on the secondaries.

But as you all already know, I cant resist: (changing to quiz modus, no offence Ken you know): If the choice is between Goshawk and Sparrowhawk, its a Sparrowhawk imo. I looked at the BOC and I think that your bird shows a small darker (upper-)head and a contrasting paler throat, with little contrasting to the breast=uniform. My gut feeling is that this is a jizz-feature, that might well be judgded with confidence and that a Goshawk should show a larger darker head and a smaller paler throat??? And that the appearant small head in relation to the stocky body is also better for Sparrowhawk.

Please post the originals, Ken! (Late Christmas present, I promise to be good this year)

Yes, thanks for “comparing” Alexander, I too have come to a not dissimilar conclusion.
This is the “Achilles heel” for these images, tail “shape”, small hand and more than slender hips are very pro Gos compared to Sprawk…but the head falls short!
An interesting excercise, if only to prove that one needs a “full” set of features for an ID on such distant shots (c400m)….whereas 200m should be more conclusive.👍

 

[Andy Adcock]

Yes, thanks for “comparing” Alexander, I too have come to a not dissimilar conclusion.
This is the “Achilles heel” for these images, tail “shape”, small hand and more than slender hips are very pro Gos compared to Sprawk…but the head falls short!
An interesting excercise, if only to prove that one needs a “full” set of features for an ID on such distant shots (c400m)….whereas 200m should be more conclusive.👍

Really, thought that Spar showed narrower tail and hips? The often prominent, undertail coverts are not apparent either as they surely would be from this angle?

 

[Butty]

thought that Spar showed narrower tail and hips?

In any normal usage, 'more than slender' would indeed unambiguously mean 'extra-slender' - and, like you, that's the way I took it until I remembered the OP's characteristic habit of contorting the language beyond reasonable attempts to comprehend it. Thus I'm sure that here he actually means 'bigger than slender' 🤦🏻

The often prominent, undertail coverts are not apparent either as they surely would be

The clue is in the 'often'. Thus, conversely, often they're not prominent - so it's certainly not true that 'they surely would be'.
And, after multiple requests, we still wait for the actual photos. Typically of course these are posted just at the point where the OP feels interest is waning - to string out the attention-seeking to its max ☹️

 

[_pauls]

As mentioned previously Ken's camera supports NFC transfer of images to mobile phone... no reason the original photos can't be posted "in the field" (other than to wind people up).

 

[KenM]

Really, thought that Spar showed narrower tail and hips? The often prominent, undertail coverts are not apparent either as they surely would be from this angle?

If you look at the image of the “immature” bird shown in post 12, you might struggle to view the UTC’s?…and correct on the former…as explained by Butty.

 

[Bewick]

Can we please have the actual photos?

 

[KenM]

As mentioned previously Ken's camera supports NFC transfer of images to mobile phone... no reason the original photos can't be posted "in the field" (other than to wind people up).

As explained before in previous threads, I’m not particularly “Techy” and I tend to choose
“the most expedient” way of “delivery” particularly on distant subjects as with this bird.

Where I considered proportions and structure to be more important than any “detail” that would “ not be present”, because the shots quite frankly are abysmal, as they would be over c400m in bad light.

As for “winding people up” that is a poor misjudged comment!

 

[Andy Adcock]

As explained before in previous threads, I’m not particularly “Techy” and I tend to choose
“the most expedient” way of “delivery” particularly on distant subjects as with this bird.

Where I considered proportions and structure to be more important than any “detail” that would “ not be present”, because the shots quite frankly are abysmal, as they would be over c400m in bad light.

As for “winding people up” that is a poor misjudged comment!

'Expedient' ...'a means of attaining an end, especially one that is convenient but possibly improper or immoral:

 

[01101001]

There has to be a manual for it, somewhere. I'm not very tech-savvy either, so I can't help.

 

[KenM]

Can we please have the actual photos?

Here’s a sample from “the can”, if you or anybody else can glean any advantage from these images…I’d be very surprised.

Some are straight out and some have been enlarged cropped, and some have been lightened.

The first image was a different bird taken on a preceding day under good light and at circa half the distance..and we all know that it’s a Sprawk!

 

[KenM]

'Expedient' ...'a means of attaining an end, especially one that is convenient but possibly improper or immoral:

What’s immoral?….If I didn’t like the subject matter of a thread I’d choose another!
I certainly wouldn’t try and play to the gallery like Butty does….but then the devil makes time for IDLE HANDS.

 

[THE_FERN]

Not posting the original pics when it's easy annoys quite a few of us. It would take about 10 mins' research or fewer to find out how to transfer from the camera to the phone and I think it would benefit the owner (as well as the the audience} to learn how to do it.

 

[_pauls]

As explained before in previous threads, I’m not particularly “Techy” and I tend to choose
“the most expedient” way of “delivery” particularly on distant subjects as with this bird.

Where I considered proportions and structure to be more important than any “detail” that would “ not be present”, because the shots quite frankly are abysmal, as they would be over c400m in bad light.

As for “winding people up” that is a poor misjudged comment!

DSC-RX10M4 | Help Guide | Sending images to an Android smartphone (NFC One-touch Sharing)

It is a bit more complicated (but not much) if you have an iPhone : DSC-RX10M4 | Help Guide | Snd to Smrtphn Func: Send to Smartphone

You are welcome

 

[Alexander Stöhr]

Hello Ken,
thanks for posting the original pictures!

Yes, there is not much difference to the BOC shots, but

• you can judge shape and proportions with more confidence, because you can be sure, that no extra distortion is added to possible already present ones (thanks for taking a burst of frames!)
• the barring on the underwing and the headpattern can be judged with slightly more confidence. Difference is important imo...
• ... because with only BOC shots at least I cant loose the feeling, that the original might well provide more information or might change appearant features. Nö offence you know.

And yes, both birds are Sparrowhawks for me too

 

[KenM]

Not posting the original pics when it's easy annoys quite a few of us. It would take about 10 mins' research or fewer to find out how to transfer from the camera to the phone and I think it would benefit the owner (as well as the the audience} to learn how to do it.

I get off my butt everyday, come hail rain or shine and go out into the field, “harvesting” what’s around and if I find something of (what I think might be of interest), I put it on BF.
What was your last offering?

 

[Bismarck Honeyeater]

Here’s a sample from “the can”, if you or anybody else can glean any advantage from these images…I’d be very surprised.

Some are straight out and some have been enlarged cropped, and some have been lightened.

The first image was a different bird taken on a preceding day under good light and at circa half the distance..and we all know that it’s a Sprawk!

A very strange spread of image data from
DSC00004 to DSC008220 hard to imagine that all these (except DSC08019 which we are told was taken on a preceding day.) were taken of one bird!

I would suggest that instead of photographing an individual bird, possibly a couple of hundred times, it might be better to use a scope, or at least bins, and get a feel for the bird in the field.

Posting lots of (Let’s face it) poor, backlit and distant Accipter shots on a forum like this is of no benefit to the photographer or those that like to opine on identification challenges.

From my perspective it seems more like clickbait than genuine identification queries.

 

[KenM]

Hello Ken,
thanks for posting the original pictures!

Yes, there is not much difference to the BOC shots, but

• you can judge shape and proportions with more confidence, because you can be sure, that no extra distortion is added to possible already present ones (thanks for taking a burst of frames!)
• the barring on the underwing and the headpattern can be judged with slightly more confidence. Difference is important imo...
• ... because with only BOC shots at least I cant loose the feeling, that the original might well provide more information or might change appearant features. Nö offence you know.

And yes, both birds are Sparrowhawks for me too

Thanks Alexander, I have to assume that everybody else that looked at the thread was equally puzzled as I was, regarding the ID.
The only difference was, “I, yourself and Pat admitted it”…..funny old world isn’t it?

 

[dantheman]

A very strange spread of image data from
DSC00004 to DSC008220 hard to imagine that all these (except DSC08019 which we are told was taken on a preceding day.) were taken of one bird!

I would suggest that instead of photographing an individual bird, possibly a couple of hundred times, it might be better to use a scope, or at least bins, and get a feel for the bird in the field.

Posting lots of (Let’s face it) poor, backlit and distant Accipter shots on a forum like this is of no benefit to the photographer or those that like to opine on identification challenges.

From my perspective it seems more like clickbait than genuine identification queries.

Are they even the originals of the photos posted in post #1?? (And not a random mix from previous times?)

I tried comparing between page 1 and page 2 of this thread. The pictures I opened seem to be at a smaller image size than in post #1 - which defeats the object of trying to gain more info?



Total waste of time imo.

 

[KenM]

A very strange spread of image data from
DSC00004 to DSC008220 hard to imagine that all these (except DSC08019 which we are told was taken on a preceding day.) were taken of one bird!

I would suggest that instead of photographing an individual bird, possibly a couple of hundred times, it might be better to use a scope, or at least bins, and get a feel for the bird in the field.

Posting lots of (Let’s face it) poor, backlit and distant Accipter shots on a forum like this is of no benefit to the photographer or those that like to opine on identification challenges.

From my perspective it seems more like clickbait than genuine identification queries.

For one, if you’d read the thread?….we’re talking seconds,.
Knowing how Accips behave, once they’ve cleared the canopy…time is of the essence.

I generally shoot first and examine the rushes later, had I not done so, by hanging on to the bins, I would have had no images and would have been non the wiser.😮

What sort of Accip images do you prefer, sunlit and side on at 5 metres….rarely happens in the real world…you must try getting out more often with a camera in hand along with the rest of your chums.

“Click bait” now there’s a term I’d not heard of before, until Fern (that which you use when you get caught short in the field) used it last week, a not very pleasant accusation?

Yes Clousseau, all from the same shots at the same time (and none from any other times, apart from where stated).

May the Wood Warblers be with you.

 

[KenM]

Are they even the originals of the photos posted in post #1?? (And not a random mix from previous times?)

I tried comparing between page 1 and page 2 of this thread. The pictures I opened seem to be at a smaller image size than in post #1 - which defeats the object of trying to gain more info?



Total waste of time imo.

With less time ahead of me…I don’t waste it, you should take that on board for the future.