# Need some AF tips



## hamlet (Jan 13, 2016)

I'm doing lots of bird photography lately with my d7100 and my AF is missing more of the shots than not. I'm wondering if there are any rule of thumbs or techniques i'm not aware of that could help me to use my AF system better?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 13, 2016)

Continuous focus mode?


----------



## hamlet (Jan 13, 2016)

That's what i use for moving targets.


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 13, 2016)

As many active focus points and continuous focus is what I'd try depending on background.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 13, 2016)

Would you favor 51 focus points or 3D for birds in mid flight?


----------



## Dave442 (Jan 13, 2016)

I would lean more towards the D9 or D21 if there is background stuff, but D51 (Nikons recommendation for birds) should be good for a sky background. Certainly good to try all of the options. 
I also use back button focus and release priority. 
As for the Focus tracking with lock on time, I think setting A3 on the D7100, some like Long others Off, I just use Normal.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 13, 2016)

Thank you for the pointers everyone, i'm still learning and growing.


----------



## soufiej (Jan 13, 2016)

hamlet said:


> I'm doing lots of bird photography lately with my d7100 and my AF is missing more of the shots than not. I'm wondering if there are any rule of thumbs or techniques i'm not aware of that could help me to use my AF system better?





It would help to see what your problems are. 

Normally, AF will tend to focus on the object nearest to the lens.  If you are shooting photos of birds sitting on a tree branch, the camera will almost always select the smaller branches in front of the bird as the object of interest.   
Since you are normally focusing at a greater distance from the subject to the lens, even the higher aperture value of a zoom lens tends to create an image with the bird slightly out of focus. 

More focus points will be the wrong approach as it will simply add more possible subjects to the frame.  Narrowing down your selection or moving the AF point manually is typically a good idea for a roosting bird.  Unfortunately, many of your opportunities will literally fly away by the time you've adjusted your camera. 

One of the skills you will need to develop to be successful at birding is to anticipate a shot by predicting the activity of the subject.  Not always easy to do, particularly if you do not have the fastest lens with the quickest focusing system. 

Since this forum doesn't have a dedicated section for such photography, look through the threads found here; Nature and Wildlife Photography Forum: Digital Photography Review

You can also move up to the "Canon Powershot" section of the same forum.  The Canon SX series was a very popular camera for wildlife birding and the subject is covered in several threads there. 

You'll have to look through the threads.  This subject comes up on occasion.  

There was also a recent thread on this forum asking for reference material for birding photography.  Tony Brittton gave a very good suggestion of a reference book. 


You might also find some useful tips on this site; Backyard Birding with Kenn & Temple

Capturing birds in flight is a totally different issue. 

Show us some photos.


----------



## wfooshee (Jan 19, 2016)

In 3D mode, the camera starts with a single point, and whatever it focused on in that point gets tracked around the viewfinder as you follow the subject. A busy background will interfere with this, both with initial acquisition of the bird, and with staying on the bird following it around. It works much better with just sky in the background.

AF-S will lock very quickly and easily on the bird, but will be almost instantly out of focus as it moves, because it's holding the lock.

AF-C will hold the bird, as long as you can hold the sensor on it, which you can't. 

Against they sky, AF-C 3D works very well. Against a busy background, there are difficulties with all of the modes....


----------



## Ornello (Jan 19, 2016)

hamlet said:


> I'm doing lots of bird photography lately with my d7100 and my AF is missing more of the shots than not. I'm wondering if there are any rule of thumbs or techniques i'm not aware of that could help me to use my AF system better?




Use manual focus. Auto-focussing systems are inadequate for this kind of work.


----------



## wfooshee (Jan 19, 2016)

That would be great if you could actually tell anything about focus in a modern viewfinder..... No split image, no microprism.... A "clear" picture in the viewfinder could be off by several feet. The small viewfinder in a crop-factor camera just makes it worse.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 19, 2016)

wfooshee said:


> That would be great if you could actually tell anything about focus in a modern viewfinder..... No split image, no microprism.... A "clear" picture in the viewfinder could be off by several feet. The small viewfinder in a crop-factor camera just makes it worse.




Get a different system then. Bird photography is very difficult. Not for beginners.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 19, 2016)

Thanks for the help folks. i'm now nailing about 90% of my shots. Cheers!


----------



## wfooshee (Jan 19, 2016)

Ornello said:


> wfooshee said:
> 
> 
> > That would be great if you could actually tell anything about focus in a modern viewfinder..... No split image, no microprism.... A "clear" picture in the viewfinder could be off by several feet. The small viewfinder in a crop-factor camera just makes it worse.
> ...


His question was, "I have this, how do I do that?" not "What do I need different to do that?"

I have yet to see a current AF camera that can be focused precisely using only the ground-glass viewscreen, especially in dynamic environments such as sports, racing, air shows, and maybe birding. In a static shot, with the camera on a tripod, the ability to switch to Live View and zoom in... critical manual focus is within reach, then.

One issue besides the plain viewscreen with no focusing aids is that modern lenses have such a small amount of "travel" in their focusing rings - the lens moves too quickly with a given adjustment, making fine focusing extremely difficult.

Again, if manual focus is your aim, then a different screen and different glass is a valid path. That's not what was asked, though.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 19, 2016)

hamlet said:


> I'm doing lots of bird photography lately with my d7100 and my AF is missing more of the shots than not. I'm wondering if there are any rule of thumbs or techniques i'm not aware of that could help me to use my AF system better?




Not likely. Manual focus is best for this sort of photography.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 19, 2016)

Ornello said:


> Not likely. Manual focus is best for this sort of photography.



Care to elaborate to us dolts?


----------



## beagle100 (Jan 19, 2016)

Ornello said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > I'm doing lots of bird photography lately with my d7100 and my AF is missing more of the shots than not. I'm wondering if there are any rule of thumbs or techniques i'm not aware of that could help me to use my AF system better?
> ...



LOL !


----------



## Ornello (Jan 19, 2016)

beagle100 said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



Note the focus is on his eyelashes. Taken with 560mm Telyt-R Leitz lens, manual focus.


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 19, 2016)

Ornello said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> > Ornello said:
> ...


Funny looking bird you have there...
Note the focus is on the eyes if you know how to use AF..



George Jr. 1_1 8 by Kristofer Rowe, on Flickr


----------



## Ornello (Jan 19, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > beagle100 said:
> ...




What kind of bird is that? It's a pretty one!


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 19, 2016)

I guess you could call that 'bird' photography if the team goes by the Eagles, Falcons, Owls or Hawks.


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 19, 2016)

Ornello said:


> What of bird is that? It's a pretty one!


Thanks, Red Tail Hawk.  I know MF was prevalent 30 years ago, but technology has come a long way and to get some of the series I get with AF would be just about impossible with MF...  Birds are very unpredictable...


----------



## Ornello (Jan 19, 2016)

480sparky said:


> I guess you could call that 'bird' photography if the team goes by the Eagles, Falcons, Owls or Hawks.




It's sometimes very hard to take these kinds of photos. The kids are often hidden in a scrum, and you can't easily see who has the ball, let alone get time to compose a photo. Their movements are unpredictable too!


----------



## Ornello (Jan 19, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > What of bird is that? It's a pretty one!
> ...




Right. No autofocus system on a 500mm or longer lens can keep up.


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 19, 2016)

Ornello said:


> Right. No autofocus system on a 500mm or longer lens can keep up.


Huh? 
 Are you shooting an old film camera or something?
The shot I posted is with my 500 F4 and it auto-focused just fine..  
Here is one at 700mm with the 1.4x and guess what, it auto-focused just fine..



Osprey 9_3 4 by Kristofer Rowe, on Flickr


----------



## Peeb (Jan 19, 2016)

I try to avoid shooting wide-open, too, when shooting wildlife.  Not saying you CAN'T shoot at your lowest f-stop, but going up even just a bit seems to help me with my shots


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 19, 2016)

Peeb said:


> I try to avoid shooting wide-open, too, when shooting wildlife. Not saying you CAN'T shoot at your lowest f-stop, but going up even just a bit seems to help me with my shots



It really depends on your lens.  Most lenses are sharpest at least 1 stop from wide open.  Also fine tune can effect focus if your body permits it.  I generally shoot my 500 F4 at F4.5 on the 1D4 and F5 on the 7dm2 if light permits.  But you pay a lot of money to have a lens that can be used wide open at F4..


----------



## MSnowy (Jan 19, 2016)

Ornello said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > Ornello said:
> ...



AF worked pretty good today on my Nikon 500mm f4  w/1.4tc


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 19, 2016)

Ornello said:


> Right. No autofocus system on a 500mm or longer lens can keep up.



So I guess I should just toss out all those shots I took at 500mm and longer as they're now out of focus?


----------



## Ornello (Jan 20, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > Right. No autofocus system on a 500mm or longer lens can keep up.
> ...




Try it with kids playing football sometime, when you can't even see who has the ball, and everything is stacked up....what is the AF going to pick?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 20, 2016)

Ornello said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Ornello said:
> ...



Easy.  The one I tell it to.

I can do that because I know how the AF system and modes work on my camera.


----------



## wfooshee (Jan 20, 2016)

It's going to pick what your SINGLE selected sensor is on.

If you're working with AF sensor groups, you have NO control over what gets picked. All of these bird shots posted had control of the focus because they used a single sensor and placed that sensor on the desired focus point of the image.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 20, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



See attached. It's easier when they break out....but sometimes a shadow ruins the shot!


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 20, 2016)

Ornello said:


> It's easier when they break out....



......whether you manually focus or use AF.  The method is not relevant if you don't have a subject.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 20, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...




How does the AF know which kid has the ball?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 20, 2016)

Ornello said:


> How does the AF know which kid has the ball?



I tell it.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 20, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > How does the AF know which kid has the ball?
> ...




LOL. You're hilarious....

5 Situations When Manual Focus is Better than Auto Focus - Digital Photography School

10 Reasons to Turn off Your Autofocus - Digital Photography School

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/cartman-hippies.jpg


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 20, 2016)

Ornello, what camera and lens combination are you using to shoot youth football?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 20, 2016)

Ornello said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Ornello said:
> ...



Well, apparently you have all the focus problems of the world figured out.  Autofocus has no use in todays' craft.  I'll just let you go about your merry way, manually focusing and nailing each and every shot perfectly.

However, let the rest of us go our ways, stupidly using AF.  Some of us actually use our cameras instead of going to the Internet School of Photography.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 20, 2016)

JacaRanda said:


> Ornello, what camera and lens combination are you using to shoot youth football?




560mm Leitz Telyt-R f/6.8. Leicaflex SL2. Fuji Pro 400 film.

This is the lens:

http://www.iscanmanuals.com/ebay/opticxchange/01032013pic170.jpg

Leica Telyt R 560mm 1:6.8 560/6.8 im Zubehörpaket mit Schulterstativ und Tasche

560mm telyt - Google Search


----------



## Ornello (Jan 20, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...




Well, it's winter now, and my gear is resting....


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 20, 2016)

Ornello said:


> Well, it's winter now, and my gear is resting....



What?   You don't have any birds to manually focus on?  They've all gone south?


----------



## Ornello (Jan 20, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it's winter now, and my gear is resting....
> ...




There are some geese hereabouts...


----------



## wfooshee (Jan 20, 2016)

Ornello said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Ornello said:
> ...



Yeah, he wasn't joking. 

It also depends on the AF system in the camera. I had immense difficulties shooting an air show with my D5000 back in 2011. About 70-80% throw-aways for missed focus. No way to do the "pre-focus on a spot" at an air show, either. 

Had a D7000 (same lens, though) for the 2012 show, shot 11 frames, not a single shot missed focus. 

The other situations in your links, I agree with. Long exposure, low light, landscape, HDR, etc, focus manually (and consistently.) Giving it up for action shots, no way. Good AF can keep up.

As for "How does the camera know which kid has the ball?" you tell it. By pointing the one active AF sensor at that kid. That's what it focuses on.

Question, though. You say you're using a 40-year-old manual-focus film camera, and you're arguing against auto-focus. So what AF camera do you have that you've tried to shoot with in that situation? I'm asking because if you've not used AF, or have used AF on something like a P&S or a consumer-grade camera (like the D3000 or my old D5000) then you may be going on bad information. While I was using my D5000, I would have argued that AF was useless in action photography. My D7000 has told me otherwise.

Your camera has the split-image rangefinder in the viewfinder, so you KNOW when your subject is focused. AF cameras have ground glass only, no indication of precise focus. (Some have a focus LED that lights up, but you have to look around in the viewfinder and take your eye off your subject. Fast, precise manual focus is simply not possible with the OP's D7100. Your insistence that manual focus would be better for him is ludicrous, given what he's using. Also given what he's using, learning how AF works and knowing which mode to use, he should be able to get completely useful birding images.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 20, 2016)

wfooshee said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...




I had the split-image + microprism replaced with plain microprism, on my SL2s. There was a special-order plain ground-glass available.


----------



## elaroche (Jan 20, 2016)

Hi,

I've been doing birds photography for a while and was a beginner for a time 

First I would say that you need to master the speed/aperture/iso settings. 
The smaller the bird is, the more difficult it is. Small birds move, so you need high speed so you need better lens. And if you cannot afford a huge tele you need to know how to get close to them!

For the settings, on Nikon :
- D9 with center focus point is the fastest. The focus is not on closet (as I could read in a post) but it focus on the more contrasted thing close to AF active focus point.
- 3D is too slow for quick small birds
- No manual !! well yes but not for beginners !
- Focus on the eye
- start with egret, ducks or that kind of easy birds.

Just if you want to see the kind of thing I did with a cheap D5000 camera, have a look here (some are mixed with D610n so look at the tags) : Animalier


----------



## Ornello (Jan 20, 2016)

elaroche said:


> Hi,
> 
> I've been doing birds photography for a while and was a beginner for a time
> 
> ...




To be frank, I don't understand the preoccupation with birds. They are not easy to photograph.


----------



## spiralout462 (Jan 20, 2016)

Ornello said:


> elaroche said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



That's exactly what keeps me going after them!


----------



## elaroche (Jan 20, 2016)

Ornello said:


> elaroche said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...


First he's asking for bird photography 
Second, they are not so difficult to photography. My gallery shows beginner shots. 

Envoyé de mon SGP612 en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## Ornello (Jan 20, 2016)

spiralout462 said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > elaroche said:
> ...




Well, my efforts at photographing live dodos have so far been utterly fruitless!


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 20, 2016)

Ornello said:


> To be frank, I don't understand the preoccupation with birds. They are not easy to photograph.



To be frank, I don't understand the preoccupation with manual focus.  Autofocus is a tool, just like any other tool.  When one knows how to use the tool properly, one can get fantastic results.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 20, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > To be frank, I don't understand the preoccupation with birds. They are not easy to photograph.
> ...




I'm not preoccupied with it. It's what I have.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 20, 2016)

Ornello said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Ornello said:
> ...



So........... you've never used AF?


----------



## Ornello (Jan 20, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...




Don't need it. I have played with them, yes, but why change something that works just fine? I have 8 Leica R lenses from 21mm to 560mm, and they are all exquisite.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 20, 2016)

Ornello said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Ornello said:
> ...



In other words, you're condemning something you have NO experience with.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 20, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...




Not at all. Why is the original poster having trouble? Because AF sucks.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 20, 2016)

Wow


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 20, 2016)

Double wow!


----------



## soufiej (Jan 20, 2016)

To the op (remember the op?): use single focus point AF, check your viewfinder/LCD to determine where the lens has focused and then adjust via manual focus override. 


"Ornello" = the man who does nothing but argue stupid things stupidly.  I had hoped never to see you show up on another forum ever again.

This guy's a total waste of your time, folks.  He's not paying attention to what you say.  He just argues to argue.  Arguing by using stupid ideas is his hobby.  all he wants is a reaction from you.  He's not here to help anyone other than himself.

Ignore him for your own sanity.


----------



## wfooshee (Jan 20, 2016)

This isn't..... _that_ guy again.....  Is it?


----------



## soufiej (Jan 20, 2016)

Probably not, but Ornello is certainly a troll's troll.  

He travels the internet just to see what damage he can do and then moves on - just not soon enough. 

 He doesn't seem to have purchased anything new in decades.  He certainly hasn't had a new thought in even longer.   

Ignore him.

He has nothing positive to offer anyone.


----------



## Peeb (Jan 20, 2016)

Due to the 'ignore' function I'm missing a good bit of this thread, but the part that I CAN see is pretty entertaining.


----------



## MSnowy (Jan 20, 2016)

I choose what to focus on.

I find that AF work great for high school football, which is much faster then youth.











Works great for Rodeo pictures





and even motocross


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 20, 2016)

soufiej said:


> Probably not, but Ornello is certainly a troll's troll.......



That was obvious three pages ago.




soufiej said:


> .........He has nothing positive to offer anyone.



Sure he does.  It's called _entertainment_.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 20, 2016)

MSnowy said:


> I choose what to focus on.



Well, it's not the speed, it's the fact that they all bunch together. Most plays end up in a giant group hug.


----------



## MSnowy (Jan 20, 2016)

Ornello said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> > I choose what to focus on.
> ...



Well that's when talent takes over.


----------



## soufiej (Jan 20, 2016)

480sparky said:


> .........He has nothing positive to offer anyone.



Sure he does.  It's called _entertainment_.[/QUOTE]




You must be one of those few people who enjoy having a migraine.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 20, 2016)

soufiej said:


> You must be one of those few people who enjoy having a migraine.



No.  It's just a much more pleasant diversion from the political crap on the news these days.


----------



## soufiej (Jan 20, 2016)

Ever try a cooking show?  'Cause, if Ornello is your idea of entertainment, you're diet probably lacks fiber.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 20, 2016)

The thing with sport, is that to be a decent sport photographer, you need to know the rules and the tactics of the game. If you do, then you know the likely direction of play.  I'm not a birder - I'm into landscape and perfectly happy to shoot with manual focus.  But it seems to me that birds are far more random and unpredictable than a sport that has certain tactics that are often used.  In football (soccer) you know that a ball is likely to be sent into the middle from the wing, so you can aim your camera at the players in the middle and manually focus there (though you won't find many paper pros doing this).  Birds can go off in any direction at anytime, so it's far more unpredictable.  Coastalconn will know better than I as I know from his work here and on Nikonrumors that he is a great birder...


----------



## gckless (Jan 21, 2016)

I always use single point selection (with the 51 available), and use AF-C for anything moving, AF-S for anything stationary with my D7200. I had issues with the D7000, but after upgrading I don't miss too much stuff, it's pretty good down to fairly low light. Has surprised me a few times, AF locked in some low light situations where my D7000 would have been hunting for days. Of course, if it's stationary and I have time I use manual and zoom in on live view to really nail it.

I was recently turned on to back button AF. I haven't tried it yet, but once I get past the initial brain reprogramming (I'm worried I'm going to forget I switched to that and miss focus), it seems like it's much better. Always have AF-C selected, and have the benefit of AF-S by design. Camera doesn't require you to refocus when taking each shot, if it's not needed in your composure. Worth exploring I think.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 21, 2016)

thereyougo! said:


> The thing with sport, is that to be a decent sport photographer, you need to know the rules and the tactics of the game. If you do, then you know the likely direction of play.  I'm not a birder - I'm into landscape and perfectly happy to shoot with manual focus.  But it seems to me that birds are far more random and unpredictable than a sport that has certain tactics that are often used.  In football (soccer) you know that a ball is likely to be sent into the middle from the wing, so you can aim your camera at the players in the middle and manually focus there (though you won't find many paper pros doing this).  Birds can go off in any direction at anytime, so it's far more unpredictable.  Coastalconn will know better than I as I know from his work here and on Nikonrumors that he is a great birder...




Oh, yes, I know the various games well (rugby, soccer, football, etc.) and have been photographing sports for many decades. The problem with the kiddie football (and even at other levels) is the 'scrum' where there is just a pile of bodies. You have to wait for a player to break out, and sometimes you have to wait it seems forever. You simply haven't got anything to photograph!

https://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/screen-shot-2014-11-02-at-7-31-39-pm.png?w=1000&h=628

This happens a lot more in kiddie football because the kids don't have a lot of strength yet to push the others out of the way.

With birds, you have three problems: Movement, distance, and size. Birds swooping and zooming around are very difficult to track with long lenses. With sports, you don't have to worry so much about that sort of movement. The problem is getting a clear line of sight.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 21, 2016)

Ornello said:


> ........With birds, you have three problems: Movement, distance, and size. Birds swooping and zooming around are very difficult to track with long lenses. ..........



But, obviously, _you_ have mastered that......... correct?


----------



## Ornello (Jan 21, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > ........With birds, you have three problems: Movement, distance, and size. Birds swooping and zooming around are very difficult to track with long lenses. ..........
> ...




Oh, I haven't really done much of that kind of photography.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 21, 2016)

Ornello said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Ornello said:
> ...



So in conclusion........... you're offering advice about a method _you've never used_, for a subject _you've never really shot_.

What next?  How to perform heart surgery?  Fly a 777?  Be a prison warden?  Become a mercenary? Guard at Buckingham Palace?


----------



## Ornello (Jan 21, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...




I have always done a lot of 'action' photography, from high school sports to every imaginable kind of activity (lacrosse, anyone? Just try to find the lacrosse ball in the air!). Birds are tough, too, but birds as a subject don't interest me. I am very good at action photography. The problem with birds is that they are small, requiring huge lenses, and it's hard to keep them in the frame when diving and swooping in flight, with or without autofocus. Ever notice that most 'bird in flight' photos are of large birds? Their larger size makes them easier to photograph, since they can't change direction so quickly, and they glide more. Sparrows are almost impossible to capture in flight (other than just taking off from a perch). As you can see here, almost every one of these sparrow photos is of a bird perched. The very few that show them in flight are almost certainly taken with the birds approaching or leaving a known nest or feeder.

So, yes, I am more than qualified to offer advice. If anyone can take a 1000mm lens hand-held and follow sparrows in flight, I'll eat my words.

sparrow - Google Search

Compare these photos of egrets:

egret - Google Search


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 21, 2016)

Ornello said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Ornello said:
> ...


OK, so backing up to the OP who specifically asked about bird photography, why did you feel the need to chime in on something that you have very little experience with in a field that requires a great deal of experience?  Because you don't have the required skills to track BIF with long lenses means you really have nothing to offer to the original question in this thread.  It really doesn't make much sense for you to argue about using MF for bird photography when many of us that do shoot birds, and many on this site do it quite well, when we all use AF and long lenses..
Cheers


----------



## soufiej (Jan 21, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> [
> OK, so backing up to the OP who specifically asked about bird photography, why did you feel the need to chime in on something that you have very little experience with in a field that requires a great deal of experience?  Because you don't have the required skills to track BIF with long lenses means you really have nothing to offer to the original question in this thread.  It really doesn't make much sense for you to argue about using MF for bird photography when many of us that do shoot birds, and many on this site do it quite well, when we all use AF and long lenses..
> Cheers





I thought I had already answered that question.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 21, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...




See previous post.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 21, 2016)

Ornello said:


> ......So, yes, I am more than qualified to offer advice. ..........



I nominate this for TPF Troll Post of 2016.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 21, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...




Show me anyone who can track a sparrow zooming around with a lens of 500mm or greater. Impossible, manual focus or autofocus!

You have to be realistic. You have to know what can and cannot be done practically.

'In flight' is ambiguous, because birds sometimes hover, and slow down when coming in to land.

Here is a rugby player crossing the goal line, and a skateboarder, both in mid-air:


----------



## soufiej (Jan 21, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > ......So, yes, I am more than qualified to offer advice. ..........
> ...





"Entertainment value" is pretty darned shallow, isn't it?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 21, 2016)

soufiej said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Ornello said:
> ...



No, it's still better than listening to Trump on the tube.


----------



## gckless (Jan 21, 2016)

Ornello said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > Ornello said:
> ...



Not sure you have an arguing point anymore.


----------



## soufiej (Jan 21, 2016)

480sparky said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...





Like I said, (Ornello's) entertainment value gets thinner than Trump's American Express card.

You must have a TV with, like five, channels.  Go take some photographs.


----------



## soufiej (Jan 21, 2016)

Real entertainment value; Colbert Absolutely Destroys Palin's Whatever The Hell That Was


Take that! Ornello.


----------



## Overread (Jan 21, 2016)




----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 21, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Holiday Inn BRO.  It can happen.


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 21, 2016)

gckless said:


> Not sure you have an arguing point anymore.


I don't?


Ornello said:


> I have always done a lot of 'action' photography, from high school sports to every imaginable kind of activity (lacrosse, anyone? Just try to find the lacrosse ball in the air!). Birds are tough, too, but birds as a subject don't interest me. I am very good at action photography. The problem with birds is that they are small, requiring huge lenses, and it's hard to keep them in the frame when diving and swooping in flight, with or without autofocus. Ever notice that most 'bird in flight' photos are of large birds? Their larger size makes them easier to photograph, since they can't change direction so quickly, and they glide more. Sparrows are almost impossible to capture in flight (other than just taking off from a perch). As you can see here, almost every one of these sparrow photos is of a bird perched. The very few that show them in flight are almost certainly taken with the birds approaching or leaving a known nest or feeder.
> 
> So, yes, I am more than qualified to offer advice. If anyone can take a 1000mm lens hand-held and follow sparrows in flight, I'll eat my words.


Perhaps if you want to see Sparrows in flight you should google "sparrows in flight" sparrows in flight - Google Search The problem with sparrows is they don't free fly very often.  There really are no native 1000MM lenses on the market


Ornello said:


> Show me anyone who can track a sparrow zooming around with a lens of *500mm* or greater. Impossible, manual focus or autofocus!
> You have to be realistic. You have to know what can and cannot be done practically.
> 'In flight' is ambiguous, because birds sometimes hover, and slow down when coming in to land.
> Here is a rugby player crossing the goal line, and a skateboarder, both in mid-air:


OK, I say possible, here are some swallows and martins that are much faster and way more unpredictable then swallows, also some other smaller birds......All with my 500 F4 handheld and AF.  Again experience and skill comes into play here and of course good equipment...



Blue Jay in flight 10_14 3 by Kristofer Rowe, on Flickr



Purple Martin 6_30 by Kristofer Rowe, on Flickr



Swallow in flight 6_28 1 by Kristofer Rowe, on Flickr



Tree Swallow Splash 9_14 by Kristofer Rowe, on Flickr



Tree Swallow in Flight 6_8 by Kristofer Rowe, on Flickr



Barn Swallow in Flight 6_29 by Kristofer Rowe, on Flickr


----------



## spiralout462 (Jan 21, 2016)

That's the post I was waiting on! !!


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 21, 2016)

spiralout462 said:


> That's the post I was waiting on! !!


I was chomping at the bit all day at work and couldn't wait to get home and respond in this thread


----------



## Ornello (Jan 21, 2016)

Everybody gets lucky once in a while.


----------



## MSnowy (Jan 21, 2016)

don't forget dragon flies with 5oom w/1.4 tc.  I know lucky


----------



## Ornello (Jan 21, 2016)

MSnowy said:


> don't forget dragon flies with 5oom w/1.4 tc.  I know lucky



Nice.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 21, 2016)

Geez, those are nice pics. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## gckless (Jan 22, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> gckless said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure you have an arguing point anymore.
> ...



I wasn't directly quoting you, you were just in the chain when I quoted. But great photos


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 22, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> gckless said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure you have an arguing point anymore.
> ...


 
I'm with Ornello.  These are pure luck and probably Photoshopped.


----------



## wfooshee (Jan 22, 2016)

Ooh, dragonflies I got!!! 

But gee, less than 200mm so probably not acceptable to Ornello.......






You want small, how about what we in the South call love bugs?





which is a crop of this, autofocused against that busy background, 240mm:


----------



## soufiej (Jan 23, 2016)

wfooshee said:


> Ooh, dragonflies I got!!!
> 
> But gee, less than 200mm so probably not acceptable to Ornello.......
> 
> ...





_
"But gee, less than 200mm so probably not acceptable to Ornello......."_




Not much is unless he either said it or owns it.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 23, 2016)

Ornello said:


> Everybody gets lucky once in a while.


As if skill and experience have nothing to do with that...


----------



## mcap1972 (Jan 24, 2016)

I would use AF Servo mode. Keep the subject in the focus target.


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 24, 2016)

Ornello said:


> Everybody gets lucky once in a while.


Speaking of lucky, here is a great BIF article by an incredibly talented bird photographer that I follow, and yup, he mentions luck as well, but states luck alone does not complete the equation... 
BIF


----------



## soufiej (Jan 25, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > Everybody gets lucky once in a while.
> ...






Hmmmm, doesn't seem to mention at all the aspect of virgin sacrifice in obtaining that "luck".  What good is that?!


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 26, 2016)

What the Duck - Timeline Photos | Facebook


----------

