Photo Forum / Photo Technique / Nature Photography / June 2006
Tracking a fast-flying bird?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Roy Smith - 10 Jun 2006 03:55 GMT I was trying to shoot some small, fast-flying birds today with a 200mm lens. I could easily follow the bird with my eye, but it was totally hopeless trying to track it with the lens; I just couldn't keep up.
I suppose I could have gone to a shorter lens, but the bird already only filled a small fraction of the frame. It would be just a spec with a shorter lens.
Any suggestions, or am I just beating my head against the wall trying this?
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 10 Jun 2006 04:13 GMT > I was trying to shoot some small, fast-flying birds today with a 200mm > lens. I could easily follow the bird with my eye, but it was totally [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Any suggestions, or am I just beating my head against the wall trying this? Yes, tracking small birds is very difficult. That is why you see fewer small bird flight images than large bird flight images. Smaller birds fly faster than larger birds (a google search should find a plot that proves this--I have seen such plots). Of course there are exceptions like a falcon diving.
The problem of tracking a fast moving object is the angular velocity. For a given flight velocity, like 1 meter per second, if the bird is close by, the angle changes fast. At greater distance, the angular rate is less. So the trick is photographing at greater distances, which means you need a longer focal length lens. That is why bird photographers tend to use super telephoto lenses.
Roger Some bird flight images: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird
Dave - 12 Jun 2006 15:26 GMT Great images, Roger. I especially liked the species names, when you bothered to include them. What's a borrowing owl?
Dave
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 13 Jun 2006 03:59 GMT > Great images, Roger. I especially liked the species names, when you bothered > to include them. What's a borrowing owl? Thanks. A borrowing owl is a unique spelling test to see if anyone was paying attention. Obviously I failed. ;-)
http://myfwc.com/viewing/species/burrowingowl.html
Thanks foir catching that. I'll correct it.
Roger
Al Denelsbeck - 14 Jun 2006 22:34 GMT >> Great images, Roger. I especially liked the species names, when you >> bothered to include them. What's a borrowing owl? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Roger ..."for" catching that.
Hee hee hee hee hee hee...
- Al.
 Signature To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
ttdaomd@hotmail.com - 27 Jun 2006 23:22 GMT > The problem of tracking a fast moving object is the > angular velocity. For a given flight velocity, like [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That is why bird photographers tend to use super telephoto > lenses. Great info on your website btw. Thanks!
What kind of tripod head do you use for your 500 f4? I am an amateur with a 600 f4 and find I must get some type of gimbal head to track these birds, maybe a Manfrotto 393? Any experience with this head?
Tien
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 28 Jun 2006 00:04 GMT >>The problem of tracking a fast moving object is the >>angular velocity. For a given flight velocity, like [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Tien If you are in the field with other bird photographers with big lenses, you'll see that the head of choice is the full size Wimberly. See http://www.tripodhead.com (I have no relation to them). I use a Wimberly. Unfortunately it is not cheap ($600).
Another great site for info is Art Morris's birdsasart.com. Art will recommend what you need for a 600 f/4. I'm sure that includes the Wimberly on a carbon fiber tripod. If you have an IS lens, a Gitzo 1349 or 1349 class tripod may do, but without IS you may need the 1548 or 1549 class tripod.
I have seen a Manfrotto 393 in action. It seems OK, but seems not as sturdy as the Wimberly, but as I have not actually used it, I can't be sure of that. The problem with a big lens is the weight. If you are tracking subjects, the head is not locked down. Thus you must constantly hold the camera plus lens to keep it from falling over with the normal head. If you use a second body, you couldn't take your hands off the big lens unless you lock it down. That means you would lose time and possibly miss an action shot. With the Wimberly, you balance the system so you can remove your hands and the lens stays pointed at where you left it. You can quickly grab another camera and shoot other scenes/action. Or put your hands in your pockets while still viewing the subject through the viewfinder.
The Manfrotto 393 (Bogen 3421) is similar, but there is no vertical adjustment. Thus you can't balance the system. Whether it balances or not depends on the lens. The Wimberly, however, has vertical adjustment so you can perfectly balance the system.
In the field, I've never seen a 600 mm f/4 on the Manfrotto, only smaller lenses.
Roger
ttdaomd@hotmail.com - 28 Jun 2006 15:49 GMT Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) a écrit :
> If you are in the field with other bird photographers with big > lenses, you'll see that the head of choice is the full size > Wimberly. See http://www.tripodhead.com (I have no relation > to them). I use a Wimberly. Unfortunately it is not > cheap ($600). With my old Nikkor 600 f4 AF-ID (non-S) and all the other gear, the issue is not just price (although it is always an issue with me) but weight. This is becoming more of a problem as I am not getting any younger.
> Another great site for info is Art Morris's birdsasart.com. > Art will recommend what you need for a 600 f/4. I'm sure [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > not as sturdy as the Wimberly, but as I have not actually used > it, I can't be sure of that. You are most certainly correct. It was initially designed as a large binocular mount. Since I have 100mm binoculars, I was considering this could be used as a better binocular mount to the one I already have as well as supporting the 600mm.
>The problem with a big > lens is the weight. If you are tracking subjects, the head > is not locked down. Thus you must constantly hold the camera > plus lens to keep it from falling over with the normal head. > If you use a second body, you couldn't take your hands off > the big lens unless you lock it down. Thanks. This will not be an issue for me anytime soon. I figure I will have enough on my hands and mind with one camera for the foreseeable future.
> In the field, I've never seen a 600 mm f/4 on the Manfrotto, only > smaller lenses. I was impressed with this mount after reading:
http://www.birdsofbritain.co.uk/features/kevin-lewis.asp
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/manfrotto_393/393_1.html
Thanks for your valuable input.
Tien
ttdaomd@hotmail.com - 29 Jun 2006 15:46 GMT > Thanks. This will not be an issue for me anytime soon. I figure I > will have enough on my hands and mind with one camera for the > foreseeable future. Follow-up.
I got the Manfrotto yesterday. It "works" and is light. I tried it on my D200 and AF-I 600 f4+TC14E and I could track better than my old head but at high angles, it is not as smooth as I would like. You have to tighten the knobs to fix the vertical tilt of the camera which not only slows you down but is less smooth and more jittery at high magnifications. There are also 4-5 seconds of waiting also for vibrations to dampen before taking the shot. The pan friction adjustment is complicated and difficult.
For someone who has a 600 f4, I think one needs something more finely tunable like the Wimberley to take full advantage of the high magnification and high pace demanded of this type of work. I did try the Manfrotto on my 85mm angled spotting scope with camera adapter & digital camera and the balance just happens to be perfect so I will keep it for the scope. Now to find someone who has a Wimberley in stock!
Tien
Bill Hilton - 29 Jun 2006 16:03 GMT > Now to find someone who has a Wimberley in stock! Did you try buying directly from Clay Wimberley? That's what I always do ... http://www.tripodhead.com/
Bill
ttdaomd@hotmail.com - 29 Jun 2006 16:17 GMT > Did you try buying directly from Clay Wimberley? That's what I always > do ... http://www.tripodhead.com/ Just did! Thanks,
Tien
ttdaomd@hotmail.com - 30 Jun 2006 21:27 GMT > If you are in the field with other bird photographers with big > lenses, you'll see that the head of choice is the full size > Wimberly. See http://www.tripodhead.com (I have no relation > to them). I use a Wimberly. Unfortunately it is not > cheap ($600). This is an email I sent to the Wimberley team today:
Just a thank you note. I have received the head already! Excellent product. Works perfectly. It is a product obviously crafted with pride and finely adjustable axes. It looks like precision surgical equipment! It is lighter and more portable than I had expected. I should have gotten this Wimberley head a long long time ago. A must for anyone with a long lens.
Tien
Dave - 29 Jun 2006 22:40 GMT I know you've already made your decision but here's an observation for the group. I have the Canon 500 f4 IS and use an Arca Swiss B1 ballhead with a Wimberley sidekick, both mounted on a Gitzo 1348 legset. I wondered if the sidekick would be enough for big glass. Being as I already had the ballhead, I didn't know if the full Wimberley would be necessary. The sidekick works fine. Of course if you are fumblefingered it is a little more complicated, as the mounting plate ends up in a vertical position rather than the safer horizontal position of the full Wimberley. However the sidekick works intuitively and I think it would be hard to put it on incorrectly, risking a fall. I used the Really Right Stuff mounting arm dedicated to the 500 f4, not just the RRS generic plate. It was a good idea, and the arm fits into the lens case without difficulty. Overall the set works fine, albeit at $$$$.
Dave
ttdaomd@hotmail.com - 29 Jun 2006 23:23 GMT > I know you've already made your decision but here's an observation for > the group. I have the Canon 500 f4 IS and use an Arca Swiss B1 ballhead with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the lens case without difficulty. Overall the set works fine, albeit at > $$$$. Do you know if someone makes lens replacement feet for the older AF-I (non-s) 600f4? If I could lower it an inch, the balance would be much better on the Manfrotto. The Wimberley website shows these things for the newer S models presumably because their tripod mounts (feet) are so high. In anycase, the Wimberley2 is supposed to arrive in a couple of days.
Tien
Dave - 01 Jul 2006 00:52 GMT Don't know, you might try Really Right Stuff.
Dave
>> I know you've already made your decision but here's an observation for >> the group. I have the Canon 500 f4 IS and use an Arca Swiss B1 ballhead [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Tien Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 30 Jun 2006 03:18 GMT > I know you've already made your decision but here's an observation for > the group. I have the Canon 500 f4 IS and use an Arca Swiss B1 ballhead with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Dave I have a 500 f/4 and both a sidekick + arca-swiss B1 ball head and a full Wimberly. While the 500 could go on the sidekick, in my opinion, it is not as stable as the full Wimberly, and because of the side mount method, there is a real danger of dropping the big lens when either putting it on or taking it off. The full Wimberly does a much better job supporting the lens and the bottom mounting is quite safe.
I use my sidekick for my 300 f/4 lens. If I really had to travel light with the 500, I would use the sidekick, but feel it would be limiting.
Roger
Rob Davison - 13 Jun 2006 09:03 GMT > I was trying to shoot some small, fast-flying birds today with a 200mm > lens. [...] > > Any suggestions, or am I just beating my head against the wall trying this? Birds will often put on the brakes or even hover before landing. Particularly if the perch is moving or awkward (eg. a tree when it is very windy).
A bird searching for food or trying to catch an insect on the wing will sometimes hover or fly quite slowly. I've seen sparrows follow a moth down to the ground with almost no forward movement and fantails will make short hopping flights trying to stir up bugs in fallen leaves.
A bird flying repeatedly to a known landing site would allow you to anticipate better and perhaps catch a good shot. One obvious example is a nest though you'd probably want more than 200mm to avoid disturbance.
Just a couple of ideas that may be worthless in your circumstances.
A few flying birds:
http://www.pbase.com/mapleglen/onthewing
Rob.
Bill Hilton - 13 Jun 2006 23:52 GMT > Roy Smith wrote: > I was trying to shoot some small, fast-flying birds today with a 200mm > lens. I could easily follow the bird with my eye, but it was totally > hopeless trying to track it with the lens; I just couldn't keep up. > > Any suggestions, or am I just beating my head against the wall trying this? It's tough, no doubt about it. Here are some tips, based more on my theories than actual successes since I also struggle with small birds in-flight and fail most of the time ...
Faster aperture speeds up AF ... I think a one stop faster lens focusses twice as fast, other things being equal.
Some camera bodies have much faster AF systems than others ... for Canon users the 1D Mark II and MII N are the fastest, there's a 4 Mpix Nikon that's really fast and I think the D2x is really fast as well. If you ever shoot a 1D Mark II and then pick up a 10D or 20D you'll really notice how slow the AF is on the consumer grade bodies.
A lens with a longer min focus distance will AF faster than one with closer min focus distance because the lens doesn't have to hunt as long. An example is the Canon 400 f/5.6 L, which won't focus very close so is faster than other Canon lenses that focus closer.
Some brands have fast focus lenses (Canon's USM for example) and slow focus lenses (non-USM lenses) ... Nikon has the same deal though I don't know their terminology. Get the fast focus ones to better your chances. As an example the Canon 100-400 IS has USM and focusses noticeably faster than the Nikon 80-400 VR, which lacks the Nikon equivalent of USM.
If you know the path of the bird try to pre-focus as close as possible to the line you think it will take so the lens doesn't have to hunt as much.
You can either go 'one shot' mode and lock a particular distance or 'AI Servo' mode (Canon terminology, sorry) and track the bird continuously. Each mode works in certain situations so learn both and switch between them as needed.
Try to set up with a clear background since the lens will lock focus against a clear background much faster than against a "busy" background. For example, try for clear sky behind the bird instead of a distant line of trees.
My main camera for birds lets me use one AF point or expand this by one point or expand it by more points or expand it all 45 points ... the more points the less precision but the greater chance of catching focus on a small target ... play with this if your camera allows you to expand the AF points.
If the lens has a limiter switch to reduce the AF distance then set it to the tightest range possible. For example on my favorite lens I can AF from 30 ft to infinity, 15 ft to infinity or 15-30 ft ... I'm always changing this to try to get the right range (if I had $10 for every time I forgot to change it back and missed a later shot I could buy a new car though :).
Rob Davison's comments were good, as were his shots ...
Here are some shots of mine to illustrate some of these ideas (or not).
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/desert/rufous_U8507.htm and a couple of other pages on the same site ... this guy was hovering near a feeder, similar to what Rob discusses ... I was able to get him with a very long lens (500 f/4 with 1.4x t/c) by setting the focus range to 15-30 ft because it would lock on him fast ... I also tried a faster lens, a 70-200 f/2.8 L, and could get really close to the birds, but couldn't AF as fast as with the longer lens because there is no narrow range on that lens, ie, it was 4 ft to infinity (or whatever it is) instead of 4 - 8 ft, so if I missed focus a bit it would 'hunt' and I'd miss the shot as the bird flew off. So here a longer, slower lens was actually better for the job than a shorter, faster lens because I could set a narrow distance range ...
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/pribilofs/puff_flight.htm http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/pribilofs/puff_fish.htm These guys are really tough to shoot in flight, I got them with 45 point mode and a fast focussing lens and body. I was with 5 other people, who had Nikon D100's and Canon 10D's (been a couple of years), and they were not able to catch ANY of these guys in focus. With my gear I was able to nail them about 20-30% of the time.
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/tanzania_2006/barbet_T0449.htm (2nd image) http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/tanzania_rainy_2006/birds_8.htm (2nd, 3rd images) More hovering ... in both cases I focussed on something else, with the bee-eaters I was locked on the guy on the branch ... these birds spot a bee or fly, zip off to snag it mid-air and return, sometimes hovering, so I was set up for him (and lucky the eyes are on the same plane). The Whydah bird is dancing in mid-air to court the female and I had the 500 with a 2x converter, so pretty slow AF, so I focussed on the female instead and the male was in focus when on the same plane as her.
So get a fast lens, fast camera, learn when to use the different modes and have some fun.
Bill
Greg Campbell - 14 Jun 2006 03:49 GMT > I was trying to shoot some small, fast-flying birds today with a 200mm > lens. I could easily follow the bird with my eye, but it was totally [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Any suggestions, or am I just beating my head against the wall trying this? I've had some luck keeping both eyes open; tracking the bird with the naked eye, and centering him in the viewfinder with the other. It's hard to do and requres practice, but does seem to work under some conditions. Try it, but don't blame me if you wind up with a headache or worse (permanently cross-eyed!) ;)
-Gerg
|
|
|