Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Photo Technique / Nature Photography / June 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Tracking a fast-flying bird?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.