It's a bird

by Vian Esterhuizen

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

5

Movement, scent, noise and shape are more likely to effect an animal's behaviour than the pattern of the camouflage used on a lens. However the pattern may help in that it breaks up the shape of the outline of the lens, which is alien to the animal's habitat and will most likely be seen a trap. As many animals are colour blind, the colour may not effect ...


4

As someone who occasionally indulges in bird photography, shoots micro four-thirds, and has adapted manual lenses to her Canon dSLRs, I'd say don't do it. The lens will be disproportionately big and heavy compared to your G5, and the lack of autofocus (and EXIF, and aperture control from the body unless the lens has an aperture ring) will probably be more ...


3

When you use a larger sensored camera, you're going to be working with a thinner depth of field either due to using a longer lens, or from being closer to the subject to get the same framing. The reason the Fuji and Nikon bridge cameras don't have as much trouble focusing is that with a smaller 1/2.3"-format sensor and a superzoom lens that has 500mm or so ...


2

With wildlife, 300mm is considered the minimum focal length you want (if we're really talking wildlife out in the wild, and not backyard semi-tame beasties that aren't shy of humans). 400mm is typically considered a minimum for birds. So, it does in some respects depend on what wildlife you're most typically stalking, in terms of how large and how shy they ...


2

The general rule of focal length for animals is that too much is never enough. It basically comes down to how much you can afford and are willing to carry. Many nature shots will be in remote places, so lugging the equipment there is a serious consideration. That all said, I'd at least want to go out with a 300 mm lens (relative to a full frame sensor). ...


1

To get the same reach as the long end of your 70-300mm lens on an APS-C body, you need a lens with a focal length of 450mm on the D750. To get any Nikon lens with that kind of focal length at f/5.6 or wider requires a substantial expenditure compared to what you paid for the 70-300. The Nikon 500mm f/4 sells for about $7,900 new. The 400mm f/2.8 runs a ...


1

To get the equivalent FoV ("reach") on full frame that a 70-300 has on 1.5 crop would require a (70-300)*1.5 = 105-450mm lens. This will probably be at least twice as expensive as a 70-300, and will definitely be larger and more difficult to handle. Make sure you're ok with the possibility of relearning technique or adding stabilization--and possibly ...


1

As a bird photographer (I was founder of the bird photography group on G+) I have to say that photographing birds is hard. The areas around birds tend to be clutters (leaves, branches, etc) and this can confuse the autofocus. Light is normally marginal so you need the large apertures, which narrows depth of field, so any auto focus mistake kills the image. ...


1

I think animals are more likely to notice the lens glass as that's what is pointed in their direction. It's hard to say that they'd notice the side of something not facing them. Also consider that they're more likely to notice you before they notice the relatively small lens. However, I wouldn't knock the product as being completely useless. Yes, there are ...


1

I see this is an old post BUT here is my 2 cents worth of wisdom. I have a d7000 and I'm goi.g to get this lens and probably a 1.4 tc. I can't afford the bigger lenses or the 2.8 versions. After reading as many reviews on this lens and weighing all the other options this is what in left with. I bow hunt and have taken alot of deer and squirrels with a long ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible