Backyard birdies

mhardy6647

Señor Member
Some spring 2021 (as in the past few days) down the street birdies :)


DSC_0226 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
cedar waxwings, in a dead tree


DSC_0236 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
Chestnut-sided warbler (in some really unfavorable light, exacerbated by the mediocrity operating behind the viewfinder ;) )

DSC_0237 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
Like a (humming)bird on a wire...


DSC_0286 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
Common yellowthroat.
Just as with monkeys and typewriters, once in a while, even a bad photographer takes an OK photograph. :)

We have a nice little gathering of beautiful yellow warblers down near the corner. I spent some quality time yesterday trying to get a good photo of any one of them, with a rather profound lack of success. Gonna keep tryin'...
 

mhardy6647

Señor Member
Those pesky warblers can be the most uncooperative, confounding subjects sometimes.
Well, between Mrs. H (the expert) and me*, we're pretty good at ID by call (song) -- but, yeah, they are pretty jumpy-aroundy. ;)

___________________
* I ripped a warbler call compilation from cassette to digital for Mrs. H a few years back ( for her car) using Audacity. The effort of so doing (the easy part) then breaking it into tracks and labeling meant I heard the calls of many Eastern warblers quite a few times. :) That "digital" stuff was, and to some extent still is, kinda hard for me. :confused: :redface:
 

jmathers

Junior Member
Eastern Bluebird. We have (I think!) a pair of these nesting in a bluebird nest box I (finally) put up early this spring. I'd been meaning to put one (at least) up... ;)

DSC_0329 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
DSC_0330 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
What camera setup do you have? I have a point and shoot Lumix FZ35 and can't get the clarity that you're getting. Must be using a DSLR of some sort. I'm enjoying the pics you're posting.
 

mhardy6647

Señor Member
Low-end Nikon DX format DSLR (D5600) with a nice 70-300 mm VR Nikkor zoom -- both the very kind gifts of my son (the real photographer in the family).
Those are enlarged (cropped) images taken through the DR window; they're not very sharp at all, from my perspective. :redface:
The yellow warbler & common yellowthroat photos I posted earlier aren't bad, though, in terms of sharpness/clarity. :)
 

jmathers

Junior Member
Yeah, I was referring to the yellow and common yellowthroat pics.

Here's a young Cooper's hawk taken with my FZ35 on a tripod through the kitchen window from 2017:

coopjr.jpg

More typical results though are here. Which WOULD have been a great shot had it been in focus:

coopjr2.jpg

I'm generally less successful with this camera in handheld mode. I'll read up more on the D5600 unless you have a different recommendation. I wouldn't want to spend much more that the D5600 goes for.
 

GuyK

Junior Member
Yeah, I was referring to the yellow and common yellowthroat pics.

Here's a young Cooper's hawk taken with my FZ35 on a tripod through the kitchen window from 2017:

View attachment 36795

More typical results though are here. Which WOULD have been a great shot had it been in focus:

View attachment 36796

I'm generally less successful with this camera in handheld mode. I'll read up more on the D5600 unless you have a different recommendation. I wouldn't want to spend much more that the D5600 goes for.
It looks to me like motion blur. 1) the bird is moving, 2) some camera shake. Was the 2nd pic taken with the lens extended to it's longest focal length? Was the image stabilization on? I've just read up about your FZ35, and this would be like trying to hand-hold a nearly 500mm lens on my Nikon D610 (it's a full-frame sensor). It's difficult to capture an image, hand-held, with a long telephoto lens, unless using a fast shutter speed. VR helps some, but it only goes so far. Keep in mind the rule of thumb for shutter speed: 1/F, where F is lens length. Example: F=300, shutter= 1/300s, at the slowest. Faster yet can be beneficial.
 
Do back yard raptors fit in this category?

The picture is of a Bald Eagle nest (aerie for you crossword puzzlers) that is located about 400 feet from my property in a suburb a few miles north of Seattle. The nest is located in a mature cottonwood tree and it was photographed about a month ago before the tree fully leafed out. This view from the west is now fully blocked by the leaves. I have since found a few public locations with peek a boo views from the north of the nest. I do not have the proper lens for my camera to photograph from these locations. I can see the nest fairly well with hand held binoculars and can see an eagle in the nest almost constantly. I am almost certain that the eagle I see is Mrs. Eagle tending her young. I plan to set up a more powerful sporting scope on a tripod to see if there are some little ones in the nest but the best viewing location is in the middle of a street and poses a bit of a risk of being hit by a car.
 

Attachments

  • Eagles Nest.jpg
    Eagles Nest.jpg
    730.6 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:

mhardy6647

Señor Member
The (one?) nice thing about focus and blur "issues" in digital photography -- to a good approximation, snappin' a photo's free*. Take twenty (snap, snap, snap) -- maybe one will be good (or at least good enough).
I took nearly 1000 snapshots this month (so far, and it ain't, technically, over yet)*. Mind you, that amounts to, like, twelve good photos -- but that kinda arithmetic is pretty much economically unfeasible usin' film. ;)
____________________
* As my father would say, "are you bragging or complaining?" :confused: :o
** Yeah, yeah, I know the digital cameras only have so many "snaps" in 'em, but it still beats payin' for, burnin' and developin' film.
 

GuyK

Junior Member
The (one?) nice thing about focus and blur "issues" in digital photography -- to a good approximation, snappin' a photo's free*. Take twenty (snap, snap, snap) -- maybe one will be good (or at least good enough).
I took nearly 1000 snapshots this month (so far, and it ain't, technically, over yet)*. Mind you, that amounts to, like, twelve good photos -- but that kinda arithmetic is pretty much economically unfeasible usin' film. ;)
____________________
* As my father would say, "are you bragging or complaining?" :confused: :o
** Yeah, yeah, I know the digital cameras only have so many "snaps" in 'em, but it still beats payin' for, burnin' and developin' film.
Shutters on many cameras are good for a hundred thousand snaps or more these days. So your 1k images this month will be (+/-) 12k/ year for around 10 years. That would be a fortune in film.
 

Tedrick

Junior Member
What camera setup do you have? I have a point and shoot Lumix FZ35 and can't get the clarity that you're getting. Must be using a DSLR of some sort. I'm enjoying the pics you're posting.
I use either a Nikon D7100 or D750 with a Tamron SP 150-600 mm zoom lens.
 
Top