Turnstone

[neptuno]

Shot from today out at Keyhaven. These guys are usually down on the mud on the edge of the harbour but today they decided to admire the view from the harbour wall
WDYT

Stan

7D, 300 f4 + 1.4x, 1/500 @ f5.6, ISO 200

[robbieb]

Good capture Stan, like the plain background and the pose but it looks tiny bit soft (on my screen) possibly a bit of movement ?

Robbie

[neptuno]

Hi Robbie

Thanks for looking. It looks sharp enough to me, apart form the leg, where the shutter speed was not fast enough to freeze the movement

Here's another, same exif

[grumpygeorge]

hello stan

when i do fast birds, which they all are, i usually go to tv/sp (time value/shutter speed) priority and i start with tv.500 and look at what the focal f i have to play with. these turnstones need more than f2.8 to get them front to back in focus = it better be a bright day! (concept)

grumpygeorge

[grumpygeorge]

or a latest technology cameras

[Paul Iddon]

Heheh George, I love your lessons


Paul.


BTW, like the 2nd pic best Stan - more "birdy" for me.

[grumpygeorge]

[neptuno]

when i do fast birds, which they all are, i usually go to tv/sp (time value/shutter speed) priority and i start with tv.500 and look at what the focal f i have to play with. these turnstones need more than f2.8 to get them front to back in focus = it better be a bright day! (concept)

Hi George, I only tend to use Tv when i am looking for a slow shutter speed, shooting motor racing or prop aircraft for instance, to ensure wheel or prop blur. Av usually give a sufficient shutter for this type of shot when the light is good as it was here. I was shooting at f5.6 which was the max aperture for the lens combo but I could have upped the ISO which was only 200. The trouble is looking at the camera screen the shot looked fine and its only when viewing on the computer you discover a problem and then it is too late.

Stan

[Pierre Le Suisse]

I think its a splendid shot. The exposure is spot on and the composition great with a clean background.
My fist reaction regarding sharpness was that the rocks slightly in front of the focal plain of the birds eye were sharper than the eye. I still think this is the case, there seems to be too much depth of field in front of the bird if that makes any sense.
Pete

[neptuno]

Thanks for the feedback Pete

My fist reaction regarding sharpness was that the rocks slightly in front of the focal plain of the birds eye were sharper than the eye. I still think this is the case, there seems to be too much depth of field in front of the bird if that makes any sense.

It does look that way but checking the original unedited files for both shots (before crop to improve composition), the main focus point is bang on the eye so it is quite strange. I dont think the lens is front focussing as I had not noticed a problem with other shots

Stan

Stan

[Lord_Winchester]

I like the shots also, although prefer the second with a more pleasing light on the face...

Perhaps the focussing query is due to the whole hyperfocal distance 'thing' where a greater distance towards the lens in more acceptably focussed than beyond?

[neptuno]

cheers richard

Perhaps the focussing query is due to the whole hyperfocal distance 'thing' where a greater distance towards the lens in more acceptably focussed than beyond?

not that technically minded but could be possible

Stan

[Pierre Le Suisse]

It may simply be a trick of the eye, particularly as my eyes are getting on a bit.
My understanding of hyperfocal distance was that it was the point at which everywhere between halfway to the hyperfocal distance and infinity were in focus.
Anyway its still a lovely shot.
Pete

[TeeCee105]

In many ways, these are two very similar highly competent images full of detail and colour. However, I too prefer the second image Stan.

The fact that the bird is looking towards the camera helps make a warmer contact than in the first where it's more "out of the corner of the eye".

[neptuno]

Hi Tony
thanks for looking.

The fact that the bird is looking towards the camera helps make a warmer contact than in the first where it's more "out of the corner of the eye".

I agree, but the second is rather a standard pose whereas the first is a little different

Stan