Handhold for birding

John there are many myths and pseudo rules created by people who simple cannot handhold many things. BTW for stating that I handhold long lenses I was banned from this forum for a week or so a few years ago. One of the reason I just canceled my membership here after that.

‘True rules’ are:

1) Technique Stationary object: practice Moving object: practice ‘perfect’ panning - better you match movement, sharper photo 2) Equipment - you always get what you pay for 3) Exposure (and quality of light)

Usually I can handhold 500mm f4 IS L plus 1.4X on 1.6 sensor (all day long when hiking) even at very slow shutter speed.

You can check last issue of Nature’ Best Photography - full page photo taken at 1/100 sec right after sundown with above setup.

Native pixels crop - here are some action at almost 100% crop. As you know birds you know skimmers and they movements. I was just working on some skimmer photos taken this summer. All on the wing handheld 500mm+1.4X 40D.

All the best and always try to find your limitations by experiments, and not by believing myths. Mark

Catching fish

Skimmer on the wing with fish

I can't match those images, which are stunning, but I don't have much trouble hand holding a 300/f4+1.4x at all. If you're crossing broken ground with a long lens, the addition of monopod makes it that bit more difficult.

@Mark, beautiful images you have there. I'm familiar with panning technique and you're right equipment does matter in this type of shooting.

@Peter: what kind of PP you've done to it, looks beautiful.

I recently acquired 300mm + 1.4X TC. Went to the zoo for handholding practice yesterday :-).

http://flickr.com/photos/dallascowboysfan/2683143937/sizes/o/

It doesn't seem as sharp as my 70-200mm f/4 IS USM though. It could be the TC that causing it, I'll try without it next week.

Some people are steadier than others. Some get worse with age, some better (I got much better, for some reason). On the average, the camera is going to shake (yaw/pitch) about 2 moa/sec which is going to limit the sharpness based on (effective) focal length and shutter speed. You have to shoot about 3x faster than the "focal length rule" to get consistently sharp results. No matter how steady your hand, getting a sharp image at slower speeds is a matter of luck. You have to kiss a lot of frogs, so to speak, to find a prince.

That said, image stabilization is a god-send for hand-held shooting. I get a good percentage of keepers with my 70-200/2.8 VR at 1/30 second or less (good enough for theater shots), and near tripod clarity at 1/125 in daylight.

Some people are steadier than others.

true

Some get worse with age, some better

true

You have to shoot about 3x faster than the "focal length rule" to get consistently sharp results. No matter how steady your hand, getting a sharp image at slower speeds is a matter of luck. You have to kiss a lot of frogs, so to speak, to find a prince.

Not quite true, see ‘rules’ above. Champion marksman is not hitting target most of the time handheld from a few hundreds yards because of luck or kissing frogs but because of his/her skills and practice. Not everybody can be a marksman, astronaut, pilot etc. Again, testing and knowing own limitations can help to not waste one’s own time. But on the other hand, to limit yourself because somebody else said so does not seem to be a smart move. Best, Mark

Actually with a long, heavy lens, even if I could hand-hold, I do recommend and use a monopod. That is much easier to do for hours on end, rather than "hand-hold" and get stiff and grouchy. With VR or not ... : monopod!

While some people can handhold long lenses at slow shutter speeds and get good results some of the time, I think it's misleading to lead people to think that anyone can do it. It's by far the exception rather than the rule.

It's like anything else. Just because you practice all day every day at tennis, you're not likely to win Wimbledon. You'll get to be a better tennis player, but if you don't have that inbuilt ability, you can't learn it. I could practice the guitar 4 hours a day and I'm not going to be able to play like Eric Clapton or Jeff Beck (or whoever your guitar god is).

I do not think that 90% (or more) of photographers have the physiology required to hand hold long lenses at slow speeds and get images as sharp as they would from a tripod. To suggest otherwise is misleading and can lead to disappointment and the usual questions of "why aren't my images sharp", to which the answer is "because you're not using a tripod" much more often than "because you don't spend several hours a day practicing handholding your 500mm lens".

Thanks all for replying. I believe there are people like Mark that's so lucky to have steady hands but most of us will have to use monopod/tripod for help.

There is a fundamental difference between skill in marksmanship vs. photography (besides the obvious). In marksmanship, you see the point of aim (poa) wander over the target in a circle of 2-5 moa. The key is to minimize this motion (it cannot be eliminated) and squeezing the trigger a little tighter each time the poa crosses the bullseye.

In photography it is the motion itself which affects the quality of the photograph. The changes in poa have no significant effect on the composition. As in the shooting sports the motion is sometimes faster, sometimes slower, sometimes wider and sometimes less, in a semi-random pattern. The techniques of minimizing the motion are very much the same - physically and psychologically. The luck, as I see it, is shooting when the velocity is at a minimum. As with a rifle, you learn to anticipate these events, and your "luck" improves.

Lets reverse some statements to see if they are also true:

Because you do not practice all day every day at tennis, you're not likely to win Wimbledon. But yes, if you practice you will become a better player and, at least, you will have a better chance to win. If not a Wimbledon then perhaps a smaller competition.

My photography improved drastically (no matter how strange that might sounds) when I learned to handhold long lenses. I can visit and shoot in places not accessible with tripod and without disturbing or scaring away wild life. I can choose angles not possible with tripod and I stopped to lose so many interesting and hard to repeat moments. I can say that all my best photographs are taken handheld and it will be very hard or even impossible to take them with camera mounted on tripod. And no, I am not missing at all the luxury of the tripod when you can contemplate nature around and press the shutter from time to time getting the same, or almost the same, usually not so interesting, aov (angle of view) as 99% of others waiting in line of the edge of pond waiting for something to show in the front of a los (line of shooting).

As I pointed gentle, and others named it straight by a name most people cannot be a champion of everything they choose to practice. But even if one will not become a champ one can become much better player and even get ahead of the pack presenting results more original, not possible to take even with the help of the most heavy tripod. As always choice is to be done. Stay with the pack and enjoy the discussions how sharp are the individual pixels on all so similar images or try to learn something new even if it is for your own satisfaction. BTW I mostly shoot because it is an incredible help to document observed events and photos are becoming a very valuable data for later analysis.

Bottom line is, as always, that the final result is what counts the most. How it was achieved is a secondary thing. Theories are good to be discuss when sipping drinks. They will be just what the name says: theories. Quality of the real images brought from the field trip are a different story. The only reason I answer question in similar discussion is to encourage those few who are eager to learn new approaches but for some reason are intimidated by myths created by others who are not capable to do it so they want rest of the world to be not capable as well.

Best, Mark

@Mark: do you have specific posturing when taking pictures standing ?. Thanks.

Yes John. But the most important thing is to be completely relax. No tension on your muscles and very, very important no thinking about if you can do it or not (you will lose your concentration and relax). Learn to have a fluid motion. That habit will help you to get and be accepted in close range by many animals as well. Even that large part of my photos are taken with absolutely no support I will use anything available for support if only possible. Tree, rock, ground etc. This will allow you to have lens ’aimed’ when waiting without much extra effort. When shooting from squad position put your elbows on your knees etc. Shooting with long lens handheld is very similar to shooting long gun (I hate this comparison but it is true). 500mm or 600mm might not be for every one, but 400mm f5.6 or shorter it is possible for most people to mastered. Best, Mark

@Mark, could you be more specific in the posture :-) ?. I know people recommend things like tuck your elbows, point your feet sideways, put your forehead down, etc, etc. How about yours ?

"Shooting with long lens handheld is very similar to shooting long gun (I hate this comparison but it is true)."

I imagine studying marksmanship technique might prove useful: Aiming, Breath control, Trigger control, Follow-through/Recovery.

The second and last are likely significant contributors - trigger while holding ones breath because breathing creates body movement. A shooter also has to hold steady until the projectile exits the barrel (follow-through) akin to holding steady for the shutter duration. The Recovery is the keeping of ones target within view for a rapid repeat shot.

I have only few birds posted they are all hand held taken with 70-300 VR or Sigma 400 NON VR. I have a stand that carry in my car but don't use it. I boost the ISO to get shutter at >1/100 I get dent picture at that level but faster the shutter better it is. Photography is a hobby for me.

Mark, those images are just beautiful! Thanks for sharing your experience as well.

There is a science to shooting? Just aim the camera and shoot. If you take 500 shots in a day handheld, you will get some keepers at slower speeds. Eventually. My personal rule for handheld shootin, have fun. Personally I will have fun with or without the camera.

John, I imagine that Arthur Morris has taken millions of photos handheld at somewhat slower speeds. I will also bet that his rate of keepers is much lower handheld than it is with a tripod. Then again he probally takes a lot more photos handheld due to the agravation created with a tripod. One way or the other, he is not getting 100% keeper rate. Nor is any other photographer in the world.

Shoot a lot and you will get them too. Eventually, even I will get them.

This is the very important cocerning point in terms of photography techniques.

This is not easy to use always a tripod in wild life photogaphy, even in some low light conditions when using long focal lengths.

We can improove the speed by using fast lens and higher ISO, but if still we don't get a sufficient handheld speed than what...?

I think there should be some excercises to improove handheld studdyness. Is there something...? I don't know...!

@D.F.: Yes, that's what I've been doing..shoot and shoot, only 1% keeper though :-) but I think I'm getting better. It seems my limit is 1/30s right now for static object.

@Pankaj: possibly low breathing technique so your body won't move a lot.

I am one of those that needs at minimum a monopod, but with sufficient light. I can do fairly well hand held, do not have IS except on my G9 and 24-105 and if the object is not moving I can lower by at least 2 stops. It is great to be able to carry a tripod all of the time but it just does not lend itself well to a lot of shooting situations. Only way one can learn his limitations is by trial and error, go and take photos and see what works. I think the rule was developed during film days because digital makes it so easy to practice and learn.

John, 1/30s is awesome! Once I managed to get a shot of 1/45s at 420mm, without VR. I really believe that luck plays a bigger role than skill. No matter how skilled you are you will come home with some ugly blured shots.

My next purchse will be a monopod.

I agree with Mark B. I rarely use a tripod, I use a shoulder stock or shoulder stock with monopod instead. The mobility this allows enables many wildlife photographs where a tripod would be too difficult to use. For sharp photos your chances are better with the tripod but for better photos your chances are better with more mobility.

Mark,

Beautiful shots. Can you tell us approximately how far away you were?

Hey guys (no ladies...? ('should be another thread started on that...)

I just stumbled into this discussion and was drawn away from reading the comics by all of this lively debate and had to hop in. All that's missing here is some decent crackers, cheese and wine.

I'm new to all of this business of rules, axioms etc. so when we were off to shoot some critters in Africa last summer I had to make up my own. My wife, daughter and I were off bouncing through the countryside with a ranger/driver at the wheel of the 4X following wild hand gestures made by our spotter who was strapped to the front fender. Meanwhile I'm riding shotgun and trying to stay in the seat while hanging on to my 100-400 dust pump. When the thing did occasionally stop, and the other four folks tried to be steady, there were still movements from wind, gastric distress and subtle nudges from the occasional elephant trying to get our attention. Of course when we stopped the critters kept right on their heading which was away from us, except for a couple of elephants, two lions a a leopard that seemed to see us as something to mess with or eat which then meant that we were moving again!

I really wanted some good shots but all of the "rules" of exposure I had crammed on before our departure were suddenly pretty useless. No way to use ANY pod, except an ipod duck tapped to your arm, so I had to make up my own rules. I decided that I wanted an enjoyable picture. "Blurry" was out, the camera said it would fire a 1/8000 but that meant that I would have to make the light sensitivity pretty dang high. But that would mean I would violate the admonishments against high ISO settings to avoid noise. Noise or blur? Not much of challenge to answer that one. So I settled on a bean-bag (a zip lock filled with the local dirt) and occasionally usin an ISO of 3200 at 1/8000 so that the DOF was greater than the distance from nose to ears of a lion.

When we got home I was amazed at the sharpness. Now mind you, I doubt that any of them would be usable for outdoor advertising but 8X10s are incredibly sharp and larger sizes of some would likely be very usable too.

So, my point? Yeah, y'all have some really great shots and some folks shake more than others but pushing that point seems pretty unnecessary. Each of you has found something that works well for you. Why do so many folks try to evangelize on what works for them? Seems a bit like arguing politics or religion. As some have said, it's the results that matter.

I'm 67 and I like to think that I'm steadier than I was at 40 but hauling my ball headed gitzo all over the place no longer entertains me. Am I "capable"? Well I have fun and some people seem to think highly of a few lucky shots I've made, but reading these posts makes it clear some folks take themselves way too seriously and that we all ought to get together for drinks!

I'm in Long Beach, CA and always ready to host a lively exchange of images, ideas and arguments. Now, back to the funnies.

I need a lot more practice, but I am getting there with handholding. I recently got a sigma apo 400/5.6 lens for my olympus om-1n. The first few pictures weren't terribly sharp, but they were also wide open at 1/500s, a combination of bad focus and poor shooting techinque as near as I can tell. I haven't developed anything from my recent roll of film yet (still finishing it off), but I am noticing my technique is improving. I am gripping a bit further down the barrel and its helping to steady things. I feel like I'll be happy getting away with 1/500s with the lens and figuring out how to get more precise focus. The focusing screen I have right now goes dark at f/5.6 supposedly, though in actuality it doesn't unless the light is low with the lens I just can't really focus with it because it will never show perfect focus on anything (and is super granular). When using a bean bag rest I confirmed that the lens very much will get perfect focus, but it is just difficult with the low amounts of light and the poor choice of focusing screen. I think I need to go with either an all matte screen or a 1-2 focusing screen which is supposed to handle to f/8.

I have a few shots of a cow bird that I am eagerly looking forward to, as well as a couple of shoots of a harvest moon (darn my luck for having B&W film loaded), one of them with my 2x teleconverter on the lens. With the moon shot it wasn't to hard to use my knee as a rest for my elbow to help steady things.

I still need to get a good tripod for anything really below 1/500s, at least for the foreseable future.

"While some people can handhold long lenses at slow shutter speeds and get good results some of the time, I think it's misleading to lead people to think that anyone can do it. It's by far the exception rather than the rule." --Bot Atkins

There is no question about that. Doug Herr routinely gets great hand-held shots. I almost never do. I am typically fiddling with a tripod, while Doug is actually getting shots of things that don't hang around long.

Check these shots by Doug Herr if you are not familiar with his work. (Remember that we are not typically talking auto-focus when we mention Doug Herr.)

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/

http://home.earthlink.net/~telyt/

--Lannie

Sorry, Bob. We all know that you are real, not a 'bot.

--Lannie

Sorry for a late reply but I am away often from a computer and internet. I will try to answer some question but I do not want to open too many new cans of worms.

First thanks Mary for your kind words. I want your puffins and I want them now - never had time to take a trip to spend some time with those birds.

Now answers. I wish PN could allow to insert more then one photo to avoid multiply posts.

Lets finish with skimmers. Tom, to get a nice photos of skimmers you have to be somewhere in range of 20-50 feet from the bird. And let me point here another subject. I notice a lot of remarks about ‘keepers’. Unfortunately definition of keepers is quite different for every one of us and sharpness is only one, but not always, requirement to check when looking at wildlife image. Too often I hear somebody applying to critique of his/her photos with the statement: It is good to be hang up above the sofa in my living room. Different purposes of taking photo make this situation even more complicated. As most people, especially photographers, like to be recognized they often form societies of admiration exchanging nice comments about their photos and often they deeply believe that others statements are true not just payback or is done when expecting the same in the return. But lets go back to skimmers and handholding. This couple of photos are showing skimmer filling the frame. First one can be taken with tripod but it will be more difficult task to do and handholding make it easier.

This photo cannot be taken with tripod as the lens has to practically touch the water surface.

Same this one - crop showing the most challenging situation with object (skimmer) coming straight at you and photo is taken at the eye level.

When talking about eye level images those Least Bittern (my another favorite bird to study) photos also would be impossible to take with tripod as photographer need to be in mud, often between dense vegetation, keeping lens right above the water surface.

or this one

Osprey, top of the top of my interests. When walking waist or chest deep in water following this magnificent fisherman tripod can be quite a challenge to use as it will sink in the mud bottom of the lake. Not to mention hassle and time waste trying to set it up.(See John I am slowly coming to answer your question about posture when handholding)

Again getting close to many birds dragging a tripod might not be a good idea. Here is crop of photo showing Osprey taking out bass eye when feeding on still alive fish about 20 feet away from a new accepted marsh dweller (me).

This Great Egret accepted my close presence and we were walking together getting as close as 4 feet next to each other (no I could not take photos - need 15 feet focusing distance to do that) all day long near small pond in the boonies were bird was hunting frogs. Handholding was an ideal choice for that king of situation.

Same with this Great Blue Heron

John now you can see, I hope, that I cannot describe a prefect posture. You have to adjust it to the situation and standing posture will mostly be good for taking flight shots when tripod is also out of question when birds are flying overhead. All the best Mark

@Mark: What can I say ....your pictures are truly outstanding!.

Mark, those are quite incredible. I went looking for more of yours on this site (not counting the ones on your own site) and found these (as one scrolls down the page):

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2501948

May I ask what lens you routinely use to get these shots?

--Lannie

Also Mark, would mind sharing the rest of the information you might have about these great shots: Lens, camera and if you are still using a Canon - the settings that you find work best (i.e. focus points for 30D seem to operate differently from the 40 D and the 1D-- center only or all points?), sharing the ISO and other exif stuff you use would really help complete the idea and help some of us to get better shots. Don't suppose you would want to share the location of the skimmer shots.. finding places around here to get eye-level is very difficult. I envy you! Thanks

Well I'm at a loss of adjectives to describe these shots. Certainly the best I have seen on this site. Wading out chest deep in the marsh shows prior planning of location and execution orders of magnitude beyond what any kind of luck could bring. The skill level here hand held would take me years to develop assuming I even could. Mark thank you so much for sharing.

Hand-held is pretty much the only way to photograph from the kayak:

Mark, real nice shots.

I still believe luck plays a bigger part in capturing the moment. The most important issue here is equipment. Canon or Nkon, Canon probally still has better equipment for birding. So the bigger your wallet is the better off you are. A 600mm f/4 lens is much better than the 300 f/4 that the majority of us use. Equipment has nothing to do with skill or luck, just the size of your wallet. Where skill comes into play is on chosing a location (Being in the right place at the right time). And, how to operate your equipment. Yes, handholding is a part of operating. But, getting tack sharp images of birds at slow speeds is complete luck.

If you go back and read the original post that John G. made you will see that he asked how to get tack sharp images at slow speeds with large lenses. All of these photos that Mark has shared with us look like they were taken at 1/500 or faster speeds. Anyone can get sharp images at those speeds, the question was for slow speeds.

To capture a bird, tack sharp, in low light at slow speeds is pure luck. There is no amount of skill involved with that. You all got so wraped up in post and photos that you completly forgot the question that John G asked.

"To capture a bird, tack sharp, in low light at slow speeds is pure luck. There is no amount of skill involved with that."

When well-braced, i.e., using the shoulder stock & sitting on the ground with elbows on some appropriate part of my leg, 1/125 sec exposures with the 560mm lens are often very usable:

"But, getting tack sharp images of birds at slow speeds is complete luck."

Perhaps, but sort of like hitting a home run in the bottom on the ninth in the last game of the World Series. Lucky? Yes, but you have to have worked hard to get the opportunity for that kind of luck--and you need some native ability.

--Lannie

Outstanding images, Mark!

Mark's photography reveals a consumate photographer's skills and vision. Good equipment helps to deliver that extra edge, but not the other way around. If luck and good equipment are the only pre-requisies for outstanding images, then we would see a lot of these photos around.

Thanks again, Mary

Here is a shot I just got in my backyard handheld at 420mm, 1/60 sec, f/5.6. I took 15 shots this one seemed a little sharper than the others. I feel lucky to have captured a small House Finch this sharp handheld at 1/60 second. If I had 50 years experiance I would still feel lucky. I guess I just dont think high enough of myself to get sharp images any time I like at low speeds.

However, due to the 1/60 second exposure it is far from sharp. It would have much sharper if I had used a tripod or I could have used 1/250 second or higher speed.

@DF: I'm not making fun of you ..serious :-). You're focusing on the tree trunk!.

Sorry bad example as the branch is sharp enough. One way or the other, I just dont see how anyone could expect to go out and get sharp images handheld at low speeds any time they wish.

Yeah John, I noticed. I am digging myself a grave here. I quit.

@DF: *LOL* You're funny.... anyway your landscape pictures look beautiful!.

I will get back with info some people asked for and in meantime thanks for comments. I am on small pocket size computer (need microscope to see the keyboard) and now enjoying wonderful light on the shore before hurricane Dolly will make some changes in the landscape.

But I will try to put a couple of examples of low light and low shutter speed photos as requested. Personally I believe that very often those condition allow only so called ‘record’ shots, but, I have to admit, I do take them very often for my own records. Even that they are sharp light is not usually too interesting.

First Barred Owl. I think I had to kiss a lot of frogs as I took about 20 shots at 1/30 to 1/60 sec and all of then were the same. Here is one. Three more in this folder (not sure about posting links here if tat will fly): http://www.pbase.com/mbb/chapell_hill_042107

Scroll to the bottom and you will see that they were taken after sundown together with some silhouettes against the sky.

Here maybe is an exception as reflected light after sundown were interesting on that evening. 1/100 sec. Again about dozen photos taken and they were all sharp like this one but I like this pose the best. As I copied from net and resized already compressed files they might not show the best quality. Forgot to add that both photos are taken in standing position without any support: Canon 20D +500mm f4 + 1.4XTC. I will be back with more answers in day or two. Best, Mark

Damn! Just about the time I've talked myself out of getting the 500 somebody shows up with incredible shots like these... and hand held with a tx. Mark, thanks for sharing more great shots and the info. If Dolly gets you airborne try maneuvering toward the Southern California coast; it's the place covered by fog.

Hellow Mark, First of all I would congratulate you for that kind of amazing work.

I don't know that what secret is behind this, but I know there is a secret.

I wish you would share with us, how do you manage and haw did you got this kind of fine sturdyness...?

How did you started, and how you improoved your abilities...?

Thanks and regards.

Mark, thanks for your compliments on my puffin shots (sorry for not seeing that part of your response before). They are a far cry from your quality, of course, though I was quite pleased that they were all within one hour's work at the Machias Seal Island. If and when you visit, I suggest booking for at least two sessions (two mornings).

By the way, can your share your favorite place for bird shots?

Mary

I enjoyed this lively discussion and wanted to say, in response to the original poster, that hand-held shots of birds do appear possible even for the relative DSLR neophyte such as myself. However, I spend a lot of time looking through binoculars and think I don't shake too much (except when I over do the coffee). For example, the following image of an incubating Gray-headed Junco is razor-sharp full size, and I took it at 1/20 sec f/10 with a Rebel XTi and a 300 mm F/4 IS L. The IS was in mode 1, and I was playing with stopping down for more DOF after taking a nice sharp one at f/4. I took this exact shot at f/10 1/20 sec several times in a burst and I trashed the blurry ones. That seems to be an important thing that many of the contributors here ignored: at these shutter speeds most of what you get is probably going to be crap except that one nice crispy one that pops out. So shoot a bunch in these conditions...

Again, sorry for so late reply. Now I have a quite a few to work on.

Lets start with most busy poster. :) and one who really shown stubbornness that made me smile many times (in a positive way). I spent recently a lot of time gathering information on innovation process in birds as it is one of my favorite subject when collecting data and photographs in the field. Granted, neophobia is a large factor in slowing down evolution of developing new behaviors. (In psychology, neophobia is defined as the persistent and abnormal fear of anything new. In its milder form, it can manifest as the willingness to try new things or break from routine.)

@ D.F. There is a science to shooting? Just aim the camera and shoot.

That is a reason for so many snapshots flooding the net. From that point of view there is no science to anything. Anybody can do anything and life is very easy and full of fun. Nothing is wrong with this approach as it is approved by masses and works for all except a few.

Personally I will have fun with or without the camera.

Sure, but it is different between a fun and a passion. Satisfaction can add to fun a lot as well.

One way or the other, he is not getting 100% keeper rate. Nor is any other photographer in the world.

Same rule apply to tripod users. Again ‘keeper’ should mean more than just sharpness.

I really believe that luck plays a bigger role than skill. No matter how skilled you are you will come home with some ugly blured shots.

Tell that to the poor recruits at the boot camp. After a year or so some will be in the top condition, most in better then average. I often wish (no kidding) to have more blurred images when back home – this will cut my time when checking. Also, blur is often a motion blur, some call it artistic :).

I still believe luck plays a bigger part in capturing the moment. The most important issue here is equipment. Canon or Nkon, Canon probally still has better equipment for birding. So the bigger your wallet is the better off you are. A 600mm f/4 lens is much better than the 300 f/4 that the majority of us use. Equipment has nothing to do with skill or luck, just the size of your wallet. Where skill comes into play is on chosing a location (Being in the right place at the right time). And, how to operate your equipment. Yes, handholding is a part of operating. But, getting tack sharp images of birds at slow speeds is complete luck……. To capture a bird, tack sharp, in low light at slow speeds is pure luck. There is no amount of skill involved with that.

Unfortunately too many people adopted excuse that if they cannot do it somebody who does will do it by pure luck. I am sure it works well for psyche to keep a spirit up so we might call it useful even that false.

Not a size of wallet but a priority often makes the difference. Everybody can drive cheaper car, wear cheaper clothes, avoid expensive restaurants etc. and easy afford a 500 or 600mm f4 lens. Sure if one will use it for an hour each month or less sacrifice might not be worth it.

Also knowing what you are doing can help a lot. Several species of birds that I observe all the time I also study at home. I have copies of everything important that was published about those species, their biology, ecology, behavior etc. This helps also to know instantly in the field if you see something interesting or new.

All of these photos that Mark has shared with us look like they were taken at 1/500 or faster speeds. Anyone can get sharp images at those speeds

Really? Even a small child or grand grandma? :)

@ Lannie. Photo you are asking was taken with 400mm. For last several years I am using almost exclusively Canon 500mm f4 IS with 1.4X TC on 20D and lately on 40D. Sometimes I also use 100-400, 400 f5.6, 100mm and 17-40. At that moment I am a couple of years behind with my photos. Website was not updated for even more (shame) and a few recent photos are on pbase. No telling when I will be able to catch up as I prefer to be in the field and not in the front of the comp.

@Steve. I already listed the equipment. Routinely I shoot at 400 ISO, sometimes at 800 or 1600(dusk, heavy clouds, rain etc.). When concentrating on one subject (like skimmers) I prefer to shoot in a manual mode so no surprises with exposing whites or blacks. I am only using one center point autofocus in continuous mode. When using automatic light readings my thumb is on a wheel all the time as you have to change compensation very often in reaction to changing backgrounds, subjects etc. I do not recommend that for any novice in a important situation as it has to be done almost automatically, no time for ‘thinking’ and that can only comes with a long practice to make fast decision how to react in the specific situation.

Skimmers come and go (like all feathered critters) following food. Eye level is always possible – question is how much sacrifices you can made. If one is in need for a divorce a few (maybe in same cases only one) times of coming back straight from the field when shooting at eye-level should make a trick.

And 500mm f4 IS is the best thing money can buy. You should get it.

@Mary, Tom, John – thanks again for your kind words. Mary I do not have any ‘favorite’ location. I try to avoid heavy visited public places and follow my favorite birds as they showing up. I often spend days with one species, sometimes with one bird and less people around the better – none is the best.

Now a few more examples and thoughts. Let’s finish with low light – slow shutter speed. Some more owls as an example. Great Horned Owls with fledgling. Taken quite recently so still are on my comp. And again I will have to keep splitting this post to show examples. In this folder you will find examples of documentary (record) shots showing allopreening. (http://www.pbase.com/mbb/great_horned_owl_april_2008__allopreening) All taken in very low shutter speed before sunrise, ISO 1600. First example here at 1/30 sec. Note that when fledging moved its foot a lot of ‘artistic’ burr was showing.

But if one could wait just a few more minutes light was changing for better.

And to finish low light subject here is my record so far. 1/8 sec. Not going even to try to repeat this one. At the end of my reply I want one more time stressed out that sharpness is not the only concern when shooting. I personally believe that correct exposure is much more important. And a few more examples for those who have a problem with tripod or handholding decision.

Some benefits of handholding:

And just a few extra thoughts and examples. Masked Duck – entering their element (water) allows not only close approach to this rare and elusive species but also helps to use a right angle to show the bird.

One more example of photo that cannot be taken with camera on tripod if one to show this kind of action of small bird in very shallow water.

Or to show how small bird is foraging.

Even large birds will tolerate the intruder closer.

Action shots are easier to get when handholding.

Snowy chasing another one.

‘Macro’ shots can be taken as well when handholding the long lens.

Or birds in their home.

Daniel recommended to take very long series of the same subject. Small advice. Again similar to experience with automatic guns. It is very unwise to keep trigger pressed and unload the whole magazine in a few seconds (buffer in camera). Short 2-3 shoots bursts work much better and allow to not only keep ‘refreshing’ autofocus but also are helping to save ‘ammunition’ when needed is something else interesting happen. Works with longer events as well. Here for over twenty minutes I was recording famous Osprey’s ‘sky-dance’ (’fish-display’). Keeping shooting in short bursts gave me a guaranty for not running out of the buffer.

Now is time to say a goodbye if I do not want to end up as this frog did. Best, Mark

Mark, you did it again -- these are just incredible!

Again, thanks for sharing your experience as well, Mary

Mark, thanks so much for sharing your incredible pictures, your generosity with technique, and your sense of humour.

Hellow Mark, First of all I would congratulate you for that kind of amazing work.

I don't know that what secret is behind this, but I know there is a secret.

I wish you would share with us, how do you manage and how did you got this kind of fine sturdyness...?

How did you started, and how you improoved your abilities...?

I would be thankfull if you share the some practice suggestions with us.

I don't like to use tripod in these kind of conditions and my lowest ristriction I think is 1/200 and sometimes 1/90-1/45 with my 70-300 at 300mm on a film body.

I would also like to know about you exposure calculations.

Thanks and regards. Pankaj Purohit

Mark, I think that in general your shots are beautiful. But, calling my suggestion to take 'several shots in bursts' small advice is fairly typical of your contribution to this discussion. You basically go on to give the exact same advice I give after ridiculing mine.

Thank you so very much, Mark, for this very instructive and inspiring presentation. It does not say enough that these images are magnificent. I am new to wildlife photography and am very partial to handholding for the very common sense reasons that you have presented here. I am using a D300 with a 80-400mm VR f4.5-5.6 zoom which has it's limitations but has already shown that it can produce some very nice results handheld with some practice and patience. I am anxious to get better and I love to spend time in the field, often in a canoe, kayak or a boat, but you have given me some more ideas. I just had to express my gratitude for what you have presented here. I'll close with a small example of one of my first shots with the 80-400...

I will just have a few words. I already promised in private email exchange to answer some Pankaj’s question as soon as I will have a spare moment. In meantime thanks Mary and Geoff for even more kind words.

Now I have to quickly answer Daniel’s post as I see quite misunderstanding. I called my advice small as it was an addition to your post. I should not place a period after but, it is not a secret, I made quite a lot of mistakes when writing. In fact after reading my posts later I found quite a few typos etc that I should correct before posting. True, small advice could be unintentionally understood the wrong way. Again I wanted just add a few remarks how I handle shooting in bursts and called this a small advice. Sorry that this was to you, as everything I wrote before, a ‘fairly typical of your contribution to this discussion’. I can’t satisfy every one taste and I am sure many knows more then I do. I am glad that you are in a position that you do not have lo learn from posts like mine here. It is a wonderful feeling. Trust me. My posts are rather directed to those who want to learn something new from me and those who just find them boring, uninteresting and not contributing too much or far below their own skills and knowledge please just skip them. Beauty of the internet; too many posts to choose from on all levels. Best, Mark

And thanks Richard for your words. I am glad that you found something to have thoughts about for a future use. Exactly what I want to trigger by my posts. You had to write the same time I did. All the best and good luck with wonderful adventure of handheld wildlife photography. Mark

I hand hold a Canon 100-400 for birds and shoot as fast as light allows. The information above is very good and I wish I had it when I started shoot birds back in the film days. If you shoot many birds you will get a few excellent, 7/7 type photos; however, you will have many beautiful birds that are out of focus or over exposed, and lots of perfectly focused bird’s rear ends as they fly away. Good luck, take bug spray and a candy bar.

Apologies Mark, I misunderstood you. It seemed you were putting down my honest attempt to answer the original point of this thread, which (quite respectfully, here!) you have mostly ignored. In response to a post asking about handheld shooting at low shutter speed people have posted *beautiful* handheld shots that were clearly shot at very high shutter speeds. The only exceptions to these are maybe 4 of the 20-some photos you posted, some nice shots by Douglas Herr, and the amateurish nest shot I posted. This thread has generally ignored the original poster, but has been packed with gorgeous shots.

Incredible Shots, Mark! I think you have done a very nice job of explaining what the original post was about and even a little more information that we all can learn and grow from. You have even shown us that even low light conditions can be very favorable, if you know what you are doing. Not many can accomplish the outcomes that you have achieved, mind you, but hey, we can all appreciate, (well at least the ones that don't let jealousy get in the way), the wonderful work you do. Thank you so much for sharing as i am sure you are a very busy man. By the way, Mr Barton i hope you understand that when birds are nesting it is very important to not stress them out or get too close for a number of reasons, one in particular is that you may unknowingly be leading a predator to the nest by your smell. There is a code of ethics with nature photographers, please all, respect them and remember you don't need to get closer you just need a bigger lens :)

Heres a link to the Code of Ethics in case you are not aware of it.... http://www.naturephotographers.net/ethics.html

Dear Caped Crusader, I am a PhD student in evolutionary biology, and the photos I take of bird nests at nests that I am checking during my research. I have been doing this for about 10 years. I bring a camera along prior to checking their contents for hatch, measuring nestling growth rates, etc. I have federal and state permits to do so. I greatly appreciate your efforts to avoid disturbing nests and spread information about how to avoid disturbing nests, as bird conservation is a critical concern world wide. I hope all amateur and professional wildlife photographers adhere to such rules.

Best, Dan Barton

Thank you Mark for the kind words, I enjoy making people smile. Due to my not so well thought out argument, I quit early. However, I stand by my words. Getting sharp images of birds handheld at speeds slower than 1/60 second is pure luck. Know matter how steady your hand is if the bird moves the shot is blured.

Would you call it skill in keeping the bird from moving? Personally I would call it luck. If you are so skilled in keeping a bird or any animal from moving you are more than skilled, you are a god!

What is wrong with admitting that luck plays a big part in photography? Is your ego that inflated?