In yesterday's post I mentioned that I took around 40,000 photos last year. It sounds a lot, and I guess it is; but it actually works out at just under 110 photos a day.
I'm not going to deny that this is somewhat excessive, but part of the reason is that photographing wildlife requires a large slice of luck to get the right moment. Waiting for the exact shot would mean I wouldn't get shots like this, or this, or this. They were all caught while taking a burst of maybe half a dozen shots over a couple of seconds. And when shooting in bursts, the frame count rattles up very quickly.
So it was that when I spotted a chaffinch today, in good light, I ended up with about 80 frames in a little over four minutes. With the problem of branches throwing shadows, the bird moving around the tree and a gentle breeze moving the bird's perch back and forth, I managed about a dozen decent shots from that lot, and have only edited 7 of them, and uploaded four. So that's an effective hit rate of 1:20.
With experience I'm reducing the number of total no-hopes. I no longer take shots of distant birds against grey skies at huge distances. I know I won't use them. But when a good opportunity presents itself, I succumb! :devil:
As for this goldfinch, it's the only usable shot from 6 or 7 I took. Most of the time one or other branch was obscuring it from view.
Camera note: both shots taken with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM IS lens. For the goldfinch I also used the Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DG teleconverter.
BitzyMe
30 Jan 2008I can totally relate to 1/20. If I'm out shooting.. and not for a very long time.. less than an hour, I usually come back with around 65 or so.
Weather hasn't been cooperative here last couple of days so I haven't really had an opportunity to put that 55x200VR through it's paces. yet on longer shots. I'll be uploading one ..OK shot in 365 shortly. Very gusty cold winds and was pushing me around trying to get some shots. Very different using that lens. Definite improvement on clarity.
That Chaffinch shot at the top of this page is Excellent!!!!!!
gdare
31 Jan 2008That chaffinch is actually looking at what are you doing 😛
Flying Red Fox Blog
31 Jan 2008Nice pics:D Its true that it takes a load of shots to get the right one, i deleted 65 photos of Squirrels yesterday after taking 103! I was having more luck with the crows 😆 It does take a lot because wildlife dosent stay still and co operate with the cameraman lol.
Words
31 Jan 2008Mark, that's the advantage of digital. You can afford to take shots and see what works. I'm always amazed at the wildlife photographers who were capturing birds in flight and animals in motion before digital and before autofocus and before very rapid burst shooting. Now they had good technique, and probably a lot more time than most of us can devote to it.
Words
31 Jan 2008Darko, if only! But it was very co-operative.
Words
31 Jan 2008Bitzy, glad you're enjoying the new lens. The VR (or IS in my case, or 'shake reduction' in English) really helps. I have to turn it off when I'm using the extender, which means my success rate plummets unless I can get a really fast shutter speed (around 1/1000) or have a solid resting point.
SittingFox
31 Jan 2008That chaffinch has a rather grim expression! For some reason it makes me think of a disapproving schoolmaster!
Beautiful pictures though of both finches. I too am trying to stop myself taking pictures that I know I'll just delete, though in my case it's mainly of very distant meadow foxes! It's hard to resist though; sometimes I wonder if I'm subconsciously attempting to get the furthest possible shot of a fox that is still usable! Yesterday I took nearly 200 pictures, no bursts, which was unusually high for me. It's the yellowhammers…cannot stop photographing them… :eyes:
Words
31 Jan 2008Oh I agree… distant shots are the worst for high volume-low result. I think of them as record-keeping. And I'd also take plenty of shots of yellowhammers if I ever saw them!
BitzyMe
31 Jan 2008Words.. yes. I'm finding I'm shutting the VR off at times. Boy does it eat up batteries quick!
Words
1 Feb 2008I'm surprised the VR is eating batteries :confused: I generally switch batteries every day and half or so, but that's a lot of use (I always carry a charged spare though). The Nikon battery pack should last for more shots than the Canon. I just checked a couple of forums. There seem to be conflicting opinions on the impact of VR on battery life, some say it 'eats' them, but the majority say the reduction in battery life is marginal. Cold weather will reduce the number of shots per re-charge, but it may be worth lowering the level on the LCD. How many shots are you getting before the battery fades?
BitzyMe
2 Feb 2008I don't think (in my case) its the number of shots.
I do have the cam set to a very high resolution. The cold definitely plays a big part in it. It's been fairly bitter here.. around the zero mark at times.. farenheit. I think part of it too is because I'm focusing quite a bit, trying to get used to it. Using the half shutter, hold then click method to get the right focus and light, especially with landscapes. It's probably more "operator" than the VRlens causing the problem.
Ohhh.. and I'm using rechargables now. The one that came with the camera didn't last long. I keep a charged spare in the bag at all times.
Words
2 Feb 2008That is cold indeed :smurf: :smurf: and will certainly reduce battery efficiency. It never gets much below 30F here
Vulpes vulpes
2 Feb 2008That's a classic Chaffinch shot!