Question for 500mm f/4 users....

Do you guys find it necessary to keep the 1.4 teleconverter off to get flights shots of small birds?

I'm having a hard time to get my 40D to pickup moving small birds in the viewfinder as is (using tc). Recently tried to get flight shots of Tree Swallows and also a bat and even pre-focusing wasn't helping too much.

Thanks.

It's very likely you'll want to leave the TC off because you'll need that extra boost in AF speed. Plus the field of view will be larger without it, making it easier to find your subject. I've tried tree swallows with the 500 with no luck at all. I'm planning to try again here this spring but using the 400 f/5.6 instead. It's easier to hand hold, very fast AF and a wider field of view.

This is the smallest BIF I've gotten with the 500, and I definitely had the TC off for this one!

gymell wrote in post #7708949
It's very likely you'll want to leave the TC off because you'll need that extra boost in AF speed. Plus the field of view will be larger without it, making it easier to find your subject. I've tried tree swallows with the 500 with no luck at all. I'm planning to try again here this spring but using the 400 f/5.6 instead. It's easier to hand hold, very fast AF and a wider field of view.

Thanks Liz, I'm glad it's not just me!

When I was on Jim Neiger's Flight School workshop a few months ago (which is where I got that pileated woodpecker) we tried tree swallows. That was an exercise in frustration. However Jim says it's possible, so with enough practice I suppose it is. I know I good spot here near my house where I can stand out on a boat dock and tree swallows swarm all around. I think it will be a great opportunity to try it with the 400/5.6 - I'm not going to bother with the 500 again on them!

gymell wrote in post #7708969
When I was on Jim Neiger's Flight School workshop a few months ago (which is where I got that pileated woodpecker) we tried tree swallows. That was an exercise in frustration. However Jim says it's possible, so with enough practice I suppose it is. I know I good spot here near my house where I can stand out on a boat dock and tree swallows swarm all around. I think it will be a great opportunity to try it with the 400/5.6 - I'm not going to bother with the 500 again on them!

Do you find the AF faster on the 400/5.6 or is just the portability and field of view that makes flight shots easier?

I'm also wondering if the AF on a more powerful full frame camera would make a difference (as compared to my 40D). Right now I completely agree with the "exercise in frustration".

I have tried these birds also with the 500....... almost impossible............​. they are just too fast and too small to track with or without the 1.4. I would give praise to someone that can accomplish this task.

Is this just using the centre focus point? I have more success using manual as I find it impossible to keep the bird in the centre point, I guess it would be OK if they were filling the frame, finding them is the first problem

davebreal wrote in post #7708979
Do you find the AF faster on the 400/5.6 or is just the portability and field of view that makes flight shots easier?

I'm also wondering if the AF on a more powerful full frame camera would make a difference (as compared to my 40D). Right now I completely agree with the "exercise in frustration".

People say that the 400/5.6 is faster, but I don't know if the difference is enough to really be noticeable. Of course if you have IS turned on the 500, then you'd notice the difference. But at such high shutter speeds you wouldn't really need it. The Mark III definitely has faster AF, since it's made for action it's ideal for BIF.

artyman wrote in post #7709852
Is this just using the centre focus point? I have more success using manual as I find it impossible to keep the bird in the centre point, I guess it would be OK if they were filling the frame, finding them is the first problem

I only use the center focus point for any BIF. Just works best for me. Never tried focusing manually on BIF!

artyman wrote in post #7709852
Is this just using the centre focus point? I have more success using manual as I find it impossible to keep the bird in the centre point, I guess it would be OK if they were filling the frame, finding them is the first problem

I think it's safe to say that 99.9% of experienced wildlife photographers use Autofocus when it's available, and shoot with center point focus when pursuing a solitary animal.

That's simply how it's done.

gymell wrote in post #7710076
Of course if you have IS turned on the 500, then you'd notice the difference. But at such high shutter speeds you wouldn't really need it.

Is the AF much quicker with IS turned off? I hadn't tried that approach lately.

well i did finally get one!

http://drbphoto.smugmu​g.com …856_hfYrx#51110​7276_SNUoh

even w/o the 1.4tc on the 500mm f4, this was still a very lucky shot. i was prefocusing on the water and it took me quite a whie to track a bird at all AND get the autofocus to pick up the little bugger at all.

gymell wrote in post #7710076
I only use the center focus point for any BIF. Just works best for me. Never tried focusing manually on BIF!

Why only the center point? If a bird is flying from right to left, isn't it better to use a point just off center to the right? And vice versa for a bird flying from left to right. This way you leave a little more sky in front of the bird. It allows for "implied motion". I feel composition is better if I give more sky/background in front of the bird than behind it.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #7722047
Why only the center point? If a bird is flying from right to left, isn't it better to use a point just off center to the right? And vice versa for a bird flying from left to right. This way you leave a little more sky in front of the bird. It allows for "implied motion". I feel composition is better if I give more sky/background in front of the bird than behind it.

Because usually there isn't enough time to be switching back and forth between different focus points, and I'm rarely so close to a flying bird that there isn't space to crop as needed for composition.

gymell wrote in post #7722206
Because usually there isn't enough time to be switching back and forth between different focus points, and I'm rarely so close to a flying bird that there isn't space to crop as needed for composition.

Liz,

Often times I chop off part of the bird because I was just too close . . . a "great shot" is ruined.

But if I take the 2x off, then the next opportunity will be at a distance, and the image will be no good because the bird didn't fill the frame.

BIF are truly a difficult challenge.

True, I've chopped off parts of the bird too, many times trying to get those close flight shots. However if I've got it in the center of the frame, then I have a better chance.