Lens for Shooting Birds in Flight?

[C Barker]

Hi there,

While shooting birds in flight on a current production we initially rented a Sigma 300-800 (which required renting an O'Connor tripod), shooting at 3K/48fps on the Scarlet. I was not happy with the results, primarily due to the frame rate limitations (looked into Twixtor to rectify this but wasn't convinced) and now am planning to re-shoot - possibly renting an Epic to shoot 4K/120fps.

I found that shooting around 800mm at 3K was about right in terms of framing (in fact it could be slightly less), so I am wondering what lens would be sufficient for 4K on the Epic?

While I can just about budget renting an Epic for a day, it will be very difficult to rent the O'Connor tripod+ insurance again in addition to this. I am wondering then what lens could produce sharp results at around 400/600mm that could be used with a relatively lightweight tripod (at least one that doesn't require insurance)?

This impressive clip was shot with a Canon 100-400mm with 2x extender on the RED One, but when we used the same combination on the Scarlet the results were unusable due to lack of sharpness (on close subjects the lens was quite sharp when fully zoomed, but the birds in the air were blurry - heat distortion in the air or backfocus problem maybe?). Perhaps though the 2x extender will work fine on the Epic as it did here on the RED One?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7bVxLCu0fg

I should point out that the location will be hot (approx 65-85 °F) so I am also concerned that there will be problems with heat distortion in the air particularly as the location is now hotter than before.

Alternatively I could just shoot with the Scarlet at 1K although I doubt this will really be adequate for a production partially intended for theatrical exhibition? The shot itself will only last about 10 seconds in the edit but is possibly the most important in the film.

For the Epic route I am considering using the following and would be very interested to hear of any thoughts or suggestions on what would work best and be sharpest at around 400/600mm:
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (with or without) 2x Extender
Canon 200-400mm f/4L with 1.4x Extender
Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3

Thanks!

 

[Marc Berger]

Canon 400mm 5,6. Lightweight and superb lens! Don´t know the way your shooting this scene, but the Epic/Scarlet with this lens is as light that you can shoot handheld.
Much, much better lens then the 100-400mm at the long end or the Sigma 50-500.
If budget allows it I would take the new 400mm 2,8 with extender, or like you mentioned the new 200-400mm from Canon.

 

[C Barker]

Canon 400mm 5,6. Lightweight and superb lens! Don´t know the way your shooting this scene, but the Epic/Scarlet with this lens is as light that you can shoot handheld.
Much, much better lens then the 100-400mm at the long end or the Sigma 50-500.
If budget allows it I would take the new 400mm 2,8 with extender, or like you mentioned the new 200-400mm from Canon.

Thanks very much for the suggestions. In regard to the 400mm 5.6 I am concerned that it will be difficult to find/get the subject in the frame at this focal length (my DP initially suggest we get an 800mm prime but we discovered subsequently that shooting moving wildlife at this length is basically impossible).

I can also rent a more heavyweight tripod than I have (a Manfrotto 190XPROB) but would really like to avoid getting into O'Connor/rental insurance territory.

 

[Linda Barzini]

I think the 2 things to consider are final output and slow-mo? If you want really slow motion to highlight the flying, you'll need to push the frame rates. If your final output is 1080P or 2k, you can shoot 4k or 5k and push in during the edit.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

If you have a two-person crew, put a rifle scope on the camera. Have one person track the birds, and have the other manage focus using a whip, follow-focus, and a good-sized monitor. I would avoid using long zooms and stick with primes, using extenders only on the highest-quality glass (100mm clear aperture and above, such as the 300 f2.8). An 800 f5.6 is your friend. This would probably be your frenemy:

 

[C Barker]

I think the 2 things to consider are final output and slow-mo? If you want really slow motion to highlight the flying, you'll need to push the frame rates. If your final output is 1080P or 2k, you can shoot 4k or 5k and push in during the edit.

I feel that 48fps does produce a noticeable slow-mo effect in certain uses, but for relatively tight shots of birds in flight the effect has been barely noticeable so I'm really looking to go for 120.

Unfortunately the question/decision of delivery is still somewhat nebulous for this production as theatrical exhibition will almost certainly only be at festivals and small independent cinemas, many of which appear to not be able to screen at 4K presently (the same I think can be said of most of the TV broadcasters we are vying for); though we have been shooting in 4K to cover all bases.

 

[Dave Blackham]

We would use either a HJ18 with HDx35 convertor no doubler, primarily to get the zoom range or if shorter focal lengths needed Nikon 50 300 f4.5. It depends on how far away the bird is. Epic 96fps 5k.

Don't shoot in the mid day heat but that depends on when the birds are going to perform.

Good luck.

 

[Robert Hart]

With a pair of older 1/3" cameras some years back, rather than a spotting scope or rifle sight for aquiring the bird for the long lens, I mounted one video camera with the long end of its zoom image centre, harmonised to the fixed telephoto view of the main camera which had a longer reach.

When I used two zooms, there was a slight overlap of the zoom ranges of both lenses. It is a lot easier to aquire with the wide end of the zoom of the sighting camera, close in then switch to the main camera view. I used this setup for chasing aeroplanes.

After playing about with different arrangements I settled on having the main camera in the normal position at centre of the tripod and the sighting camera/wide-view camera outboard to the left, a little lower and a little forward. This had its disadvantages as one had to reach across to the Sigma lens.

Having the sighting camera a little forward allowed some easier access to the Sigma lens. I was then using the LCD screens of both cameras.

I also used an old black Miller fluid head which has no counter-balance system. I also found that using two pan-tilt levers, one on the right in the normal rearwards position with the bend angled upward and outward to the right and the other with its bend angled forwards and downwards on the left, was helpful in maintaining steady follows by using body posture to see-saw the head rather than try to manage it with the rear lever and lens, instead resting the left wrist on the front tilt lever and the fingers to work the zoom and focus.

I have used a Sigma 50mm - 500mm f4 - f6.3 zoom and found it softens in about the last 100mm to full telephoto. It is also not constant aperture and darkens the image noticeably at the telephoto end of the movement.

Later with the SI2K, I found that P+S Technik, with their obsession with precision, had arranged the OLED finder optic to be in correct horizontal alignment with the optical axis of the camera lens. It was therefore possible with practice to use both eyes, the left eye for sighting until the image appeared in the viewfinder. With one of the zoom lenses, it was possible to have a zone of coincident image in both eyes.

Bizarre habits maybe but that was me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4fEmLg8M2k

Unfortunately this clip was uploaded to Youtube in the days when you used to have to play little tricks to make images scale correctly.

When they upped their game, the scaling became incorrect.

 

[Peter Majtan]

If you are saying that the 300-800 "was about right" @ 800 in 3K - You are most definitely looking at 800 if you are going to shoot in 4K - and there is no better lens for what you want to do then the Canon's EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM.
It features 4-stop optical image stabilizer - which is a MUST for shooting subjects such as birds. And even thou that lens is a bit heavy at 4.5 kg - it can be safely used on affordable tripods, such as mine Manfrotto 509HD - just make sure you mount the lens on the tripod and just attach the camera to the back of the lens...:

I had to use the GEARNEX head (but still on my Manfrotto sticks even with the massively heavy head!) in the above shot as I was tracking the sun's eclipse - but it is to show you that the camera can easily be mounted like that (as long as you have the Ti mount). Basically if the lens is heavier then the camera - then mount the tripod to the lens - which is the case with the 800mm.

The bellow shot of the moon was on the Manfrotto sticks and the 509HD head...:

And here are couple of bird shots with the 800...:

The crane was on the Manfrotto, but the falcon was hand-geld... ;o)

That lens costs about $200,- USD to rent per day here in Tokyo. If you have the budget and are not sure if the 800 will be too long - you can also rent the 600mm...
If you insist of going with zooms - forget the 100-400 and get instead the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM with built in 1.4x extender which gives you a 280-560mm f/5.6 in addition to the 200-400 f/4. It also features that amazing 4-stop image stabilizer as the 600 and 800 primes...

One trick in getting sharper bird shots is using a bit faster shutter speed. I normally shoot 24P with 1/96 shutter...

:sifone: Peter

 

[C Barker]

If you are saying that the 300-800 "was about right" @ 800 in 3K - You are most definitely looking at 800 if you are going to shoot in 4K - and there is no better lens for what you want to do then the Canon's EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM.

Thanks for the suggestion. As expressed I am concerned that not being able to zoom back will make it very difficult to find the bird in the frame - but perhaps this is not the case?

 

[Drew Fulton]

I am coming from a nature and wildlife background, particularly shooting stills but doing more and more video, though shooting with a DSLR. I routinely shoot with my Nikon 600f4 with 1.4tx and don't really have a problem finding birds in the frame. The biggest thing I have found is get your head in a viewfinder so your body and the camera are one object that moves together. Even working on a DSLR, its a major advantage. When I first switched to shooting video from stills, I couldn't find anything in my frame using the screen on the back of my DSLR. I got one of Zacuto's Z-Finders and everything went back to normal and I was finding birds just fine. I also have shot with the 600 f4 and a 2x teleconverter on a Sony FS700 which ends up being another 1.5x crop so you are looking at 1800mm equivalent. It's tricky but with a viewfinder instead of just the screen I was able to track flying birds and get some really nice stuff at 240fps. I honestly don't quite understand why the viewfinder makes life easier but it really does. Might just be a decade of photographing small birds through a normal camera viewfinder but it makes a huge difference for me.

On the flip side, I have worked on a shoot with Canon's 200-400 with built in teleconverter. (I own Nikon but it doesn't have the built in teleconverter.) The biggest advantage I found with the zoom wasn't to use the zoom to find stuff in the frame but to quickly grab a "wide" shot, a mid shot and a tight shot working from 200mm to 560mm quickly. When shooting a bunch of wildlife and trying to document biodiversity at a single place you can really get a ton of coverage quickly and easily without ever changing lenses. Add on another teleconverter (even the 2x) and you've got a massive range of flexibility.

Last tip, know your subjects. For shooting birds in flight, know where the wind is coming from. Birds will typically fly into the wind as it is easier for them AND it slows them down a bit making focus a bit easier to track. They also almost always take off and land into the wind when there isn't something in the way.

Be patient and good luck! It can take a lot of time and practice but can also be brilliant when you nail it.

**EDIT** I forgot to mention gear. I have been shooting all this on the Sachtler FSB-8. For shooting birds in flight, I turn the drag on the pan and tilt way down and let me move much more freely, particularly with fast moving or erratic flying birds. When working with more static subjects, the drag gets turned back up. I think my rig basically maxes out the FSB-8's weight limit and adding an Epic would put me over the top but it works, particularly with moving subjects.

 

[Peter Majtan]

Thanks for the suggestion. As expressed I am concerned that not being able to zoom back will make it very difficult to find the bird in the frame - but perhaps this is not the case?

It really comes to your experience and ability to "predict" the path of a flying bird (which drastically improves with experience). Don't take me wrong - I am not talking about years and years (altho it does help). Even a full day constantly shooting birds - especially if you are shooting the same exact kind of a bird - will help. You will see yourself improving as the day tags along - and if you do have what it takes, even by the end of a single day you will improve drastically...

When I shoot with the 800 (and I do that frequently and specifically for shooting nature and fast moving subjects) - I rarely find myself wishing I had a zoom instead.
It seems that you are finishing in HD - so if you do shoot on the Epic - I would go for 5K 96 fps with 180˚ shutter (1/192).
You will naturally see and be able to decide which shots (or section of a shot) you want to "zoom in" in post and which to keep wide (and how wide) - that's the beauty of shooting in 5K...

Honestly - my advice is to go with the 800mm. If you are not sure and want to "play it safe" go with the 200-400 with the build-in extender as I have mentioned in my previous post (and as echoed by Drew above)...

My 2 yen...

:sifone: Peter

PS: If you go for the 800 - make sure to get the 52mm Drop-in Screw Filter Holder 52 (accepts standard 52mm filters) and a full set of 52mm ND's. But that drop-in is really hard to get. If you can't find it - get the drop-in filter holder for gel and get few ND strengths of the 10x10 (cm) sheets FUJIFILM (http://fujifilm.jp/personal/filmandcamera/sheetfilter/nd.html) or equivalent...

 

[Stacey Spears]

Wonderful shot of the moon Peter!

Anyone try the Tamron 150-600mm?

PS: If you go for the 800 - make sure to get the 52mm Drop-in Screw Filter Holder 52 (accepts standard 52mm filters) and a full set of 52mm ND's.

A motion mount would also work well. the 52mm solution is much cheaper though.

 

[Peter Majtan]

A motion mount would also work well. the 52mm solution is much cheaper though.

True, true. Yet to try one myself, but it might be easier to rent one (Canon Motion Mount) then to find that drop-in...

:sifone: Peter

 

[C Barker]

Thanks very much for all the suggestions. Something that no one has really touched on (perhaps it is too obvious) is the question of whether a sequence shot at 1K will be noticeable if the film is screened/broadcast in HD (or even at 4K for that matter).

If I do go the Epic route I was initially intending to shoot at 2K/120fps (the best shutter speed for this might be 480 as per the ratio suggested here?), primarily because it would probably have to be cropped to HD in most instances anyway and would I imagine make it easier to focus on the subject and get the framing right?

So an EVF might be the optimal solution for monitoring?

 

[Peter Majtan]

Thanks very much for all the suggestions. Something that no one has really touched on (perhaps it is too obvious) is the question of whether a sequence shot at 1K will be noticeable if the film is screened/broadcast in HD (or even at 4K for that matter).

It will be more then "noticeable" - and not in a good sense - even at HD. IMHO - unusable for upscaling to 4K (scaling HD to 4K is stretching the limits as it is)...

If I do go the Epic route I was initially intending to shoot at 2K/120fps (the best shutter speed for this might be 480 as per the ratio suggested here?), primarily because it would probably have to be cropped to HD in most instances anyway and would I imagine make it easier to focus on the subject and get the framing right?

Why would you shoot in 2K on the Epic? It can handle 120 in 5K-WS, or - if you must - in 4K. Don't shoot anything smaller then that...

The shutter speed is to an extent independent of the frame-rate (for this purpose). For smooth looking stuff you want to shoot 180˚ shutter, but shooting birds you wanna be around 1/100 of a second at least to keep things sharp.
So when I shoot 24P - I go for 1/96 (I prefer the shutter to be in multiples of frame rate).
For 25P (PAL) - 1/100
For 30P (NTSC) - 1/120
For 48P - 1/96 - which would give me the 180˚ ideal shutter as well.
Anything above 48P I would just shoot at 180˚ shutter, so...:
For 50P - 1/100...
For 60P - 1/120...
For 96P - 1/192...
For 100P - 1/200...
For 120P - 1/240...

Finally - shooting at 2K (or more so at 1K) will drastically narrow your FoV - making it that much harder to spot, frame, focus and track your moving subjects...

:sifone: Peter

 

[David Kuhn]

Anyone used the Sigma's? They have a number of lenses that could be used for wildlife: 300-800 F5.6, 800 F5.6, 500 F4.5, 300 F2.8... and while they're not cheap, they're a fraction of the price of Nikon long lenses (I'm assuming they're also more affordable than Canon glass). They've also been getting pretty good reviews.

 

[Peter Majtan]

The 300-800 f/5.6 is optically amazing - but for some weird reason it does not have IS - which is a bummer (and a must have on a tele like this). I would rather pay $1~2K on top of the $8K it costs and it would end up being my No.1 extreme tele solution...
Hopefully they will re-do this lens in either the Art or Sport series...

As for the 300 f/2.8 - I recommend to get instead the new Art-series 120-300mm f/2.8 (which does have the IS) - I have tried this zoom and I am in love. Gotta buy one of these soon, but there are other priorities at the moment. Optically it is as amazing as the 70-200 Canon mk.II...
As for the 800 and 500 primes - I prefer the Canons due to the superior IS. Again - hopefully these will get re-made into the Art/Sport series...

:sifone: Peter

 

[David Kuhn]

Peter, I've not bought a Sigma in years... and in the bad old days it was the mechanicals that let me down (to the point that I told myself I'd never buy another). I've read that these days they're very solid... is that your experience (I'd especially worry about an IS Sigma - lots to go wrong)?

 

[Peter Majtan]

The new Art / Sport series is truly amazing. I have had a chance to try (and compare side-by-side against the CN-E zooms) both the 18-35 f/1.8 and the 120-300 f/2.8 (which does have the IS). The are amazing lenses both optically and mechanically - truly a new frontier for Sigma.
The 120-300 is a must as it both covers the 6K on Dragon and has the new gen IS (that Sigma calls OS). The IS is right up there with the Canon and a significant upgrade from their previous generation.
The 18-35 has the f/1.8 speed going for it - the only downside is that only covers APS-C. But that is not an issue for me as I shoot predominantly on Scarlet. And now with the Dragon Scarlet APS-C lenses will have met their match!
I haven't used the super speed primes (all f/1.4's) - but have tried the telephotos. Rumor has it that they will be re-made into the Art/Sport series. When they do - I would love to have another go, as the current tele primes (of the older design) are OK, but pale when put side-by-side with the Canon's...

:sifone: Peter