You are correct! My recent encounters with shorebirds were from close range. The kneeling angle was significant, but it was not 45 degrees. I also think an image exaggerates the angle which is why it is important to get low or use a very long focal length.

In general, getting low produces a more pleasing image but it is important to understand that that has very little to do with depth of field (as I explained previously)

I am confusing our discussion by mixing variables (apples and oranges). My comments are based on a series of shorebird images and there is overlap among variables as I assess each image. A poor angle combined with a shallow depth of field might lead me to conclude incorrectly that it is the angle and not the f-stop that is resulting in parts of the bird being out of focus.

Agree. In order to compare you need to photograph a sleeping bird when you are standing at a given shutter speed and aperture and then get down lower while keeping the camera body the same distance from the bird. I am betting that you would not see any differences in what is sharp and what is not 🙂

Again, many thanks for your comments. By challenging my thought processes, you are making me a more competent photographer!

Don M.

You are most welcome. Thanks for commenting in the first place and sticking with this.

ps: Imagine how much you would learn by joining ann Instructional Photo-Tour and asking questions!

Thanks for your comments!

I was using the D500/200-500mm, and my unadjusted focal length ranged from 270-500mm for most images.

I agree completely with your bokeh explanation and you are right to question my statement concerning focus plane. This was my logic.

When the camera is on the same plane as the bird, the top and bottom of the lens are equidistant from the bird. If the angle is 45 degrees downward, the top of the lens is closer to the subject and the bottom is further away. In theory, less of the bird is in focus if it is filling the frame.

#1: You would never be photographing at 45 degrees with a telephoto lens unless you were on a ladder 🙂

#2: Assuming that you are correctly focusing on the bird’s eye, and difference in how much of the subject is in focus would be negligible at best (at least to the human eye).

In reality, this difference might not be perceptible depending on the depth of field, the orientation of the bird and the distance to the subject. All of this to say that it would be difficult for me to state objectively that my camera angle was influencing how much of the bird was in focus.

I agree that there will be no discernible difference in how much of the bird is in focus whether you are working with a 30 degree angle of declination or a five degree angle of declination …

I’ve become more sensitive to small depth of field differences as I shift from a 560mm/f8 (Canon system) to a 750mm/f5.6 (Nikon system). I’m seeing more situations where a bird’s eye is in focus, but its feet are not.

I am confused by the above as you seem to be comparing apples and oranges …

I’ve also been very lucky recently to encounter shorebirds that are comfortable with my presence.

Yes, the young birds in August will do that.

Because they are closer, my depth of field is even narrower.

We can agree on that. It is a point that I stress here often: you most need to stop down when you are very close to the subject. I like to keep things simple: whether I am standing or sitting or lying flat, I generally work stopped down only 1/3 stop and focus on the bird’s eye. If the subject fills more than half the frame I will usually stop down to f/8 or smaller.

Thanks again,

Don M.

YAW. with love, artie