>>4333653>You people ruined this board.You should post examples of good bird shots you've taken to demonstrate what they should look like. His pics are bad and deservedly need to be called out for it, but coming out the gate aggressive is not going to push him to improve, which in turn lowers the quality of the board.
>>4333083>>4333086>>4333088>>4333647What camera and settings are you using? The exif is missing ISO/SS/Aperture settings.
Getting manual focus on birds in flight is going to be a losing battle regardless if I'm honest and they will always look pretty bad unless you're very skilled with a manual lens. Manual lenses are really only good for static subjects and astrophotography, or poorfags to cope about 'muh soul' and 'muh tactile feeling'. Depending on the body, it's really worth investing into a decent telephoto lens that works for your bodies AF otherwise you'll continue to get really blurry and out of focus shots. This is excluding the other stuff with the photo, but you can't really fix a out of focus shot regardless.
Most of them appear to have slightly below the right SS to keep them frozen, depending on bird you really should be aiming for a minimum of 1/1600 to 1/2000, some may require even higher values. Hell most songbirds even static on a branch move a LOT and usually need a minimum of 1/1000.
>>4332774Very nice shot.
>>4333662The most vitriol assholes are always piclets, I've maybe seen on person actually have a great photo while giving proper feedback even if assholey.
