>>4333671>I implore you to try film even if it's inefficient and expensive as it will keep you busy and is several steps away from the current thing.You made good points and then ruined it with this one simple statement.
The only people falling into the GAS trap are because they're chasing something they cannot solve with money(focus, lighting generally being the two), outside of reach, usually due to social pressures or bad critiques. This board is a major pusher of that, and buying a bunch of cheap garbage(i.e. a bunch of shitty film, P&S cameras, or 'muh boken chink lens') which in turn costs more than a solid body and lens that'd carry someone a lot further and give them room to grow.
Post some bird shots from film, as you're pushing the film route. We rarely have those, so would like to see 'em genuinely.
>It's because birders don't care about photography, just birds. Most of the posts in these threads are basically just ID shots, which is a birder staple.I don't think anyone here is larping as a fineart photographer, just sharing photos of birds they've seen. That's the expectation for these threads.
Any further emotional investment is on you hombre.
>>4333677100% true. Reach is important, but doesn't solve out of focus or badly edited images.
Happy with my rf100-400mm currently, but definitely eyeing the rf200-800mm next year as I still need to improve with what I have first.
>>4333680May be a focus issue rather than SS then, originally the wings looked blurred but that'd make sense.
Generally it's better to go higher without a tripod in general, lower the shutter speed, the more stable you and your hold needs to be, and the more static your subject will need to be.
Dunno much about nikon's ecosystem, but I'd get a proper telephoto in the 100-400 range, or an equivalent that works with your AF system.
This one is closer, focus wise. Can you post a jpeg of the unedited raw?
>>4333681kek is that a rhea? judgy bastard
