Various Raptors - South Essex UK - 12th May (2 Viewers)

[djw0208]

Please could you help ID / confirm ID of the following raptor pictures
1) Marsh Harrier
2), 3), 4) Male Hen Harrier
5), 6). 7) Not sure. 6) Could be another Hen Harrier but am not sure about 5) - is it a Buzzard. The wings seem very long.

Many Thanks

 

[tconzemi]

Honey, then Hen, then another dark Honey and one unidentifiable

 

[djw0208]

Thank-you and wow, never expected it to be a Honey Buzzard.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

Please could you help ID / confirm ID of the following raptor pictures
1) Marsh Harrier
2), 3), 4) Male Hen Harrier
5), 6). 7) Not sure. 6) Could be another Hen Harrier but am not sure about 5) - is it a Buzzard. The wings seem very long.

Many Thanks

The Hen Harrier is no problem, do you have more pictures or the other raptors? Is it possible that there is a camera (shutter) effect that makes the wings look longer? What equipment did you use?

 

[Butty]

Is it possible that there is a camera (shutter) effect that makes the wings look longer?

No. In my opinion.

 

[djw0208]

The Hen Harrier is no problem, do you have more pictures or the other raptors? Is it possible that there is a camera (shutter) effect that makes the wings look longer? What equipment did you use?

Hi, I was using a Sony DSC rx10 iii zoom bridge camera. Sorry, I do not have any further photos that would help. It was an amazing couple of hours for raptors though near the Thames because as well as these I also saw a red kite and common buzzard which I have not posted the photos of

 

[igorfest]

I've modified the first photograph (without permission, I beg your pardon djw0208) and I exclude it could be a Honey Buzzard: wings are too slim, tail and secondaries are not strongly barred and there's no black carpal patch. The generally dark body plumage, the diffuse dark wing tips contrasting with pale primary bases and the pale leading edge to wings are good for female Marsh Harrier

Ciao, Igor Festari, Italy

 

[Bewick]

I've modified the first photograph (without permission, I beg your pardon djw0208) and I exclude it could be a Honey Buzzard: wings are too slim, tail and secondaries are not strongly barred and there's no black carpal patch. The generally dark body plumage, the diffuse dark wing tips contrasting with pale primary bases and the pale leading edge to wings are good for female Marsh Harrier

Ciao, Igor Festari, Italy

I agree with you, seems fine for a female marsh harrier. If it was a honey buzzard, personally don't see anything in the pic that would favour that ID.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

No. In my opinion.

With DSLR cameras the rolling shutter effect can make wings look longer and changes their shape. These days we also have mirrorless cameras, I don't know what kind of distortion they give in certain conditions. Picture number 5 shows very long wings, more like an eagle, I wonder if that's real.

 

[Butty]

With DSLR cameras the rolling shutter effect can make wings look longer and changes their shape.

One lives and learns. I should be glad to see some published examples that show this effect, and a more detailed analysis - if you know one - of the ins and outs of it. It must render a great many high-quality photos unreliable, and this is not a general caveat of which I'm aware. Insofar as I am aware of it, one needs a hugely-faster-moving subject before any effect shows up, eg the spinning prop blades of an aircraft. In any case, AFAIK, there would be absolutely zero effect in the photos here that you refer to as the birds appear to be gliding and their wings thus stationary. In general, the only effect you need to look to, if you need an explanation of wings looking oddly longer and thinner, is the non-field-guide angle of view: raptors in flight, in the field, look all sorts of odd shapes compared with how the books show them. If your thesis is correct, you would be putting the reliability of the whole of raptor (nay, bird!) photography in doubt.

 

[THE_FERN]

One lives and learns. I should be glad to see some published examples that show this effect, and a more detailed analysis - if you know one - of the ins and outs of it. It must render a great many high-quality photos unreliable, and this is not a general caveat of which I'm aware. Insofar as I am aware of it, one needs a hugely-faster-moving subject before any effect shows up, eg the spinning prop blades of an aircraft. In any case, AFAIK, there would be absolutely zero effect in the photos here that you refer to as the birds appear to be gliding and their wings thus stationary. In general, the only effect you need to look to, if you need an explanation of wings looking oddly longer and thinner, is the non-field-guide angle of view: raptors in flight, in the field, look all sorts of odd shapes compared with how the books show them. If your thesis is correct, you would be putting the reliability of the whole of raptor (nay, bird!) photography in doubt.

A google of "rolling shutter effect birds in flight" (for example) provides your starting point. Has been discussed in relation to some modern, high-end cameras like Canon R5, R7 etc fairly extensively. Some of the distortions you will see are quite extreme.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

One lives and learns. I should be glad to see some published examples that show this effect, and a more detailed analysis - if you know one - of the ins and outs of it. It must render a great many high-quality photos unreliable, and this is not a general caveat of which I'm aware. Insofar as I am aware of it, one needs a hugely-faster-moving subject before any effect shows up, eg the spinning prop blades of an aircraft. In any case, AFAIK, there would be absolutely zero effect in the photos here that you refer to as the birds appear to be gliding and their wings thus stationary.

Yes, in general you need a fast-moving subject to see the effect. It can happen when panning too and there might be other circumstances for mirrorless camera that make it appear. Sometimes, fast soaring raptors are directly above you, it's difficult to hold the camera steady. It depends on shutter speed, image stabilization might play a role too (and the combination of both). Then the effect may occur.

 

[Butty]

Some of the distortions you will see are quite extreme.

I see birds with bent-looking wings in the way that birds' wings bend when manoeuvring sharply.
And hummingbirds - as in...

one needs a hugely-faster-moving subject [than a gliding, or for that matter even rapidly flapping, raptor] before any effect shows up

👍🏼

Sometimes, fast soaring raptors are directly above you, it's difficult to hold the camera steady . . . Then the effect may occur.

So it might happen with severe handshake in a particular direction, combined with a shutter speed fast enough nevertheless to freeze the image 🤦🏻 I should like to see examples.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

I see birds with bent-looking wings in the way that birds' wings bend when manoeuvring sharply.
And hummingbirds - as in...

👍🏼

So it might happen with severe handshake in a particular direction, combined with a shutter speed fast enough nevertheless to freeze the image 🤦🏻 I should like to see examples.

Finding examples is difficult since I usually delete those images immediately. Brand is important too. For instance, Canon and Nikon DSLRs have different optimal shutter speeds because of the sampling frequencies of their IS systems. There are many factors in play but it's not unusual to find the effect with slower moving subjects.

 

[Butty]

it's not unusual to find the effect with slower moving subjects

Seeing is believing 👍🏼
Meanwhile, I am, personally, happy that this effect can be entirely discounted in the case of the OP's photos.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

Seeing is believing 👍🏼 Meanwhile, I am, personally, happy that this effect can be entirely discounted in the case of the OP's photos.

Don't know, it might be something else. Think we need a new thread for this discussion, I don't like to hijack this one.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

Is this really one photo? No distortion? My first impression is a White-tailed eagle with closed tail and another eagle. The tail looks too long though.

 

[Southern Viking]

Not personally getting the impression it's any longer-winged than a Honey-buzzard. Plus I know they're not the easiest photos to tell in, but I can just about make out 5 fingered primaries.

I agree that the first photo is Marsh Harrier

 

[djw0208]

View attachment 1579703

Is this really one photo? No distortion? My first impression is a White-tailed eagle with closed tail and another eagle. The tail looks too long though.

Yes, really was one photo

 

[Joern Lehmhus]

View attachment 1579703

Is this really one photo? No distortion? My first impression is a White-tailed eagle with closed tail and another eagle. The tail looks too long though.

which one? I see WTE fairly often in Northern Germany and can´t see either of the birds as that species ???