Another first today - Northern Shrike

BrentC · Feb 16, 2018

Another cold morning on the Lake. Got my first Northern Shrike and got buzzed pretty closely with a swan.

1.

Northern Shrike by Brent Cameron, on Flickr

2. The next two are both full frame. There was another swan slightly behind but even closer to me that I could have done a portrait shot on.

Mute Swan by Brent Cameron, on Flickr

3. Full frame

Mute Swan by Brent Cameron, on Flickr

4.

Red-necked Merganser by Brent Cameron, on Flickr

5. He didn't like his picute taken

Redhead doesn't like his picture taken by Brent Cameron, on Flickr

Donde · Feb 18, 2018

Great shots Brent. The shrike is especially cool.

BrentC · Feb 18, 2018

Donde said:
Great shots Brent. The shrike is especially cool.

Thanks. You just got to love a song bird who impales other birds and mammals on thorns. I call him Vlad.

baturn · Feb 18, 2018

Very nice! Congrats on another first.

zulu42 · Feb 18, 2018

Fantastic set. Congrats on the shrike. What a little badass!

Dean_Gretsch · Feb 18, 2018

Very nice set.

MSnowy · Feb 18, 2018

Nice set!

ZombiesniperJr · Feb 18, 2018

Great set. Congrats on the shrike.

BrentC · Feb 18, 2018

baturn said:
Very nice! Congrats on another first.

zulu42 said:
Fantastic set. Congrats on the shrike. What a little badass!

Dean_Gretsch said:
Very nice set.

MSnowy said:
Nice set!

ZombiesniperJr said:
Great set. Congrats on the shrike.

Thanks guys.

zombiesniper · Feb 19, 2018

Great set and congrats on the Shrike. They don't like people very much.

Cortian · Feb 19, 2018

Great set, Brent. I especially like the Shrike.

I'm envious of the incredible resolution and detail you achieve. We're using similar lenses (300mm). Are you able to get that close to the birds? Is it because you have double the pixels I have? Both? Other?

BrentC · Feb 19, 2018

zombiesniper said:
Great set and congrats on the Shrike. They don't like people very much.

Thanks. Very hard to find and every time I did get somewhat close to him he would go into the Hawthorn trees and I would lose him. I spent many trips to Humber Bay Park and many hours trying to find him.

BrentC · Feb 19, 2018

Cortian said:
Great set, Brent. I especially like the Shrike.

I'm envious of the incredible resolution and detail you achieve. We're using similar lenses (300mm). Are you able to get that close to the birds? Is it because you have double the pixels I have? Both? Other?

A bit of both. I have a 2x crop sensor so a little more reach than your 1.6x crop. Also with 20 megapixels I can crop more and retain better resolution than your 10. And probably much better glass.

Cortian · Feb 20, 2018

BrentC said:
A bit of both. I have a 2x crop sensor so a little more reach than your 1.6x crop. Also with 20 megapixels I can crop more and retain better resolution than your 10. And probably much better glass.

Thanks for the info, Brent. It was beginning to drive me just a bit >< loopy, trying to figure out why so much difference. It didn't seem it could be just the pixel count, but, added all up: Yeah, I can see it, now.

After your reply I went back to look at a couple of more-or-less identical squirrel photos I'd taken. The first taken with my 20D and the Canon 100-300mm non-IS telephoto I'd bought, the second with the 40D and the 70-300mm DO IS lens I was gifted. Even with those relatively small increases in camera body and lens performance I can see a significant difference in image resolution and quality.

That 300mm lens of yours does appear to be a heckuva lens.

That 70-300mm Canon lens I was gifted is pretty good, and would have thought I'd have little need for a "reach out" primary. But seeing the results of your lens, and the results I've seen from my Tamron 100mm macro lens, I may need to rethink that. I always run that 70-300mm lens out to 300mm, anyway.

I may need to start thinking about the next camera body sooner, rather than later, after all, too

BrentC · Feb 20, 2018

Cortian said:
BrentC said:

A bit of both. I have a 2x crop sensor so a little more reach than your 1.6x crop. Also with 20 megapixels I can crop more and retain better resolution than your 10. And probably much better glass.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, Brent. It was beginning to drive me just a bit >< loopy, trying to figure out why so much difference. It didn't seem it could be just the pixel count, but, added all up: Yeah, I can see it, now.

After your reply I went back to look at a couple of more-or-less identical squirrel photos I'd taken. The first taken with my 20D and the Canon 100-300mm non-IS telephoto I'd bought, the second with the 40D and the 70-300mm DO IS lens I was gifted. Even with those relatively small increases in camera body and lens performance I can see a significant difference in image resolution and quality.

That 300mm lens of yours does appear to be a heckuva lens.

That 70-300mm Canon lens I was gifted is pretty good, and would have thought I'd have little need for a "reach out" primary. But seeing the results of your lens, and the results I've seen from my Tamron 100mm macro lens, I may need to rethink that. I always run that 70-300mm lens out to 300mm, anyway.

I may need to start thinking about the next camera body sooner, rather than later, after all, too

Usually people will say that its best to update glass first then camera. For most of the time that is correct. In your case I would upgrade camera first. Especially, when shooting wildlife or macro, the extra pixels help a lot because in most cases your going to crop. Also your sensor is about 11 years old and you can probably pick up a used camera for not a lot that will be a much better performer.