This thread is "for the birds"

[burstintoflame81]

::CLOSED::

 

[katy625]

I like the last one but it would have been much better if the bird was at the bottom of the pic so u could have more water showing in the horizon.

 

[burstintoflame81]

I like the last one but it would have been much better if the bird was at the bottom of the pic so u could have more water showing in the horizon.

The only way to do that would have been to shoot with the bird being much smaller in ther picture ( in which case you wouldn't be able to really see the fish in the mouth ) OR to take a swim, because I couldn't lay on the bank and shoot from a super low angle due to marsh plants and stuff all along the shore. I agree, that angle would have been better.

 

[benlonghair]

Well, you've got a male house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), maybe a female lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), a ruby throated humming bird (Archilochus colubris) and a great blue heron (Ardea herodias).

Great shots, the only thing I might change is to give a little more reflection of the heron if you have it in your original shot.

What glass did you shoot these with? Cause I need me one of those.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

WoW!

Nice job, bursty!

 

[burstintoflame81]

Thanks guys. I do have the original with full reflection. I debated on including the whole thing, but wanted to pull in a little tighter to get more detail in the fish since, to me, that was what made this shot a keeper. I also took another shot that I have yet to edit, of a White Heron with full reflection. Thanks for the help on the identification.

The hardest shots out of the group, was the hummingbird, just because he was zipping to different parts of the bush. Also, the Heron. The pond had tons of Heron just standing all over, waiting to strike at some fish and everytime they would, I would just miss the shot, or get just a so-so shot.

These were actually shot with a Canon T1i and a Canon 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM lens with a 1.4x Kenko DGX 300 Pro TC, all hand held.

Also, the most heavily cropped one was #4. Its probably 1/3-1/4 the size of the original frame. Detail-wise I was very impressed with the glass I used.

 

[magkelly]

I'm sitting here looking at these shots and at others here and some old Canon FD and M42 lenses on auction trying to figure out what to get for shooting birds and such. Would you say a 300MM is better than a 200MM for this, or does it really make that much of a difference?

I'm seeing a lot of 200MM that are fairly inexpensive, but once you start going up to 300MM they really start to stretch the limits of my budget. I'm wondering if a 200MM might do me, at least for now, or if I should hold out for a 300MM. Looking at these, and seeing what you're using I'm thinking maybe I really do need a 300MM rather than a 200MM but I can't quite make up my mind on that score.

I might just have gotten a 500MM FD lens in a kit of them though I don't really know how decent it is. I'm working for them, but I don't actually have them as yet. I'm assuming that lens could handle anything, catch a fly on a bird's tail feathers halfway across a football field, but not having used anything with that great a reach I'm not exactly sure. The longest lens I have is a 135MM Rikenon and it's not great.

If that Canon kit doesn't work out, I think I still want to buy at least a 200/300 MM lens in the not too distant future because the 135MM lens I have just isn't cutting it for catching birds. By the time I get close enough I've generally lost the chance to take the shot. Could you do this with anything less than a 300MM do you think? Or would you be blowing it most of the time because you'd have to be too close?

 

[burstintoflame81]

I'm sitting here looking at these shots and at others here and some old Canon FD and M42 lenses on auction trying to figure out what to get for shooting birds and such. Would you say a 300MM is better than a 200MM for this, or does it really make that much of a difference?

I'm seeing a lot of 200MM that are fairly inexpensive, but once you start going up to 300MM they really start to stretch the limits of my budget. I'm wondering if a 200MM might do me, at least for now, or if I should hold out for a 300MM. Looking at these, and seeing what you're using I'm thinking maybe I really do need a 300MM rather than a 200MM but I can't quite make up my mind on that score.

I might just have gotten a 500MM FD lens in a kit of them though I don't really know how decent it is. I'm working for them, but I don't actually have them as yet. I'm assuming that lens could handle anything, catch a fly on a bird's tail feathers halfway across a football field, but not having used anything with that great a reach I'm not exactly sure. The longest lens I have is a 135MM Rikenon and it's not great.

If that Canon kit doesn't work out, I think I still want to buy at least a 200/300 MM lens in the not too distant future because the 135MM lens I have just isn't cutting it for catching birds. By the time I get close enough I've generally lost the chance to take the shot. Could you do this with anything less than a 300MM do you think? Or would you be blowing it most of the time because you'd have to be too close?

This set up was equal to 420mm with my 1.4x Teleconverter ( 672mm if you cound the crop factor of the camera 1.6x ). Its got some decent distance, but its still not as long as you think. I still find myself wishing I had just a little more distance. In most cases though, this is plenty. With birds it just allows you to get in tighter so you don't have to crop as much. With water birds its a bit different because you can't physically get closer. I know Canons 70-200mm F/2.8 is a highly used lens, although many people use a teleconverter with that which bumps it up to 300mm.

 

[lunaaa]

like no2,it has depth.

 

[icassell]

This set up was equal to 420mm with my 1.4x Teleconverter ( 672mm if you cound the crop factor of the camera 1.6x ). Its got some decent distance, but its still not as long as you think. I still find myself wishing I had just a little more distance.

Ain't that the truth! In bird photography, there is no such thing as too long. If you check out birdphotographers.net, you will see lots of 500's, 600's, and some 800's and often with a TC attached. This is especially important if you're interested in songbirds and not just the big raptors, herons, etc. Unfortunately, big glass equals big bucks! (the Canon 500 f/4 can be had for a measly $7K and the 800 f/5.6 is almost $12K).

My birding lens was my Sigma 100-300mm f/4 (and 1.4X TC). Now I have the Canon 400 f/5.6 with TC. I dream of something longer yet ...

BTW, that's probably not a ruby throat. We don't typically have them in AZ. It's more likely an Anna's Hummingbird. I'd like to see his face, though. I'm curious -- did you shoot these at the Riperian Preserve in Gilbert? If so, I was there Saturday morning as well

 

[burstintoflame81]

Yeah, it was the riparian preserve. Around 6:00-7:30am. Is your 400mm camo'd or just stock white body? I saw a bunch of people over on the southside of the pond with the Heron, but not too many with a canon 400mm. I saw one guy with a normal one and one guy with a camo'd one. But they may have been 300mm or even 70-200. I only saw them quickly passing.



I am pretty sure you are right on the hummingbird. I have another crap pic that caught its red throat, and I have seen these around my house as well. Same one.

 

[icassell]

Yep, that was me with camo on my 400 and no tripod . I went out to Boyce Thompson Arboretum this morning.

The main three hummers we get in the Phoenix area are Anna's, Costa's, and Broad Billed.

 

[Hardrock]

Very nice. That lens is working for you great!

 

[burstintoflame81]

Yep, that was me with camo on my 400 and no tripod . I went out to Boyce Thompson Arboretum this morning.

The main three hummers we get in the Phoenix area are Anna's, Costa's, and Broad Billed.

Yeah, I passed someone with a camo'd one on my way out. It may have been you. I think I said "mornin'".