 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2007Bird Photography Lens
I have a Nikon D70 (wife has a D80) and the only telephoto zoom we have is a Nikkor 70-210mm which we are always fighting over. We wish to add another large zoom lens and have been reading up on the Sigma 170-500mm,Sigma 80-400mm & Tamron 200-500mm. Has anyone got experience of these lenses. Unfortunately the Nikkor lenses are out of our price range i.e. around £600. Thanks Robert > I have a Nikon D70 (wife has a D80) We know who wears the pants in this relationship... > and the only telephoto zoom we have is > a Nikkor 70-210mm which we are always fighting over. We wish to add another > large zoom lens and have been reading up on the Sigma 170-500mm,Sigma > 80-400mm & Tamron 200-500mm. Has anyone got experience of these lenses. Sounds like you want to fight over a different lens ;) Sorry this isn't a very helpful post, but I just couldn't resist... Austin > I have a Nikon D70 (wife has a D80) and the only telephoto zoom we have is >a Nikkor 70-210mm which we are always fighting over. We wish to add another >large zoom lens and have been reading up on the Sigma 170-500mm,Sigma >80-400mm & Tamron 200-500mm. Has anyone got experience of these lenses. >Unfortunately the Nikkor lenses are out of our price range i.e. around £600. For birds, I would think that 500mm would be too long. Will you really be able to find the birds with the 500mm? One thing you might want to check is if any of the lenses maintain focus as you zoom, in which case you could use the wider setting to find the birds, and then zoom all the way in, knowing that the birds will still be in focus. Unless they fly away. -Joel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXIF data for any image or web page: http://exif.posted-online.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> I have a Nikon D70 (wife has a D80) and the only telephoto zoom we >> have is a Nikkor 70-210mm which we are always fighting over. We wish [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > For birds, I would think that 500mm would be too long. Will you > really be able to find the birds with the 500mm? For panning in flight, it's true that longer lenses are tricky...but 500mm is NOT too long. Frankly, for birding there is just about no such thing as too much extension unless the long tele means you're stuck with a small max aperture (like a crappy mirror lens with a constant f8, for example). Then you run into focus and speed issues... But 500mm is certainly not too much. If I could afford it, I'd love to have the 400mm 2.8 IS L. With it, I'd add the 1.4x for a total of 560mm at a respectable f4, which would make for a nice birder... Or perhaps even teh 500mm f4 + 1.4 for a (fairly slow) f5.6 at 700mm.  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > >> I have a Nikon D70 (wife has a D80) and the only telephoto zoom we > >> have is a Nikkor 70-210mm which we are always fighting over. We wish [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is NOT too long. > Frankly, for birding there is just about no such thing as too much extension Boy is that ever true. I need a 25,000mm lens. But the damn birds would still fly off for me, as I have some sort of personal congenital radiation field that is the exact radius of the focal length of whatever lens I happen to have on the camera at the time. If I turn the camera on, it causes the bird to instantly be prepared to show me a good view of its little feathered butt as it flies off as the shutter is pressed. SignatureYou need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard >>>> I have a Nikon D70 (wife has a D80) and the only telephoto zoom we >>>> have is a Nikkor 70-210mm which we are always fighting over. We [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > a good view of its little feathered butt as it flies off as the > shutter is pressed. Sometimes you find yourself in interesting situations...like this one, where I climbed a tree and ended up 6 feet away from this hungry hawk, using only a 200mm lens on a full frame... WARNING: Rather gory prey-eating shot here...flash-heavy, due to dark shade, and super-bright background): http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66716140/original SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > >>>> I have a Nikon D70 (wife has a D80) and the only telephoto zoom we > >>>> have is a Nikkor 70-210mm which we are always fighting over. We [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I climbed a tree and ended up 6 feet away from this hungry hawk, using only > a 200mm lens on a full frame... Don't worry, I'll never end up in that kind of "interesting situation" - my PCRF will send the bird off in quakes and gusts of laughter long before I ever got that close, or if I got that close, as soon as I turned on the camera. But I shouldn't anthropomorphize birds - they hate that. Nice shot, though. SignatureYou need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard > Don't worry, I'll never end up in that kind of "interesting situation" > - my PCRF will send the bird off in quakes and gusts of laughter long > before I ever got that close, or if I got that close, as soon as I > turned on the camera. "To become a better nature photographer, you must first become a better naturalist." (google it up with "site:photo.net") Anyone with a functioning brain can do the job. Urbanity appears to have convinced you and millions of others otherwise, but a hundred years of so-called modern civilization does not trump millions of evolution (tabula rasa horseshit). Attend some nature walks with an experienced naturalist. Spend time in a forest. Use your ears. The secret is that you wait for the birds to come to you, not the other way around. > The > secret is that you wait for the birds to come to you, not the other > way around. If you say so. I'm *still* waiting for that frigatebird to show up in my back woods. Should be any day now. >> The >> secret is that you wait for the birds to come to you, not the other >> way around. > > If you say so. I'm *still* waiting for that frigatebird to show up in my > back woods. Should be any day now. This kind of bird: http://www.pbase.com/whig/image/72157056 ? =) SignaturePetri Lopia :: petri.REMOVElopia@iki.fi.invalid Galapagos Island, Lightnings, StormChasing, Moon: http://www.petrilopia.net/ http://www.pbase.com/whig/ Myydään: Helios Skyliner 200 + Kamera-adapteri + Plössl 32mm 1 1/4" + aurinkosuodin. >>> The >>> secret is that you wait for the birds to come to you, not the other [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This kind of bird: > http://www.pbase.com/whig/image/72157056 ? =) Yeah, that would be him. Given that it's -17C here right now with a windchill of -30C, I suspect he won't be showing up any time soon. >>>> The >>>> secret is that you wait for the birds to come to you, not the other [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yeah, that would be him. Given that it's -17C here right now with a > windchill of -30C, I suspect he won't be showing up any time soon. Probably not =) And if you start to wait that bird your camera battery doesn't have enough power to take any photos after half hour ;-) Btw it's -14.8C here so I guess that I will not see frigate birds soon ;-) SignaturePetri Lopia :: petri.REMOVElopia@iki.fi.invalid Galapagos Island, Lightnings, StormChasing, Moon: http://www.petrilopia.net/ http://www.pbase.com/whig/ Myydään: Helios Skyliner 200 + Kamera-adapteri + Plössl 32mm 1 1/4" + aurinkosuodin. > > Don't worry, I'll never end up in that kind of "interesting situation" > > - my PCRF will send the bird off in quakes and gusts of laughter long [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > secret is that you wait for the birds to come to you, not the other > way around. Look, /sonny/, I've been hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, mountain climbing, snowshoeing, and probably every other form of outdoor recreation that you've ever even fantasized about since probably before you were out of triangle pants. I don't need some abusive twit telling me I don't have a functional brain, and trying to tell me how to be at "one with nature", simply because I joke about my luck with photographing birds. Virtually every single solitary post from you that I have ever seen attempts to be degrading to someone else. You have a bit of a problem, insecurity-wise, yourself, maybe, that makes you start putting others down first so that you can appear better in your own eyes?? I'll tell ya this - it doesn't do so in _other_ people's eyes. Geeze, yet another addition to the killfile. >>> Don't worry, I'll never end up in that kind of "interesting >>> situation" - my PCRF will send the bird off in quakes and gusts of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > recreation that you've ever even fantasized about since probably > before you were out of triangle pants. > I don't need some abusive twit telling me I don't have a functional > brain, and trying to tell me how to be at "one with nature", simply [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Geeze, yet another addition to the killfile. Triangle pants?? I've never heard that description, but it literally had me laughing out loud! Your response was just plain funny...despite the fact that you were ticked off. :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On Jan 30, 3:30 pm, Ken Lucke <k...@glass-stones.com> explodes irrationally: Something strange was tickling the back of the brain reading Lucke's output. Manipulator? No solid evidence, so what the heck: "assume good faith". Evidence now in though, but sadly, it's the usual stupidity stuff. > Look, /sonny/, I've been hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, mountain > climbing, snowshoeing, and probably every other form of outdoor > recreation that you've ever even fantasized about since probably before > you were out of triangle pants. ... and yet none of it has had any positive effect on you re: taking pictures of wildlife. As I said, urbanity is not a dead-end, but when your admissions show you are an evolutionary dead end, hey, what can I do? > I don't need some abusive twit telling me I don't have a functional > brain, and trying to tell me how to be at "one with nature", simply > because I joke about my luck with photographing birds. Well, fuckhead, this is the trick here: I never said you didn't have a functioning brain. I'd recommend you re-read it, but, like, I now know it won't do any good. > Virtually every single solitary post from you that I have ever seen > attempts to be degrading to someone else. Fortunately, your lack of reading comprehension is your problem, not mine. > You have a bit of a problem, > insecurity-wise, yourself, maybe, that makes you start putting others > down first so that you can appear better in your own eyes?? I'll tell > ya this - it doesn't do so in _other_ people's eyes. News flash for the dumbass: I don't care a f.ck what you or anyone else thinks about me. For example: > Geeze, yet another addition to the killfile. Am I supposed to care about this? Really, is anyone supposed to care? Maybe you should just pull up, let that stall alarm start blaring and kick that rudder hard to the left: short circuit that spiral of depression and go straight to terminal unhappiness. You know, the one that compels you to post self-professed bad sunset pictures in a pathetic attempt for attention ... with huge, slathering, intellectually dishonest copyright notices to protect them anyways. >> Geeze, yet another addition to the killfile. > > Am I supposed to care about this? Really, is anyone supposed to > care? No one need care. But why write paragraphs that won't get read? Signaturelsmft > No one need care. But why write paragraphs that won't get read? Why do you care if I supposedly waste my time? But just for you: Lucke has already shown himself to have a dishonest bent; why should we accept his plonking claims as true? Reading his latest submissions, I am now pretty sure he doesn't even know how to operate a killfile, and if he does, actually hasn't. On 31 Jan, 14:27, "eawckye...@yahoo.com" <eawckye...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > No one need care. But why write paragraphs that won't get read? > Why do you care if I supposedly waste my time? Concern for the bandwidth? Jan Böhme > Concern for the bandwidth? Sir, I prostrate myself before you! I simply was not aware that John McWilliams owns the Internet. Honestly, I thought that was Al Gore! Or was it Bill Gates? Or are you claiming ownership? Hot diggity, maybe it's time for bumper stickers! In any event if you tell me the name of your newsreader, I'll tell you how to add me to its killfile. On 31 Jan, 17:13, "eawckye...@yahoo.com" <eawckye...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Concern for the bandwidth? > > Sir, I prostrate myself before you! I simply was not aware that John > McWilliams owns the Internet. Internet is essentially a commons. No more does one need ownership to be concerned about the bandwith on the Net than one needs to own Newfoundland Bank in order to be concerned with the dwindling numbers of cod. It's enough that one fishes, or even eats, cod. Or, mutatis mutandis, that one uses the Internet. Anyway, it was just a helpful suggestion as to a possible motive. You seemed to want one. >In any event if you tell me the name of your > newsreader, I'll tell you how to add me to its killfile. I don't do killfiling. No need to tell a newsreader to do something which is even easier done by oneself. But have to I admit that it would have been fun to see you try to instruct me how to killfile somebody with the very newsreader used for this posting... Jan Böhme > > Sir, I prostrate myself before you! I simply was not aware that John > > McWilliams owns the Internet. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Newfoundland Bank in order to be concerned with the dwindling numbers > of cod. Thank you for the compliment. To my knowledge, it is the first time a few hundred bytes of data have been directly equated to the wholesale slaughter of an entire ecosystem. I shall wield this awesome power more carefully in the future. > It's enough that one fishes, or even eats, cod. Or, mutatis mutandis, > that one uses the Internet. Well, this is the thing: the Internet can't be "killed", "caught" or, in general, "used up" by simply squirting some bits into the stream. I think this is obvious. You may wish to seek another analogy, and ensure it handles the instant case well. Or you might wish to move on to more productive things. > Anyway, it was just a helpful suggestion as to a possible motive. You > seemed to want one. I guess we'll have to await McWilliam's definitive response, if any. > I don't do killfiling. No need to tell a newsreader to do something > which is even easier done by oneself. Say, you seem to have a clue! A man willing to accept a responsibility can't be all that bad after all. > But have to I admit that it would have been fun to see you try to > instruct me how to killfile somebody with the very newsreader used for > this posting... Paisano! I should have checked. >>In any event if you tell me the name of your >> newsreader, I'll tell you how to add me to its killfile. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > instruct me how to killfile somebody with the very newsreader used for > this posting... http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html HTH, HAND SignatureMy mother is a fish. - William Faulkner >> > Don't worry, I'll never end up in that kind of "interesting >> > situation" [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Geeze, yet another addition to the killfile. I am disappointed in you Ken --- why did it take so long to add him to the killfile ?? (besides, how do you really know that he *is* out of triangle pants???) mikey >>> > Don't worry, I'll never end up in that kind of "interesting >>> > situation" [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >to add him to the killfile ?? (besides, how do you really >know that he *is* out of triangle pants???) Just a comment but he does have a point, however abrasively he may have made it. Bird and animal photography has much in common with hunting--you have to get close enough to the critters to get the shot, then get the shot before it gets away. Rock climbing and backpacking and mountain climbing and snowshoeing and other "oudoor" activities besides hunting don't really teach you that skill--many hikers hardly ever see an animal in a forest that is full of them because they scare them away. It's not a matter of tree hugging oneness with nature, it's a matter of learning the habits of the critters you're after and then putting yourself in a place and time when they are likely to appear, and dressing and behaving in such a manner that they don't notice you and be scared off. Then you wait and eventually if you've done all your homework right and haven't scared them off one of them will show up and you have your photo or your dinner as the case may be. If it's a rare critter you may have to spend a lot of time waiting for one to show though. My Dad was good at this--he could on a good day get a wild bird to walk right up to him and perch on his finger. Unfortunately he never managed to impart that skill to me. > >>> > Don't worry, I'll never end up in that kind of "interesting > >>> > situation" [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > ever see an animal in a forest that is full of them because they scare > them away. I've done a little more than my share of hunting, too, including archery hunting, which requires even more skill (IMO) in stalking than photography. > It's not a matter of tree hugging oneness with nature, it's a matter > of learning the habits of the critters you're after and then putting [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wild bird to walk right up to him and perch on his finger. > Unfortunately he never managed to impart that skill to me. All true - and does nothing to change the comments that I made to the other twit. SignatureYou need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard > Just a comment but he does have a point, however abrasively he may > have made it. Bird and animal photography has much in common with > hunting--you have to get close enough to the critters to get the shot, > then get the shot before it gets away. True, but it still depends on the subject being receptive, which was where 'triangle pants' was being naive. > It's not a matter of tree hugging oneness with nature, it's a matter > of learning the habits of the critters you're after and then putting > yourself in a place and time when they are likely to appear, and > dressing and behaving in such a manner that they don't notice you > and be scared off. That is 80% of what we can do, and yet it still only gets us "so close". If it is close enough can depend on your glass. Particularly for the generic amateur who doesn't have the big guns, this effectively means that the only time that you'll get any closer is when the subject is aware of you and decides to tolerate your proximity for whatever reason. For example, they don't want to leave a kill, or that you've baited them in to feed. Or acclimation to humans. I've seen somewhere some photos from the Serengeti of a cheetah who had climbed up onto the roof of their safari vehicle and proverbially sat down leaning against a photogrrapher's big lens. IIRC, his web image of the event was taken <4 ft away with a WA. Anyone who wants to claim that such a photo was supposedly all "skill" doesn't know or believe in luck. -hh > > Just a comment but he does have a point, however abrasively he may > > have made it. Bird and animal photography has much in common with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > True, but it still depends on the subject being receptive, which was > where 'triangle pants' was being naive. I was well aware of the possibility that Lucke was a nitwit, but felt I lacked sufficient evidence at the time: so I took him at face value. A casual reading of my -- can I use the word "contributions" ;-) -- here shows I respect expressed intelligence, experience and so forth, but do not tolerate fools well. We all have our character flaws. > > It's not a matter of tree hugging oneness with nature, it's a matter > > of learning the habits of the critters you're after and then putting [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > <4 ft away with a WA. Anyone who wants to claim that such a photo was > supposedly all "skill" doesn't know or believe in luck. Yes, yes, yes. The luck factor is significant, and generally under- played by the professionals and the wannabes. This applies to all areas of photography outside the studio, not just nature stuff. Another issue that is rarely mentioned is stress: sick or hungry animals are far easier to photograph than healthy ones. (Arthur Morris mentions this in passing in his book on bird photography -- so far the only printed reference to this I know of). Another one is age, or, "cluelessness". For example, it is very difficult to obtain frame-fillers for many raptors, as they flee from humans or their vehicles at half a kilometre. However, juvenile birds can be incredibly "tame" by comparison. But even with all that for you, by and large wildlife photography is sitting in the forest, swamp, mud flat, field or beach waiting for things to happen. > Yes, yes, yes. The luck factor is significant, and generally under- > played by the professionals and the wannabes. This applies to all > areas of photography outside the studio, not just nature stuff. I agree that luck plays a significant role in photography, esp nature photography. However I would add that often times "luck" is a product of A. preparedness (i.e. you actually brought your camera, came at the best time of day/weather conditions, etc.) B. Tenacity (i.e. returned often waiting for the right light, for the animal to come out of it's den/nest/into the clearing) C. Equipment (better lenses to allow shooting in low light, more "reach", better high-ISO performance, etc.) and D. Knowledge (know how to use your equipment, what equipment to buy/bring with you, how to determine the best location, time or weather) Of course dumb luck can be a significant factor, but those who have made best use of A, B, C, and D above will be lucky more often and make better use of the opportunities presented. >>> Just a comment but he does have a point, however abrasively he may >>> have made it. Bird and animal photography has much in common with [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Yes, yes, yes. The luck factor is significant, and generally under- > played by the professionals and the wannabes. "Luck" in that sense is a bit akin to "luck" in poker. Ya, luck can play a part, but it is far more impacted by skill that one might suspect on casual observance. In other words... Skill means your odds of "winning" skyrocket, and your chances of success increase, big-time. Photographers who deliver regularly may be lucky from time to time, but is it "luck" that you survived a fall from 10,000 feet? -Or were you simply prepared...with a parachute? :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> Just a comment but he does have a point, however abrasively he may >> have made it. Bird and animal photography has much in common with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > True, but it still depends on the subject being receptive, which was > where 'triangle pants' was being naive. [snipped] > Or acclimation to humans. I've seen somewhere some photos from the > Serengeti of a cheetah who had climbed up onto the roof of their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -hh The one I liked was the picture I saw where the light airplane was sitting on the runway somewhere over there and the people were trying to figure out how to get back in the plane ... with the lions that had found the shade under the wing and decided that was a good place to stay. mikey > The one I liked was the picture I saw where the light airplane was > sitting on the runway somewhere over there and the people were > trying to figure out how to get back in the plane ... with the lions > that had found the shade under the wing and decided that was a > good place to stay. I spent some time in Tanzania last summer and heard some similarly interesting stories ("...your tent last year had..."). Fortunately, or airplane had no problems with lions: <http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2006/tanzania/210_refill(4722).jpg> We did, however, came back one evening to find that the local "gardener" was preoccupied with trimming the bushes next to our Banda: <http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2006/tanzania/banda- elephant(4141).jpg> EXIF: Camera: Canon EOS 20D ISO: 1600 Shutter/Aperture: 1/30 @ f4 Focal Length: 98mm Lens: EF 70-200L f2.8 IS USM with 1.4x -hh >> The one I liked was the picture I saw where the light airplane was >> sitting on the runway somewhere over there and the people were [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > <http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2006/tanzania/banda- > elephant(4141).jpg> tusk tusk tusk - oh well, somehow I suspect "nice doggie" would not help a lot in that situation :-) mikey >> Just a comment but he does have a point, however abrasively he may >> have made it. Bird and animal photography has much in common with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >That is 80% of what we can do, and yet it still only gets us "so >close". If it is close enough can depend on your glass. After that, to get closer, you're in the realm of "stalking". Watch a cat going after a bird sometime and you'll learn many valuable lessons. Search on "tracking" at Amazon and you'll find quite a lot that will be helpful. >Particularly for the generic amateur who doesn't have the big guns, >this effectively means that the only time that you'll get any closer [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] ><4 ft away with a WA. Anyone who wants to claim that such a photo was >supposedly all "skill" doesn't know or believe in luck. Sometimes you luck out, sometimes you don't. Even the best hunter goes to bed hungry now and then. > Or acclimation to humans. I've seen somewhere some photos from the > Serengeti of a cheetah who had climbed up onto the roof of their > safari vehicle and proverbially sat down leaning against a > photogrrapher's big lens. IIRC, his web image of the event was taken > <4 ft away with a WA. Anyone who wants to claim that such a photo was > supposedly all "skill" doesn't know or believe in luck. You might be thinking of a BBC "Big Cat" series. In which case what the cheetah did through the open roof onto the naturalist below was even more unwelcome and entertaining! Mike. SignatureIf reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee. > Or acclimation to humans. I've seen somewhere some photos from the > Serengeti of a cheetah who had climbed up onto the roof of their > safari vehicle and proverbially sat down leaning against a > photogrrapher's big lens. IIRC, his web image of the event was taken > <4 ft away with a WA. Anyone who wants to claim that such a photo was > supposedly all "skill" doesn't know or believe in luck. That was Bill Hilton last April. Sure it was luck that the cheetah did jumped on the vehicle, but they do that because they have come to learn that vehicles are 1) not a thread, and 2) not something to eat, so they use them occasionally as a high point to look for game. Otherwise, there is impressive skill by the guides to spot the wildlife and then to get close in a vehicle can sometimes be a challenge, especially with birds. Bill and I just returned from Tanzania, and we'll have many images up on web sites soon. Here are some initial shots: Close up of a cheetah on a fresh kill (he ignored the vehicle, never once looking directly at us): http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa/web/cheetah.c01.22.2007.JZ3F 9954b-700.html For several days I could not get close to a Lilac-Breasted Roller (a bird), but then I got lucky with the right light. We started a fair distance and then moved the vehicle closer and closer, getting photos until I got this one: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa/web/lilac-breasted.roller.c0 1.24.2007.JZ3F1277c-700.html (on safari you can't generally get out of the vehicle because there is too great a danger from large predators). Then sometimes luck, light and skill come together and you get to the right spot at the right time: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa/web/black-shouldered.kite.c0 1.25.2007.JZ3F1856b-700.html Roger >> Or acclimation to humans. I've seen somewhere some photos from the >> Serengeti of a cheetah who had climbed up onto the roof of their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >did jumped on the vehicle, but they do that because they have come >to learn that vehicles are 1) not a thread, Flashing on the scene in the movie "Duma" in which the cheetah is chasing a thread (actually a string) being pulled by a motorcycle. >and 2) not something >to eat, so they use them occasionally as a high point to look for [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >right spot at the right time: >http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa/web/black-shouldered.kite.c0 1.25.2007.JZ3F1856b-700.html Quite nice. How big is a black shouldered kite, anyway? >>>Or acclimation to humans. I've seen somewhere some photos from the >>>Serengeti of a cheetah who had climbed up onto the roof of their [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Flashing on the scene in the movie "Duma" in which the cheetah is > chasing a thread (actually a string) being pulled by a motorcycle. Oops. Obviously that should have been threat. >>Then sometimes luck, light and skill come together and you get to the >>right spot at the right time: >>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa/web/black-shouldered.kite.c0 1.25.2007.JZ3F1856b-700.html > > Quite nice. How big is a black shouldered kite, anyway? Thanks. It seems to be a small raptor; the mouse is probably a normal size mouse (of course there is variation in mice sizes), so it is probably the best scale indicator. It's smaller than a typical hawk. One very interesting thing is they can fly stationary. Later I'll post pictures of one flying: its head stayed so still, it stayed within a single AF-focus rectangle in the 500 mm + TC lens, while the wings flapped back and fourth. It held steady over an area while searching for small rodents, then would swoop down and grab it. If the exif data had the distance (supposedly it's there) in a form I could read, I could compute the size (I've tried to find this parameter in the exif data without success). Roger On Feb 3, 5:26 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <usern...@qwest.net> wrote: > It's smaller than a typical hawk. One very interesting thing > is they can fly stationary. Really? I've seen this with seagulls and other birds, but they were in headwind. Presumably whether they can actually hover has to do with the angles at which the muscles can pull the wings and so on. But still, I find it hard to imagine it hovering as steadily as you say without wind. When you took those shots, was there no headwind where they were flying? > On Feb 3, 5:26 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" > <usern...@qwest.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > When you took those shots, was there no headwind where they were > flying? No, there was no headwind. I wish there were: it was on the Serengeti and around 10 am and getting hot. A wind would have been nice to cool us off. The kite was quite impressive. Roger > On Feb 3, 5:26 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" > <usern...@qwest.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > When you took those shots, was there no headwind where they were > flying? Here is a description of the kite: http://birdsinbackyards.net/finder/display.cfm?id=178 My photo is of a male kite. The female sat in the tree while the male ate the mouse. Roger > On Feb 3, 5:26 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" > <usern...@qwest.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > When you took those shots, was there no headwind where they were > flying? Way I remember it is: there are a few birds that can hover. In the USA, two: humming birds an the American Kestrel. I saw one of the former in my yard last Sunday morning, and later in the day one of the latter over a field a half-mile or so north of the International Border near the Otay Port Of Entry. It gives me considerable joy, seeing such wonderful creatures plying their trades; it makes my heart ache to see the way development is encroaching on their territory. Eight years ago when I used roads in that area quite regularly, there were ten times as many fields, and I might see three or four kestrels in the same mile. SignatureFrank ess On 3 Feb, 04:08, achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > On Feb 3, 5:26 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" > <usern...@qwest.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Really? I've seen this with seagulls and other birds, but they were in > headwind. The hawks and buzzards that do this do it quite differentliy. They don't soar against a headwind, they use very active wing movements, which look quite different from their ordinary locomotive flight. I've always imagined it to be more akin to treading water than to any other bird flight. Jan Böhme > On 3 Feb, 04:08, achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jan Böhme Well, I had no clue. Thanks! >> Or acclimation to humans. I've seen somewhere some photos from the >> Serengeti of a cheetah who had climbed up onto the roof of their [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Roger Great pix, but it is the first time I have ever seen a "tie dyed" bird before ... mikey "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <usern...@qwest.net> wrote: > > ... I've seen somewhere some photos from the > > Serengeti of a cheetah who had climbed up onto the roof of their > > safari vehicle and proverbially sat down leaning against a > > photogrrapher's big lens... > > That was Bill Hilton last April. I recall the close-up of the cat's tail being a "lens brush" on his big telephoto. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the webpage now. > For several days I could not get close to a Lilac-Breasted Roller (a bird), > but then I got lucky with the right light. We started a fair distance > and then moved the vehicle closer and closer, getting photos until I got this one: > <http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa/web/lilac-breasted.roller.c0 1.24.2007.JZ3F1277c-700.html> That is a very nice shot. Hope you got one with his wings open too. > (on safari you can't generally get out of the vehicle because > there is too great a danger from large predators). Which is frustrating, but a constraint you have to live with. -hh > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <usern...@qwest.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I recall the close-up of the cat's tail being a "lens brush" on his > big telephoto. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the webpage now. http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/tanzania_rainy_2006/cheetah.htm "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <usern...@qwest.net> wrote: > > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <usern...@qwest.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/tanzania_rainy_2006/cheetah.htm Ah yes, that's the photo sequence I was recalling. Thanks. -hh > The > secret is that you wait for the birds to come to you, not the other > way around. One way is to set up a photo blind and play a screech owl tape. You'll be up to your eyeballs in birds before you know it. And then there are Canadian geese and pigeons who pose for peanuts. >> The >> secret is that you wait for the birds to come to you, not the other >> way around. >One way is to set up a photo blind and play a screech owl tape. You'll >be up to your eyeballs in birds before you know it. >And then there are Canadian geese and pigeons who pose for peanuts. But do they sign model releases? Signature--- Paul J. Gans On Jan 30, 1:47 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > > In article <KRLvh.31447$Ej7.18...@newsfe15.phx>, Mark² < > > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > WARNING: Rather gory prey-eating shot here...flash-heavy, due to dark > shade, and super-bright background) Damn. In spite of the subject, great shot. >> >> I have a Nikon D70 (wife has a D80) and the only telephoto zoom we >> >> have is a Nikkor 70-210mm which we are always fighting over. We [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > good view of its little feathered butt as it flies off as the shutter > is pressed. Glad to see I'm not the only one with that "touch" :-) mikey >> Boy is that ever true. I need a 25,000mm lens. But the damn birds >> would still fly off for me, as I have some sort of personal [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Glad to see I'm not the only one with that "touch" :-) It's amazing that more field guides don't concentrate on recognition of birds solely from a back view! I'd buy one... Mike. SignatureIf reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee. > It's amazing that more field guides don't concentrate on recognition of > birds solely from a back view! I'd buy one... Well, it turns out that by the time you could use it effectively you wouldn't really need it. > > It's amazing that more field guides don't concentrate on recognition of > > birds solely from a back view! I'd buy one... > > Well, it turns out that by the time you could use it effectively you > wouldn't really need it. I think one trick is to just keep the camera turned on. Critters notice small quick movements more than they notice long slow ones. On Jan 30, 1:09 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > >> I have a Nikon D70 (wife has a D80) and the only telephoto zoom we > >> have is a Nikkor 70-210mm which we are always fighting over. We wish [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > unless the long tele means you're stuck with a small max aperture (like a > crappy mirror lens with a constant f8, for example). Just for historical reference, here is the best mirror-lens ever made.... http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://cameraquest.com/jpg3/questa9.jpg&im grefurl=http://www.cameraquest.com/questar.htm&h=259&w=365&sz=14&hl=en&start=1&t bnid=G83TCb9rtynDhM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=121&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dquestar%2B700%26hl%3Den %26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG >> I have a Nikon D70 (wife has a D80) and the only telephoto zoom we have is >> a Nikkor 70-210mm which we are always fighting over. We wish to add another [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > For birds, I would think that 500mm would be too long. Will you > really be able to find the birds with the 500mm? In my experience, 500mm on a 1.5x crop factor camera is usable; I can find the bird. Sometimes I've added a 1.5x teleconverter as well. At that point the shots were pretty crappy (the 500mm lens I was using was a Spiratone mirror job), but the bird was clearly visible, which was a point in its favor. Yeah, I imagine one of the things good bird photographers do is learn how to sneak up closer :-). > > I have a Nikon D70 (wife has a D80) and the only telephoto zoom we have is > >a Nikkor 70-210mm which we are always fighting over. We wish to add another > >large zoom lens and have been reading up on the Sigma 170-500mm,Sigma > >80-400mm & Tamron 200-500mm. Has anyone got experience of these lenses. > >Unfortunately the Nikkor lenses are out of our price range i.e. around £600. > For birds, I would think that 500mm would be too long. Will you > really be able to find the birds with the 500mm? You guys are such jokers. To the last man but one, every professional wildlife photographer I have met owns a 500 or 600mm lens, and uses it almost exclusively. One guy had a 300/2.8, but he wanted a 500. None of them appear to have any trouble "find[ing] the birds". > One thing you might want to check is if any of the lenses maintain > focus as you zoom, in which case you could use the wider setting to > find the birds, and then zoom all the way in, knowing that the birds > will still be in focus. Unless they fly away. You might want to gather a bit of experience in the field. I've seen many more people with 100-400 and other "lesser" lenses (zoom or fixed). None of them have complained about a lack of parfocality. Most of them want a 500/4, some teleconverters and a nice tripod. Who wouldn't? > None of them have complained about a lack of parfocality. > Most of them want a 500/4, some teleconverters and a nice tripod. Who > wouldn't? I think one of the worse things for an amateur is to get something like a dream 600f4 and Wimbley mount with sturdy tripod. You can pan and follow birds in flight with a little practice, take some so so shots from your backyard and think, hey, this is cool. Lug that around for a few trips to the park however, and you will understand why this is reserved for professionals. Because no normal person would break their backs doing this unless they got paid for it! :)) Then you just stay home and admire your equipment cause you have the dilemma of exacerbating that lumbar disc protrusion by bringing the big guns or taking a smaller weapon and risk not getting that great shot because you were too lazy to bring the best equipment you have. Of course, there is the risk of damaging the thing. Ahh, just stay home and watch the game.... TD > For birds, I would think that 500mm would be too long. Ha! Böhme's law of bird telephoto: "No matter how long - and expensive - piece of glass you manage to stick in front of you camera, you'll still always be too wide." I use a Canon 100-400 L with a taped Kenko Pro 1.4x teleconverter most of the time I shoot birds, and this combo is still clearly on the wide side for most of my bird shoots. At least for my type of bird shots, nothing on this side of 800mm could ever be regarded as "too long". On a 30D, that is. On a 5D, increase accordingly to 1300mm. Jan Böhme > I use a Canon 100-400 L with a taped Kenko Pro 1.4x teleconverter > most of the time I shoot birds, and this combo is still clearly on > the wide side for most of my bird shoots. By "taped" I assume you mean you've covered some of the pins so that it will autofocus above f/5.6; is that right? I've been thinking about trying this same combination. How do you like it? This afternoon I was photographing chickadees with a Canon 18-55mm kit lens, which was plenty long enough -- they were sitting on my hand at the time. SignatureRay (remove the Xs to reply) > > I use a Canon 100-400 L with a taped Kenko Pro 1.4x teleconverter > > most of the time I shoot birds, and this combo is still clearly on > > the wide side for most of my bird shoots. > > By "taped" I assume you mean you've covered some of the pins so that it > will autofocus above f/5.6; is that right? Uh-huh. > I've been thinking about > trying this same combination. How do you like it? It's not foolproof. You realise why Canon has set the limit of the 30D to f5.6. But it's a "hit-or-miss" situation. Either it works, and then it focusses just as well as without the teleconverter. Or it hunts far too long to give me a chance to capture the subject. Most of the time it works well. And sometimes when it doesn't, I can autofucos on something else at the same distance, and then switch to manual mode, to lock the focussing. Jan Böhme >> By "taped" I assume you mean you've covered some of the pins so >> that it will autofocus above f/5.6; is that right? > > Uh-huh. Is this how you did it? <http://www.michaelfurtman.com/taping_the_pins.htm> >> I've been thinking about >> trying this same combination. How do you like it? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > can autofucos on something else at the same distance, and then > switch to manual mode, to lock the focussing. Thanks, it sounds like it's well worth trying. Actually I've never understood why Canon included that limitation. If there's enough light for the autofocus to work, why not let it? Or is it limited by something other than the amount of light? SignatureRay (remove the Xs to reply) >> It's not foolproof. You realise why Canon has set the limit of the >> 30D to f5.6. But it's a "hit-or-miss" situation. Either it works, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Actually I've never understood why Canon included that limitation. If >there's enough light for the autofocus to work, why not let it? Smart marketing. Buyers bitch lots more about features that screw up sometimes than they do about well-documented artificial limitations that switch off the feature in situations where it won't be reliable. > >> By "taped" I assume you mean you've covered some of the pins so > >> that it will autofocus above f/5.6; is that right? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is this how you did it? > <http://www.michaelfurtman.com/taping_the_pins.htm> Righto. > Actually I've never understood why Canon included that limitation. If > there's enough light for the autofocus to work, why not let it? Or is > it limited by something other than the amount of light? If I've understood things correctly, it's supposed to be limited also by the maximal incident angle of light on the autofocus sensor, which gets smaller, the smaller the aperture. Some people even say that this is the only thing that it's really limited to, and that you don't really get better results in bright light, it's only the better contrast that normally is the consequence of bright light that is important. I'm not enough of a gearhead to tell whether this is true. I can only observe that the AF works better in good light - also _within_ the f-stop specs of the lens, for that matter. It's a bit bizarre with the taping of the lens, btw. If I stick the Kenko onto my 28-135 IS USM, I don't need to tape it to get AF. The camera already ignores the TC without tape. Whereas it understands that it is there is a TC when I put the 100-400 on, if I haven't taped it. The ways of the camera are inscrutable... Jan Böhme > It's a bit bizarre with the taping of the lens, btw. If I stick the > Kenko onto my 28-135 IS USM, I don't need to tape it to get AF. The > camera already ignores the TC without tape. Whereas it understands > that it is there is a TC when I put the 100-400 on, if I haven't taped > it. That's because it's not the camera but the lens that detects the teleconverter and presumably adjusts the aperture range and focal lenght reported to the camera. The teleconverter has three extra contacts in the lens end for this purpose. High end Canon telephotos have matching contacts, but "consumer" lenses like the 28-135mm doesn't. > I have a Nikon D70 (wife has a D80) and the only telephoto zoom we have is >a Nikkor 70-210mm which we are always fighting over. We wish to add another [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Thanks Robert If cost is a real consideration, have a look around for a second hand Nikkor 300mm F4. They are a pretty good thing for the price. eg http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Nikon-Nikkor-AF-300-F4-ED-Lens-300mm-F-4_W0QQitemZ14007845 5061QQihZ004QQcategoryZ3343QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Add a 1.4x teleconverter and you will be getting amongst the birds in no time. I have had some excellent results with this set up. Bruce go to the Birds as Art site (http://www.birdsasart.com/) and look in some of the bulletins and articles. Probably one of the best bird photography sites around regards Don > I have a Nikon D70 (wife has a D80) and the only telephoto zoom we have is > a Nikkor 70-210mm which we are always fighting over. We wish to add [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks Robert |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.