|
ExecuDork posted:
Lark Sparrow (I think).
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Lark Sparrow (I think). I think either Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina) or Clay-colored Sparrow (Spizella pallida), based on the lack of streaks on the grey breast; I've got better views of the breast in other pictures, but they're not as close to in-focus as the shot I posted. I'm leaning towards Chipping, possibly a near-adult (first year?) juvenile with some of the winter colours still showing. That's a big guess, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Trying to identify sparrows from pictures is about as hard of thing that you can do. ugh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
Yeah, I can see a Chippy or Clay-colored.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
Here's some shots taken a couple months ago on a pelagic trip off Cape Point, South Africa. Immature Shy Albatross  White-Chinned Petrel  Cape Gannet  European Storm Petrel  Great Shearwater  Northern Giant Petrel  Shy Albatross  Black Browed Albatross  Immature Shy Ablatross Close Up 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
'Murica
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Hummingbird DSC_2223.jpg by Steven Sarginson, on Flickr  DSC_2169.jpg by Steven Sarginson, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
I dunno if this is better served in this or the gear thread, but I have just over $1000 to work with and I want a dedicated wildlife lens. My thoughts are either the Sigma 50-500, Canon 100-400L or the Canon 400 5.6L. I think I'd rather have a zoom over a prime though, since it would be my only lens right now over 50mm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:I dunno if this is better served in this or the gear thread, but I have just over $1000 to work with and I want a dedicated wildlife lens. I have Canon 400L. I was using an older Tamron zoom before and opted for the prime since I never left full zoom anyhow (at least with birding).
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 11:33
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:I dunno if this is better served in this or the gear thread, but I have just over $1000 to work with and I want a dedicated wildlife lens. I have used all 3 lenses and I've owned 2 of them. I originally bought a Sigma 50-500mm and used it for a year, I was not happy. It was far from sharp, needing me to stop down to F8 just to get a decently sharp shot and even then it really wasn't impressive. On top of that, the lens weighs a ton. I then decided that I wanted to get a different lens, so I contacted a friend who owned the Canon 100-400mm F4-F5.6 and I used it for 2 months. While it was a marked improvement on the Sigma 50-500mm, it still wasn't tack sharp, like I'd seen some 400mm 5.6s give. I then sold the 50-500mm and went for the Canon 400mm F5.6 L prime lens. The best decision ever, it was far superior to both the others and I rarely ever find myself regretting that I don't have the focal flexibility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 12:15
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:I dunno if this is better served in this or the gear thread, but I have just over $1000 to work with and I want a dedicated wildlife lens. Just to be clear, the sigma 50-500 costs 1500 bucks, the sigma 150-500 is the one that costs around a grand. I like the Vivitar 400/5.6 that I use, but mostly because it only cost 30 bucks (also I'm just fine stopping down to f/11 to get sharp shots). fake edit: lensrentals.com has basically all of those lenses, if you aren't sure you could always rent each one in turn and decide which one you prefer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:I dunno if this is better served in this or the gear thread, but I have just over $1000 to work with and I want a dedicated wildlife lens. One more for the 400 f5.6 camp. I can't think of an instance where I wish I had a zoom while shooting wildlife because I was just too close and needed to back out a bit. The 100-400 has IS, but I think there is a consensus that the 400 is sharper and the AF is king. It still retails for 1.2 and I wouldn't give it a second thought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 14:11
|
|
|
Bahama.Llama posted:One more for the 400 f5.6 camp. I can't think of an instance where I wish I had a zoom while shooting wildlife because I was just too close and needed to back out a bit. The 100-400 has IS, but I think there is a consensus that the 400 is sharper and the AF is king. I don't think you will get the 100-400 and feel disappointed. It is a great lens and I still use it a fair bit today despite having bigger, sharper primes available to me. That said, if I had to make the same decision I'd probably go for the 400 prime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
If you really want a zoom, consider the 70-300L (I know it's a little more than $1k)- the difference between 70 and 100 is pretty big on the wide end especially on a crop. Extremely sharp, great IS, and smaller than either of those options. I haven't used the 100-400L or 400L, but I've seen great photos from both looking through exifs on flickr. \/\/\/ e: 300mm is not ideal, but it's not like there's some magic threshold where all of a sudden all the birds are full frame at 400mm. I don't see any of those options worth an upgrade for me- if I get a dedicated wildlife lens it might be a 300 f2.8 +TC, either a used Canon mk1 or the new Sigma zoom. BetterLekNextTime fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:If you really want a zoom, consider the 70-300L (I know it's a little more than $1k)- the difference between 70 and 100 is pretty big on the wide end especially on a crop. Extremely sharp, great IS, and smaller than either of those options. How can you shoot birds with less than 400mm though?  e. Of course, a teleconverter. Silly me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
meso posted:I have used all 3 lenses and I've owned 2 of them. I originally bought a Sigma 50-500mm and used it for a year, I was not happy. It was far from sharp, needing me to stop down to F8 just to get a decently sharp shot and even then it really wasn't impressive. On top of that, the lens weighs a ton. I could basically quote most of your entire post and just say 'same' because I went the same path and had the same experiences. I used the 50-500 for airshows and it was good at that because there's plenty of light up in the sky, but when you're in a swampy area shooting birds in little light you'll get frustrated with it quickly. Zooming is handy but 9 times out of 10 with wildlife you're going to be at the furthest end of your zoom and you'll want it to be the sharpest possible so I'm also throwing in a recommendation for the 400 f5.6 prime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:How can you shoot birds with less than 400mm though? I shoot 300 on a DX. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
I shoot 150 on an Olympus, which works out to 300. Some of nicer ones I like are done at around 50 with the camera on a tripod in front of a feeder triggered wirelessly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
The girlfriend (Sparowe) and I went out birding this morning, and after 100km of driving and four hours later, we hadn't seen too much, but then when stopping for some landscape photographs at a park down the road from my place, we got some great sightings of a South African endemic, the Jackal Buzzard. These Buzzards are the most common South African year-round resident, but always a nice sight. This individual has more white than most of the adults usually do, usually there is only a small amount of white separating the black body from the rufous chest. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Hummingbird Where do you place your hummingbird feeder? I've tried to do one in the past, but never seem to get action. I know other people in the same region that have attracted some, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Cru Jones posted:Where do you place your hummingbird feeder? I've tried to do one in the past, but never seem to get action. I know other people in the same region that have attracted some, though. Over the past few months I've learned that I need to keep my hummingbird feeder away from any other bird activity I may have at my house. I had it within a few feet of my tube seed feeder for the sparrows and finches and got nothing. The second I moved it, bam, hummingbirds. Maker Of Shoes fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
Which is kind of weird seeing how aggressive they can be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:How can you shoot birds with less than 400mm though? Or on a crop body.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
The biggest reason I'm happy I got the 100-400mm rather than the 400mm prime is that it shrinks down to a pretty short length that allows me to fit it in my carry-on baggage. It's not quite as sharp as the 400mm, but there's been dozens of great shots I never would have gotten with the prime because it wouldn't have made it on the trip. Fart Amplifier posted:Hummingbird Looks like a Calliope Hummingbird, assuming you're somewhere in a dry, western state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Looks like a Calliope Hummingbird, assuming you're somewhere in a dry, western state. I was at my parents' house in northern BC. So I guess I don't know (I don't know much about birds)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:How can you shoot birds with less than 400mm? I own the 100-400. However I just recently rented a 500mm f4 and now feel bereft.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
off-topic, but I've been watching a couple livecams featuring Peregrine Falcons in my city; http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/default/index.cfm/media/peregrine-cam/watch-the-peregrine-live/u-of-a-peregrine-camera/ One is actually 2 blocks north of where I work. It's awesome when they bring back pigeons to feed their chicks
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
^ I love those webcams. We have a similar one here in Seattle. In 1997 one of our local bird experts was watching when one of the parents brought in a rather unusual meal for the chicks, a Yellow-Billed Cuckoo. This was only the second time the species had been reported in that county since they were extirpated from the state before World War II. An odd way to find a rare bird. Fart Amplifier posted:I was at my parents' house in northern BC. So I guess I don't know (I don't know much about birds) Looks like their range is shown in my book as going up to mid-northern BC, so I'm sure that's probably a Calliope. The streaky gorget (the colored part under the chin in males) is the giveaway for Calliope. BeastOfExmoor fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
You know what's cute?  A Saw Whet Owlet, that's what. [edit] Much cuter -- 3 owlets! 
InternetJunky fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Jun 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 13:55
|
|
|
Very nice owlet!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
neckbeard posted:off-topic, but I've been watching a couple livecams featuring Peregrine Falcons in my city; http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/default/index.cfm/media/peregrine-cam/watch-the-peregrine-live/u-of-a-peregrine-camera/ One is actually 2 blocks north of where I work. It's awesome when they bring back pigeons to feed their chicks Thank you for this. There's something about watching the adult Peregrine shred a pigeon and feed the stringy bits to the chicks that's a wonderful cure for a stressful day. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:You know what's cute? I am so loving jealous. Possibly more jealous than your Great Gray shots if that is even possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Yeah, those are really awesome shots. I see they're banded- were these wild birds just out of the nest or in an aviary?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:You know what's cute? Those look awesome, I take it you went out with The Owl Guys? (I saw some similar pics pop up on my Flickr feed)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Yeah, those are really awesome shots. I see they're banded- were these wild birds just out of the nest or in an aviary? neckbeard posted:Those look awesome, I take it you went out with The Owl Guys? (I saw some similar pics pop up on my Flickr feed) I have no idea if you're interested neckbeard but if the opportunity comes up again I can drop you a line if you want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Yeah, that would be great, I'm off in Banff this weekend running a marathon, but after that I have a couple weeks to relax until it's time to start training for the next one, so I was hoping to do a bunch more bird photography.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Owlets I spent a couple days in Oakland this week. I only had a 105mm on me but the birds at Lake Merritt don't care if you walk right up to them, so it worked out. Juvenile black-crowned night heron:  Honk.  Nesting cormorants:  A california quail taking a break from running away from me in the hills:  If anyone in northern California has some nice telephoto glass and some spare time, there's a bald eagle nest on a telephone pole just north of Cloverdale where Highway 128 turns off from 101. It's clearly visible from the freeway and it's currently inhabited. Moon Potato fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jun 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:Nesting cormorants: This is awesome. Any way you could liven it up in post?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Maker Of Shoes posted:This is awesome. Any way you could liven it up in post? There's not really much shadow detail or color to salvage in the birds/tree since the light had gone by the time I got there, but I guess it works as a silhouette. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Some swallows  
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 05:31
|
|
