|
Kenshin posted:For sure male, there were the plain-colored females around but it was really difficult to get a good shot. You photos are also about 900% better than the first bird photos I produced were.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
Kenshin posted:Did some practice with my new lens today and I'm quite pleased with the results. Can't wait to go out to a wildlife area and use this thing. The first one is a ruby crested kinglet, we saw a bunch of them on sauvie island by portland. They are so tiny, and have a freaky eye! We saw loads more gold crested kinglets in seattle which are less freaky looking. If you're in the woods for a bit, you can hear them twittering around in the bush, and eventually they'll come out if you're still. They're hard to get a good photo of though! Although they're related to goldcrests in the UK, their behaviour is a lot like long tailed tits with the mob foraging and communication calls. The Robin, yeah he's a male. They make for good subjects because they just sit around eating so much. I grew up with those guys in my backyard and they can eat an impressive and disgusting amount of earthworms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Linedance posted:The first one is a ruby crested kinglet, we saw a bunch of them on sauvie island by portland. They are so tiny, and have a freaky eye! Ah yes! I always get them confused.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:
That's actually a Golden-crowned Sparrow. Nice pics! (also, it's Ruby-crowned, not ruby-crested) on the kinglet. Those guys are small and flitty, but also one of the most responsive to "pishing" and will often come pretty close to check you out if you make some shushing noises.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:That's actually a Golden-crowned Sparrow. Nice pics! I was going to say that, but the fact it was hanging out with a house sparrow was confusing. I'm jealous, I've never actually seen one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:That's actually a Golden-crowned Sparrow. Nice pics! Yeah it seemed like the House Sparrow was serenading this one, because he was singing and then (she?) hopped onto the bush near him and hung out for a while while he was singing. Pukestain Pal posted:You photos are also about 900% better than the first bird photos I produced were. I really love this as a hobby.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:You photos are also about 900% better than the first bird photos I produced were.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Did some practice with my new lens today and I'm quite pleased with the results. Can't wait to go out to a wildlife area and use this thing. As others said this is A Ruby-Crowned Kinglet. I'm guessing the scrape you mentioned was actually its crest, which is typically hidden but occasionally pokes through. Nice photos indeed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Hell, a lot of those shots are better than the bird shots I do now. I miss Australia where we'd semi domesticated half the birds that lived in the neighborhood and I could take a picture of a Kookaburra or a butcher bird from a foot away without them giving a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
I took a second pass at that picture in Lightroom. I think this in an improvement. Also, here's another of the same little guy. I didn't like this one at first but some fiddling in Lightroom and I'm actually pretty happy with it. Now that I knew to look for the little red crest and I know what shade the bird is supposed to be it was a lot easier to fix the colors when I got rid of the heaviest of the shadowing.  EDIT: I hope I'm not posting too much but I got what I think is a fantastic close-up shot of a male House Sparrow this morning, and another I really like (though it isn't perfectly framed) of when he flew off. Honestly the imgur JPEG doesn't do it justice, that is the entire frame, uncropped, and the detail on the feathers is nothing short of amazing.  ISO 200 (auto), 400mm, f/8 1/320sec  ISO 200 (auto), 400mm, f/8 1/320sec Kenshin fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jan 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
At only ISO200 you've got plenty of room to push that shutter faster, even at f/8. If you're using auto ISO set the high stop at 800 and just crank the shutter up until your overall exposure evens out. You're going to need every click of speed you can get as you get used to smaller birds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Maker Of Shoes posted:At only ISO200 you've got plenty of room to push that shutter faster, even at f/8. If you're using auto ISO set the high stop at 800 and just crank the shutter up until your overall exposure evens out. You're going to need every click of speed you can get as you get used to smaller birds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Makes sense! I use aperture priority mode with most of my lenses but I think with this lens I should be using shutter priority, since I'm pretty much always shooting at f/8 with this lens for maximum sharpness. Everyone is different but here's my flow: I, too, start at f8 but manual mode provided my background isn't too busy so the extra depth isn't going to hinder me. I leave my ISO on auto but capped at 800. You can get higher ISO depending on your frame but my lowly 3100 gets way too noisy at 1600 and south. I meter my target area at 1/1000 and generally stay around there, ISO will soak up the rest of the light. If I need more light I'll back off to 1/640 but usually no lower. You can gradually work your way wider than f8 if you're getting close to sunset or the light just isn't working and you're getting dangerously slow on shutter. Stick with single point, back button focus if you can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
I got another two nice shots of a Robin while trying to shoot at Belfast Zoo. Most of my photos of actual zoo specimens sucked, so it was nice to get something out of the day: img_0002 by barfish, on Flickr That one isn't as sharp and I don't like the framing as much, but it's not too bad given the overcast conditions.  img_0001 by barfish, on Flickr This one I'm quite proud of though- The neon-green painted building in the background works well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
 Here's a Western Scrub Jay as it was taking off. I started getting hits for this picture right after I posted it and wondered why for a half second until I remembered that I named it Bird Butt. Guess what the fine members of flickr were searching for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Welcome to the thread, Kenshin. You're off to a good start! I had my first close-up encounter with a Merlin this week:  merlin-perch by Redwood Planet, on Flickr Least Sandpipers coming in for a landing  least-sandpipers by Redwood Planet, on Flickr Ruby-crowned Kinglet, I think. They've mostly been hiding in the reeds, and I haven't had a chance to get a good long look at them.  ruby-kinglet by Redwood Planet, on Flickr It's not a great picture, but this was my first Sharp-shinned Hawk sighting  sharp-shinned by Redwood Planet, on Flickr A Ruddy Duck in the first moments of diving  ruddy-dive by Redwood Planet, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:Welcome to the thread, Kenshin. You're off to a good start! That is fantastic! Are you using an extender to get 600mm or do you have a real deal 600mm? I have a 300mm f/2.8 and been wondering how lovely the quality of a 2x extender would be. not worried about the min aperture going up to f/5.6 since I shoot birds at 8 or 11 anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:That is fantastic! Are you using an extender to get 600mm or do you have a real deal 600mm? I have a 300mm f/2.8 and been wondering how lovely the quality of a 2x extender would be. not worried about the min aperture going up to f/5.6 since I shoot birds at 8 or 11 anyways. Wondering this also, have the same setup. E: Nvm I have a 300mm 5.6 it'd be too dark.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:That is fantastic! Are you using an extender to get 600mm or do you have a real deal 600mm? I have a 300mm f/2.8 and been wondering how lovely the quality of a 2x extender would be. not worried about the min aperture going up to f/5.6 since I shoot birds at 8 or 11 anyways. This was with the Sigma 120-300mm (pre-Sport version) and 2x TC. That combo works pretty well stopped down to around f/11. Sharpness is okay a little wider than that, but autofocus accuracy and speed with the teleconverter on suffers a bit. I would think that you'd get better results with a prime instead of a zoom, too, especially if you have one with a focus limiter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:This was with the Sigma 120-300mm (pre-Sport version) and 2x TC. That combo works pretty well stopped down to around f/11. Sharpness is okay a little wider than that, but autofocus accuracy and speed with the teleconverter on suffers a bit. I would think that you'd get better results with a prime instead of a zoom, too, especially if you have one with a focus limiter. Awesome, I have the same lens (but I actually use it for sports since that's my job). I'll have to give it a try. Also, I love that sigma. I'm not sure why it's called the pre-sport version since there is very little difference besides the usb microadjusting. Which extender are you using?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Awesome, I have the same lens (but I actually use it for sports since that's my job). I'll have to give it a try. I'm using Sigma's current 2x teleconverter. I'd imagine a contemporary Nikon/Canon one would work just as well if not better, but I'm doing almost all my documentary shooting on Sigma lenses right now and wanted to be consistent with color rendition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:That is fantastic! Are you using an extender to get 600mm or do you have a real deal 600mm? I have a 300mm f/2.8 and been wondering how lovely the quality of a 2x extender would be. not worried about the min aperture going up to f/5.6 since I shoot birds at 8 or 11 anyways. Almost all of my shots are with a Canon 300mm f/2.8 non-IS plus 2x TC mkII. It's...useable at 5.6 but I usually stop it down to 6.3 - 8 depending on the light and situation. I've even tried out stacking the 2x + 1.4x with decent results. If you do decide to use a TC, definitely go with Canon. The Kenko's aren't too bad but the Canon's are absolutely superior and worth the couple extra bucks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Almost all of my shots are with a Canon 300mm f/2.8 non-IS plus 2x TC mkII. It's...useable at 5.6 but I usually stop it down to 6.3 - 8 depending on the light and situation. I've even tried out stacking the 2x + 1.4x with decent results. If you do decide to use a TC, definitely go with Canon. The Kenko's aren't too bad but the Canon's are absolutely superior and worth the couple extra bucks. good to know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:That is fantastic! Are you using an extender to get 600mm or do you have a real deal 600mm? I have a 300mm f/2.8 and been wondering how lovely the quality of a 2x extender would be. not worried about the min aperture going up to f/5.6 since I shoot birds at 8 or 11 anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
During one of my waiting-for-the-plane days in the Arctic I went for a walk to annoy the Jaegers. I succeed: they were annoyed with me. Annoying the Parasitic Jaeger Family 8 by Execudork, on Flickr  Annoying the Parasitic Jaeger Family 10 by Execudork, on Flickr  Annoying the Parasitic Jaeger Family 13 by Execudork, on Flickr A pair of adult Parasitic Jaegers defending their already-flying-why-are-you-bothering offspring are pretty much the perfect birds to photograph. They call constantly, they don't try to hide, they'll fly straight AT you rather than away, and when they near-miss (which they always* do) they cruise past at just above eye level and just above stall speed, giving the stink-eye.  Annoying the Parasitic Jaeger Family 4 by Execudork, on Flickr Of course, a big, angry bird accelerating hard straight in on me is pretty much impossible to keep up with as far as focusing. Hence shots like this. * in my experience, though they've come *really* close a few times. That's when I leave, I don't want to accidentally injure a bird because it decided to bang a wing against my head in flight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:* in my experience, though they've come *really* close a few times. That's when I leave, I don't want to accidentally injure a bird because it decided to bang a wing against my head in flight. fairly certain you'd be the only one hurting
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I shoot with both combos and have to say the 300+2x is ideal, especially for birds in flight. It might make a difference since I'm using a 1DX, but for me there is pretty much no appreciable loss of AF speed with a 2x attached. I much prefer it over my 600 which feels like a lead brick in comparison. I've noticed a slowdown on AF with the 2x on a 1D4. I also have a lens made in 1987 so that might be a factor as well. Canon reps have said that there is electronics in the 2x to slow AF speed by 50% (25% for 1.4x) for the sake of accuracy but I've read that the 1DX drives AF better/faster so it might not be as noticeable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I've noticed a slowdown on AF with the 2x on a 1D4. I also have a lens made in 1987 so that might be a factor as well. Canon reps have said that there is electronics in the 2x to slow AF speed by 50% (25% for 1.4x) for the sake of accuracy but I've read that the 1DX drives AF better/faster so it might not be as noticeable. I'm going to give one a try this weekend and see how it goes. Do you guys end up needing to microadjust or anything due to the 2x?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:I'm going to give one a try this weekend and see how it goes. I did a micro adjust for bare lens, lens + 1.4x, and lens + 2x. I'm not sure if it was totally necessary; its not like any of those combos was really out of alignment but I did see a little difference when zoomed in on live view.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
 Plush-Crested Jay by William T Hornaday, on Flickr  Rhinocerous Hornbill by William T Hornaday, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
/\/\/\ Awesome. More juvenile Lapland Longspurs  Longspurs at the Weather Station 2 by Execudork, on Flickr  Longspurs at the Weather Station 3 by Execudork, on Flickr  Longspurs at the Weather Station 4 by Execudork, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
That's a beautiful blue & gold macaw. Yours, or...?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Nope, one of two at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
I love macaws but they can be so goddamn dramatic Theatre, Darling by TCZPhotography, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
 Not an egg. by limeyrock, on Flickr I thought about saving this one 'til easter
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
I got to watch a kleptoparasite try desperately (and succeed) to avoid getting kleptoparasitized. In this case I think the jaeger legitimately caught the fish itself, though there were enough Arctic Terns around it's possible this was a thief attempting to steal from a thief. Attempted Klepotparasitism 1 by Execudork, on Flickr  Attempted Klepotparasitism 7 by Execudork, on Flickr  Attempted Klepotparasitism 9 by Execudork, on Flickr  Attempted Klepotparasitism 10 by Execudork, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:I love macaws but they can be so goddamn dramatic Just fantastic!
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
I took a different route on one of my walks which puts the sun in a much better position and is less frequented by people. I was able to find these three birds pretty close each other.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 12:27
|
|