|
VelociBacon posted:The 70-300 is also too short to be honest. You'll be cropping but it does alright- I had this exact combo. I'd go with something longer if it was a lens only for wildlife, but it's really a fantastic lens. Having 70 on the wide end is pretty useful.
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
Unrelated gearchat: I bought the Nikon 200-500mm on Friday morning to bring with me camping since my Tamron hadn't come back from warranty repair yet. I didn't do a whole lot of bird photography (I was with a bunch of friends) but I am absolutely blown away by this lens. I have absolutely no qualms about selling my Tamron 150-600mm now. I'm really looking forward to getting out there on a good day and seeing what I can do. It's tack-sharp at 500mm f/5.6!  
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
I've found a 400mm to be just ok for birding on a canon aps-c camera. 600mm is probably the minimum for full frame. I mean, I've had a lot of fun with a 55-250mm on a crop body, but getting into the 400mm (600mm equivalent)+ range just opens up so many possibilities. Posting again since we're doing baby swallow feeding shots. It's old. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Unrelated gearchat: I bought the Nikon 200-500mm on Friday morning to bring with me camping since my Tamron hadn't come back from warranty repair yet. I didn't do a whole lot of bird photography (I was with a bunch of friends) but I am absolutely blown away by this lens. I have absolutely no qualms about selling my Tamron 150-600mm now. I'm really looking forward to getting out there on a good day and seeing what I can do. It's tack-sharp at 500mm f/5.6! Glad its working out for you, I'm still blown away from how sharp mine is, its definitely the best thing I've bought as far as photo gear yet, the only thing i can knock it for is having to turn it for awhile to zoom in and out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
Thanks for the input everyone. I'll give it a bit more thought - it's still a "will I miss the extra 100mm when travelling or hate the extra 250g". I know it's not the ideal lens for wildlife and the trip won't be focused on it, it's mostly "what's the most portable thing I can get away with that's still useable". I'm definitely leaning to the 70-300 but anything will be an improvement over my Sigma 50-200. E: vvvv thanks! ijyt fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
ijyt posted:Thanks for the input everyone. I'll give it a bit more thought - it's still a "will I miss the extra 100mm when travelling or hate the extra 250g". TBH a much cheaper lens that is still extremely sharp and has amazing IS is the Tamron 70-300 VC USD. I'd take a look at that! It's f/4.5-5.6 I think. Sample images from a d7000:  Turtle by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr Mygoodside by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Glad its working out for you, I'm still blown away from how sharp mine is, its definitely the best thing I've bought as far as photo gear yet, the only thing i can knock it for is having to turn it for awhile to zoom in and out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Yeah the zoom ring is pretty gradual. The only other downside I've noticed (relative to the Tamron 150-600mm and Sigma 120-400mm lenses I've owned before) is that the Nikon 200-500mm has a bit more shutter jump than the others (on the same camera body). I'm not quite sure why, but it's not severe and I'm sure I'll get used to it. By shutter jump do you mean the difference from when you hit the shutter to after its done its thing? I've noticed a similar thing but I think it's due to the VR disengaging after a shot briefly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:By shutter jump do you mean the difference from when you hit the shutter to after its done its thing? I've noticed a similar thing but I think it's due to the VR disengaging after a shot briefly. Erm, yeah. I wasn't sure how to describe it, but yes that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
And here's me with my measly Nikon 300mm f/4 Starlings watching the sunset by Spookygonk, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
spookygonk posted:And here's me with my measly Nikon 300mm f/4 A nice reminder that rad bird pictures don't have to be all up in their grill. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
spookygonk posted:And here's me with my measly Nikon 300mm f/4 That's not just an excellent bird photograph, that's an excellent photograph.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
    550D/EF28-135
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
 Blue Heron by Shrieking Muppet, on Flickr  Kingfisher by Shrieking Muppet, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
I upgraded from the Tamron 150-600mm to the Nikon 200-500mm recently, and I'm really really happy with it. I haven't had the chance to take it out on a "perfect" day yet, but I was able to use it during cloudy days this past weekend and the performance is fantastic. Closest thing to a huge prime lens I've used yet. I can't wait to see what I'll be able to get with good lighting. (all of these are pretty high-ISO except for the last one, which was underexposed and I had to bring things way up)   
Kenshin fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Jul 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
A few from this past weekend down in the Portland area. I continue to be incredibly impressed with this lens. Still didn't have much direct sunlight (aside from that goldfinch picture at the end) but I'm floored by what I'm getting.     
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Is this a juvenile something-or-other?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
my cat is norris posted:Is this a juvenile something-or-other? For what it's worth it was taken at a farm near the Clackamas River in Oregon (zip code: 97022)
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:I'm not sure. I believe it might be a juvenile red-breasted sapsucker, but I've been unable to find any pictures that look anything like it (or red naped sapsuckers), nor have I been able to find any closer matches in any of my guidebooks. Yes, it's a juvenile Red-Breasted Sapsucker. I had one fly in with a hybrid Red-Breasted x Red-Naped the other day which made things extra confusing. The juveniles are very dark.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
I was recommended a spot in central Oregon this past weekend and spent a few hours there. I don't know much about birds or photographing them, but thoroughly enjoy the act of it.    Nashville Warbler
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
30mm (ff equiv) bird photo! Swallow explosion by King Dugga, on Flickr forgot I was on F8, so 1/800 shutter speed means there was a bit of motion blur.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
I finally got a shot of a grebe doing its courtship rushing. I had my camera focused on a much closer grebe when the pair started running, so I only had a chance to get one shot off before they dove. I came back with the video gear, but none of the pairs nearby rushed again. I did capture some interesting bonding behavior and a parent carrying a hatchling around on its back, though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPLNy1DKo2U While I was staking out the grebes, one Osprey tried to steal a fish from another. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYEsTXJIwxA The summer tides aren't high enough to fill up Arcata Marsh's brackish pond, so it's getting very shallow and the sculpins are very easy to catch.  The spot near the tidal sluice on that pond used to be the territory of that Great Egret, but now a Great Blue Heron chases him away whenever he gets too close.  The Great Blue Heron had been standing at the base of the sluice gate to catch smelt, but it found a couple sculpins in the shallows after chasing off the Great Egret. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Nice, especially like the first muddy egret shot! I finally had a chance to try out that 150-600 you lot recommended with the local heron and boy is it a fun lens. The reach is amazing. Watched this guy for almost 3 hours before he finally caught a morsel.  Fisher by ijyt, on Flickr e: also said morsel stared straight into the lens, judging me.  
ijyt fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jul 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
 Bald Eagle (juvenile) by Tyler Huestis, on Flickr Bald Eagle by Tyler Huestis, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
A few more.   
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Only had a 17-50mm for these   IMG_1126 by Hannah, on Flickr IMG_1121 by Hannah, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
I've never seen baby peacocks before, those little tails are adorable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
I really like this one. Shorebirds are back from their breeding grounds and the Peregrine Falcons are coming out to hunt them.  falcon-sunset by Redwood Planet, on Flickr  falcon-sandpipers by Redwood Planet, on Flickr It managed to injure a sandpiper, but a gull snapped it up before the falcon could circle back to retrieve its prey.  gull-sandpiper by Redwood Planet, on Flickr During one of the falcon's hunting attempts, a Northern Harrier snuck in to grab a sandpiper for itself.  harrier-sandpiper3 by Redwood Planet, on Flickr A Pelagic Cormorant getting splashed by a sneaker wave while sleeping on a rock.  cormorant-wave2 by Redwood Planet, on Flickr Wading birds have been loving the schools of smelt coming in with the high tides this week.  gbh-swallow2 by Redwood Planet, on Flickr  egret-fish-shake by Redwood Planet, on Flickr  snowy-walk by Redwood Planet, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
Hey guys, long time no post. I was able to get away earlier this summer for a little bird shootin' and did some pictures: Bald Eagle by No Small Wave, on Flickr Burrowing Owl by No Small Wave, on Flickr Sooty Grouse Hen by No Small Wave, on FlickrA friend and I found a black-backed woodpecker nest in a recent burn, so we camped on that and took a few thousand photos:  Black-Backed Woodpecker Nest 01 by No Small Wave, on Flickr Black-Backed Woodpecker Nest 02 by No Small Wave, on Flickr Black-Backed Woodpecker by No Small Wave, on FlickrI also did some video, poorly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnF7RbI8i7Y
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:...amazing pictures... Absolutely incredible! Those photos make me want to buy a longer lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Hey guys, long time no post.  Welcome back.3 years I've tried for a decent Pileated photo in the woods, and then this guy rolls up 10m outside the living room window:  Moon Potato posted:It managed to injure a sandpiper, but a gull snapped it up before the falcon could circle back to retrieve its prey. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
If you think that's bad, go look for photos of gulls eating exhausted Warblers in the beaches of the Great Lakes. Gulls can be pretty badass on occasion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Wonderful photos!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Even the gull looks a little bit freaked out at what it's doing. .. So, this is a gear post. In the bird thread, because you guys are the ones who have experience with and knowledge of using DSLRs and long lenses. I've been limping along with a 7D+400L for a while now and haven't really been too impressed by the rate of focus hits I get, but chalked it up to my technique, light conditions, etc. Maybe I futzed around with AF micro adjustment a few times. But today there were some shots that I really hated to have missed out on, and I'm close to blaming my gear. First was this heron. Nothing in this sequence of six exposures was pin sharp. The first two were close, and the fifth was almost. I had a solid grip on the lens and was resting my elbow on a ledge. Single-point AF, AI Servo (default sensitivity), 1/800.  Nothing was pin sharp out of that burst, but three were almost acceptable. It was a different story with this cormorant. Same settings. Attached an example of what I consider a 'pin sharp' shot at the bottom of the sequence. It was taken after another 8 blurry exposures of a different bird.  Here are a couple of other things I've noticed. Going to live view and using the CDAF + MLU doesn't seem to improve things. Granted I can barely find and frame a bird using the rear LCD, but when I've tried it, I haven't seen any improvements. Neither does using a monopod. Does anyone have any other ideas? Could it be my lens? I've never dropped it or anything, but I did once set it down kind of hard once when it was in an unpadded backpack. I normally keep a +4 AFMA dialed in, as that seemed to be what was needed when I checked it on a tripod last year. Or are these just the kind of results everyone else gets?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Does that happen at all f-stops (within reason)? i.e. are you shooting wide open, at f/8, or somewhere inbetween?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
I'd say that images at 6.3 and 7.1 have about the same tendancy towards only being occasionally pin sharp. Those are really the only other apertures I use since I treat 1/800 as the minimum useful speed with that lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I'd say that images at 6.3 and 7.1 have about the same tendency towards only being occasionally pin sharp. Those are really the only other apertures I use since I treat 1/800 as the minimum useful speed with that lens. I had similar frustrations with a 7Di/ii & 300/4 combo, and I think it comes down to three things: 1) Bayer sensors will never be absolutely 1:1 sharp, esp on complex stuff like feathers 2) Atmospheric distortion is a bitch on even the mildest day at any distance, especially around water, and 3) Phase-detect autofocus driving a late 90s lens is incapable of absolute consistent perfection on the shallow depth of field that perfectly focuses really detailed small stuff like feathery birds. Especially small birds. Humans running after a ball, sure, but the margin of error is much bigger despite a moving target, and there are more focus points for the algorithms. It'll never have a chance at birds in erratic flight like a high-end action camera, but I'm soooo much happier after switching to micro 4/3 and that 100-400. Contrast detection never has the slightly-missed focus issue (just the 50 feet off issue), and for still birds in reasonable light levels it's indistinguishable from the rare perfectly-sharp L lens photos. There are certainly downsides, but I haven't had any frustration like that since. Alpenglow fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
I would say that, no, that is not what you should be expecting from that camera and lens. They should be sharper, for sure. I'm assuming that these are uncropped raws, right? The birds are relatively close and large, so that should eliminate any issues with distance being the problem. Could be a bit of camera shake; the 400L is a lightweight lens but even at 1/800 you can still get some movement blur, especially on a crop body. In my experience, the 7D is pretty awful in AI Servo/AI Focus for stationary subjects. In Servo, I found that the camera would constantly shuffle the focus around by a tiny bit. I got better results with One Shot and the pinpoint focus placed on the head/eye. You might try experimenting with that for a bit and see if you notice a difference. It could be that the lens is a bit out of whack and has some front/back focus issues. No way to know unless you take/send it in to a repair shop to check or do some methodical testing of your own at home. There's no good way to really diagnose gear problems in the field shooting live subjects. Do you have another camera body you can test it against? Also, if you haven't already, its a good idea to use live view zoomed in and manually focus on a stationary target so you can baseline the maximum sharpness of the lens. You should maybe look into readjusting your afma. You can't really just fiddle with it and see if it works, usually, and something might have changed since the last time you messed with it. One way to help figure out if afma might help is to put the camera on a tripod, auto focus on a stationary, high contrast target, switch to live view, zoom in and focus again. If there is a noticeable difference between PDAF and live view CDF then microadjust could be the answer. When I do adjustments I use a high tech DIY calibration tool consisting of a cardboard box with a pencil jammed in the side and some sort of high contrast target on the front. I lean a ruler on the pencil at an angle and note which ruler mark lines up with the front of the box. Then I take a series of pictures from a reasonable distance and make adjustments + and - following a specific method, not just randomly. Usually like +5, +10, +15, +20, then -5, -10 etc and look at them on my computer to see exactly where the plane of focus is. The ruler makes it easy to see and helps determine which direction the adjustments are moving the plane of focus. Then use that info to go back and fine tune the adjustment with smaller movements. Its kind of a pain and a boring way to spend a couple of hours but it can often help you get sharper pictures more consistently. You can also buy a computer program to automate the process or if you have a local camera repair shop in your city they might be able to dial it in for you. Alpenglow posted:3) Phase-detect autofocus driving a late 90s lens is incapable of absolute consistent perfection on the shallow depth of field that perfectly focuses really detailed small stuff like feathery birds. Especially small birds. This isnt true. I use a 300mm f2.8 Canon L that was manufactured in 1987, usually with a 2x TC, and can get pin sharp shots of birds all day long. The 7D's AF isn't particularly good though, and my keepers went up by an order of magnitude when I switched to a 1D mkIV. Still, large stationary birds like cormorants and GBH's shouldn't be a challenge for any af system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Hey guys, long time no post. I was able to get away earlier this summer for a little bird shootin' and did some pictures: Loving this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I would say that, no, that is not what you should be expecting from that camera and lens. They should be sharper, for sure. That's what I've started to think. Glad I'm not going crazy. Turning it up to 1/1600 or so keeps the worst of the shake out, but the 'pin sharp' rate is the same. Most things look like the heron shots. Just almost sharp, but definitely not all there. quote:...I got better results with One Shot and the pinpoint focus placed on the head/eye. You might try experimenting with that for a bit and see if you notice a difference. I will try this. But I think there must be something up with either the lens or the camera. I've actually gone through the printed target/cardboard box/pencil/ruler process a couple of times and I really feel like I've got it dialed in. Adding or subtracting AFMA level from what I've got it at, just seems to make things worse. I guess a good course of action at this point would be to borrow or 'buy' (with the intention of returning) another tele lens, and see if the problem persists. That way I'll have an idea if it's my lens or my camera causing the problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 03:07
|
|