|
InternetJunky posted:
Thanks, this weekend is looking pretty decent temperature-wise and it's supposed to stay sunny, so I think I'm going to go out again this weekend. One of the guys I know photographed a snowy owl in the usual area east of highway 21 off twp road 540 yesterday. In Millwoods related birding; was walking my dog yesterday and looks like the local Merlins have this year's offspring out hunting now, saw one in the tree that was a lot smaller than the ones I've been used to seeing. Was also wondering if/when we get Bohemian Waxwings in the area?
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
neckbeard posted:Thanks, this weekend is looking pretty decent temperature-wise and it's supposed to stay sunny, so I think I'm going to go out again this weekend. One of the guys I know photographed a snowy owl in the usual area east of highway 21 off twp road 540 yesterday. Millwoods definitely gets a lot of waxwings in the winter. There's a bunch of mountain ash trees around that usually bring them in once it gets colder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I saw a report from yesterday (or the day before) that said there are now 2 gryfalcons and 1 prairie falcon at the terminal, so that's good news. I just talked to an owl bander as well and he said snowys are popping up all around Edmonton in the past few days. It's pretty weird how Calgary area has had them for a couple of weeks already. Haven't heard about a Prairie Falcon showing up yet, but there's definitely 2 Gyrfalcons, the other one was also at the terminal last year - it's banded on it's right leg and it's middle 2 tail feathers are noticeably shorter than the others
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
The Dorkroom › The Edmonton Bird Photography Thread - Gyrfalcon is a trashbird I love Edmonton bird chat, for the record. Edit: FWIW, Snowy Owls, when they show up, traditionally show up in Western Washington at (US) Thanksgiving (last week of Nov). I'm surprised they don't get until Edmonton until the same time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
not a gyrfalcon, just some poo poo in my backyard Backyard Dove 2138 on Flickr Backyard Junco 2136 on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Did some backyard birding today. Got to use my manual focus pentax 500 f/4.5. So thankful for a tripod and that I didn't have to carry that lens far. I'm still poo poo at bird ID and did the best I could. Sorry for all the square crop. I instagrammed these. Red Bellied Woodpeckers Carolina Wren?He seemed to have made a home up in that tree. He was out front singing.  Dark Eyed Junco and Sparrow? I think this is a white-throated sparrow. Why are there so many kinds of sparrow.  Cardinal and WoodpeckerThe woodpecker seemed to have a nest there, and didn't mind the cardinal hanging around, but would chase away a starling-looking bird. I don't know why, but it was funny to see.  Blue JayThis bluejay was being a bluejay, flying all over the god drat place, but then did everyone a solid and screamed his fuckin' head off and flew the hell away. Every other bird in the area scattered. Why? Because this dude rolled along.  Red Shouldered Hawk? Quite far away, and only perched in view briefly. Really poo poo pic, but hey, it's a hawk. Rotten Cookies fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:Did some backyard birding today. Got to use my manual focus pentax 500 f/4.5. So thankful for a tripod and that I didn't have to carry that lens far. I'm still poo poo at bird ID and did the best I could. Sorry for all the square crop. I instagrammed these. Yep, redbellies. That's a male on the trunk and female on the branch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:The Dorkroom › The Edmonton Bird Photography Thread - Gyrfalcon is a trashbird Calgary gets snowy owls showing up a bit north east of the city in early-mid November, I went out looking for snowys today, got fooled a couple times by white plastic shopping bags that managed to get wrapped up at the top of a fence post. Rotten Cookies posted:
Yeah, looks like a White-Throated Sparrow Been awhile since we've had a making GBS threads bird in this thread  Gyrfalcon by Tyler Huestis, on Flickrmissed the focus on the kill  Gyrfalcon by Tyler Huestis, on FlickrThere were about 6 ravens hanging around, after the kill the ravens stole it, then the gyrfalcon got pissed off and chased after this raven  Gyrfalcon and Raven by Tyler Huestis, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Hello have a bad bird snapshot because I was frantically trying to grab my camera while the cat went apeshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:
neckbeard posted:missed the focus on the kill  A pair of kites has been coming into the middle of Arcata Marsh to hunt recently.  kite-hovering2 by Redwood Planet, on Flickr  kite-stare by Redwood Planet, on Flickr  kites-perch by Redwood Planet, on Flickr Great Egret fishing:  ge-plunge2 by Redwood Planet, on Flickr A cheeky robin trying to sneak in close and see what my deal is:  hidden-robin by Redwood Planet, on Flickr We've had some very high tides lately and the shorebirds were running out of places to roost.  shorebird-island by Redwood Planet, on Flickr The male harrier is still catching shorebirds like crazy. While I was taking some visiting relatives to see the flocking shorebirds, it snuck up from behind us, did a little flip as soon as it glided over the levee, and came up with a sandpiper before any of the shorebirds noticed it. Unfortunately, I didn't see it coming and didn't get it in focus until it was a ways off.  harrier-flock by Redwood Planet, on Flickr A couple Pacific Loons have arrived at Arcata Marsh to fish for smelt.  juvi-loon-fish (1) by Redwood Planet, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:I think you have a Cooper's Hawk there. A red-shoulder usually has a solid brown or streaked brown head instead of a black cap and it has a shorter tail. I think you're right. Thanks for the ID. Definitely looks more like that instead of a red-shouldered hawk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Attn: Aspiring bird photographers. Save $400 on a Sigma 150-600mm (Contemporary). Did I just pay $350 to own this lens for six months?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
This Peregrine Falcon caught its prey out of view from me today, but at least I got to film it totally loving up and dropping its catch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpymS6_j_UY
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
Not the best shots, but easily my best hawk photos ever: Wanaka by Hannah, on Flickr Wanaka by Hannah, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
possible to edit out that twig on the left in the first pic? It's in focus and a wee bit distracting
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
neckbeard posted:possible to edit out that twig on the left in the first pic? It's in focus and a wee bit distracting Oh poo poo, yeah, thanks for pointing that out!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
A Peregrine Falcon I was watching yesterday passed up several good chances to chase flocks of sandpipers, then got desperate and chased a gull as the light was fading. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcDvpmZ13sA I think that's the best job I've ever done at pulling focus with a long lens wide open. It's not quite a making GBS threads bird, but a Belted Kingfisher barfed up a pellet for me before it got scared away by the peregrine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHgbt8EWn68
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:A Peregrine Falcon I was watching yesterday passed up several good chances to chase flocks of sandpipers, then got desperate and chased a gull as the light was fading. I'm not really convinced he was trying to kill this gull. Looks like he's just loving around like raptors often do. Actually reminds me of a Parasitic Jaeger, but I doubt he wants regurgitated gull food. Maybe revenge for poo poo like this: Moon Potato posted:A pair of gulls set upon the dropped shorebird before the falcon could recover it Nice videos. Peregrines are loving rad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I'm not really convinced he was trying to kill this gull. Looks like he's just loving around like raptors often do. Actually reminds me of a Parasitic Jaeger, but I doubt he wants regurgitated gull food.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Well, you can only eat mud-bug-eaters for so long before you get tired of that second-hand shellfish taste, you know? Also, that chase video is a fantastic illustration of aerodynamics. I've read I don't know how many descriptions of WWII dogfights that included discussion of the importance of wing-area; a big bomber will actually turn when tossed into a hard rolling turn while the fast little fighter chasing it slides sideways across the sky because of its skinny little wings. That gull repeatedly pulled a 90 degree roll and got behind the falcon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Changing things up, here's a Prairie Falcon Prairie Falcon by Tyler Huestis, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Well, you can only eat mud-bug-eaters for so long before you get tired of that second-hand shellfish taste, you know? We're getting big storms coming through now, but there was a break in the clouds for a couple hours yesterday, so I made sure to run out with the camera. I found an angel of (vole) death:  kite-head-on by Redwood Planet, on Flickr Diving ducks were going nuts at some clam beds that were pretty close to shore.  scoter-clam by Redwood Planet, on Flickr  scaup-clam by Redwood Planet, on Flickr I've been trying for a while to get close enough to the male Buffleheads on Klopp Lake for a good photo. They're usually very shy but the allure of clams changed that.  bufflehead-rainbow by Redwood Planet, on Flickr A bittern making a face at me. Unfortunately, it stopped posing by the time I found a spot with an unobstructed view.  bittern-face by Redwood Planet, on Flickr Moon Potato fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:It was getting pretty antsy after not eating anything all afternoon, and several gulls had flown by before. The peregrines on Humboldt Bay are spoiled from the abundance of small shorebirds and are kind of awkward with larger prey. Hmm, perhaps so. I just can't figure out how it thought it'd be able to do any damage to a larger bird with behavior like that. Random note on Peregrine Falcons. Birders on a cruise up the Pacific coast this week saw multiple Peregrines hunting like 40 miles off the California coast. Apparently one got a Red Phalarope and was eating it in flight. Falcons are amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:That falcon in particular is a lazy hunter. It usually spends its afternoon on top of that electrical tower, waiting for either a harrier to break up a flock of shorebirds or for the shifting tide to send small groups of shorebirds or individuals past it. If neither of those happens, it'll try to chase something bigger like a small duck, but I've never seen it eat anything bigger than a yellowlegs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
It's been months since I last edited & uploaded anything. Red-necked grebes from May.  Evening at Seba Beach 6 by Martin Brummell, on Flickr Evening at Seba Beach 9 by Martin Brummell, on Flickr Evening at Seba Beach 10 by Martin Brummell, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
It makes sense for me to post this here as this is primarily a birding/wildlife gear issue. Had a good year this year + got a nice end of year bonus so i am going to treat myself to a Canon superteles for Christmas. In the past I have owned Tamron 70-300 (used on a crop camera) and the Canon 100-400 (v1) on a full frame and found the perspectives they create very interesting but these 2 lenses themselves somewhat uninteresting (picture quality) Based on my shooting style/preferences I have narrowed the choice down to 300mm F2.8 or the 200-400mm W/ 1,4x TC. The problem is i am unsure which lens to get. Both lenses are absolutely stellar pieces of glass and both have their strengths and drawbacks: The 300mm, with teleconverters, is a flexible option with great image quality at 300, 420 and 600mm, but requires some fiddling in the field with assembly/dissasembly of the teleconverters. Its main advantage (for me) is it is lighter than the 200-400mm (5,,2lbs vs 8lbs). It also doubles as a great portrait lens. Disadvatage is the fixed focal lengths. I am more of a "walk around and photograph" kind of guy than a "sit in a bush and photograph the same thing" kind of guy so the lack of zooming capability is a big disadvantage for me. The 200-400mm w/ 1,4x TC is very flexible with being a zoom and the built in TC just adds to the flexibility. It is also a great performer with an external 1,4x TC, making this lens a potential 200-800mm. Having all this zoom range suits my photo style a lot and also suits what i plan to use it for (wildlife, birds, astrophotography, landscape). The 2 big drawbacks of this lens is the weight and the price. I suppose my question is if anyone else has had this dilemma or other words of widsom? I am finding it hard to judge how these lenses will perform by just reading reviews and spec sheets and comparing it to my experiences using a different level of quality lenses. The super telephoto lenses are hard to compare with pro/consumer telezoons since they have such improved light generation ability and picture quality. The increased aperture in particular allows you to do things or create photos that you simply cannot do with the con/prosumer stuff. (through increased shutter speed and/or background separation)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
You're contemplating spending thousands of dollars in either case, so why not invest $100-150 on renting those lenses for a few days? Buy the teleconverter, seems like you're planning on using it with either lens, then rent both and spend a few days running a head-to-head comparison. For what it's worth (my budget is nowhere near that level) my next birding lens will be a 300mm prime, with a TC if I can swing it at the same time for a reasonable price. I find I almost never use the middle of my zoom lenses' range, I"m always at one end or the other. And my 105mm macro is a far, far superior performer (in pretty much every way) than my el-cheapo 100-300mm so if I've got that lens zoomed out it's better to swap lenses. Almost all of my shots with that cheap zoom are at 300mm, including the grebes above. I also have a 500mm that I've mentioned here before (it's huge and old and ridiculous and awesome), but it stays in the back seat of my truck unless I'm just setting up directly from the parking lot. So a big heavy lens that offers the greatest reach and great image quality (like that 8lb 200-400 you're talking about) is only going to help you get those images if you're actually willing to carry it around. I view this as a personal failing in myself (i.e. I'm lazy), rather than a point against the lens. Renting those lenses will help you decide how far you're willing to carry a monster like that around. EDIT: I just had a closer look at LensRentals.com and to rent your lenses would cost $500 for the pair for 4 days. Sorry, that's more than the $150 I was thinking. You're shooting for the stars with those options! ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:The 300mm, with teleconverters, is a flexible option with great image quality at 300, 420 and 600mm, but requires some fiddling in the field with assembly/dissasembly of the teleconverters. Its main advantage (for me) is it is lighter than the 200-400mm (5,,2lbs vs 8lbs). It also doubles as a great portrait lens. Disadvatage is the fixed focal lengths. I am more of a "walk around and photograph" kind of guy than a "sit in a bush and photograph the same thing" kind of guy so the lack of zooming capability is a big disadvantage for me. I own a 300/2.8 and I've handled the 200-400. Your "walk around and photograph" style depends a lot more on your setup being light/compact than having zoom ability. It's more the opposite - being able to zoom makes it more attractive to stay rooted in one spot. The 300 is easily hand-holdable, while the 200-400 is really bulky and unwieldy. Even if you have gorilla arms, the 2.8lb weight difference is huge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
An 8lb lens is going to be really rough to walk around with, you don't want to do that. I use a Tamron 150-600mm on a D7200 so that combo is just above 5lbs total and it's about right for me but I wouldn't want to lug around more much more. If your upper body is in exceptionally good shape you might be able to handle more, but it's going to get really tiring after an hour or two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
The weight difference alone is huge, but it's also that the weight sticks out farther from your body with the longer lens which magnifies the awkwardness. The 300 is a crazy nice lens that is versatile in a lot of situations, whereas the 200-400 is more of a niche product for people who really need it for specific things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Just get them both. Duh!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
If you're shooting wildlife and you can afford a nice prime, get the nice prime. The exception to that is if you shoot a lot of video in situations where you'd want to get both wide and closeup shots of your subject in a very short amount of time (which doesn't seem like your thing). If you decide you really need the option of a wider lens with you at all times, you can always use the money you'll save by not buying the 200-400mm and get a second body with a 70-200 or something. As Bubbacub mentioned, Canon's 300mm is super nice. It's one of the best performing lenses they make.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Thanks for the input everyone! I agree with a lot of the things that you said. I do feel that people are selling the 200-400 short though. Disregarding the weight it seems the best choice. Several professional wildlife photographers swear by this lens, e.g. Arthur Morris. He is an old dude so you would think that he would not change focal lengths he has been using for 30 years but he fell in love with the 200-400 instantly and has changed to use it over the 300 for everything except BIF from small boats. That says a lot about the quality of the 200-400 in my opinion. I can't seem to shake the feeling that i will "regret" not going for the 200-400 and having zoom capability if i decide to go for the 300. On the other hand i don't want to end up deciding to not use the 200-400 because of the weight and bringing e.g. my 70-200 with TC instead. I am in pretty good shape and barely noticed carrying the 70-200 2.8 around in a zoo for 6 hours, without any kind of strap or bag, but have no experience lugging around a 8lb item like that. (The 70-200 weighs 2,5lb or so?) I don't have experience with a prime tele lens so it is hard for me to imagine how much effort it is to "zoom with the feet". The longer the focal length the further you need to move to get your subject better fit in your frame. What do you people that use a 300 do if your subject covers say 50% of the sensor? Wouldn't that make the shoot a bust? Unfortunately there is nowhere here to rent lenses nor a store to try them in (The store here only lets professional photographers try the superteles) Bubbacub posted:The weight difference alone is huge, but it's also that the weight sticks out farther from your body with the longer lens which magnifies the awkwardness. The 300 is a crazy nice lens that is versatile in a lot of situations, whereas the 200-400 is more of a niche product for people who really need it for specific things. The 200-400 can do everything the 300 can and more. Could you elaborate on why you say it is a lens for specific things? Every time i go through the 2 lenses in my head i keep concluding with that it seems the only drawback to the 200-400 is the weight. Ineptitude fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
For comparison's sake, I'm 5'8", ~155lbs and I can do sets of 10 pullups with an additional 35lbs on my back--my arms are pretty strong for my size. I would not want to be lugging around an 8lb lens for any extended period of time at all. As it is after about 3-4 hours of shooting + hiking on level ground my arms start getting pretty tired and my back gets a bit sore (I'm using a sling strap, not a neck strap) and can't hold the lens still for extended periods any further. It isn't like packing weight into a backpack at all unfortunately, any additional weight makes a big difference. quote:I don't have experience with a prime tele lens so it is hard for me to imagine how much effort it is to "zoom with the feet". The longer the focal length the further you need to move to get your subject better fit in your frame. What do you people that use a 300 do if your subject covers say 50% of the sensor? Wouldn't that make the shoot a bust? Get used to heavy cropping no matter what you get. Kenshin fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:The 200-400 can do everything the 300 can and more. Could you elaborate on why you say it is a lens for specific things? Every time i go through the 2 lenses in my head i keep concluding with that it seems the only drawback to the 200-400 is the weight. Well, besides shoot 300mm @ F/2.8, which could be useful for portraits. I have no doubt that the 200-400mm is a great lens, but given that it's about $5000 more expensive, longer, heavier, and image quality seems pretty similar I'd say the 300mm is the better buy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:I don't have experience with a prime tele lens so it is hard for me to imagine how much effort it is to "zoom with the feet". The longer the focal length the further you need to move to get your subject better fit in your frame. What do you people that use a 300 do if your subject covers say 50% of the sensor? Wouldn't that make the shoot a bust? It depends on what kind of wildlife you're going after, but in my experience 95% of time a shoot was a bust is because I didn't slew my camera around in time, not because I couldn't adjust my focal length. A long, heavy lens is going to be difficult to point accurately. I went on a whale watch with a 135/2, and there was a guy with a 200-400. I got a great sequence of a whale breaching because I could point my camera really quickly, while the guy with the 200-400 didn't end up getting anything noteworthy. quote:The 200-400 can do everything the 300 can and more. Could you elaborate on why you say it is a lens for specific things? Every time i go through the 2 lenses in my head i keep concluding with that it seems the only drawback to the 200-400 is the weight. The weight drawback is huge. The 200-400 is the kind of thing people tend to use in blinds or on gimbal mounts on safari vehicles. The way superteles retain their resale value, I think you're best off starting with a 300. If you end up feeling like it's holding you back, you can resell it and pick up the zoom. If you routinely overfill the frame using a 300+TC, you're doing something really, really good with your field technique. Any time I feel like I have to drop down to 420mm or 300mm, that means I'm having an awesome day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
$5000 is getting into "fly anywhere in the world" money. I haven't looked in a while, but a round-the-world ticket is probably only a bit more than that. Get the 300, cropping is free (and - really! - not painful), and spend $5000 on something else that gets you close enough to a bird you've never shot a picture of before that zooming with your feet becomes something you actually need to think about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Thanks! 300 it is! The reason i entertained the thought of getting the 200-400 in the first place is because i get a hefty discount on both of these lenses (new from store, not grey market) which means that i'd essentially pay second hand market price for them. Hopefully they give the same discount next year (black friday) and i can see about getting the 200-400 then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
 Pied Currawong by ASB, on Flickr White Eared Honeyeater by ASB, on Flickr Pantsbird the Female Satin Bowerbird by ASB, on FlickrI don't know why but the Honeyeater one came out a little weird. Any ideas why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 10:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
What does everyone think of the new Canon patent for a 200-600 F5.6 lens? Rumors has it it is already being field tested. WIll this lens affect the 300 f2.8 or 200-400 market? A Saucy Bratwurst posted:
Doesn't stand out as particularly weird to me. What is weird about it to you? Do you mean the actual bird or the photo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 12:41
|
|