|
Here's a few taken when I was in Palm Springs last week. All taken with the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS. I don't have a bird book handy, anyone know what this is?   Not sure what happened to all the Road Runners in this area. When I came here as a kid we'd see tons, but they're much rarer nowdays.  California Quail that decided to make my day by sitting in the perfect spot.
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2010 06:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
tiercel posted:Goldfinch! Wow, I'm a retard. It's the fricken state bird where I live. The angle really threw me off apparently, but now that I look again you're right.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 06:15
|
|
|
 This probably belongs more in the screw ups thread then here, but I thought I'd post the one bird photo I'll ever take where I'll wish I had a wide angle on more then a telephoto. There were probably 5,000+ Snow Geese in this flock that snuck up behind me while I was taking pictures of just as many on the ground. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite as amazing as this flock. The best part about it is I have never seen a Snow Goose in my life and stumbled upon 10,000 completely by accident an hour away from where I've lived my entire life. edit: Ok, I did get some decent ones with the zoom:   
BeastOfExmoor fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Apr 10, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Wow, I'd heard that DSLR video was shaky but that's pretty crazy. Well it looks like he has probably shooting a 200mm lens without IS (does video in SLR's even use IS?) in gusty wind. And his lens alone is 3 pounds at least. Given those factors I'd say he did alright.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2010 21:35
|
|
|
wankle posted:I've had mixed luck with that, but it's worth a try. Nice Rufus Sided Towee. It's not a bird you see many photographs of.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2010 16:01
|
|
|
diarrhea for girls posted:
That's a great shot. It's hard enough catching birds that aren't in flight, but catching one in pursuit is a great accomplishment. I just bought a house in January and one of the things I looked forward to most was having bird feeders. We got our first hummingbirds last night so I relaxed outside with a beer and my camera.  
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Pestering the wood ducks again: Damnit, I am so jealous. Wood ducks are quite possibly my favorite bird and I have never seen one in person. I technically live in their range, but we're lucky to get anything besides Mallards around here. diarrhea for girls posted:What more can you ask for? Haha. Congrats on the house! I highly reccomend doing it. Feeders are like $10 and hummingbirds are awesome. TheCaptain posted:What would be a good interim birding lens that's a step up from the 55-250mm but that I can sell and trade up for a 100-400 when I'm in better financial shape. This has become one of my favorite hobbies and never fails to relax me when i'm in a bad mood. Something about the silly tittering around of birds just makes me smile. I really hope I can keep on doing it. I think it's already been said, but at speed you're typically shooting birds are IS is not really necessary. When I upgrade my nifty two-fifty I'll probably go to the 70-200 F4L. It's by no means a perfect birding lens at only 200mm (and too slow to stick a 2x tele-converter on and maintain auto-focus), but it's apparently one of the sharpest zooms made and its pretty cheap for the quality.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2010 05:01
|
|
|
 Finally got the house finches at my feeder to stay there for a photo. For whatever reason they spook a lit easier than everything else in my yard.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
Yea, it's a starling. My least favorite birds in the world. Drive native species out of there habitat like crazy, unfortunately. We finally had some decent weather yesterday so I drove up to the mountains with the intention of getting some landscapes, but I happened upon this bird which I'd never seen before. Sadly, this was the best shot I was able to get.  edit: It appears to be a Wilson's Warbler.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2010 05:48
|
|
|
 I was shooting at a park down the street from my house last week and three Ospreys showed up simultaneously and camped out in some trees above me. Sadly, the angle and harsh light made for pretty mediocre photos with my 55-250mm, but cool experience to say the least.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2010 18:26
|
|
|
Took these literally from my back patio this morning.    Dear EF-S 55-250mm, Thank you for finally not hunting like crazy for focus when it mattered. With all my love, BeastOfExmoor
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
^ Sorry, I'm going to gently caress up your planned edit. Bohemian Waxwings:   Waxwing's have been one of my favorite birds ever since I was a kid, but I think I've only seen them in person a couple times in my life. Yesterday we there were a ton of birds hanging out by my house for no reason. At one time I saw Chicadees, Juncos, Robins, a couple downy woodpeckers and a hummingbird all in the same tiny tree. A little later in the day I glanced out and saw a whole flock of Waxwings. Harlequin Duck's  What I wouldn't have given for a 100-400mm in this situation. I tried to get closer to get some up close shots, but they unfortunately took off. Great Blue Heron    
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2010 06:06
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Nice. I've been trying to get a decent shot of a Bush Tit myself for a while, but they are the jumpiest birds in the world and only have a vague interest in my feeders.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 06:33
|
|
|
We actually got some nice weather today so I spent some time in the backyard with my far-to-short nifty two-fifty. Yellow Rumped Warblers. First time I've ever seen them.  Yellow Rumped Warbler by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  20101204-20101204-_MG_7179.jpg by beastofexmoor, on Flickr Female and Male House Finches, I believe. Could be Purple Finches as well, I suppose.  20101204-20101204-_MG_7191.jpg by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  20101204-20101204-_MG_7135.jpg by beastofexmoor, on Flickr Black Capped Chicadee.  20101204-20101204-_MG_7133.jpg by beastofexmoor, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2010 05:35
|
|
|
zapateria posted:Since it says "for n00bs" in the thread, I hope it's ok for a real n00b to ask a question. If this is the wrong thread, please ignore me. Not quite sure what the deal is, but this looks like an issue I've run into before when shooting in overcast conditions with sky as a backdrop. Even if I bump up exposure compensation in the camera the sky in the background makes things really difficult. subx posted:That still seems pretty dark at those settings if it was sunny outside. Are all of your lenses that dark? If it was sunny at all I can't imagine needing ISO 1600 with f5.6 and 1/400 with my camera. It may have been sunny outside, but I don't think there was direct light hitting the bird. More than likely it was in shade or possibly there was a cloud over the sun. For reference, the first photo in my post up above is almost the same settings (250mm, ISO 1600, 1/400s, F/5.6). It was taken in the shade of my house on a partly cloudy day. Edit: On the focus issue, it's always possible that the feeder swayed enough from the bird landing on it that it went out of focus. BeastOfExmoor fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Dec 6, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2010 19:56
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:
I'm honestly not finding a lot to like with this. The composition pretty bland. If you haven't already cropped it to death I'd crop it some more. I'm kind of unsure what's going on with the processing. I assumed it was tone mapped, but the fact that the other stuff in your photostream isn't makes me wonder. Either way, the grass seems was too distracting for me and the bird really gets lost in the mix. Cropping could help this, but I'd also think about seeing if you can isolate it even more. Desaturate specific colors in lightroom or use some masks if you have photoshop maybe?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2010 06:08
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Thanks for the feedback, both of you. I think that image is pretty much beyond salvaging, it's already a pretty tight crop. I don't know how to do tone mapping (or, for that matter, precisely what that is... I'll go looking for a tutorial one of these days). I have GIMP, and I know how to do only the most simple, simple edits. The slightly weird look is probably from the "unsharp mask" filter I ran over it, and pushing the contrast up a bit too high. Tone mapping is the processing that makes HDR's go from bad to terrible. Avoid it and your photos will be much better, IMHO. I think the Snow Bunting picture is much better, although I would have to say it is oversharpened a bit. The bird itself isn't terrible oversharpened, but I think the background is really bearing the brunt of it. If GIMP has a way to use masks to mask out areas I'd mask out everything behind the bird and only sharpen the bird itself.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2010 21:31
|
|
|
Cardinal Red Tailed Hawk. He took off from the post when I took this and while it makes for a great shot he was just barely out of the side of the frame. In half a day driving through Kansas I probably saw 200 of these.  Female Anna's Hummingbird. This species apparently winters in Washington. The female just hung out in my parents backyard most of the day and let me get within 10ft or so.   Evening Grosbeaks, who also let me get amazingly close. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2010 05:05
|
|
|
I was in Pennsylvania last week and spent a good amount of time at Valley Forge. A few birds managed to get close enough to make my 250mm adequate (and a whole bunch of those fuckers didn't). White Breasted Nuthatch  Red Tailed Hawk  Another Angle 
BeastOfExmoor fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Jan 12, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:^^^ Beast- I think those are really nice, especially if you were just walking around, it what looks like was fairly boring light. To be nitpicky, it almost looks like the focus on the nuthatch got the trunk rather than the bird? On the first hawk, I wouldn't mind seeing the face a little lighter, maybe a quick dodge brush in post? It's possible that focus was off, although it looks pretty sharp to me. That guy moved so fast that I'm astonished I nailed that pose and focus at all. Bahama.Llama posted:This is great. I love how the line from the branch below the subject and beak of the subject are parallel and how the little 'dip' at the end of the stick is about the same length as the beak. Would you believe I sat there trying to crop the drat twig out for quite a while last night. As if I didn't want a Canon 100-400mm I had to look at the equipment used for those Audubon shots.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
Bahama.Llama posted:Althought the 100-400 is nice, I prefer the 400 f5.6 prime. I thought the faster AF and the $400 cheaper price tag was worth trading for the loss of flexibility and IS. I've been extremely happy with it and suggest it to anyone. I saved for about a year and would do it again in a heart beat. Sometimes I wish it was faster in the lower light situations, but then I keep reminding myself that it was $1200, not $6000. It seems like the 100-400mm goes for about the same price used as the 400mm F/5.6 prime, otherwise I'd consider it. I also already have trouble finding birds in the trees with my 55-250mm zoomed all the way and typically have to zoom out to get my bearings. With 400mm I can't even imagine how hard that would be. The flexibility to use it at wider focal lengths and IS would be nice as well. I'm not waiting for Dread Head to show up and get all  at us with his 200-400mm F/4.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Some gloomy day birds shot through my back window. Hard to say how much of the crapiness is due to that or to pretending my t2i can shoot at ISO 800. Probably the window. The T2i shares the same sensor as the 7D and 60D which is the best crop sensor Canon makes and should be able to do ISO 800 with very little noise. On my 50D I don't start worrying about having issues until I get past 1600. Windows, however, always gently caress with sharpness and contrast like crazy. I've got a suet feeder next to our sliding glass door that routinely gets over a dozen Bushtits on it. It pisses me off because I could fill a frame with the nifty 50, but any shots through the glass look like absolute poo poo. Edit: That said, yours don't look that bad to me, at least in web size.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
Looks like a hooded crow.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
tuyop posted:How do you guys identify birds? Is there a program somewhere or is it just a matter of reading a lot about birds? Really late on this one, but, while the websites are helpful, I find there's no substitute for a decent bird book. You can navigate them a lot faster than a website. Assuming you're in north America you can usually find one at a used bookstore or garage sale very cheap. I have this one which you can buy used at Amazon for less than $5 shipped. For a little more money you can get a slightly newer and probably better book like the Nat. Geographic one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
^ Those are great shots. A little backstory. I was quite into birds when I was growing up. One of my favorite birds was the Wood Duck, but in 20 years of looking for one during my many travels I had never seen one. Until recently I was under the impression I'd have to go to the midwest to see one, but last year a local photographer posted a photo of one that they'd taken on the Olympic Peninsula, which is only a couple hours drive or ferry ride from where I am. I made it my goal to at least see, and hopefully photograph, one this year, but figured I'd have to do a bit of traveling to make it happen. Imagine my shock when my dad texts me the other day to say that they were walking around a trail near a retaining pond a short distance from their house and saw what looked to be a mating pair of them. I'd been looking all my life for these, seemingly, rare birds and here were a couple living less than five miles from where I grew up. Safe to say I stopped by with my camera last night:  Wood Ducks by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  Male Wood Duck by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  Female Wood Duck by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  Male Wood Duck 2 by beastofexmoor, on Flickr They must call them Wood Ducks because they like to put as much wood in between you and your lens as possible. Also saw these:  Gadwall by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  Canadian Goose W/ Baby by beastofexmoor, on Flickr BeastOfExmoor fucked around with this message at 17:48 on May 17, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
TomR posted:I forgot about the bird thread! 
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 06:40
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:A few recent photos of what I believe are Goldfinches. These were shot using a Sony a850 and the Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 lens. I changed the third one to black and white as I've always felt like fast motion looks more interesting without color. That, and the bird had a strange red spot under its wing - I assume it's just a spot that's bare of feathers, and you're never going to see it unless you're really lucky with a photo like this one. First two are indeed Gold Finches. Third one looks more like a house finch or purple finch though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2011 03:51
|
|
|
sensy v2.0 posted:Man, I'd really like a three times longer and ten times more expensive lens These are both awesome. I had no idea that Osprey's lived in Europe.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2011 05:33
|
|
|
These Tree Swallows in Yellowstone let me get really close. Turns out they were juvenile's waiting for a snack from mom.  Juvenile Tree Swallow by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  Feeding Time by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  Tree Swallow Feeding Time1 by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  20110810-20110810-_MG_1531.jpg by beastofexmoor, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
ruro posted:I never realised how hard it is to shoot birds! After being inspired by this thread I gave it a go for the first time this weekend, and now I know why bird photographers can spend so much money on crazy lenses! It was drat hard to get focus with my cheap little 70-300, and it was too wet for me to risk taking my 70-400 out in the light rain. I had fun despite getting hundreds of almost identical photos of what I think is an Osprey, but I'm not sure because I have no idea about birds. Yep, that is definitely on Osprey.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
If any of you live in the northern states you may want to keep an eye out for Snowy Owls. They live in the arctic tundra most of the year, but get pushed down south during the winter. This year has the makings of a banner year and a lot of owls are making their way farther south than usual. They aren't used to tree'd climates so they're most comfortable sitting on flat objects like ground or the tops of flat buildings during the day which makes photographing them easier than most owls, assuming you can get close. There have been several in the Seattle area already, I even heard reports of one hunting seagulls on the top of a local Target store this evening. I was able to view four different ones in a wetlands north of Seattle yesterday. They were over a quarter mile away so I don't have any good photos, but it was awesome just to see them through binoculars and other people's spotting scopes. There are some efforts to catalog sitings, imprecisely, here and here. If you can figure out where your local bird watching community posts reports (mine is an archaic mailing mailing list) you might be able to get more recent reports.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2011 06:09
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I wish this was still true, but the unfortunate fact is that a lot of photographers have been baiting the snowys now with mice bought from a pet store in an effort to capture that iconic image of a snowy owl about to snatch its lunch from the snow. They are starting to see cars and humans as a gravy train and I know of at least one that was killed by a car last year probably as a result (and the discussion that followed regarding the ethics of what the photographers were doing was pretty heated as there's a good number of people who don't see anything wrong with it). That's interesting and a bit sad, although I can understand why people would be motivated to try for a photo of a Snowy Owl hunting. I've actually been really tempted to try a similar thing with Bald Eagles using perch as bait.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
scottch posted:Other times they are so very co-operative. This guy was more concerned about the crows stealing his breakfast, so let me get real drat close. Of course, the crows being assholes is what allowed me to sneak in tight... I'm going to guess either a female Northern Gosshawk or female Coopers Hawk. Another possibility would be a Sharp-Shinned hawk, but they're only about the a little bigger than a robin so a starling would be pretty big prey for them. I wish they would all kill starlings with no mercy. e: Wow, beaten a little bit. My point about the size of the Sharp Shinned still stands though. I saw one over the summer pretty close and couldn't believe how small they are. Apparently the tell tale sign that it's a coopers is the the end of their tale feathers are white, but it's hard to tell in that photo due to the snow. BeastOfExmoor fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Dec 22, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
Additionally, someone has been steadily dropping their price on a 100-400mm on my local craigslist for a month now. I could pretty much sell my 70-200mm F/2.8 non-is and buy this for only $100 more. Not sure why I'm even hesitant, honestly, since I shoot mostly birds/wildlife photos with the zoom already and rarely open it up to F/2.8 due to sharpness issues.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:For what it's worth, I find myself saying "I rarely open up my 100-400 to F/5.6 due to sharpness issues". Under the right conditions I get some great shots with my 100-400, but I'd much rather have something like the 400/f5.6 if I was planning to shoot mostly at 400mm. I've heard people say this before, but I just can't understand it. I would certainly be shooting a lot of 400mm, but not exclusively by any means. It would, end up being my only lens over 50mm (Tamron 17-50 and nifty fifty) and I'd miss an awful lot of range. I've also never seen any good examples that indicate the 400mm prime is much sharper than the 100-400 and I've read at least one birder say he switched from the prime to the zoom after noticing no appreciable quality loss. The Digital Picture sure doesn't show a major difference. The prime is missing IS which is certainly a nice to have, even if it is easier to hand hold. The final nail in the coffin to me is that I rarely see 400mm primes locally on Craigslist and when I do they go for $1000 minimum which is actually more than I'd be paying for this 100-400mm. I guess I just don't quite get the love for the 400mm prime. I'd be more likely to do the 300mm IS f/4 w/ a 1.4x teleconverter. edit: Did a little searching and it does appear that the 400mm is noticably sharper when pixel peeping, but I just can't justify it for all the other reasons above. Additionally I noticed that the 100-400mm is smaller and the prime wouldn't even fit in my bags. BeastOfExmoor fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Dec 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I'm not trying to talk you out of the 100-400, for what it's worth. I love mine, and use it quite often. You will figure out the strengths and weaknesses of the lens after a little while. All I was suggesting was that if you're going to be taking 90% of your shots at 400mm with the thing then I'd also start considering the prime. Yea, $900 with only some minor cosmetic damage. I've wanted this lens since I started photography so can't pass it up at that price. I only wish I'd been able to get it before my trip to Yellowstone last summer.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:BirdsAreAssholes.jpg More like Birdsatonefifteenthofasecond.jpg. ExecuDork posted:Snowy Owls are great. They don't spook as easily as other big birds, they're active in the daytime much more than most owls, and they're clearly visible from far away. Wow. I've really only seen photos of the Snowy Owls that have come farther south than usual, which are mostly first or second year birds and have a lot more black on them. I forgot that they got completely white as they matured. BeastOfExmoor fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Dec 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I went out with my new 135 and a bag of bird seed for a new year's walk: When I bought my 100-400mm I pretty much thought, "Well this is it, I have every lens I've wanted, a good body and good tripod. Pretty much set for a long time." Then, about 10 minutes later I thought about how it'd be nice to have a longer, fast lens like the 135 F/2. I don't think I ever will, but thanks for fueling my bad habit. Great shots, btw. I really need to give hand feeding a shot with my Chickadees.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2012 03:06
|
|
|
I had heard there was a large number of Snowy Owls in Boundary Bay just across the BC border so I talked my wife into going up yesterday. I wasn't prepared for how close many of them would be. In all we saw at least 23 owls, possibly as many as 25. If you are anywhere within driving distance, I would highly recommend making the trip.  Snowy Owls 3 by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  Snowy Owl by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  O RLY by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  Three Snowy Owls by beastofexmoor, on Flickr If you look closely in this one there's actually three more owls well behind the three in the foreground.  Snowy Owl in Flight by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  Snowy Owls 2 by beastofexmoor, on Flickr Three more shots from the 100-400 since Christmas:  20111226-20111226-_MG_3154.jpg by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  20111226-20111226-_MG_3150.jpg by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  Song Sparrow by beastofexmoor, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2012 07:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
Dread Head posted:I have been really tempted to go see the owls... You should. You probably know, but it's only a couple km from the Tsawwassen Ferry terminal. Plenty of other birds in the area as well, albeit slightly less easy to shoot than a stationary owl. BetterLekNextTime posted:Yes, please send some down to California! One actually ended up on the runway of Honolulu airport earlier this year, but was shot so it didn't end up going into an engine intake. We have Anna's Hummingbirds where I live all winter long. They actually spend a huge amount of time near feeders due to easy food so they become very easy to photograph. I would say I can usually find one in my yard (either on the feeder or in a nearby tree) about 50% of the time. The Evening Grosbeaks, sadly, only show up at my parents house so I don't know how much food they go through.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2012 16:45
|
|