|
Post by bigdawg on Jan 29, 2012 12:44:15 GMT -5
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 29, 2012 18:48:57 GMT -5
Wow ... where do such beautiful birds sit on trees
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jan 29, 2012 19:30:25 GMT -5
I bought a 500mm mirror lens reasonably cheap a week or so ago. I needed to get the Canon T2 adapter. Certainly 300mm (which on the Canon equates to 480mm) isn't 'big enough' for small birds. I have looked at the Sigma 50-500, but I'm not sure if I would get enough use out of it. The zoom range would do just fine, but the f6.3 at 500mm would be a bit of a problem for my rugby photos. On a dull day in mid-winter f2.8 is really the only way to go. The trouble is big telephotos at f2.8 don't exactly come cheap (nor are they light).
Anyway, all that is a lead up to saying that I love the photos.
Dave.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawg on Jan 29, 2012 22:16:27 GMT -5
Wow ... where do such beautiful birds sit on trees North Alabama US.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawg on Jan 29, 2012 22:40:07 GMT -5
I bought a 500mm mirror lens reasonably cheap a week or so ago. I needed to get the Canon T2 adapter. Certainly 300mm (which on the Canon equates to 480mm) isn't 'big enough' for small birds. I have looked at the Sigma 50-500, but I'm not sure if I would get enough use out of it. The zoom range would do just fine, but the f6.3 at 500mm would be a bit of a problem for my rugby photos. On a dull day in mid-winter f2.8 is really the only way to go. The trouble is big telephotos at f2.8 don't exactly come cheap (nor are they light). Anyway, all that is a lead up to saying that I love the photos. Dave. The good thing with the newer Digicams is the almost noiseless high ISO that can be used. This moves the shutter speed to a useable one for sports. Also the Shake reduction allows for slower speeds without shake when hand holding the camera. All of these were shot hand held (No tripod)! Here is a shot with the Bigma at 50mm zoom, ISO 400, 1/40th sec., F/22.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawg on Jan 29, 2012 22:41:17 GMT -5
And then at 500mm, ISO 400, 1/160th sec., f/8. Both hand held.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jan 30, 2012 2:12:02 GMT -5
Hey, you need to cut the excess threads off those bolts! Super detail. (Too much! ;D) IS or OS (or whatever each manufacturer calls it): my first experience with stabilisation was on a Panasonic camcorder. It worked by holding what was shown on screen inside a slightly enlarged box. The problem with it was that if you went outside the box it would suddenly jump to the next box. Later, optical systems came in which improved things considerably. As well as holding a big lens still the other 'big thing' in sports photography is 'speed of focus'. Auto-focus systems can cope much better than manual focus on a fast moving object. One technique, on manual focus, was to pre-focus and then let the subject hit the spot. Of course some sports like baseball and cricket make pre-focusing fairly easy as the subject is essentially static (in terms of distance from the camera) for much of the time. There is much more movement in, say, rugby, much of which is unpredictable. Fast auto-focus is king here. I have to say for many rugby shots I am not convinced that IS is really beneficial. Even with the mode that allows horizontal panning, I'm not sure the results are consistently better: some are, but some seem worse. Robin - our robin that is Blue tit Great tit Pigeon, looking rather bedraggled. Taken hand-held (but well supported), Canon 70-200 (non IS lens) with 1.4 multiplier at about 3.5 metres (12 feet). 800 or 1600 ISO. These are certainly the sort of shots that IS would come in useful for, particularly if easy camera support were not available.
|
|
Doug T.
Lifetime Member
Pettin' The Gator
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by Doug T. on Jan 30, 2012 12:24:16 GMT -5
Hi Guys!
Those are some great bird photos! I think Cardinals are the prettiest birds, we have a lot of them around these parts. If I was faster (or my camera was), I'd get a lot more shots.
Doug
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Jan 30, 2012 13:24:56 GMT -5
Great shots! All we have here is snow.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jan 30, 2012 15:32:15 GMT -5
Both sets of bird pictures are exceptional. How fortunate you guys are to have such spectacular subjects at this time of year.
Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jan 30, 2012 16:32:29 GMT -5
Sorry chaps, I should have made it clear - mine were taken last summer - or at least what passes for a summer here.
Thanks for the comments. However, I believe photos of birds on a feeder are always a bit of a cheat - though not quite as much as 'tame' birds that just sit there and pose. My avatar is 'better' but just a shame I didn't have a big enough lens (like that Sigma 50-500) to capture it 'closer'.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawg on Jan 31, 2012 1:31:40 GMT -5
Hey, you need to cut the excess threads off those bolts! Super detail. (Too much! ;D) IS or OS (or whatever each manufacturer calls it): my first experience with stabilisation was on a Panasonic camcorder. It worked by holding what was shown on screen inside a slightly enlarged box. The problem with it was that if you went outside the box it would suddenly jump to the next box. Later, optical systems came in which improved things considerably. As well as holding a big lens still the other 'big thing' in sports photography is 'speed of focus'. Auto-focus systems can cope much better than manual focus on a fast moving object. One technique, on manual focus, was to pre-focus and then let the subject hit the spot. Of course some sports like baseball and cricket make pre-focusing fairly easy as the subject is essentially static (in terms of distance from the camera) for much of the time. There is much more movement in, say, rugby, much of which is unpredictable. Fast auto-focus is king here. I have to say for many rugby shots I am not convinced that IS is really beneficial. Even with the mode that allows horizontal panning, I'm not sure the results are consistently better: some are, but some seem worse. Robin - our robin that is Blue tit Great tit Pigeon, looking rather bedraggled. Taken hand-held (but well supported), Canon 70-200 (non IS lens) with 1.4 multiplier at about 3.5 metres (12 feet). 800 or 1600 ISO. These are certainly the sort of shots that IS would come in useful for, particularly if easy camera support were not available. Great shots there my friend. Mine were shot from about 30 feet distance. IS does help when you are not panning. Otherwise it can work against you.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawg on Jan 31, 2012 1:35:14 GMT -5
Great shots! All we have here is snow. It will be 64 degrees here tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawg on Jan 31, 2012 1:36:11 GMT -5
Both sets of bird pictures are exceptional. How fortunate you guys are to have such spectacular subjects at this time of year. Mickey These stay here year round.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawg on Jan 31, 2012 1:38:07 GMT -5
Sorry chaps, I should have made it clear - mine were taken last summer - or at least what passes for a summer here. Thanks for the comments. However, I believe photos of birds on a feeder are always a bit of a cheat - though not quite as much as 'tame' birds that just sit there and pose. My avatar is 'better' but just a shame I didn't have a big enough lens (like that Sigma 50-500) to capture it 'closer'. I placed my feeder below the limbs of trees so I can shoot their photos as they are perched on a limb. Just appeals to me that way.
|
|