PDA

View Full Version : Birds of various sizes and shapes.....

pathfinder
May-29-2005, 08:31 PM
I have gathered a few frames from my menaderings over the last few days.

Since BIFs are always well received, I'll start with a airborne Canadian

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/23257775-L.jpg

The next image is a Northern Mockingbird shot at 600mm at 1/13th of a sec. That is why tripods are so cool....

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/23257784-L.jpg


Cardinals are frequently seen this time of year...

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/23398719-L.jpg

As are grackles
http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/23398725-L.jpg

This little rascal is a female RedWing Blackbird I believe...
http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/23257793-L.jpg

And one more BIF with nice green background this time...
http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/23257780-L.jpg

All shot with a 20D and a 300+2x.
GREAPER
May-29-2005, 08:35 PM
Wow, those are close Pathfinder, nice set.
pathfinder
May-29-2005, 09:00 PM
Wow, those are close Pathfinder, nice set.

I have been trying to get closer. Thanks for taking a gander. You had some very nice shots over the weekend too, Brian.:thumb
Khaos
May-29-2005, 09:01 PM
Great set:thumb
bfjr
May-29-2005, 09:29 PM
Very sharp very close
and BIF's are crisp :thumb
jwear
May-29-2005, 09:40 PM
wow :thumb really nice path 1 ? did you do anything with mr. crackles eye or is that his everyday look :scratch
pathfinder
May-29-2005, 09:42 PM
Very sharp very close
and BIF's are crisp :thumb


Thanks for you kind words :):
pathfinder
May-29-2005, 09:45 PM
wow :thumb really nice path 1 ? did you do anything with mr. crackles eye or is that his everyday look :scratch


I did not do anything to the grackles eye other than general sharpening of the wholeimage. I think it looks like the eye in this grackle shot also doesn't it?

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/22832686-L.jpg
gus
May-29-2005, 09:53 PM
beautiful mate...thats close alright.
jwear
May-29-2005, 10:05 PM
I did not do anything to the grackles eye other than general sharpening of the wholeimage. I think it looks like the eye in this grackle shot also doesn't it?

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/22832686-S.jpg yes Path have not shot a crackel and the eye really stands out first time I took a really close look that is why I ask.It is very striking I only ask for info
Eric&Susan
May-29-2005, 10:31 PM
Nice set Path:thumb I like that little female redwing!!


Eric
MuskyDude
May-30-2005, 04:20 AM
Beautiful series Mr. Finder, they are all bang-on! Thanks for sharing!!!!



AJ
pathfinder
May-30-2005, 08:00 AM
Nice set Path:thumb I like that little female redwing!!


Eric

Thank you Eric& Susan. I liked the poor little creature also - it looked kind of lost and frazzled. It sat there and just let me shoot away as long as I stayed at least 8 feet away.
Here is another frame of the frazzled look.
http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/23440943-M.jpg
tmlphoto
May-30-2005, 08:24 AM
Nice set, as usual Path. or is it Mr. Path. Oh well, I really like the last one with the GIF (goose in flight). Its great to get an in flight shot with a background other than the sky. I'm trying to decide if I want to go all out and get the 300 2.8 or whether I can satisfy my lust for more mm's with the 400 5.6. What do you think?
pathfinder
May-30-2005, 09:06 AM
Nice set, as usual Path. or is it Mr. Path. Oh well, I really like the last one with the GIF (goose in flight). Its great to get an in flight shot with a background other than the sky. I'm trying to decide if I want to go all out and get the 300 2.8 or whether I can satisfy my lust for more mm's with the 400 5.6. What do you think?


The 400 f5.6 is substantially cheaper than the 300 f2.8 - maybe 1/4th the cost. But two stops is a lot to give up, because the the 2.8 aperature will accomodate a 1.4x or a 2x and still retain AFing ability. On the other hand, the 400 f5.6 is smaller and lighter and easier to carry around all day. In the end it depends on whether you can live with f5.6 and the lack of telextenders. For small birds, I could not.
Could I interest you in a 400 f4 DO perhaps. Great lens - evenlighter than the 300 f2.8 and tack sharp too. I love the lens, but a 400 2.8 is getting more appealing now that I know it will permit the use of a 2x and give me 800mm at f5.6
tmlphoto
May-31-2005, 07:21 PM
The 400 f5.6 is substantially cheaper than the 300 f2.8 - maybe 1/4th the cost. But two stops is a lot to give up, because the the 2.8 aperature will accomodate a 1.4x or a 2x and still retain AFing ability. On the other hand, the 400 f5.6 is smaller and lighter and easier to carry around all day. In the end it depends on whether you can live with f5.6 and the lack of telextenders. For small birds, I could not.
Could I interest you in a 400 f4 DO perhaps. Great lens - evenlighter than the 300 f2.8 and tack sharp too. I love the lens, but a 400 2.8 is getting more appealing now that I know it will permit the use of a 2x and give me 800mm at f5.6
Wow, it looks like I could take home the 500mm f/4 for about the same $. It looks like a great lens. I guess I'm just having trouble getting past spending that kind of money to take pictures of birds. Just having a few sane thoughts before signing over my 2nd mortgage to Canon, Inc. I'm trying to resist......must be strong.....