Bird Photography

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/
"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...

C R Fishwick wrote:
much to discover.

I've done enough bird photography, SLR, digiscoping etc to know I don't
need
lens stabalising, actually;-)

You must have a very good tripod or mount.
I've done enough bird photography without IS to know that I wish I had
it all the time.
If you want a truly sharp image and you're handholding a 400mm, you'd
better have at least a monopod and a big tree to lean against.

The only time I ever use an handheld camera for birding is when a grabshot
is needed. Any other time I use all types of different supports.

Regards,
Chris
--
Craven and Pendle Birds:
Birdwatching in and around Craven & Pendle.
N. Yorks and East Lancs.

--
Craven and Pendle Birds:
Birdwatching in and around Craven & Pendle.
N. Yorks and East Lancs.

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
newsZAYg.43952$nm1.3472@fed1read04...
C R Fishwick wrote:
http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:0AAYg.43944$nm1.42143@fed1read04...
C R Fishwick wrote:

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Stu wrote:

Brett gets pretty good results from a EF 400 mm f/5.6L USM and a
1.4 teleconvertor, but it is a slow lens and lacks IS. Also,
using the 1.4 converter, you loose AF, except on a 1 series body, but
even
then, you don't have full AF.

It only proves a lens *WITHOUT* "IS" in skilled hands is far
superior to one
with IS in an unskilled person's hands.

What is IS? I assume something like lense stabalising mechanism!
Personally I'd use technique not gimmicks for bird shots;-)

If you think IS is a gimmick, then you have much to discover.

I've done enough bird photography, SLR, digiscoping etc to know I
don't need lens stabalising, actually;-) So I could cut costs on a
lens probably;-) Its seems as though it similar to binocular
stabalisers, Canon make these and to be honest they are cr*p;-)

It's always a little amusing to hear someone spout such strong opinions
about something they've never even heard of...


I've used canon stabalising binoculars and compared to other top notch bins
are as I said cr*p!

Bye
--
Craven and Pendle Birds:
Birdwatching in and around Craven & Pendle.
N. Yorks and East Lancs.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:40:48 -0400, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04
@aol.com wrote:

Charles Schuler wrote:

It only proves a lens *WITHOUT* "IS" in skilled hands is far
superior to one
with IS in an unskilled person's hands.

Proves to whom? I regularly use a Canon ef 100-400 with IS and have
NEVER turned the IS off (except for a few test shots). I am the type
of birder that cannot carry a tripod or even a monopod.

Turn IS "OFF" and start enjoying that lens! Proper technique will show you
how much you really don't need IS. I don't use a tripod or monopod much
either. I don't see the point when there are so many natural stabilizing
aids that help you hone your technique. There's absolutely no reason you
can't handhold a 500mm f/4 with a 1.4X TC.

As one of the "unskilled," your words fall on doubtful ears.

You have the switch, use it.

Canon charges you a 20-40% premium in the lens for IS, something that
gives you a couple stops of stability improvement which in-turn (with
a static or semi-static subject) allows you to use a lower ISO or
shutter speed. Why in God's name not use it?
P.S. A year from now, it will be unlikely if any cameras outside of
the cheapest P&S don't have some form of IS.

Charles Schuler wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Hi All,

Anyone any suggestions for taking bird photos (the avian sort). I need
a good middle of the road Digital SLR and lenses (500mm maybe). I don't
want to go bananas with the cost!

Canon Rebel XTi and a Canon 75-300 (or the latest version of this lens).
LOTS of bang for the buck for birds with wings.


If you want to do serious bird photography, I recommend
to NOT use a zoom. You'll get sharper images with
fixed focal length L-class lenses and teleconverters. And only
get IS lenses.

Going up in price and reach:

300 f/4 L IS
300 f/2.8 L IS
500 f/4 L IS
600 f/4 L IS

Regardless of those bashing IS, many top pro wildlife
photographers have dropped their other camera manufacturers
(mostly Nikon) and switched to Canon (please no wars
here, it is a fact). It is a statement that IS works
and gives an additional edge to get more great photos
under a wider range of conditions. Only Canon has IS
lenses in the super telephoto range. I'm sure if
Nikon had super telephotos with VR, many would not
have switched.

I have telescopes ranging up to 2,000 mm f/6.3, and have
been through many telephoto lenses, from 75-300 zooms,
170-500 mm zoom (sigma), 100-400 L IS, to fixed lenses
400 mm, but none compare to my current IS lenses:
300 f/4 L IS and 500 f/4 L IS. My next telephoto will
be a 300 f/2.8 L IS. IS works very well in my experience.
You can do very well digitscoping, but you are pretty
much limited to portraits. For action you need autofocusing
lenses with cameras that track the subject and adjust
focus with subject movement (most of the DSLRs do this,
and Film SLRs have done this for years too).

With a 300 f/4 and a consumer body, like a 30D or 400D,
you can add a 1.4x TC for 420 mm f/5.6 and still have autofocus.
With the 300 f/2.8, you can add a 2x and still have
autofocus at 600 f/5.6.

Getting into the super telephoto range also requires better
tripods and support (if you want top results). That
means carbon fiber tripods and special head like the
Wimberly for balancing the system. In the 300 mm range,
I would recommend a Gitzo 1225 class carbon fiber tripod
with ball head and Wimberly sidekick. For larger lenses,
I recommend the full Wimberly and a larger CF tripod
(1348 I think is the next one up--it's not near me at
the moment). I have both (tripods and both Wimberly heads).

Bird photos at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird

Roger

Charles Schuler wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Hi All,

Anyone any suggestions for taking bird photos (the avian sort). I need
a good middle of the road Digital SLR and lenses (500mm maybe). I don't
want to go bananas with the cost!

Canon Rebel XTi and a Canon 75-300 (or the latest version of this lens).
LOTS of bang for the buck for birds with wings.


If you want to do serious bird photography, I recommend
to NOT use a zoom. You'll get sharper images with
fixed focal length L-class lenses and teleconverters. And only
get IS lenses.

Going up in price and reach:

300 f/4 L IS
300 f/2.8 L IS
500 f/4 L IS
600 f/4 L IS

Regardless of those bashing IS, many top pro wildlife
photographers have dropped their other camera manufacturers
(mostly Nikon) and switched to Canon (please no wars
here, it is a fact). It is a statement that IS works
and gives an additional edge to get more great photos
under a wider range of conditions. Only Canon has IS
lenses in the super telephoto range. I'm sure if
Nikon had super telephotos with VR, many would not
have switched.

I have telescopes ranging up to 2,000 mm f/6.3, and have
been through many telephoto lenses, from 75-300 zooms,
170-500 mm zoom (sigma), 100-400 L IS, to fixed lenses
400 mm, but none compare to my current IS lenses:
300 f/4 L IS and 500 f/4 L IS. My next telephoto will
be a 300 f/2.8 L IS. IS works very well in my experience.
You can do very well digitscoping, but you are pretty
much limited to portraits. For action you need autofocusing
lenses with cameras that track the subject and adjust
focus with subject movement (most of the DSLRs do this,
and Film SLRs have done this for years too).

With a 300 f/4 and a consumer body, like a 30D or 400D,
you can add a 1.4x TC for 420 mm f/5.6 and still have autofocus.
With the 300 f/2.8, you can add a 2x and still have
autofocus at 600 f/5.6.

Getting into the super telephoto range also requires better
tripods and support (if you want top results). That
means carbon fiber tripods and special head like the
Wimberly for balancing the system. In the 300 mm range,
I would recommend a Gitzo 1225 class carbon fiber tripod
with ball head and Wimberly sidekick. For larger lenses,
I recommend the full Wimberly and a larger CF tripod
(1348 I think is the next one up--it's not near me at
the moment). I have both (tripods and both Wimberly heads).

Bird photos at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird

Roger

Charles Schuler wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Hi All,

Anyone any suggestions for taking bird photos (the avian sort). I need
a good middle of the road Digital SLR and lenses (500mm maybe). I don't
want to go bananas with the cost!

Canon Rebel XTi and a Canon 75-300 (or the latest version of this lens).
LOTS of bang for the buck for birds with wings.


If you want to do serious bird photography, I recommend
to NOT use a zoom. You'll get sharper images with
fixed focal length L-class lenses and teleconverters. And only
get IS lenses.

Going up in price and reach:

300 f/4 L IS
300 f/2.8 L IS
500 f/4 L IS
600 f/4 L IS

Regardless of those bashing IS, many top pro wildlife
photographers have dropped their other camera manufacturers
(mostly Nikon) and switched to Canon (please no wars
here, it is a fact). It is a statement that IS works
and gives an additional edge to get more great photos
under a wider range of conditions. Only Canon has IS
lenses in the super telephoto range. I'm sure if
Nikon had super telephotos with VR, many would not
have switched.

I have telescopes ranging up to 2,000 mm f/6.3, and have
been through many telephoto lenses, from 75-300 zooms,
170-500 mm zoom (sigma), 100-400 L IS, to fixed lenses
400 mm, but none compare to my current IS lenses:
300 f/4 L IS and 500 f/4 L IS. My next telephoto will
be a 300 f/2.8 L IS. IS works very well in my experience.
You can do very well digitscoping, but you are pretty
much limited to portraits. For action you need autofocusing
lenses with cameras that track the subject and adjust
focus with subject movement (most of the DSLRs do this,
and Film SLRs have done this for years too).

With a 300 f/4 and a consumer body, like a 30D or 400D,
you can add a 1.4x TC for 420 mm f/5.6 and still have autofocus.
With the 300 f/2.8, you can add a 2x and still have
autofocus at 600 f/5.6.

Getting into the super telephoto range also requires better
tripods and support (if you want top results). That
means carbon fiber tripods and special head like the
Wimberly for balancing the system. In the 300 mm range,
I would recommend a Gitzo 1225 class carbon fiber tripod
with ball head and Wimberly sidekick. For larger lenses,
I recommend the full Wimberly and a larger CF tripod
(1348 I think is the next one up--it's not near me at
the moment). I have both (tripods and both Wimberly heads).

Bird photos at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird

Roger

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

Sorry about the multiple posts. The servere kept saying error.

C R Fishwick wrote:
--
Craven and Pendle Birds:
Birdwatching in and around Craven & Pendle.
N. Yorks and East Lancs.

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
newsZAYg.43952$nm1.3472@fed1read04...
C R Fishwick wrote:
http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in
message news:0AAYg.43944$nm1.42143@fed1read04...
C R Fishwick wrote:

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Stu wrote:

Brett gets pretty good results from a EF 400 mm f/5.6L USM and a
1.4 teleconvertor, but it is a slow lens and lacks IS. Also,
using the 1.4 converter, you loose AF, except on a 1 series
body, but even
then, you don't have full AF.

It only proves a lens *WITHOUT* "IS" in skilled hands is far
superior to one
with IS in an unskilled person's hands.

What is IS? I assume something like lense stabalising mechanism!
Personally I'd use technique not gimmicks for bird shots;-)

If you think IS is a gimmick, then you have much to discover.

I've done enough bird photography, SLR, digiscoping etc to know I
don't need lens stabalising, actually;-) So I could cut costs on a
lens probably;-) Its seems as though it similar to binocular
stabalisers, Canon make these and to be honest they are cr*p;-)

It's always a little amusing to hear someone spout such strong
opinions about something they've never even heard of...


I've used canon stabalising binoculars and compared to other top
notch bins are as I said cr*p!

Not talking about Binocs.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

D2X, 70-200mm VR, 2x TC.

www.macattack.com.au


wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi All,

Anyone any suggestions for taking bird photos (the avian sort). I need
a good middle of the road Digital SLR and lenses (500mm maybe). I don't
want to go bananas with the cost!

TIA

Granville
------------------------------
Craven and Pendle Birds

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/

C R Fishwick wrote:

....

What is IS? I assume something like lense stabalising mechanism!
Personally I'd use technique not gimmicks for bird shots;-)


IS is Image Stabilization. Just another name for stabilizing mechanism.

If you would rather use technique not gimmicks, I suggest using a 50mm
lens and get yourself close. Telephotos are just gimmicks, and don't try
using an f 4.0 telephoto, go with a f8.0 after all fast lenses are just
gimmicks.

Photography is part tools and part talent. The really skilled talented
photographer will not need great technology to get great images, but he also
will not avoid using the best tools for the job.


Regards
Chris



--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit