bob_royse

I have recieved nearly 20 requests for that spot and haven't responded to most inquirers. I have drawn the line at ABA membership. If you aren't a member, then sorry. If you are a member, then you are most likely a birder who already has the where-with-all to find good photo locations and probably don't need my advice. I just saw too many big-lens toters at Bosque without good binos around their neck to make this public knowledge.

 

Basic birding technique should be learned at home.<div></div>

For people here at photonet who don't know who Brian Small is, he's one of only a very few American bird photographers in that highest upper-elite class. He probably has more published bird photos than anyone ever has. In addition to being the photo editor of "Birding" magazine, you can see his articles and photos in "Wild Bird" and just about everywhere that bird photographs are used. I just find it surprising that Nikon wouldn't lend him these lenses to test for himself.

I just got back from that area myself. I was there for 8 days and burned a lot of film. I found the bird photography to be just as good in the mountains west of Socorro as in the NWR. In the San Mateo Mountains I found a juniper tree with abundant fruit. There were approx. 300 Mountain Bluebirds in the area. Other species I photographed in that one tree included Townsend's Solitaire, Western Bluebird, various Dark-eyed Junco sub-species, Evening Grosbeak, Cassin's Finch, Mountain Chickadee, Juniper Titmouse, and of course Cedar Waxwing and American Robin! E-mail me privately if you want to know the exact location. In the pinyon/juniper habitats west of Magdelena, there are some impressive roaming flocks of Pinyon Jays and Red Crossbills, but they can take some effort and luck to find.

 

Water Canyon has some good birding (I saw my first Williamson's Sapsucker there), but photography was limited. Acorn Woodpeckers are somewhat approachable in the campground and there are many hundreds of Bushtits in the area to test your patience and reflexes to try to photograph. The road is good to the campground now, after that it's best to explore by foot.

 

Just go exploring. At the incredibly crowded Bosque NWR there are just too many photographers standing in the same spot with big lenses to really feel that you're doing something interesting. Sure, get your shots of cranes, geese, and sunsets, but there's a lot more to find in the mountains.

This kind of wildlife shot is much easier in the Kalahari, though.<div></div>

Since posting photos is now possible here at the nature section at photo.net, I thought I'd supply a scan for my previous post. Examining digital shots at a zoo isn't Nature Photography in my book.

 

Here's a leopard with a Yashica FX-D using a $100- Tokina lens on '80's Fujichrome. I got this shot in the Kalahari because I studied, looked, and waited.<div></div>

Ohio's great, unhearalded wilderness is the State Forests in the unglaciated SE portion of the state. Forests are to Ohio what the Serengeti is to Africa. Ohioans interested in nature photography or birding claim these forests as their spiritual home. They lie within a one or two hour drive of congested populations such as Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati. These forests are remaing cathedrals of bygone milleniums and today remain as the world's densest breeding grounds for species such as Cerulean, Kentucky, and Worm-Eating Warblers, etc.....

 

Beautifully-colored maples can be found easily across Ohio in October, but NOVEMBER is the time to venuture INTO the forests with a camera. The mature oak/hickory ridges just look best in Nov.<div></div>

WOW! You can actually post photos in this nature forum now. That's pretty incredible.

 

Here's a scene from a beach in Churchill in June. To keep this in this particular thread : Churchill is a whole 'nother world. Expect anything in Nov.

 

(For Zeiss freaks ; here's the worst example of flare from a 35/2.8 Distagon when shooting into the sun - pretty nice, if you ask me)<div></div>

I went to Churchill once - in June to bird and do bird photography. All I can say is that the harshest winter weather this Ohioan has ever seen was in mid-June at Churchill. One day I felt like a geek for packing long-sleeved shirts, and a few days later I was looking for thermal underwear.

 

It's a wonderful place to visit. Exotic habitats (for most NAmericans) can be explored in relative comfort there.

 

I'd love to get to Churchill again in June within a few years to get better photographs of Smith's Longspur, Harris's Sparrows, etc........, but I'll definitely be ready for the unexpected weather.

 

November? Be prepared!<div></div>

I'll add another "chill Martin" here.

 

I still stand by my statement that in practical real world shooting situations, the 600IS + 2x is sharp enough to use as an everyday lens without reservations. Perhaps if you're shooting small lines on a test chart in controlled situations with and without teleconverters at various apertures, and then viewing the results with a microscope, you'll see some real differences. But I don't photograph lines. If you're ever in Columbus, Ohio, then please drop by with your loupe. I'll plop a hundred or so sharp bird photos on a light box for you. Yes, the Canon 600/f4IS lens is theoretically sharper at f8 without a teleconverter than wide open with a 2x, but I truly don't believe you'll find any conclusive evidence over which teleconverter was used by examining the feathers of various sparrows, warblers, and sandpipers photographed in real world situations. I do believe that you'll see more than a few mindblowingly sharp slides shot wide open with a 2x, though.

Good technique is properly shooting to get sharp shots in the situation you're in. IS telephotos have revolutionarily redefined what that is.

 

As I said previously, but perhaps didn't emphasize enough, with Canon IS telephoto lenses, the 2x replaces the 1.4x as the defacto teleconverter of choice. Instead of really buying a 700mm or 840m lens when purchasing a 500mm or 600mm, you're buying a 1000mm or 1200mm. That's the real difference in practical terms, especially with the modern EOS bodies where you have AF with an effective f8 lens. As far as technique goes, what was formerly considered good technique with a 300mm lens is now adequate technique at 1200mm (except handholding of course!). Canon states that with shorter lenses that you get 2 additional stops of handholdability. (1/60th sec. is 1/4 of 1/250 sec.) The same sort of rationale can be applied to long telephoto technique. (300mm is 1/4 of 1200mm) At least that's how I see it in practice and on the light table.

 

As far as a previous poster's comments goes that IS isn't useful for warblers, well, that's just pure horsefeathers. In fact that's exactly the type of photography (or one of them) where IS can be appreciated the most. You need fast shutter speeds to freeze their movements? That's a ridiculous concept to my warbler photography. Yes, you need fast reflexes to follow their movements and catch them in that rare eloquent pose, but firing the frames as they move around is a total waste of film that will almost never yield a good shot. Warblers move fast and not even 1/1000 sec. will freeze them. When using an IS telephoto such as a 600/f4+2x, you can leave the tripod head free. Being able to use a 2x instead of a 1.4x gives you more magnification and a cleaner background than a 1.4x would. Of course you're also freer to keep a farther distance (less disturbance to subject) as well as getting a better angle on a warbler that might be a few feet higher than you in a tree. The Canon IS telephotos also have shorter minimum focusing distances than their predecessors. It was previously necessary to add extension tubes to a non-IS 600/f4+1.4x to be ready for those close encounters with warblers. With the IS 600/f4+2x that's not necessary and you're in reality only losing about a half stop of light from the previous warbler setup. If a warbler is holding momentarily still for 1/90th sec., chances are it's holding still for 1/60th sec. as well. And you can go even slower if necessary with an IS600+2x.

 

If your warbler shots are regularly bad because of subject movement, then you're simply not pressing the shutter button at the right moment. That's the type of technique that no piece of equipment or technology innovation can ever possibly help.

 

Also - since it hasn't been clearly stated on this thread - the Canon IS 600 is a few pounds lighter than the older version and the 500IS is heavier than the past f4.5 model. The result is that the two lenses (IS 500&600) aren't really appreciably that different in weight when all things are taken into consideration.

IS is incredibly useful for me. I use the 600f4 IS for birds, leaving the 2x on 90% of the time and leaving the IS on 100% of the time. Despite what a previous poster mentioned, it's razor sharp. I think he'd have difficulty picking out slides shot with or without the 2x attached. At 1200mm I can follow a moving subject in the wind and leave the tripod head loose or I can shoot at relatively slow shutter speeds (1/30 sec.) from a beanbag on the car window. It's very difficult to regularly get sharp shots with a 2x on a 500mm or 600mm lens without IS even under ideal situations.

 

Having IS has made a dramatic impact on my bird photography. Since getting it last March, I've taken it on three birding trips to Arizona, Montana, and Texas, as well as using it on spring and fall migrants and summer residents here in Ohio. I'm absolutely thrilled with the lens. Thinking back to only a year ago seems like a primative age of telephoto photography without IS.

 

Given a choice between a non-IS 600mm or and IS 500mm, I'd definitely pick the 500, since you can still routinely shoot at 1000mm. But the weight difference between the IS 500 and 600 is only 3 lbs. or so. That's barely even noticable once you throw in the weight of a tripod, head, camera body w/booster, teleconverter, and possibly a flash unit, battery pack, flash bracket, etc.. Where exactly do all these people who complain about the weight of a 600mm lens take their 500mm lenses? The price difference betweeen the 2 lenses is also not really going to be that significant over the life of the lens. If you really need a 600mm, then get the 600IS. Unfortunately I don't think you'll find many used ones out there, since I can't imagine anyone willing to part with one.

I live in Columbus. You don't state what date you'll be around here, but as of today, Oct 12, it's still early. I'd say to give it at least another week or two. While there are isolated colorful trees here and there, forests are still very green.

 

I would not recommend Hocking State Forest as a good place to photograph fall colors. The popular places there that people like to hike such as Conkles Hollow, Old Man's Cave, etc. are hemlock gorges. You need deciduous trees for color. Light is scarce in those gorges. With 35mm gear it's difficult to get shots in there without the tilt and shift of large format cameras (unless you have the Canon TS lenses).

 

If you want to visit a deciduous forest, Scioto Trail S.F. just south of Chillicothe (off rt.23) is a FAR better choice. As I said, right now it's still too early to head down there. I'm sure that I'll head down there myself, but not for another 10 days or so.

 

In reality, some of the best places to photograph fall colors in Columbus are at the metroparks around the city. Battelle-Darby and Slate Run are the nicest (IMO), largest, and are the least crowded. They along with Highbanks are the places where I've had the best luck photographing fall colors in past years. On the east side of Columbus, Blendon Woods Metropark and Gahanna State Nature Preserve probably will offer some good photo ops if timing is right. I've spent a lot of time birding at Battelle-Darby recently, but I haven't yet been compelled to pull out the cameras. It's still too green.

As others have pointed out, a lot can be accomplished with just adding some extension tubes to your 100-400. For high magnification close up work, the 100/2.8 macro is a logical choice. It's also a great portrait lens. At one time I was carrying a 300/f4, the 180 macro and 85/1.8. I sold all those since it wasn't a practical way to travel, it was inconvenient, and it was generally too much to carry in a small backpack when hiking. I'm much happier now to have consolidated with the 100-400 and 100 macro. Yes, the 180 is really the ideal macro lens in the Canon system, but it is too big and expensive a lens to haul around for only macro work. When using the 100 macro you can obtain additional working distance at high magnifications by adding a Canon 1.4x (or 2x)+ the short 12mm tube. For subjects like wildflowers, where you'll most likely not be at a higher magnification than 1/3 life size, adding tubes to the 100-400 (around 200mm) works perfectly well.

 

Aside from a macro lens, you might like to add a lens wider than 28mm, such as the 20mm lens. 28mm barely gets you into interesting wide angle photography. Having something wider allows for more dramatic and creative near/far compositions. Other than that, nothing beats the Canon 600/f4 IS............

If you're into bird photography, Niagara Falls conjures up only one word : GULLS! Look around for a Sabine's. They could possibly be there then. Colder months would be better for a more interesting variety to include Lesser Black-backed, Iceland, Little, Thayer's, Glaucous, Black-headed, Black-legged Kittiwake, etc., etc., though.

The bottom line is : use a film in a variety of situations before an important shoot or trip, especially if pushing. Have the slides processed by a reliable, consistent place before deciding - and stick with it. From my experience, I can't imagine why anyone would opt for Ektachrome VS's big clumpy grain and accentuated cold colors, but hey, that's just me, a ProviaF (and sometimes Velvia) freak.

I've shot a lot of ProviaF at 200 (I rate it at 160 for my processor). I really like it for what it is : a great fast slide film. But, there's no denying that is what it is. I can definitely see an increased ammount of grain and less sharpness than Velvia. It has never fooled me.

Slide film is unforgiving in regards to exposure. Just bracket your exposures. If your camera has an auto bracketing mode, try using it. Or you can just use the exposure compensation dial. Try shooting + 1/2 and -1/2 around what you think the correct exposure to be (more if you're really unsure). Don't worry about it. If you keep some notes or at least mental notes, it won't take long before you figure out what looks best in certain lighting situations. Fortunately with scenic shots, you don't have to worry about your subject changing its expression, or flying or running away before you're done :)

I have no idea where the Shenandoah valley is, but I think it's well south of here (Ohio). The second week of Oct. won't be very colorful in a valley I wouldn't think. Try heading onto a high elevation or MUCH further north (like the UP of Michigan)if possible. The end of Oct. is peak time in Ohio and is later the futher south you go.

 

What film to use? Velvia, of course. As a previous poster mentioned, overcast days are the best for even illumination in forests and color saturation. The hardest thing about great fall color photography isn't how or where, but when. Generally there is a very narrow window of opportunity to catch the peak. The peak is typically preceded by a cold snap when the leaves change quickly, followed by a stalled N front giving sweet overcast light (if you're lucky). That is usually quickly followed by harsh winds and the trees become naked.

 

I would also suggest a macro lens (or diopters or tubes) in your camera bag when doing fall woodland photgraphy. Often the nicest compositions are beneath your feet. Hiking in an Eastern US woodland full of beauty can be dumbfounding. It's often difficult to come up with an interesting composition. I've hiked for hours only to get get the best shots of the day at the parking lot where I originally started. A short telephoto isolating one scene with tree trunks as the primary compositional elements usually works best, but that can be difficult to achieve INSIDE a forest. The inside of forests is generally the realm of ultra wide lenses (21mm and under), at least for 35mm camera users. November can be good after most leaves have fallen - leaving open spaces and pockets of color, though.

 

If you live in the western US, try planning your trip for a later date or try going further north. If you live in the eastern US, you can probably get far more eloquent photographs on a better date near where you live by simply paying close attention to the light and the wind. Being a birder, I check the Weather Channel several times a day during the fall and spring, but "nature photograhers" would be well advised to do the same during fall if great foliage photography is their aim.

I agree with the previous poster, just leave the IS on all the time - tripod or no tripod. Since getting my 600IS last March, I've shot over 100 rolls of film with it - 90% of the time with the 2x attached. I've certainly noticed no ill efects from leaving the IS always on! Don't worry about it.

These topics have been discussed many times here.

 

The longer the lens you have, the more opportunities you'll have. It's really that simple. If you're dead set on only those 2 lenses, then go with the 500mm with an optional 700mm/f5.6 and 100mm/f8. If you get the 500P, Kirk Enerprises manufactures (or at least used to) a bracket for the it and the TC300. It definitely helps a lot at 1000mm.

 

I'd also recommend getting Kirk plates over RRS plates for the lens. They both do the same thing, but I like the Kirk flash bracket over the RRS bracket and they aren't interchangable on each other's plates. The Kirk bracket needs only one screw to attach and is more flexible. Attaching a flash bracket is probably the least enjoyable aspect of bird photography to me.

 

I owned that 500mm for about 5 years and I purchased it for many of the same reasons you suggest, but today I'd think differently. It wouldn't be my first choice now. With the carbon fiber tripods, the weight savings of a 500mm lens over a 600mm becomes less of an issue. If you're using manual Nikkors, the 800mm/f5.6 might even be the best choice (except for the minimum focusing distance). The percentage of weight from the lens is really a small part of the total package to be carried. You'll have the lens + TC, camera with winder/booster, tripod, head, plate, flash bracket, flash unit, battery pack, binoculars, etc.. To all the whiners who complain about the weight of a 600mm lens, I can only ask where exactly are you dancing and prancing with your 500mm lenses that wouldn't be better served with a 600mm?

 

Another thing to consider before making a big purchase is whether or not it's worth investing another dime in the Nikon system. IMO it's not a good idea. I switched to Canon and got a 600/f4 after I sold my 500mm Nikkor. Yes, AF was of minor help at times, but having a 600mm lens was even more advantageous. I've since gotten the 600IS lens, which has given me more photo ops for birds in leaps and bounds. With IS lenses you can easily use a 2x as your standard TC with amazing sharpness. I now shoot as freely at 1200mm as was previously possible with a 300mm lens. The advantages of 1200mm as a standard lens over 700 or 800mm are too many to list. While I realize that an IS telephoto from Canon is probably too expensive for most people (it would have been for me!) as an initial big lens purchase, at least heading in that direction with a Canon AF telephoto would be a better first step IMO. The Canon 500/f4.5 is realily available used for a reasonable price and you now get AF with the 1.4x on the latest cameras.

 

That's this bird photographer's opinion.

The best blind I've ever found at a NWR is a car. I've personally never seen a permanent blind anywhere in the US that I feel was well thought out for photographers. I've never seen one that puts the viewer at eye level, up close, with good light possible at least once a day, with slots positioned for a long lens. South Africa, on the other hand, has some wonderfully situated blinds at numerous reserves with long tunnels that keep people from being seen when entering, but that's another story. Unfortunately American designers haven't bothered to copy them. As was previously mentioned, the blind at Laguna Atascosa is a joke for photography. Many NWR's in the GreatPlains have permanent blinds at grouse leks, but the holes I've seen aren't large enough for 600mm lenses. If you need to use blinds, the good old Rue blind could be set up (with permission) at most NWR's I'd think.

 

Using cars as a blind, however, really is the best method for photographing birds at NWR's. Since the revolutionary introduction of the Canon IS telephotos, shooting on a beanbag from the car window with a 600mm lens + 2x opens up a whole new world of possibilities. Cars enable you to position yourself at eyelevel, up close, and with the best possible light. Having spent the past 2 Junes at NWR's of Montana and North Dakota, I must admit my favorite NWR (that I've been to) for photographing birds from the car is Medicine Lake NWR in NE Montana. On the other side of Montana, Freezeout Lake (though not a NWR) is also spectacular.

Hi Shaun,

As has already been said, Botswana isn't a place where you can just fly to and go where ever you want in a rented sedan. You'll most likely have to go in some sort of packaged group tour unless you can find others who also want to rent a couple 4x4's and take you chances. Personally, I dislike the idea of any sort of packaged trip for photography.

 

I lived in SAfrica for 3 years in the 80's and I assure you that is no shortage of interesting subjects to photograph there! If you have a month to spend, I reccomend renting a car and travelling on your own there. It's as easy to get around there as the USA. 2 weeks at Kruger NP, 10 days at the Kalahari Gemsbok NP, and a few days in the Cape Town area would make a great first trip.

Yes, that's right, the glass is the same. I'm really not up on what Nikon body does what, but chances are you're not going to need shutter priority or programmed exposure modes with a 1000/f8 lens. Roberts in Indianapolis usually has a large selection of used Nikon teleconverters to choose from.

 

I used to use that lens with those teleconverters with an F4 body, which overexposed by 2/3 stops with the 2x if I remember correctly. Kirk Enterprises makes (or at least made) a bracket for the 500f/4P + TC300, which I found helped a lot.

I'll add to the chorus of getting Arthur Morris' and Larry West's books.

 

Free of charge I'll also offer you my one sentence long book:

 

Spend all the possible time you have available to you birding, and when possible, bring along whatever appropriate camera gear you own.

Montana would be a great destination for bird photography in June, but I can think of about 100 places off the top of my head I'd rather be in mid-May!

 

If you don't have it, get the "Birder's Guide to Montana", which is available from the ABA (but not published by them). I don't have it, but if it's like most others, there should be a bar graph at the end showing when and where each species will be found.

 

Don, Yellow Warblers should probably only be beginning to arrive on territory by the 2nd week of May in Montana. I would seriously doubt if any MacGillivray's Warblers would be there in the second week of May. Opororonis warblers are typically among the last to migrate and arrive on territory. All of the nesting warblers have already at least put in an appearance in the forests of southern Ohio as of yesterday (24 April) except Kentucky, of course. Mourning and Connecticut are usually the last two migrant warbler species I tick off my list each spring here in Ohio, which is often in the 3rd or 4th week of May. According to the info I have, MacGillivray's is no different.