mrossi

<p>Play around with the PS Shadow Highlight tool, no new layer required. But it's not HDR nor does it equal multiple exposures.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the custom functions all set differently. I use the Set button for instant preview, turned the LCD review off to conserve battery, have my AF selector on that little joystick thingie, and other things. I also shoot only in RAW mode, which makes the picture styles irrelevent. For wildlife/birds I use spot metering (center point), and also turned ISO expansion on. I can't remember what else but there's probably some things I'm forgetting.</p>

 

<div></div>

<p>I'm able to retain AF on a 30D or 5D, with a Canon 100-400L or a Sigma 150-500 using a Kenko Pro 1.4x TC. I taped the pins, only use this setup in full light, and not on fast moving situations. I find that it focuses much better if there's a contrast line (ie. dark/light) point I can focus on. Not saying it's a great solution, but I do use it frequently enough, though I tend to take a non-TC shot first for insurance :)</p>

<p>If you go with the primes, they will work with FF in the future, the 18-55 won't. I have both the 50 1.8 and 28 2.8 and love them both.</p>

<p>Take a look at the Sigma 150-500 with OS. It has caused my Canon 100-400L to experience some very lonely days at home alone... In other words I'm pretty impressed with it. I love L-glass but money was a consideration and Canon 500s weren't really reasonable for me.</p>

 

<p>Very pleased with mine, I started with it and a 30D now using it with a 5D. Need to remember to use it more, that's my problem.</p>

<p>I personally don't like to remove things that are indicative if the true habitat of a bird. If they eat worms, fine, if they sit in brush, I'll try to get a clear shot. If they're falcons and they eat birds, why would I censor that? Take a double-crested cormorant for example. They destroy trees/habitat with their feces, I think it's quite relevent to the photo. It may not always look nice, but it's natural. Just my angle.</p>

<p>I once wondered the same thing. Got a great high speed CF card and then learned the buffer and write time was the limitation. Soonafter I went for a new body...</p>

<p>I have both the 70-200 and the 100-400, and I'd probably take them both. I am positive if I didn't take the 400 I'd be regretting it at some point, it's a great lens for this kind of thing.</p>

<p>Trail mix, business cards and a compass.</p>

<p>I have to add, the more time you spend trying to shoot small birds the easier it gets. You get used to how you hold the camera, you get used to looking for things near the bird (ie. intersection of two branches etc). Just the other day I was thinking to myself "gee, I've gotten pretty good at lining up this 500mm lens". I don't often zoom out to find something, I just look for a waypoint I'll notice in the viewfinder, then aim and look for it.</p>

<p>You could even practice just sitting indoors, look at a speck on the wall, practice bringing the camera to your eye and getting that speck in focus as quick as possible. After a while it becomes second nature to some degree, at least for me. </p>

<p>I don't find a second eye open helping me too much, I use that method if I'm looking for other action at the same time as watching something through the lens.</p>

<p>I have the 150-500 Sigma and also a 100-400 Canon L (sorry, not a Nikon user). The field of view is not the issue with birds-in-flight, the lens speed is. I'm extremely impressed with the Sigma 150-500, but it can be a tad slow for small birds in flight. I'd say it makes up for it in with the reach versus cost value point.</p>

<p>The 100-400 by comparison is pretty good for birds in flight, but at the sacrifice of reach.</p>

<p>In my perfect world I'd like a 500mm f/4 prime, I'd miss some things given the fixed focal length, but it would be very nice for quality and speed. That said, I just couldn't drop $6000 on a lens at this time, so for me the 150-500 was a perfect compromise.</p>

<p>For birding in general I know some get by with a fast 300mm prime and 1.4 or 2x tele, but for me I couldn't imagine using anything less than 400mm, and preferably 500mm, unless you're sitting in a blind and the birds are meters away.</p>

<p> </p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Are those the kind you can use to look around corners kind of like a periscope? I think the military use them as gun scopes :)</p>

<p>I shoot more handheld or monopod with my 100-400 than I do with a tripod. With enough light, IS, and a fast enough shutter speed (ie. 1/320 if you're relatively steady-handed), it's fine... I hike with it all the time, not always with a tripod.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I find nude HDRs are usually overexposed...</p>

<p>If you spent time outside in -20C weather this winter, you'd have a new appreciation for a neoprene cover on the lens. It's also much better at blending in than a white lens as said above. I like the one I got but I think it should be easy to make one, I decided to buy one instead though...</p>

<p>When I use a monopod I generally just sway it forward back left/right to see focus on what I want. For something high up or low down I'll loosen the lever and redirect the camera, then tighten it again.</p>

<p>I can't see a lot of benefit in having an advanced head on a monopod since it's not very stationary anyways. You'll be holding the camera, the monopod will be on the ground, it doesn't make it easy to start adjusting a head.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 100-400L 4.5/5.6 is excellent value, a great lens and very manageable size. I don't like using a 1.4x on it unless the subject is very still.</p>

<p>Also take a look at the Sigma 150-500, I'm pretty shocked to say but I haven't taken my 100-400 out of the case since I got the Sigma, and I'm a pretty big Canon L fan :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry, no comment on the two kits, but also take a look at the Sigma 18-50 2.8, there's a flavour that will work on both crop and FF. The Canon 50 1.8 is a no-brainer good purchase, great value, I really like mine a lot.<br>

I have no experience with Tamron but I put my trust in Canon 1st and Sigma 2nd for what that's worth.</p>

<p> </p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>