gerhard_hofmann1

Hi Leszek,

I don?t own the CPE4 but the CPE3 battery packs. They do a pretty good job and the recycling time will be fast even after 100shots (depending of course on what kind of batteries you will use). The battery cradle is not of the best quality and I hope they improved this with the introduction of the CPE4. But it is very nice and handy to have a second pre loaded battery cradle at hand. I usually use non rechargeable normal lithium batteries for my "emergency cradle". It is the only battery pack I know which will work in remote areas without the possibility of charging the batteries.

I really like it.

Gerhard

Derek,

Hard to say where I red it (I just use flash too often to remember) but it may be in the user-manual of the ste-2 or 550EX.

http://www.hofmann-photography.de/html/mouthmarks_39.html

regards Gerhard

Derek try it with the switched on camera. If you test the setup with the flash-button of the master flash and the camera is switched off(the exposure meter no longer active) you get a delay in firing the slaves so you can control whether the system is working. I guess it is the same if you test the setup without a camera at all.

Gerhard

Chuck,

If you are happy with your 30D I bet you will be even more satisfied with the 40D. The DMKIII is for sure a terrific camera. I don?t own a DMKIII but the DMKII and I often switched to my 20D because of the crop factor.

My 20D is retired meanwhile and the 40D is doing its job and it does a fantastic job. So far I had no problems with AF but I really enjoy the faster AF/6,5 frames per second and what is a real benefit is the low shutter-noise ? no more blimp with shy animals.

Gerhard

My biggest problem with exposure times that long is wind. As Mark already mentioned

a slight breeze and the fur (with my subjects the feathers) will be blurry. The same is true with breathing/chewing individuals.

I guess I would save some money and go for the 2.8 version. With low light there is nothing what helps better then a fast lens.

Gerhard

I love to use fill-flash with bird shots, but I occasionally have problems with

overexposed/oversaturated red colors.

See for example.

(Captive - full flash head-color)

http://www.hofmann-photography.de/html/papageiamadinen_14.html

Or (fill-flash with wild birds)

http://www.hofmann-photography.de/html/favorites_13.html

The summer tanager was the best of a couple of shots and the picture could be saved

Due to the raw file but the jpgs were all for the paper basket.

Is it only me ?

Regards Gerhard

James,

Leroy Percy http://www.hofmann-photography.de/html/leroy_percy_state_park_mississ_5.html

definitely is the place we saw cottonmouths most often. We are conducting a study on over-wintering Rusty Blackbirds there and have to follow birds which have transmitters attached to them. And as soon as spring is arriving it seems we find cottonmouths all over. Btw Leroy Percy is my all time favourite place to take pictures particularly on Sundays if it was a bad day one can at least go for the buffet and make the day a successful one.

Can't wait to come back to the Delta

Gerhard

Hi William

I have no experience with the 300-800mm but as Mark I used the 800mm on my Nikons for quite a while. When I rented the 4.0/500 with IS for a couple of days decision was clear to go for a long lens with IS. The number of keepers are much higher with IS even when use it on tripod if you handhold the lens or use it on a beanbag IS simply is a life saver. Most often I use my 500mm together with a 1.4 time converter the benefit is the close focusing distance I get with this setup. Despite using the lens nearly 90% of the time with converter attached I am quite sure the way I shoot image quality benefits more from IS then from using a 800mm lens without converter. All of the above is true for the 600mm IS as well but this beast is already a pain to carry on a plane.

Regards Gerhard

I like to shoot with fill-flash and long-time exposure (about 1/15 sec with this pict) No way for me to do it with a 800mm in the car as I did with the yelloleg.

http://www.hofmann-photography.de/html/favorites_35.html

The only zoom in this range which is easy to focus is the 28-300/L from Canon. I really like this lens and use it quite frequently when I want to travel without to much equipment. It is my favorite come along lens for the 4.0/500mm an additional 500D close-up lens and I am ready for most situations.

It is perfect for working in the surf. http://www.hofmann-photography.de/html/favorites_24.html I never had to change the lens. It is probably not as good for working manual as the old lenses but it is as good as an AF lens can be these days.

The only disadvantage is the price tag.

Gerhard

I second Mark,

for birds and most wildlife you want the longest lens possible. The 80-400mm would probably be the best choice for the shots you like. It is as Mark already mentioned not great (but not bad either) at 400mm.But the VR technology helps a lot when you don't use a tripod. I have the equivalent Canon lens which I also use for a lot for landscape in fact 100-300mm is propably the range I shoot most of my landscapes.

The main disadvantage is the slow AF but the Tamron is by no means faster.

Some of the Bluebirds in flight were taken with the Nikon 80-400 but I could stop down the lens to f8-f11 and I used prefocus.

http://www.hofmann-photography.de/html/bluebirds.html

The focal range is also very nice for reptiles and it would fit perfectly to your 18-55mm range.

Gerhard

What about the 500D close up lens? I like it and it woul work perfectly together with your 200mm lens.

Gerhard

I second Tommy the 5T/6T from Nikon and the Canon 500D are pretty decent. It is not the same level of sharpness as a dedicated macro-lens but good enough to get cover shots.

I visited a friend not to long ago who is a aviculturist like me, he had some nice baby gouldians with their species specific mouth marking. 100-400mm +500D

http://www.hofmann-photography.de/html/mouthmarks_36.html

Gerhard

I just organize my pictures from the last field season in Mississippi and

couldn't resist to send this diver ( I don't know too many songbirds which are

able to do the same).

http://www.hofmann-photography.de/html/rusty_blackbird_28.html

If you ever have the opportunity to visit the Mangnolia state give Leroy Percy

State Park a try it is a wonderfull place with lots of birds.

Gerhard

I know the basic about plumage coloration in birds and I guess in Indigo it is a mixture of pigments (melanin) and structural coloration as with most blue birds. But what is different in Indigos is that the body color seems to change with the angle of the reflected light (or maybe the color temperature of the flash which is no full spectrum). This is not the case with the other two species. You are right Ryan the head is always darker. I am not sure about the size of the feathers they are smaller but this is the same with Grosbeaks or some of the exotic species http://www.hofmann-photography.de/html/papageiamadinen_01.html . I will have a closer look the next time I visit a skin collection and try to get some spectrometer measurements. Nonetheless Indigos are just awesome Birds I really love them.

Thanks for all your help

Good shots Greg

Sorry Dave,

of course you are right 3 is without flash and 4 with flash.

Gerhard

Last year we had a great time and lots of fun visiting the Texas- coast during

spring migration. There were tons of fascinating birds, among them many Indigo

Bunting one of our favourite songbirds. The light was often horrible, lots of

harsh light and dark shadow so we used fill flash or even full flash quite

frequently. To our surprise the blue color of the body plumage got a greenish

tint when we used flash but the dark blue of the head was still the same.

http://www.hofmann-photography.de/html/indigo_bunting.html

(pict 3 with flas; pict 4 without flash)

We never had this with other blue colored birds like Blue Grosbeaks

http://www.hofmann-photography.de/html/blue_grosbeak.html

(pict 1 without flash; pict 2 with flash)

or Eastern Bluebirds.

http://www.hofmann-photography.de/html/bluebirds.html

(pict 10 without flash pict4 with flash)

It?s not a big deal now that we know it but does somebody know what is different

with the feather coloration/structure of the Indigo Bunting?

Gerhard

Gerry,

you may have less blurry pictures if you remove the lens hood and get the lens as close to the glass as possible. I had similar problems with my 500mm and removing the hood (actually i used a very short one) helped quit a bit.

Good luck

I don't know the company. To answer the second question there is a huge difference between July and September. Whereas July is still pretty warm with only few rain in September it is getting already cold. For scenics early fall (September) can be one of the best seasons to visit the Alps, but you may get rain and fog.

Regards Gerhard

Thank you all for your help.

I well tell how it worked out.

Gerhard

Hi all,

We are heading to Texas (Lower Rio Grande Valley) for a two week vacation. I

know that S. Padre Island is a terrific spot for birding is it also a good spot

for bird photography?

We are particularly interested in Painted Buntings and Tanagers.

Thanks

Gerhard

Thanks Sergey,

doesn't look to good. I the rookery will recover.

Gerhard

We are thinking about visiting Lake Martin in Louisiana. We visited this place

in 2004 and it was spectacular. A short visit last spring was disappointing

nearly now birds at the Rookery. Does anybody know about the situation this

year?

Thanks Gerhard

Hi Charles

I second Pavel go for the 400D with wildlife (particularly birds) every mm focal length counts so does kind of every pixel. I you crop the 400D pictures to 8Mp you gain again a bit more reach at the long end of the lens.

The 400D is a pretty amazing camera and I seriously wish Canon would offer a 1D with the same sensor or at least a sensor with the same pixel density. As long as this doesn?t happen this small camera joins my 1DMarkII on every trip where I need the maximum reach. I prefer the pictures of the 400D mounted to the 4.0/500mm plus 1.4 Converter to the pictures of my MarkII mounted with 500mm plus 2x Converter.

Regards Gerhard

Hi Miha,

I switched from Nikon to Canon years ago because of Image Stabilization in their long lenses. So the 4.0/500mm IS got my standard lens.

But I had the opportunity to work with Sigma for a couple of days. The day started with problems as the first lens I rented didn?t work at all. The second Sigma worked pretty well together with EOS 20D so it should produce decent shots with your Nikon too. The problem maybe that you loose AF with converter (at least that happens with Canon if you use the original Canon Converter). And of course I missed IS a lot.

My main birding lens with Nikon was the AFI 4.0/500mm Af is bit slower with this version then with the newer AFS version but you can get them relatively cheap and it works perfect together with 1,4 Converter. The same is true for the AFI 2.8/300mm but as a bird lens it will almost always be paired to the 2x Converter. This combination is not bad but you loose AF-speed and it is no longer the optical gem which it is without or together with the 1.4 Converter. But the AFi lenses are worth a look optically they are as good as the newer ones and the used price is mostly very attractive.

The perfect lens would probably be the new 200-400mm at least it would be my dream lens among the long Nikon-lenses. Sadly it is the only long Nikon lens with VR.

Regards Gerhard