rich_waite

Hello,

As G. Wiley suggested, I'd, too, suggest going with a prime. A couple of months ago I purchased a Canon EF 200/f2.8 in undetectable-from-new condition for $430. The lens is as at least as sharp as any ED Nikkor I've used in the past (probably sharper). I've been using it with a 1.4 extender a lot and still get tack sharp results. The lens has ring USM focus (it's very fast) and is easy to carry and fairly light as well. For the money, it is a steal in my opinion. I got mine from KEH camera brokers and their service was outstanding.

Good luck with your choices.....Rich

Hello,

And thanks for all the ideas and pointers. I'd ran many of them across my mind in the past, while sitting in a cold blind usually, daydreaming you know, but never getting past that point. Thinking, just thinking -- so many little birds flying through the air and so few photos of them doing so. Figured I'd see what you all had to say about the subject.

I've done some work with deer and cheap camera trap setups (homemade units, with cheap 35 mm film cams and passive infra-red sensors). They work well for slow large critters and big birds like wild turkeys. I think using an active infra-red sensor approach, as mentioned above, timing the camera to go off the moment a winged creature trips the beam intersection, could work and could work well with experimentation for songbirds and the like.

Also, I've noticed the songbirds flight paths become fairly narrow and readily predictable as these creatures move from perch to a feeder setup, for example. I wondered if one could simply preset focus, set to a super fast shutter speed against a bluesky backdrop, with frontlighting on the avian subject, and find possible fly-shot success? Sounds like I need a multi flash setup to stop movement though. Makes sense....I know those little guys can move fast!

I may give something above a try at some point. Thanks for all the insight!

Have fun shooting......Rich

Hello all,

Just wondering here: have any of you tried to acquire photos of

flying passerines? Is it feasable?

Seems to me that I haven't seen very many shots of songbirds in

flight -- almost always they are sitting on a perch. I realize the

inherent difficulties in pulling off such a maneuver: tiny subjects,

rapid, often bouncy movements, etc., etc....

So, I'm just wondering if anyone has meet such a challenge with any

success? And, if so,what techniques are they using? Seems like the

only "flight" songbird pictures I recall seeing are the result of a

shutter snap as a bird is taking off or putting down on a limb. What

about mid-air shots -- that is the question?

Just curious is all.....

Rich

Hi,

That choice probably depends mostly on what kind of lenses you have in your aresenal (Canon, Nikon, etc.,) That said, I think the Canon 10D is the winner. (Notice: "probably depends mostly" -- really doesn't say a whole lot! Basically it's up to you!)

Good luck and have fun.....

Rich

Hello again,

Gareth: the blue jay photo above was not cropped, what you see is what I got when I shot, exactly, size-wise. No kidding.......

I know some people will think the 1.6 factor is more of a crock factor than a crop factor, but it helps me (and I'll take all the help I can get). And it helps world-class photog's such as Arthur Morris too (not that he needs it). But, hey, why argue? It works and it works darn well, too. I guess, one must not just see it to believe it but also believe it to see it, I don't know.

Fast long lenses are generally WAY more expensive than fast short lenses, so I'd much rather have the advantage on the long end. And getting the same effect from 35mm film via the scanning route? Wow, I only plan on living another 60 years or so and I'd much rather be out creating images than messing around with scanning every photo I create! But to each his own....

In my opinion, creating the same size image, via the scanned route -- versus the same image created via help of the crop factor -- is going to degrade image quality because the scanned pic will need to be enlarged. Advantage: crop factor.

Mike Lepp mentioned something about the disadvantage of background focus when using a 10D with the crop factor. The reason the background is in focus in the blue jay shot is because I was shooting at f16 or thereabouts -- and because the background was relatively close behind the subject. It isn't a great challenge creating blurred backgrounds with a dreble, 10d or whatever, and it doesn't take a 400mm f/4 to do it! Simply use a fast lens, open it up and move in on your subject. As easy as 1, 2, 3. (Of course, it isn't a great challenge creating blurred subjects either! I have plenty of those and I'm hoping the market for them opens up real soon...)

For the junco photo below, I used the same lens, converter combo as for the blue jay shot above. The difference was I opened the thing up more, moved in another couple of feet and had a background which was farther behind my subject. The image was not cropped, post shot. This is the exact image that was shot. Getting this image size on my film cam -- without scanning and cropping the subject-- would have been much more of a challenge I can assure you!

Have fun shooting....

Rich

Primoz,

It is funny how we all laugh at different things.

And, it is really funny the view one gets, for instance, through a 200 mm lens mounted to a film camera, compared to a 200 mm mounted on a digital cam when aimed at a songbird. The difference is night and day. I have both and I have no problem getting frame-bursting songbirds shots with my digital. Using the 200 mm on a film cam is much, much different.

Sure it's a crop. But it's a darn good one! No need to blow the crop up to get the same size view as one would need to do with film. Thus, no image degradation to get the same size view.

Anyone can say what they want about the crop factor. I for one will just say that it makes a huge difference in wildlife shooting. I've taken hundreds of frame-filling wildlife pix -- from songbirds to deer -- with the help of my 1.6 crop factor! Or maybe I am just seeing things and should take my camera back......

Have fun shooting....

Rich<div></div>

You save a ton on film if you shoot very much at all. You also can save a ton on long lens purchases. If one needs long lenses, for say, wildlife shooting -- one can use shorter lenses for the same focal length effect, because of a built in 1.6 crop factor (with 10d, Rebel...) Example: a $600 Canon 200/2.8 becomes a $3500, 300mm (plus) f/2.8 the second one mounts it on a 10D or Dreble. The built in crop factor is a HUGE plus for long lens users!

I don't think operating costs with digital are that expensive. Most any entry level computer these days will handle the image work, storage and file requirments. CF cards are expensive but they can be used hundreds, even thousands of times. And, when one can get a 512 mb card for about the cost of 15 rolls of film plus related developing expense, it's not that long before CF card expenses are recovered either, if one shoots much.

Since I purchased a digital slr, I have not even touched my film gear. For me, it's digital now film can take a hike. I don't have any desire to shoot film again -- shooting digital is just way too much fun!

Have fun shooting.....

Rich

Hello,

The 70-200 f/4 is a great lens and if you could find a used one it may be in your price range. If you can live without a zoom, I'd suggest picking up a used 200 f/2.8. You can buy these used in like-new condition for under $450 and the optics are as good as it gets.

I use one on my D300 with a 1.4X extender 90% of the time and it is still tack sharp. I think this lens is the buy of the century, especially considering, when used on the drebel, it becomes, essentially, a 320 mm f2.8!

Best,

Rich W.

Hello,

I'd recommend (highly) the Epson photo 825 (or the 820 which is a little cheaper, lacks printing directly from CF card and uses a slightly more expensive ink cartridge, I believe).

According to Epson, the problem with the printheads clogging has been resolved by the machine capping them when turned off. Who knows. I've had my 825 for a month or so and have been in love and have had no problems whatsoever with the machine. Yes, it prints rather slow, and some may say a bit loud -- but the print quality is fantastic. I would say it is better than prints I've obtained from the lab!

Color cartridges for the 825 run about $19 from Walmart (I've done eight 8 x 10's, one 5 x 7, and numerous 4x6's and am still on the original cartridge, though it is getting down there!)

And the printers are cheap: $59 for a refurbished 820, from the Epson website, or $99 for a new 825 from Target, Wally World, etc.... Why spend more for a printer when you don't have to?

Good luck...

Rich

Hi Slide,

Last year I researched binoculars and came to the following conclusion: you get the most bang for your binocular buck by choosing poro-prism glass over a roof prism model.

Now, a salesman won't necessarily tell you this (because comparable roof prism models are often much more expensive, not to mention more sleek, sexy and envogue). But read what optical experts have to say and look through them all and see for yourself. I did. And my eye's were opened, quite literally. $100-$199 porro prism's often blew away the view I was seeing though roof prism models costing $300-$700.

Roof prisms are more costly to manufacture to high optical quality levels than are porro's. The highest optically rated binocular in the world are the Nikon Super E porro's. These are $750 binoculars that beat out Leica, Zeiss, Sworvorski, and other roof's costing twice as much. Poro's may not be as "pretty" as roofs but they give you an awesome, almost 3-d view, that roof's simply don't.

But don't take my word for it: go to Gander Mountain, Cabela's or some other retailer and see for yourself. I chose a pair of Bushnell Legend 8x42 porro's (waterproof, Bak-4 prism's, fully multi-coated lenses, etc) costing a mere $129 from Gander Mountain. I had a $500 bill in my pocket ready to put down but I simply could not find a roof for under $500 that even matched the view. So I bought the Legend's, pocketed the change, smiled and walked out the door.

I've used them for a full year now in all sorts of conditions (rain, snow, etc,) and they have been flawless. Of course, they may bust tommorow, I don't know. But they seem appear very well made and feel like a tank and the view is great. I'm not saying buy these, just that porro's offer super bang for your buck. More people ought to consider them in my opinion.

Hope you find the one's you like....

Just my .03 cents (inflation)

Rich W.

Hello,

In my opinion, your result has nothing to do with it being a generic battery. I have used my 300d (with Canon battery) many times this winter, for several hours at a time, in photo blinds where the temperature did not get above 15 degrees F. No problem. I have experienced what your are talking about, however. I don't know what the cause is, but my cure for many an e-tronic ailment is simply to remove the battery for a few seconds then put it back in. Every time my 300d has done what you describe (maybe 5 times this winter), I've done this and it then popped back to perfect life every time...........presto....and then worked perfectly.

By the way, I do believe that every Canon DSLR is rated at the exact same operating temps as the 300d. Canon tech's say one should have no problems in cold temps, really, though; the problem becomes when you bring such an electronic gizmo indoors to warmer temps and get condensation. For this reason, one should put one's dslr in a gallon- sized ziplock, or other watertight container, when bringing from cold to warm temps.

Just some snack food to nibble on there. Hope it helps!

Rich

Hello,

I think David Evans means trophy POACHER leftovers, with regard to the decapitated deer carcuses. Any idiot who does this with deer is a poacher and not a hunter. No hunter I know would do this.

Just thought I'd mention it....

Rich

Hey Andrew, post above, (or should I say, halo Andrew)

You are right. I was operating in fast forward that day and neglected to see what I did there -- downsized a pre-sharpened file of that image which must have blown it out of wack. Oh well. Now if I could just let go of my halo.....kidding. I don't sharpen my main file until I print or sell.

See ya, and thanks for pointing that out.

Good shooting,

Rich

Hi Simon,

White balance has never been a problem for my Canon DSLR (shooting a d-rebel). I use auto white balance 99.9% of the time for my outdoor shooting and the camera nails the scene exactly as my eye's saw it. By shooting in RAW format, however, one can always change the color tone of the photo by altering white balance post processing. When shooting indoors, one just selects the white balance for the lighting being used, tungsten, flourscent, etc. It's a piece of cake really.

As far as post processing time goes: depends, depends, depends! If one takes the time to try to get the photo exactly right in the first place (as one usually would when shooting film), there really is very little post processing. I have no patience for spending hours on an image in PS as some do. It just isn't my cup of tea. I shoot in Adobe RGB 1998 (if I remember that right) and typically just sharpen images slightly, boost saturation and maybe crop a scene if needed and that's it. Again a piece of cake. Virtually ANY photo editing program will do those basic tasks! One great thing about Canon is that they supply a copy of Photoshop Elements 2.0 with the Rebel and 10D digital cameras. This software will take care of most any image problem you can throw at it.

For me digital, is the way to go and I am selling my film cameras. I've shot film for over 20 years and I learned more in one week of shooting digital then I did in the last 10 years with film. Digital gives one the freedom to try new and creative things -- and to shoot more frames -- without the subconscious fear of draining the bank account with film development costs. Plus, one can change ISO settings shot to shot, as needed, and get immediate feedback of exposure results, via the histogram, with each shot. And the quality of the end result is every bit as good as that of 35mm slide film in my opinion.

Just some food for thought......

Best,

Rich W.<div></div>

Hello,

Over the last 20 years or so, I have logged thousands of hours sitting in sub-zero conditions for hours on end, both hunting and taking photos. So have many of my friends. The concensus, hands-down, is that the military "bunny" style boots (sometimes also called Mickey Mouse boots) are the warmest. They look big and bulky but aren't that heavy and are easy to walk in as well. Also, they aren't that expensive. You can buy them from a military supply store and Cabela's has a similar style boot as well (under a different name).

Another good option is simply wearing a boot "insulator" over just about any decent cold weather boot. The one's made by arctic shield work well and are easy to tote. They can be had for less than $50 and are light as well as warm.

Butlike others here have said: a big key is the socks! I wear one pair of liner socks and then one medium to heavy pair of wool or a good quality synthetic sock that sheds water. The Duramax socks from Cabela's are fantastic. Keeping your feet dry is critical, you need to wear socks that pull moisture away from the skin but still insulate when wet.....wool, wool......wool!

If I were in your shoes (no pun intended), I'd get a pair of bunny boots and a couple pairs of good socks and not look back. I think you can buy the bunnies for $50 or less. And, yes, they are very warm!

Good luck and stay warm!

Best,

Rich W.

Hi David,

You can get plenty of bird photos with a 300 or even a 200 mm lens. But since you often won't be able to get as close to the birds (optically) as you may desire, you will have to get closer physically. That often means using a blind and/or feeder station setup.

The great bird photographer Arthur Morris suggests choosing long and slow optics versus slower but faster glass when making lens purchases for birding. Few would argue that he'd be a good guy to listen too on these matters.

If you were talking digital, a 200 mm lens makes a better birding choice than with film (at least on bodies having a built in x crop factor). I used a 200/2.8 on a 300d body (having a 1.6 crop factor) with a 1.4 extender to get the bird photo below.

Good luck with your choice and have fun!

Rich<div></div>

Oh, thought I'd post a quick snap (no tripod, ISO 100) I took the day I got the 300d. My pictue taking skills always need help but I don't think this camera does. I used the "cheap" kit lens it came with. I forget -- probably around f/8 here.

Rich<div></div>

Hi,

$400 more for the 10D? That's pretty good. Most places, as someone said above, the difference is more like $600. Is the $ difference of the 10D worth it?

If you do much flash photography it might be, if you shoot lots of action it might be. Those are things only you can decide. The 10D gives you flash exposure control and more of a shot buffer for shooting continuous shot action bursts. The 10d also gives you more autofocus mode options, in varous exposure modes, than does the 300d and a better build quality.

Of course, creative sorts -- like most photographers tend to be -- can often devise nifty ways to work around some of these 300d shortcomings. Then, again, some of the 300d's shortcomings are too short to be worked around! For many, though, the big issue seems to be the seemingly better build quality and "feel"of the 10d.

However, keep in mind, the warranty is the same on both! So, if the 300d should crumble down in the first year it will be Canon-backed just like the 10d. So, really, is build quality an issue? And if it busts 2 years down the road, there is a good chance you will find a similar camera -- or even the 10d -- for about the same money as the current price difference between the 2 cameras. Okay, maybe a little more, but you get the idea. Even today, one can approach buying 2 300d's for the price of one 10d. The price difference of the two image making machines is not insignificant for most.

And here's a question: which will take better pictures, a 10d with no lens or a 300d with -- oh say -- a 70-200 f/4 L? You could get the 300d with one of the best performing zooms ever invented -- the 70-200 f/4 L some users say -- for less than the price of the 10d body alone. Something to ponder. But I'm sure you've already pondered similar possibilities! And don't forget, too, that the overall image quality, and most performence functions, of the 300d on par with those of the 10d. The 300d is no wimpy kids camera -- it is a quite capable machine. The "Rebel" name plastered on the side shoos many would-be customers away. But the 300d is very capable of professional results, believe it or not.

Hey -- for me it was the 300d! I'm taking the rest of my money and putting it in good glass (I got my eye on the 300 f/4 IS) I've always been a decent camera, great glass type of guy. However, this time I may have stepped out of bounds -- because the 300d is more than just "decent"! I just wish Canon would keep the silver and white off of some of their cameras and lenses! Oh well, gotta have something to gripe about!

Hey best of luck choosing.......you won't go wrong with either choice that I can assure you!

Rich

BW,

I sure hope you ducked out of the way of that train!

Hey nice shot!

Rich

Hey,

Thanks to all for the info! Great stuff and lots of help, though I'm still pondering all the possibilities. Lots of great gear choices, lots of great ideas, too little money.

I'm really leaning toward digital right now and, from what I have seen and heard, seems like Canon is sailing the best ship in that regard, at least at the moment. I love my Nikon lenses and hate to give them up and it's going to cost me more to switch systems than it would if I stay with Nikon at least initially. But I'm leaning toward switching to Canon as well.

I just wish Nikon had VR available in more of their big glass right now and also that those VR lenses would maintain full functionality with Nikon converters. I don't doubt that Nikon will have these things in the future but one can only watch the paint dry so long.

Again....thanks for all the insight everyone!

Good Shooting......Rich

Would it be completely crazy to use both systems -- taking advantage

of the best optics/price/performence of each brand?

Currently, I am shooting a Nikion N70 along with Nikkor, 35-70 AF-D

2.8 and 80-200 AF-D 2.8 (push-pull zoom version) glass. I love these

tack-sharp lenses -- camera too believe it or not -- and I hate to

give them up for half of what I bought them for. Bottom line is

though, I need bigger glass and like what I see in the canon line in

terms of price/performence. The 300 mm-plus L glass in the canon

line, are WAY cheaper than similar ED glass in the Nikon line and

most of the eos lenses feature IS at least as an option. Maybe

someday most Nikkors will feature VR? Maybe some day the big Nikon

ED lenses will be price comparable to Canons? Maybe......meanwhile

I'm getting gray.

I've always been a decent camera/great optics type of guy. Following

those lines, I could keep my N70 or possibly "upgrade" it to an N80,

add an eos A2 and perhaps a backup of each some day, then take

advantage of the best optics of each manufacturer. (I've also been

kicking around the idea of going digital, so, in that case, I'd be

adding an eos 10D and perhaps a Nikon D100).

Any second grade math student can see the HUGE savings I'd get on

buying Canon's big glass, i.e., 300 f/2.8, 500 mm, etc., vs. Nikon's

and I'd have IS to boot. Plus, I'd still have my needle sharp small

Nikon zooms when I need those.

It would seem that the prime advantage of using two systems is being

able to pick and choose the best optics for the money from either

line! The disadvantage is having to buy at least one extra camera

body and having to learn both systems.

But even if dollars spent is equal in the end -- I'd have to buy at

least one more camera body using both systems, though I still think

I'd save money on the savings of Canon's big glass -- the

flexibility of picking and choosing top-grade glass at the best

performence and price point may be worth shooting both systems?

I'm scratching my head, thinking, pondering....I dunno? What do you

think?

Is this a crazy hell-bent idea? Or, does it have merit? I'm getting

another cup of coffee (or perhaps I've had too much

caffeine).....Tell me what you think.

Good shooting........Rich

The easiest method is to simply keep driving when you notice a photo

opportunity out the passenger side. Then, when you get out of view of

the animal, turn around and ease back being ready to shoot out the

drivers side. You'll miss some shots but much of the time the animal

will still be around if you don't waste time. Don't let them see you

turn around though, or many animals will flee. Keep your hands low on

the steering wheel and don't make quick movements when you move them

up to the camera. Quick movements scare most wild animals to death.

Also, don't stare directly at the animal, giving them the look of a

predator. Look somewhat off to the side when you're not looking

through your viewfinder.

<p>

I use a Bogen 3221 tripod in my Toyota Corolla. When it's set up, I'm

basically pinned in the driver's seat. But with it, I can shoot rock

solid and can drive along slowly without moving my camera up and down.

As soon as I kill the engine I'm ready to shoot. If you can't get a

tripod to work in your vehicle simply make yourself a beanbag and use

it off the edge of the window. It works but is not as steady as the

tripod.

<p>

Good luck...Rich

If you are in a situation where green vs. black tripod legs influences

the behavior of the subject(s) that you're shooting, then you are in a

very rare situation. 99.9% of wildlife will peg YOU before running

scared from your tripod legs. Of course, you don't want a shiny

tripod that radiates glare from the sun. A black tripod would be (and

is) my choice for wildlife, for what it's worth.

<p>

Keep in mind that most birds have superb vision (much better than that

of humans). Unless you are working with tame animals or birds that

are accustomed to humans, you should wear camoflauge clothing (using a

pattern that best blends into the local terrain) from head to toe,

including a face mask and gloves to elimate glare from your face and

hands. Working from a good blind is an excellent way to get close

shots of reclusive birds with only moderate length lenses.

<p>

It is the human form that most scares wildlife. I've found that it's

actually easier to get close to most species when standing or sitting

behind my camera and tripod, because the equipment helps break up my

outline. I've found that it's critical not to make quick movements

when wildlife is within camera range. Slow deliberate movements are

mandatory and head turns should follow the lead of your peripheral

vision.

<p>

I purchased a big piece of camo netting from a local Walmart. I drap

this around myself and equipment when not using a blind. The clumping

of the materail around me seems to really help break up my outline.

<p>

Good luck shooting!

<p>

Rich

The use of computers in all of photography -- to create an image

out of the dust or to merely clean the dust off an image -- are merely

an extension of our over-technical, lazy, society. We have come to

expect perfection in every photograph, instead of reveling in the

character that often makes less-than-perfect photographs more.

interesting. What "makes" a wildlife or nature image to me is not

just the fact that it was someone's vision but also the fact that that

person has connected with nature in such a way to obtain the admired

photograph. You cannot "connect" with nature in any regard sitting

behind a computer.

<p>

But, our gotta'-have-our-senses-overwhelmed-right-now society, revels

in a sensual stimuli overload that cannot regularly be acheived even

by the most ardent, old-school, nature photographers. Editors look

for images that appeal to modern folk, no matter what nostalgia

surrounds our nature picture taking. Editors want the "perfectly

fake" nature shots that four-eyed computer jockeys can dish out.

Forget the real images.

<p>

I want to be outdoors. I want to do real nature and wildlife

photography. Unfortunately, I can't see a big demand for it in the

future. I won't become a computer jockey wildlife photographer not

only because I hate staring at my stupid computer but also because I

think it is wrong. I think a photograph should stand the way it was

taken. Any manipulation at all -- even touching them up just a bit --

simply opens the door to the long dark hallway we're facing down right

now. And I don't see a light at the end.

<p>

Good Shooting...Rich

Joshua,

<p>

For Pete's sake, Pete's right! (Holly-smoke Batman, grab the fire extinguisher!!!) Yes, Pete is right. Most folks, think a light lens is best for handholding -- sure, if you're taking it for a walk -- but not for photography! A HEAVY lens stabalizes foreign vibrations best (and is much nicer too smooch, too -- Pucker Up!) Ever, get those chromatic abberations on your lips?) -- contrary to popular belief -- a massive lene's stabalizes better than does a lighter lens. Result: a sharper image (no, not the catalog!!)

<p>

Teddy Roosevelt will tell you -- mass minimizes vibration: a 7mm. mag is better than a 270 Win. for long distance varmints, by the way (not that that matters here, however, (of course, it does!). This isn't insignificant, however, the 500 mm f/4 is the life-blood of most wild- life photography shooters -- stick the 1.4X converter on it and don't take it off, Mabel, you won't be sorry!!)

<p>

You won't beat the 500mm -- even with a stick!!!

<p>

Sorry, yes indeedy', of the stupid humor I've displaced here...but, hey, give me a break, it is Labor day!

<p>

Seriously, the 500mm f/4 lens is the numero-uno piece of glass for many, if not most, of the most serious, die-hard cronnies, of wildlife shooting professionals I've ever come to know. No...it won't help you bake pudding-moist cake. But, this most magnificant piece of crinkel-finished, metal-barreled, chromatic abberation corrected, piece of ED glass will help you say ehh....wow....no vignetting, Martha, look what I got for my money. And you'll say ohh...honey, I told you so!

<p>

No Kidding!

<p>

Good Shooting....Rich!

<p>

Seriously, If I had my drothers (along with the money my sister has,) I'd get this lens or, perhaps, the 600 f/4.)

<p>

Just my .03-cents (inflation has set in!)

<p>

Good Shooting...Rich!