Upvote
0
Fantastic shot. I agree the motion blur makes the image, especially since the heads and necks are still sharp. I love it.Pheasant fight
I was out and about last week - North East England (Weardale, mainly) - and happened to mention to my mate that one image I've never really been able to manage is a good one of Pheasants scrapping.
Not ten minutes later - this happened:
A bit of a bugger that I lost a wing-tip - these lads were pretty close - but I'm very happy with how this worked up. The slow (1/320) speed makes for plenty of movement blur, which adds to the sense of action.
Canon 1D X, 500mm f/4 Mk II + Mk II 1.4x TC, handheld. Full Exif in the image.
The 200-500 is one of the lenses I wish Canon made. I have several friends who shoot with that lens. If you like birds and don't have $10,000.00 to spend on a lens, that's the best one to go with.Alan it's third time you are asking about my equipment and in generally I was avoiding direct answer. OK, here it is:
All photos posted on this forum from me (from close ups of plants, insects e.t.c. to BIF) are taken with D7200 + 200-500 VR. Now you for sure understand why I hesitate to answer your questions .
And yeah, it's nice to live in Hawaii but I'm planing vacation in Europe for this summer - much more birds and wildlife . And I'm kind of nostalgic for the European nature - have not been there for the last ~17 years.
It really did stab that fish, literally! Nice catch, nice GIF.Just checking back on some of my Everglades shots earlier this year (5DSR +100-400mm II). I saw an anhinga stab a warmouth. Quite a mouthful, but he coped.
View attachment 183785View attachment 183786
Maybe your Tamron 150-600mm is just as good, if not better. I have read many reviews of the lens, and the consensus is that it is no better than the Tamron first generation - here is one early review that recommends the Tami over the Nikon https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-cThe 200-500 is one of the lenses I wish Canon made. I have several friends who shoot with that lens. If you like birds and don't have $10,000.00 to spend on a lens, that's the best one to go with.
I'm planing to spend ~3,600 for the the new 500mm PF. First have to rent one and make some side by side comparison... Zoom many times is handy thing to have but I need some better performance above 20m to the object and somewhat better AF speed (oh, and not that heavy!)... The zoom stays anyway!The 200-500 is one of the lenses I wish Canon made. I have several friends who shoot with that lens. If you like birds and don't have $10,000.00 to spend on a lens, that's the best one to go with.
The reviews are consistent with your findings that the Nikon 200-500mm is optimised for closer distances and the Tamron is better for longer distances. I wonder if this was just by chance or was it deliberate because review sites do their Imatests close up?I'm planing to spend ~3,600 for the the new 500mm PF. First have to rent one and make some side by side comparison... Zoom many times is handy thing to have but I need some better performance above 20m to the object and somewhat better AF speed (oh, and not that heavy!)... The zoom stays anyway!
Concerning the Alan's comment: I had hard time choosing the lens. Took the steeper way (because I don't believe everything reviews are saying and the fact that there is a difference from copy to copy for this price tag) - rented two Tamrons and two Nikons . The Nikons were better in AF tracking department and somewhat better in the distances up to ~12 meters (and definitely better for close-ups). Didn't find obvious differences between the copies (on 25" rather good monitor). My fear was that ordering just one copy I may get lemon but fortunately it didn't happen, I didn't see any difference (not scientific test - as with the rented lenses just walked and shoot for few hours, but first thing to check was for decentering and if I need some significant AF tune...). And yes, I think Canon's 100-400 could be better lens (for higher price) but I never had an opportunity to shoot it. And yeah - I have seen many great photos taken with that lens (and this for sure is the best criteria for me)!
Great shots Don! My favorite is the second one! And nice bird that I have never seen in real.Sometimes you get lucky. She was sitting on a fencepost and didn't mind my presence....
View attachment 183808View attachment 183807View attachment 183809View attachment 183806
Freedom singer!!!And some shots from yesterday. The first one is just to give some opportunities for size comparing (I thing the mesh of the net is same as I have seen it in Europe). Not much fun on that place... Next photos are from different place, just common birds but much more fun for me! The first photo of the Night heron is at ISO 400, second at ISO 1600 to gain some speed. WELL, AFTER PUSHING "FULL IMAGE" THE FIRST PHOTO BECOME LAST
View attachment 183796
I love the owl shots! The second one is my favourite. I like that straight on look.Sometimes you get lucky. She was sitting on a fencepost and didn't mind my presence....
View attachment 183808View attachment 183807View attachment 183809View attachment 183806
As Louis Pasteur said, "Luck favours the person with a camera in their hand".Sometimes you get lucky. She was sitting on a fencepost and didn't mind my presence....