Show your Bird Portraits
- Thread starter 1982chris911
- Start date
I'm still living in the past (2017 now) - the best I can do for the moment given how much catch-up work there is for me to do. I think I've posted Woody before but I've managed to squeeze out a bit more IQ.
Jack
Jack
Upvote
0
If they see you eating a steak they will comment withIt looks so delicious!
Jack
!
!
Upvote
0
After the rain yesterday it was kind of feeding frenzy here...
First 3 are Japanese white eye and Common Waxbill feeding on the flowers of Rainbow Eucalyptus (I posted the first photo because... well I just like that eye above the flowers!) After that Red-whiskered Bulbul feeding on the endemic Kokio Hibiscus (or just looking for insects around the flowers) and finally a House Finch decimating a cactus fruit.
First 3 are Japanese white eye and Common Waxbill feeding on the flowers of Rainbow Eucalyptus (I posted the first photo because... well I just like that eye above the flowers
!) After that Red-whiskered Bulbul feeding on the endemic Kokio Hibiscus (or just looking for insects around the flowers) and finally a House Finch decimating a cactus fruit.
Upvote
0
Nice shots!After the rain yesterday it was kind of feeding frenzy here...
First 3 are Japanese white eye and Common Waxbill feeding on the flowers of Rainbow Eucalyptus (I posted the first photo because... well I just like that eye above the flowers
View attachment 191138View attachment 191139View attachment 191143View attachment 191141View attachment 191142
Upvote
0
Great - it has a family! I wonder if you can track it to it's nest: leucism is heritable and I would like to see the color of the offspring. Some, if not all of the chicks could be black if they get a dominant (and not mutated gene) from the other parent...Nice captures indeed!
One from today ...
Upvote
0
I rented the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary this weekend. Started with a walk around the park with the M6II...
Yesterday I put it on the 7DII and took it out on the water. This beauty landed on a low branch and I was able to basically float around the tree for a while looking for her best side.
Yesterday I put it on the 7DII and took it out on the water. This beauty landed on a low branch and I was able to basically float around the tree for a while looking for her best side.
Upvote
0
It’s an underrated lens. It will be interesting to see how it stacks up vs the 100-500mm.
Upvote
0
I hope Canon is not going to make the same not very smart move like Nikon: 200-500 with better AF engine and at least slightly better quality control (I have no idea how much it will increase the price but at least the engine shouldn't be that much expensive. The quality control is expensive!) would be really something. I have good copy (as an IQ) but it's slow!
Did I say SLOW? I understand that such a lens will compete with it's more expensive sisters but there is also another stuff that is going into considerations when one compares them... And when buying them! 200-500 f5.6 is readily available 24/7! The 2.5x more expensive 500 PF is still in back-order - despite at least in the center it's not much better (but even the corners are not that much better and when you are taking photos of wild life the corners not always matter...).
OK - but what about the resolution when you shoot longer distances? What about AF speed and tracking abilities? What about the weight? Off-course the zoom has the advantage to be zoom but I found myself shooting mostly at 500mm... And what about working with converters?
I really hope Canon will make it the right way (and still money effective!) - just look at the 100-400 last generation, they have a tradition there!
Did I say SLOW? I understand that such a lens will compete with it's more expensive sisters but there is also another stuff that is going into considerations when one compares them... And when buying them! 200-500 f5.6 is readily available 24/7! The 2.5x more expensive 500 PF is still in back-order - despite at least in the center it's not much better (but even the corners are not that much better and when you are taking photos of wild life the corners not always matter...).
OK - but what about the resolution when you shoot longer distances? What about AF speed and tracking abilities? What about the weight? Off-course the zoom has the advantage to be zoom but I found myself shooting mostly at 500mm... And what about working with converters?
I really hope Canon will make it the right way (and still money effective!) - just look at the 100-400 last generation, they have a tradition there!
Upvote
0
Noone can complain about the sharpness of your images, your copy of the 200-500mm is really tops! I do quite a lot of BIF and I do need sharpness at the edge of the frame as fast birds are often difficult to keep in the centre of the frame, as well as lightning fast AF. The 100-400mm II does fulfil my needs in. spades. The new f/11 lenses will not be good for BIF as not only are they too long and slow for my liking but they have STM which is slower focussing. I would love Canon to bring out a rival to the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. My copy is as sharp as my former 400mm DO II from centre to edge, just as fast AF and weighs only 200g more than the new 800mm f/11, and 800g in practice less than the DO II. I have full confidence (= desperately hope) that Canon's 100-500mm RF will be as good. If it is and the R5 is able to cope with birds, I'll probably sell off my Canon DSLRs, reluctantly, and get the pair. At the moment, the 5DSR/100-400mm II and the Nikon 500PF keep me very happy. It's still difficult for a mirrorless to beat a DSLR for birds - not even the Sony A7IV does and the A9 has too low resolution for my purposes.
Upvote
0
Another through my crappy double glazing. I was in a zoom meeting and had to grab my camera, which was set up incorrectly for 1/4000s and iso 640 for BIF, and I fired off a shot that required 4 stops pushing in post. For those who say you should never need to push through 4 stops, well I got my best shot of a Sparrowhawk. Too much speculation on R5 and not enough images being posted.
Upvote
0