Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Wildlife Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 18, 2007, 12:03 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

Nice to have Nuthatches in your backyard - what is in the feeders? Peanuts?

Also nice to see the Redpoll - we don't get them this far south.

Excellent images.
penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2007, 12:58 PM   #12
KEM
Senior Member
 
KEM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,458
Default

Great shots Jim!I really like the Red Poll (thanks Penolta) such a beautiful Image.


FYI.... most all the lenses out therewill besharper a stop or two down from wide open. Jim's subjects are very close and will suffer from using a wide open aperture on that long telephotobutnot much of an issuewith subjects at longer distances. By decreasingthe aperture a few stops will increase DOF across the subject thus increasing overall sharpnessand to some degree emphasizes the sweeterarea in the center of the glass.


.... did you turn off the IS when using the tripod?

-Kent

KEM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2007, 2:27 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
killdeer0007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,328
Default

penolta wrote:
Quote:
Nice to have Nuthatches in your backyard - what is in the feeders? Peanuts?

Also nice to see the Redpoll - we don't get them this far south.

Excellent images.
Thanks! The feeder is stuffed with peanuts. It is an excellent feeder for woodpeckers, nuthatches and chickadees.

//jim
killdeer0007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2007, 2:29 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
killdeer0007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,328
Default

Hi Kent

I left the IS on. Yesterday was only the third time I used the lens. Thanks for helping me with the aperture.

//jim
killdeer0007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2007, 3:27 PM   #15
KEM
Senior Member
 
KEM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,458
Default

Jim, You should try the lens with IS off when mounted on a tripod. I've heard that it can contribute to poor image quality when there's nothing to stabilize... I've also heard it doesn't matter. :?

Sorry if you already know the information I'm providing but thought I'd add it for those that are newto the Forum and photography in general. I'm also living vicariously through youon thepurchase of that dream lens you lucky dog :G

Not sure if you already performed the DOF calculations...

The DOF of your 600mm for the two apertures (assumingCanon equipment)....

25' @ F4 the DOF is only .48 of an inch

25' @ F7.1 the DOF is .84 of an inch

So atF7.1if you focused on the upperbreast of the Redpollinframe 3 (which it looks like you did)you'd get a sharp image .84" in front of thebreast to .84" behind the breast of the Redpoll.

-Kent




KEM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2007, 3:57 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
killdeer0007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,328
Default

Thanks again Kent - this is very useful information. I've been practicing in the backyard to get a handle on the lens and figure out the apertures and distance before I head to the mountains.

Cheers

Jim
killdeer0007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2007, 4:17 PM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 47
Default

Hello Jim,

When I had such backjard I knew what I am going to do :lol:.

Birds at a feeder are in the first place nice but swhen shot in their natural habitat make the photo's much better.

This can easy be done with placing some nice parts from tree's in your backyard and put some feeders on them. When you want to go to shoot some remove all feeders exept from the tree you want to make some shots. Also knw that their is a picking order. Make a feeder place with some twigs beside it so birds can wait, and you shoot them there instead from the feeder :-).

I know the birds you shot but never shoot them myself. I think they are great but could be better looking whitout a feeder.

regards Walter
ToXiQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2007, 6:06 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Sabine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 701
Default

Kent....there is no arguement from me that,at least, a lot of lenses are probably sharper stopped down from wide open, giving more depth of field and incases of close in shots, more sharpness to a larger area.

Should that absolutelyapply to a dream lens that would costyou or Iin excess of $5K???

I didn't compare Jim'sprevious shots to these, so my comment was based on his commentabout the sharpness, or lack of. I have to assume your comments weredirected at my comment.

Having been around this forum for going on 3 years, I know you are pretty knowledgeable about photography. Due tothat, I will post some links to a couple of mine andask you to comment about the sharpness of a wide open aperature of a lens that costs a little over$1K vs. a lens that costs a little over $5K. Correct me if I am wrong, but should Jim's new ($5K +)lens have to be stopped down to be sharp, or maybe it needs to be calibrated? Maybe I need a new lens? :-)

Thanks!

The Jay and the Hummingbirds with the Canon 400L 5.6---all at F5.6 from ISO 400 to ISO 800 All 3 from just barely outside minimum focusing distance. 11-12ft.

VP

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=580577&forum_id=11&highl ight=Sabine



http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=577830&forum_id=11&highl ight=Sabine








Sabine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2007, 12:45 AM   #19
KEM
Senior Member
 
KEM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,458
Default

Sabine wrote:
Quote:
Kent....there is no arguement from me that,at least, a lot of lenses are probably sharper stopped down from wide open, giving more depth of field and incases of close in shots, more sharpness to a larger area.

Should that absolutelyapply to a dream lens that would costyou or Iin excess of $5K???

I didn't compare Jim'sprevious shots to these, so my comment was based on his commentabout the sharpness, or lack of. I have to assume your comments weredirected at my comment.

Having been around this forum for going on 3 years, I know you are pretty knowledgeable about photography. Due tothat, I will post some links to a couple of mine andask you to comment about the sharpness of a wide open aperature of a lens that costs a little over$1K vs. a lens that costs a little over $5K. Correct me if I am wrong, but should Jim's new ($5K +)lens have to be stopped down to be sharp, or maybe it needs to be calibrated? Maybe I need a new lens? :-)

Thanks!

The Jay and the Hummingbirds with the Canon 400L 5.6---all at F5.6 from ISO 400 to ISO 800 All 3 from just barely outside minimum focusing distance. 11-12ft.

VP

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=580577&forum_id=11&highl ight=Sabine



http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=577830&forum_id=11&highl ight=Sabine








Sabine, Hopefully I didn't offend you in any way my friend as that was in no way my intent on any of my comments. I've followed your excellent work as VP on this forum for years and know you know your way around the camera. I should have been more clear on my comment of new users to the Forum or photography, it was not directed at you but more as an FYI for the new users visiting the forum. When I first started in this forum I wished people would spend a little more time explaining the technical details of their comments and that really was my intent.

Now for the $1k lens vrs the $5k lens comparison, I'm probably more like you in that regard. I shoot with a $1000 300mm F4 coupled with a 1.4xtc (420mm F5.6). I stay with this combination mostly for the fact as a hobbyist I haven't seen the need for the higher end glass that could really justify the cost especially with Nikon glass. Posts from Buzzsaw with that 300mm 2.8and Rondv with his 200-400 F4 howitzer are eroding that justification notion of mine very quickly. :-) I know its more about ones ability and technique than the equipment and I think that's really the case with these guys and many others on this forum. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the advantage of a 500mm reach with F4 without losing 1.5 stops the 1.4xtc nulls but until I win the lottery or someone gives me the glass I'm OK with the 420mm at F5.6 ...and a little help from fill flash.

I looked at your post you referenced and yes they are tack sharp and can be compared favorably to the shots Jim posted ...but it looks like you had the advantage ofgood available light here. You nor Jim stated shutter speeds and I bet that's where your 400mm f5.6 had the advantage in this comparison (Stop action verses DOF). Your hummingbird shots are excellent by the way. You definitely benefited from a subject that was parallel to the surface of the lens here as the calculated DOF for your 400mm F5.6 at 12' is a mere .36". The eye area in both Hummer shots is very sharp and I suspect that was your target for focus. So .36" out and .36" in from the eye looks very sharp. The wings on the dynamic hummer were in and you had good light for a fast shutter speed which froze the wing. The F5.6 also gave you a cool Bokeh to boot. The bill on the static hummer looks to be slightly out of the DOF area but since the birds eye and body are mostly in focus its not very noticeable.


A long high end lens takes time to master and become familiar with it and develop the techniques needed to bring forth the clarity it was designed to capture.

-Kent

KEM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2007, 7:47 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Sabine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 701
Default

Kent, thank you for the detailed C&C and other information offered in this thread. No offense taken or intended. My concern was that after spending the cash for that lens, Jim may have received a weak copy.

However, last I looked, things seemed to be going ok and sounds like youhad consulted with him on settings, etc;

All the more reason for me to be quiet and listen more,when it comes to technical matters. :? Thanks again.......and Jim, I will be looking forward to what you turn out with your new setup.
Sabine is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:51 PM.