Osprey show

rutt · July 10, 2004

It's wouldn't be exactly true to say that there are nothing buy Ospreys on Nantucket. But in comparison to most other places, I suppose it is.

There are a number of inhabitated nests on island. One is very close to a hiking trail, so I walked over there with Vickie, my dog. Mama (I assume it was mama) osprey didn't like that and put on quite a show as long as we were near that nest.

I suppose I should have been more afraid.

pathfinder · July 10, 2004

rutt wrote:

It's wouldn't be exactly true to say that there are nothing buy Ospreys on Nantucket. But in comparison to most other places, I suppose it is.

There are a number of inhabitated nests on island. One is very close to a hiking trail, so I walked over there with Vickie, my dog. Mama (I assume it was mama) osprey didn't like that and put on quite a show as long as we were near that nest.

I suppose I should have been more afraid.

I suspect this was shot with your 100-400 L? Superb captures - I love good sharp bird work, and these are first rate. Makes you wonder about the whiners who complain that the 100-400 is not really sharp, doesn't it?

GREAPER · July 10, 2004

Fantastic shots.

Green with envy.

Shakey · July 10, 2004

impressive

I liked seeing these shots, ospreys rock!

Tim

lynnma · July 10, 2004

I got one!!! can I play???

rutt · July 10, 2004

lynnma wrote:

I got one!!! can I play???

Anytime. Wow! How did you get so close? My ospreys nest up on these very high poles. As soon as I get near, they are in the air, protecting themselves against me (and Vickie, probably more to the point.)

What time of day did you shoot, Lynn? Was it overcast?

This is really my first successful bird shooting.

damonff · July 10, 2004

Beautiful birds...great, clear photos.

lynnma · July 12, 2004

this was the same day.. there is one up every pole in down in the everglades.. they just ignore you..

DoctorIt · July 12, 2004

Great sharp captures!! I want whatever lens you're using!

rutt · July 12, 2004

DoctorIt wrote:

Great sharp captures!! I want whatever lens you're using!

I was using 100-400mm Canon L. It has sort of a bad rep, but I don't understand why. It helps to be good with USM.

lynnma · July 12, 2004

rutt wrote:

I was using 100-400mm Canon L. It has sort of a bad rep, but I don't understand why. It helps to be good with USM.

And I was using a 75-300mm canon that I paid $170 for on ebay brand new.
Wish I'd gone for the IS now but that was much more and what did I know...nuttin.
Of course maybe the IS is'nt that wonderful after all - who knows.
Lynn

mercphoto · July 13, 2004

Is

lynnma wrote:

And I was using a 75-300mm canon that I paid $170 for on ebay brand new.
Wish I'd gone for the IS now but that was much more and what did I know...nuttin.
Of course maybe the IS is'nt that wonderful after all - who knows.
Lynn

I have the 75-300 IS/USM lens. I have mixed feelings about IS. It is not useful for sports photography, or anytime the camera is moving (such as panning with a moving subject). You could not follow the bird in flight, for example, with IS on and get decent results. The 2nd-gen IS on the 100-400 has a panning mode, however, which is supposed to be decent. Even then, you can only pan horizontal, or vertical, but any slanted panning I've heard of mixed results.

It seems the IS can be good in low light where you are forced into slower shutter speeds. I have hand-held my lens, at 300mm, for 1/30 a second, and got good results. But that is about as slow as it gets, any slower you need a tri-pod.

So IS can be good for low-light and is cheaper than a fast lens. It also lets you have a smaller aperture for improved depth of field. But if you are shooting 1/30 shutter, and your subject moves (such as your bird moves its head), then your subject is blurred as a result. I want to try my 28-135 IS in some cave photography, where I think it might work well.

Remember, IS keeps the lens steady, but it does not keep your subject matter steady.

rutt · July 13, 2004

I shot with IS on, which was probably a mistake given your comments. I'll try turning it off next time. I usually shoot sports at the highest shutter speed I can manage. So perhaps it doesn't matter as much as it might otherwise.

I have just LOVED the 100-400 L IS. I used it for all the LL shots, including the candids for the fans and for these Osprey shots and for many of the street scenes in Nantucket. Up close it has great bokah, the zoom range covers an amazing number of situations and it's plenty sharp.

mercphoto · July 13, 2004

Is

rutt wrote:

I shot with IS on, which was probably a mistake given your comments. I'll try turning it off next time. I usually shoot sports at the highest shutter speed I can manage. So perhaps it doesn't matter as much as it might otherwise.

At high shutter speeds IS isn't necessary. You shouldn't notice any difference with it on or off. I'd give it a try. I would think if you were above 1/500th a second you won't notice, even at full zoom.

rutt wrote:

I have just LOVED the 100-400 L IS.

I am so jealous.

A Shifter Kart Illustrated photographer I met uses and loves that lens too. I often wish I had got the 70-200 L instead of the 75-300.

ginger_55 · July 13, 2004

a Budgeted bird
I had a very strict budget, it was a one time thing, and the 70-300 IS was about the only thing I bought that was being trashed a bit on dPreview. I caught an Osprey soon after buying it, probably the first time I used that lens. As some of the people said on dPreview, if you can't afford glass, you can't afford it. And I have been very happy with it. It was a major pain, but I went and found these pictures. I am aware that if the picture is blown way up to the eye, it is not as sharp as Rutt's, but then again, I don't know the circumstances that he was working under. I know it was about 1:00 PM, I stood and watched the D bird until I don't know who was more stressed, of the two of us. I turned to leave, the D bird took off and I got this one shot. I can't go get me a bunch of Ospreys, so I was quite excited. I haven't seen the bird since. g

Above is where the bird started out, this was 10 to 15 minutes into the thing. I wish I had backed up to show you how far up he was.
Below is the original shot from which the big photo was made, just now, rapidly.

That is my 75-300 IS first time out, only Osprey I have seen this year. At about noon, a grap shot, one frame.

ginger

I don't make trouble, trouble makes me.

mercphoto · July 13, 2004

L-glass

ginger_55 wrote:

I had a very strict budget, it was a one time thing, and the 70-300 IS was about the only thing I bought that was being trashed a bit on dPreview.

I have to admit that I am quite pleased with the picture quality of my 75-300 IS. It does surprise me. Maybe I just have L-glass envy.

Or a grass is greener syndrome. I don't know why dPreview trashes it. I certainly don't trash it, though I have tried L-glass and found it to be a touch better. Worth the extra money? I'm not positive, actually, though I often tell myself it is.

I'm finding I need to approach photography the same way I approach my stereo, which is rather high-end and expensive. I won't listen to a CD player or amplifier that I can't afford to buy, for example. So maybe I need to stop trying lenses and stuff that I can't afford or won't shell the bucks for.

rutt · July 13, 2004

mercphoto wrote:

I have to admit that I am quite pleased with the picture quality of my 75-300 IS. It does surprise me. Maybe I just have L-glass envy. Or a grass is greener syndrome. I don't know why dPreview trashes it. I certainly don't trash it, though I have tried L-glass and found it to be a touch better. Worth the extra money? I'm not positive, actually, though I often tell myself it is.

The 100-400 gets trashed as well. I wanted it because it's really the only feasible 400 to handhold. Now I love it, even at 100mm.

The best bargins out there are the primes, especially the two 50mm ones. The Compact Macro is f2.5 and very sharp and the f1.4 is an amazing lens once you get the hang of it. Neither one will break the bank.

ginger_55 · July 13, 2004

Lenses, and how I finally found a use for the 50 mm
I know what they were saying about the 75-300, they were saying that it is soft on the 300 end. Which is the end the lens would be bought for in my case, I would imagine for most people.

I also watched dismayed people ask why the camera/lens was not working for them. IMO, they weren't focusing with much sense. There would be a small bird, or something, among a lot of other stuff, and they, whoever, would be upset that the bird was out of focus. I kept trying to point out that the camera did not know they wanted to focus on the bird.

I would, with my bird, focus on something like the top of the stand, then maybe add a bit................. and obviously I was still focused pretty well when the bird and I decided, in tandem, to leave, so I set up my chance.

Professionals also trashed the lens, but they all had glass, and they didn't have glass envy, they had glass superiority.

Yes, those 50 mm lenses are a very good deal, when I decided to spring for the 75-300, that put my budget on the cheaper 50 mm. Everyone said to get that 50, it was hard to find, so I have it. I could count on one hand the number of times I have used it. The 75-300 gets a lot of use.

And I never thought about the panning aspect, that would be true. My 28-135 is also IS, guess if I want to pan I can get out that 50 mm.

It is hazy here right now, sun sets at 8:30, and high tide is in a minute or so.
I am getting antsy.

g

I don't make trouble, trouble makes me.

Osprey show

Comments