[PeteG]

Taken yesterday.
 
Canon 100-400mm

[jqp]

That is a great shot - what kind is it? We have lots of Owls in my area and they usually start making a racket around dusk.

[PeteG]

Baby great horned owl, I seen one of the adults later in the day.

[nathanm]

I like the owl shot, Pete.  Wow, that camouflage is impressive!

I may have posted this before, but I still like it.  Wiley, my parents' ex-budgie.  Sadly, he had to be put down after savaging the mailman.

[PeteG]

A lot of rain lately.

[Devil Doc]

Very nice. I been an avid birdwatcher for a lot of  years and I've heard many more owls than I've seen.

Doc.

[jvc]

A recent visitor. Hope to see more.............

[Devil Doc]

If you want to impress your friends and live East of the Mississippi and run across a hummingbird, like the one pictured above. Quickly say, "There's a Ruby Throated Humming Bird." You'll never be wrong. It's the only one that lives East of that great river.

Doc.

[jqp]

A recent visitor. Hope to see more.............

Hummingbird

Thats a nice shot - how close were you?

[jvc]

Hummingbird

Thats a nice shot - how close were you?

Thanks.
About 5-6 feet away, and using my 70-300mm.

I wasn't real happy with it. His head and throat are in fair focus, but the body isn't. I'll try to get better shots tomorrow. I'm afraid I'm having problems with the camera's AF. I'll have to see.......... If he was in sharp focus, except for the wings, it would be a pretty decent shot.

[tanchiro58]

Jvc,

You need a faster body with faster lens to catch the flying hummingbird. If you use Canon 7d and prime lens like Canon 300 f4 or 400 f5.6 you might get a good result you have expected.

[thunderbrick]

I would argue that the wings are in sharp focus (look at the 'leading edges' of the wing as the little bugger flaps like crazy) but that the motion of the wings make them look soft.  That seems contradictory but I think your focus is where it should have been.  If you did have a faster lens and used it at the wider aperture, your area of focus (depth of field) would have been smaller, and something would likely have been out of focus.  That's the nature of shooting small objects very close to the camera.

I thinks the shot is very effective as is.  The movement of the wings gives the viewer the feeling of tremendous speed, and the contrast between the diffused wings and the sharp body is what makes it a great shot.

YMMV, of course.   

[jvc]

Jvc,

You need a faster body with faster lens to catch the flying hummingbird. If you use Canon 7d and prime lens like Canon 300 f4 or 400 f5.6 you might get a good result you have expected.

Thanks for the suggestion, I don't mean to step on any toes, but I'm just not a Canon person. My wife brought home the Canon from her job once. I played with it some, and took some pics with it, but it just wasn't for me. I like my Nikon D7000. If I upgrade from this, it will be to a D700 (only an upgrade in the respect that it's a full frame camera), or a D3s, which I don't have $8000 to spend on a camera right now.  Most people that buy the D7000 is upgrading from something else. So, it is an upgrade. I'll get the results I'm expecting, with what I have, with a little more practice. The gear is very capable.

The instructor for the digital photography class I took at the college, uses a 7D Canon. He wants the 5D Mark III to hurry and come out, so he can upgrade. The big thing now is full frame cameras. They aren't cheap though.

Thanks for the kind words on the hummingbird everyone. They are such nice birds to watch. It's amazing to watch them hover and fly backwards. This is why we hung a feeder up this year. The entertainment value is certainly there.

Thunderbrick......... I found out you're a friend of an internet buddy of mine (Bob in St. Louis). I know him from a couple of home theater forums, but recently found out he's using a camera he bought from you. Glad he's into photography too. He joined a photography forum I'm a member of too. It's a small world to bump into friends all over the place like that. 

[rajacat]

Kingfisher heading out to catch some fish. Panasonic FX20

[thunderbrick]

Thunderbrick......... I found out you're a friend of an internet buddy of mine (Bob in St. Louis). I know him from a couple of home theater forums, but recently found out he's using a camera he bought from you. Glad he's into photography too. He joined a photography forum I'm a member of too. It's a small world to bump into friends all over the place like that. 

You're a friend of Bob in St Louis?  Then I want nothing to do with you!!!!!!   

Seriously, I'be been teaching community education photography (not just digital photography courses!) for nearly 20 years, and we concentrate on the fundamentals, not just throwing money at newer and more expensive toys. It is NOT the equipment!  For that matter, if a truck hadn't driven over my camera bag three years ago (really!) I'd still be quite happy with my D200s.

I moved to Nikon in 1972 after years of using Exacta cameras, so I can use virtually any of my lenses on my digital gear.  At the time I worked in a camera store and our guidance was this:  get three or four cameras of similar price and features, and begin to pick them up and play with them.  The one that feels most comfortable is the one you should buy because it will feel naturally more intuitive and you'll be more successful with it in the long term.   Unless of course, it was  Miranda, Chinon, Vivitar or Practika piece of crap, in which case, use it as a doorstop.   

Nikon OWNED the market until about the time Canon introduced the AE-1, and I have to hand it to them, they came on like gangbusters.

I own some pretty big glass, 300 2.8, 800 5.6, and they all have their applications, but the main thing is, if you have an 80-200 or 70-300, don't overreach.  Stay within the range of what the lens does well.  Don't get "buck fever" with your 300mm and try to shoot a bird 1/4 mile away.  It's all too easy to look through the camera, only see the bird in your brain in the viewfinder, and not pay attention to all the other stuff that clutters up the image.  Then you look at the screen and see the bird looks like a speck of dust while the distracting elements dominate the photo.

I refer to it as the "dumpster syndrome", where you are shooting an outdoor portrait of a bride (or a tonearm, for that matter), and all you see is the amazing curvature.  You ignore the other stuff (dumpster) in the background at your peril.

In the hummingbird photo I love the deep dark background which highlights the bird, and the reflections from the feeder that fill in the shadows on the bird.

Lastly, lighten up!  Most of us worry about the tiny things we do "wrong" and ignore the overall beauty of what we do.  And if that ain't the definition of an audiophile, I don't know what is!   

[jvc]

Here's one from today. Still not quite what I want, but working on it.



In the early 70s, I was going to school and taking all art and photography classes. Spent a lot of time in the darkroom. I kinda miss that. At the time I had a very nice setup. I had a Nikon F2 w/metering system, 35mm Nikkor lens, a 50mm Nikkor lens, and a 43-86mm Nikkor zoom lens. Needless to say, the 43-86mm stayed on the camera. I also had a Honeywell strobe unit, with battery, and sync cords, etc. After school, I got in a tight for money and sold it all. Wish I still had it. That was early 70s, and with no more decent camera, I didn't keep up with everything. I've forgotten most of what I knew. But digital is so different anyway. Sure, the fundamentals of photography remains the same, but still, digital is a whole nuther world.

I have been delivering phone books twice a year. Here in my county in the fall, and a neighboring county in the spring. It pays pretty good, and lasts about 3 1/2 weeks each time. That's how I've paid for most of my HT stuff. This past fall, I told my wife I was going to get another good camera, and started researching. The D7000 was to come out in October, and was said to be one of the best cameras at high ISO settings, in low light. And along with the other features it has, I decided it was the one I wanted. Once I put one in my hands, I knew it was the right one. As you said, it just felt right. The guy at the camera store put a grip on it, so I could see how it felt. Oh man! It feels even better. Now I want one of those.

If I can come up with enough money this fall (not sure if I'll be delivering this time. Health isn't that great), I'm going to get the grip and a macro lens. At some point, if I live long enough, I'd like to get an 8mm or 10mm Fisheye lens to play with. I finished the night class Monday before last. I'm taking the KelbyTraining online, for several different things, and am enjoying myself with my new camera.

[thunderbrick]

I have a 12-24 WA zoom that is great for in-tight photos of people working together, or close-in scenery, but I rarely use it. Unless you have something specific in mind I'd skip the 8 or 10mm.  Maybe borrow the 12-24 for day or so.

If you PM me with your email address I'll send you a few shots with the 12-24.  I can't imagine using anything wider.

[jvc]

I have a 12-24 WA zoom that is great for in-tight photos of people working together, or close-in scenery, but I rarely use it. Unless you have something specific in mind I'd skip the 8 or 10mm.  Maybe borrow the 12-24 for day or so.

If you PM me with your email address I'll send you a few shots with the 12-24.  I can't imagine using anything wider.

Did you get the PM?

[thunderbrick]

Yep.  Just swamped.  I'll get back to you.

Bob

[PeteG]