Blonde's guide to bird photography

donlavange wrote in post #4541806
I have an order in for both items with Naturescape and the Airport Security bag is on back order. I think they charge your CC right away though (like B&H).

Boy these things are HOT. This bag has been back ordered since Dec, 2007 and I just got it 4-5 days ago!!

Thanks a lot.That was very helpful and the cooments were great. Hope to read more of your articles soon.

Blonde, that was a great post. Thanks a million.

A very good article, sharing a lot of helpful information.
One question-mark though.
I live in a part of this world that is white 8 months out of a year and wonder if the white clothes rule applys to me, photographing a early osprey that has arrived to it's usual tree.

good information, just how do i add the picture to the post and what to do to upgrade profile. popasmoke

One of the best posts I have read in any forum for quite a while. Thanks. I live in South Africa and have always loved bird photography and joined a local online forum called Outdoor Photography a while ago and posted a few, of what I thought to be, stunning shots, which were promptly ripped to shreds by forum members. Learned a lot from them. I wish more people would be honest about what they say as you can only learn from your mistakes.

canonloader wrote in post #4004218
Dave, I have the older non-IS unit now and have had the 400L Prime. Don't regret not getting the 400 too much. IMO, the 300 is a better lens, seems to be sharper, is smaller and in the non-IS unit, lighter than the 400, yet it uses the same 77mm objective glass as the 400, giving it the f/4 aperture, which is well worth the trade off. And my Sigma 1.4x gives the 300 another 120mm and I don't see any drop off in IQ that can't be fixed with just minor PP.

Sorry Mitch, I missed this reply:o:o From everything I've seen, the 300mm f4 IS is optically inferior to the older non IS version. And a TC just adds more glass (and IQ degradation imho). Better to have a longer lens to start with. I'd be only losing out 20mm in focal length, and nothing in aperture by using the 400mm f5.6 vs the 300mm f4 IS + 1.4x TC. Plus, with the 400mm prime, I'd end up with probably close to 60% increase in target size in the viewfinder, at least if I understand Artie Morris' Birds as art book (original version) correctly.

I was curious to see that anything from a quarter of the frame and up is OK for BIF. I found it much harder to keep focus on a flying bird at full frame, than trying to get a BIF shot with a 1/4 of the viewfinder filled. I think my problem is that only using the 300mm f4 means less magnification, and that means I have to wait for the bird to be physically closer to me, which means faster movement, and harder work for both me, and the AF system. Plus I think my 300mm f4 IS is dodgy

Won't be able to get out this weekend to the local bird area to practice BIF, and sadly haven't been able to do so in the past 2 weekends either (busy one weekend, hospital preparation [fasting] the other weekend). This weekend is out due to the Brissie camera show. Not having a car, and generally being busy doing shopping on Saturdays kills me (no public transport on Sundays where I live either). Pity, cos I really want to get more practice at BIF shots and birding in general.

Dave

This seems to be true. I hate to say it, and won't say I told you so, but several people have bought that 300/4 IS recently, and either said they weren't happy with it, or I can see it in the images they post from it. It's really pathetic of Canon to sell this kind of equipment as top of the line gear, and you well know my views on the 100-400/5.6 IS. Yes, there are always going to be a few good copies of any lens, but that does not condone putting the bad copies out on the shelf with the few good ones either. I have been there, done that, and it's a terrible feeling to know you just got fleeced.

And now, down the line some more since I wrote the above quote, I do find IQ degradation when using the 1.4x TC. It's not terrible, but for one who uses it both ways, it is noticable. I have taken to using the 300/4 naked now when in my yard and the birds are close and am shopping around for a new 400/5.6. I wish I had never sold my old one.

AlexinS.A. wrote in post #5616817
One of the best posts I have read in any forum for quite a while. Thanks. I live in South Africa and have always loved bird photography and joined a local online forum called Outdoor Photography a while ago and posted a few, of what I thought to be, stunning shots, which were promptly ripped to shreds by forum members. Learned a lot from them. I wish more people would be honest about what they say as you can only learn from your mistakes.

We have a group of POTN shooters heading your way end August. I'm sure folks would be happy to have you tag along on a local trip or two and we can benefit from some local knowledge. I lived in Noordhoek and Kennilworth when I was there for 18 months but was quite a while back now and no doubt much changed this last 6 years or so.

We have a group of POTN shooters heading your way end August. I'm sure folks would be happy to have you tag along on a local trip or two and we can benefit from some local knowledge. I lived in Noordhoek and Kennilworth when I was there for 18 months but was quite a while back now and no doubt much changed this last 6 years or so.

Sorry, pressed wrong button. Would love to tag along anf I am a local registered Tour Guide, so may be able to contribute a bit as to local knowledge. Email me on bondsmith.alex@gmail.c​om nearer the time. Thanks

AlexinS.A. wrote in post #5625340
Sorry, pressed wrong button. Would love to tag along anf I am a local registered Tour Guide, so may be able to contribute a bit as to local knowledge. Email me on bondsmith.alex@gmail.c​om nearer the time. Thanks

Awesome Alex ...I see a nice free lunch on us in your future Will definately email you. Meanwhile if you click the Africa link in my Sig you can see our dates and where we're heading.

Thanks Mitch, that pretty much confirms my feelings. I have more to say, but it's better in a PM.

Cheers,

Dave

canonloader wrote in post #5624140
This seems to be true. I hate to say it, and won't say I told you so, but several people have bought that 300/4 IS recently, and either said they weren't happy with it, or I can see it in the images they post from it. It's really pathetic of Canon to sell this kind of equipment as top of the line gear, and you well know my views on the 100-400/5.6 IS. Yes, there are always going to be a few good copies of any lens, but that does not condone putting the bad copies out on the shelf with the few good ones either. I have been there, done that, and it's a terrible feeling to know you just got fleeced.

And now, down the line some more since I wrote the above quote, I do find IQ degradation when using the 1.4x TC. It's not terrible, but for one who uses it both ways, it is noticeable. I have taken to using the 300/4 naked now when in my yard and the birds are close and am shopping around for a new 400/5.6. I wish I had never sold my old one.