Apropos of absolutely nothing...

My wife and I just returned from two days at the Bosque del Apache preserve in central New Mexico. because of varios discussion in these forums, I made a point of noting which cameras and lenses were in use.

There were over 1000 photographers, all shooting birds, some at quite a distance. They tended to gather in groups of various sizes from 6-7 to over 50.

I can honestly say that over 80% were shooting Canons. With only one exception, those with large primes, well over 400 people, were shooting Canons exclusively. Mostly 500s, with lots of 600s and a few 400s. I estimate there was well over $1,000,000 in 500 and 600mm glass out there.

Several of the 500mm and 600mm shooters were using 2.0X teleconverters, all Canon. One said she wouldn't use anything but Canon for a 2.0X TC, but Kenko's Pro 300 DG was okay for a 1.4X (which we had).

The one non-Canon big prime exception was a shooting a Nikon D200 with a Nikkor 600mm f/4 lens and a 1.4X Nikon TC. Very nice set up.

The zoom shooters were almoste evenly divided between Canon and Nikon, with a couple of Pentaxes and one lone Sony. About 3/4 of the Canon zoom shooters had nice black non-L zooms (us included). Of the L zoomers, almost all were 100-400mm, as one would expect. There were a few 100-300mm Ls as well.

There wasn't as much Sigma or Tamron glass as I would have expected. I estimate that not more than 20% of the non-L Canon zoomers were using non-Canon glass.

For cameras, lots and lots of XXD bodies, some 1D mk II N and a few mk III bodies, and a generous spattering of Rebels of various flavors. The majority were definitely XXD bodies, mostly 30Ds with some 40Ds and a few 20Ds (like ours).

With the big glass, almost everybody was using a Gitzo triopd with a Wimberly head. Some of the zoomer were using sidekicks, but none of the big primers were.

Most zoomers, us included, were using ball heads. Manfrottos tripods were popular with us ball-head types.

Both dusk and dawn brought our lots of 580EXs with Better Beamers attached. These seem to be very popular. And they work quite well. We had no trouble picking out birds at 100-150 feet. Focusing in dim light, however, is definitely an art.

As I said, this treat is apropos of absolutely nothing. I just though some of you might find my observations interesting.

Oh, yes. Several of the professionals out there (those who make their livings shooting wildlife) referred to themselves as "craneparazzi," paparazzi for sandhill cranes (of which there were thousands).

Our personal best capture was an aplomato falcon, very beautiful and very rare (nearly extinct).

hmm. Very interesting. Thanks.

Thanks for that Roger. Did you meet Andy Rouse on your travels, he was there too.

http://www.andyrouse.c​o.uk/blog.asp

Very possibly. There were lots of well-equipped pro types, and I spoke to many of them. Mostly, we talked about gear and such while they were packing, unpacking, or standing around. I don't like to bother people while they are actually shooting.

The vast majority of people were very friendly, which is typical of birders and wildlife photographers in general. Only a couple out of the hundreds I talked with were the leave-me-alone types. I left them alone.

Most of my conversations began with, "May I ask you a question?" or "How many dollars of L primes do you think are out here today?" The latter when were were surrounded by 500mm and 600mm Ls.

In only a few cases did we exchange names, and only when they initiated the name exchange. I don't like to be pushy with working people. Which is why I never approach them while they are actually shooting.

You have to remember that my wife is the photographer, I am the chauffeur-cum-sherpa. While she's shooting, I have plenty of time to lurk in the background and eyeball equipment and techniques. I have found that offereing to help people set up or breakdown their gear is also a good way to meet and make new friends. Sometimes its a couple hundred feet from the photo site to the car, and carying someone's tripod while they carry their 600mm and 1D mk II N body is an excellent q&a opportunity.

20droger wrote in post #4381520
Sometimes its a couple hundred feet from the photo site to the car, and carying someone's tripod while they carry their 600mm and 1D mk II N body is an excellent q&a opportunity.

And you didn't accidentally load a 600mm into the wrong car or anything? "Wait no, I thought you were carrying it, you must have left it back over there". (Squeal or tires.....)

Actually Roger this was very interesting, and for me very timely and useful; I'm looking around for a long lens for wildlife, and the consensus of those I've talked to is a minimum of 400 mm is required. Your observations confirm this.

Thanks for the interesting and useful post.

Glenn

A couple of the 500mm shooters I talked with use a "naked" 500mm for normal bird shots, but have a 1.4x TC in one pocket and a 2.0x TC in another pocket. This allows them to stretch the lens when those longer shots are needed.

All the 500mm shooters did say that there were times when they wished they had a shorter lens with them in the field, that 500mm is, on occasion, just a bit too long. (None of them would trade their 500mm for our 300mm, however.)

The thing about most birds is that they are small, nervous critters. And the little buggers love to hide in the shadows! This screams for a fast, long lens. But a fast, long lens is not only big and heavy, it's a real pain in the wallet.

Another thing about birds... They're photophobic! When they see a camera, they leave! I can't tell you how many pictures of bird butts we have!

Thanks for a most interesting post. While it won't settle any of the lens debates, it is informative to see what people are actually using in the field...

Apropos about somthing, nice to see what people(in the game) use!

And it would appear you are no longer at a loss as to what to get the wife for christmas...A 500 & wimberly!

Sherpa...I love it (roger made a funny)

neumanns wrote in post #4393176
Apropos about somthing, nice to see what people(in the game) use!

I've come to the conclusion that a majority of pros and prosumers who buy their own gear shoot Canon, while a majority of people who use company or govenment gear shoot Nikon, at least in the outdoor photography field. Since both companies make excellent gear, it would be interesting to find out why this is so.

And it would appear you are no longer at a loss as to what to get the wife for christmas...A 500 & wimberly!

Never be at a loss for a gift for a wife/photog. Just give her a beautifly boxed and wrapped $5000 gift card to B&H.

Sherpa...I love it (roger made a funny)

Hey, even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.

On the subject of Canon vs. Nikon, I had a long talk yesterday with an Army photographer on Ft. Huachuca (we went there to shoot Trogons in Garden Canyon). He was just back from Iraq. He shoots Nikon exclusively, but only because that is what the U.S. Army issues him. He said all officially issued 35mm and digital gear is always Nikon. Sounds like a DoD contract is in place.

He also said that while he was over there he got to use an EOS 1D II N with a 500mm prime privately owned by a photjournalist, and loved it. He though the Canon glass was superior to the Nikkor, and the autofocus was faster.

In my opinion, the glass quality is entirely subjective, as both companies make truly excellent glass, of the "gnat's antennae at 500 feet" variety. The autofocus thing I have heard from some others, so there may be something to it. I personally don't know.

Unfortunately, even though he had access to the Canon gear for over a week, he could do no official photography with it, because his official shots had to be in Nikon raw format.

His personal gear (medium-grade stuff, like ours [and for the same reason—medium-grade wallets!]) is all Nikon. After all, he's used to Nikon. I would expect no less.

And yes, a Nikonian and a Canonite CAN have a normal, friendly conversation. Violence is NOT a requirement.

And the trip to Garden Canyon produced no visible gerfluschinger Trogons, though we heard some!