# Birds dislike flash photography.  Proof inside...



## robertwsimpson (Apr 26, 2010)

Just for giggles, I popped the flash on for a few shots.  These actually came out nicely, I think.  Shooting into the sun...

Sleeping:





ANGRY!:


----------



## LaFoto (Apr 26, 2010)

"We are NOT amused!"  
Nice.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Apr 26, 2010)

I've got 2 cactus v4s on the way... I might have to get there REALLY early and set up some lighting... it could create some cool stuff with the sunrise behind it...


----------



## Overread (Apr 26, 2010)

Neat series and yes it does seem like you woke some poor chap up!

And a remote lighting setup - would love to see some results from that! I guess the trick is knowing where the birds will be appearig, but yes a great chance for some backlit shots that are not silouetts.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Apr 26, 2010)

Well, luckily for the frequent visitors to the little preserve, the birds are usually in the same spots... a lot of which are east facing from the boardwalk.  There are 2 or 3 spots that will definitely yield results.  I've never used off camera flashes, so the only variable will be my lack of experience.


----------



## Overread (Apr 26, 2010)

Hmm with the cactus can you adjust the settings from your camera for each flash or just triggor them? If its the former I suspect you will need a few dummy shots really early into the setup and then balace your output based on the results  since I don't think cactus will support auto flash shooting (thus far I think only the new pocketwizards support this).


----------



## robertwsimpson (Apr 26, 2010)

yes, I am sure that I will have to run the flashes on manual.  I wouldn't have them more than 10 or so feet away from me really, so I think I would be ok.


----------



## belongus3 (Apr 26, 2010)

Carefull ...she might bite !  There ok ....dosen't seem the sun efected your shots


----------



## icassell (Apr 26, 2010)

Great series (albeit a tad overexposed on head on the second image IMHO).  Really does looked ticked off at you.

I love GBH's.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Apr 26, 2010)

I'm still working on getting the hang of correct exposure on my 50d.  As far as I can tell, I have to have some flashies on the screen, or when I get back, the whole thing will be horribly underexposed, and when I pump it up to proper exposure, super noisy.  I just have to figure out how many flashies to go for.  Birding is the most challenging for me!


----------



## icassell (Apr 26, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> ... Birding is the most challenging for me!



Wow, ain't that the truth!  If its not exposure issues, then its issues with the d*** things not keeping still long enough!  I understand why the pros use those very long lenses so they can have some fiddle-room. I find myself often getting only one chance to get it right (and usually fail miserably).


----------



## robertwsimpson (Apr 26, 2010)

This trip made me pretty desperate for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 1.6x teleconverter.  time to start working on the wife...


----------



## icassell (Apr 26, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> This trip made me pretty desperate for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 1.6x teleconverter.  time to start working on the wife...



Well, I have a Sigma EX 100-300 f/4 and a 1.4X and a 2X, but they're *STILL* not long enough (IQ with the 2X isn't very good) ...

I've been thinking about getting the Canon 400 f/5.6 or the new Sigma 50-500 OS.

Don't tell the wife how much a Canon 500 f/4 costs   This and/or the Canon 600 f/4 are the standard lenses of pro bird photographers. You'll either be sent packing or committed to the nuthouse.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Apr 26, 2010)

lol I definitely would not be able to get her to go for one of those lenses right now.  too much real life getting in the way for such a specialized thing.  70-200 is still versatile enough for me to be able to justify it.  with the new version out, I should be able to pick up a nice used one for a good price.  I think I will spring it on her as an "out of debt celebration" for me.  I'm already crossing my fingers.


----------



## icassell (Apr 26, 2010)

Well, that lens should do a lot for you and not just for birding!  I wish I had bought that one instead of my 50-150 f/2.8, but I didn't know as much at the time. Fortunately, herons and the like are pretty big birds and not as demanding on focal-length as the songbirds


----------



## robertwsimpson (Apr 26, 2010)

yeah, I've been doing a little research, and it looks like I might opt for the 70-200 f/2.8 without the IS.  I'm usually working at shutter speeds that preclude camera shake anyway.  I'm still a little scared of a lens without IS at that length though.


----------



## Hardrock (Apr 26, 2010)

I just recently got the 70-200 F2.8 IS and it is way to short for those stinking song birds. Im in the procecss of getting a TC and have been prepping the back yard with lots of bird feed and birdbaths. And a tent that I can hide in. I think I need to be within 10 to 15 feet of the birds for a decent picture. I understand now why those 500 and 600mm lens are needed for birding.

EDIT: The IS is definitely worth looking into. It helps alot indoors, not so much if its bright sunlight. To me its well worth the money.


----------



## Jane948 (Apr 26, 2010)

You were disrupting her beauty sleep that's all.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Apr 26, 2010)

:cry:I don't know what to get


----------



## icassell (Apr 26, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> :cry:I don't know what to get



I didn't mean to upset you.  I think life is full of compromises.  That 70-200 is an outstanding piece of glass and, with the larger birds, will do you fine (especially with a TC).  Getting the smaller guys will be harder, but if you can build a blind or if your woodsman skills are good and you can sneak up on them, that's another option.  A lot of birders like the 100-400 or the 400/5.6 which are actually cheaper than the 70-200, but maybe not as versatile for other uses.


Here's one I like that someone took with that 100-400.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=62436


----------



## robertwsimpson (Apr 26, 2010)

I've used the 100-400 and wasn't that impressed... I didn't have it for very long (maybe 30 minutes) and all I took photos of was just some bees on some flowers, but idk, I just wasn't that wild about it... plus I'd rather have f/2.8 than IS or 400mm.... I just have to figure out if the extra couple hundred bucks is worth it...


----------



## robertwsimpson (Apr 28, 2010)

I think I might be changing my mind.  maybe I will rent the 100-400 and see if I like keeping it in my bag for a little while.


----------



## Overread (Apr 28, 2010)

Robert if its any help:
First off almost every nature photographer has in the bag a 70-200mm lens (most are f2.8 versions). So a lens like that certianly has a place in the photographers bag. I would push and say try going for the IS version over the non-IS. It's a lot better to have the IS for those times when you do need it than to not have it. 

After that also remember that since you are getting good reults with your current 200mm setups an overall upgrade at that range is certainly no bad thing. However if you want to push for longe glass first consider both your short term and your long term ideas.

For myself (and others I have spoken to) where they do own and use a lens like a 300mm f2.8 or heavier long lens options most of the photographers still owned and used a 100-400mm lens and not a 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6. Essentially the zoom offers a versatility that the primes don't have and yet still have high enough image quality to suffice when the heavier telephotos are not possible/practical. 
If however you are not heading for those dizzy heights you might prefer a 300mm f4 + 1.4TC or a 400mm f5.6 to compliment your 70-200mm lens option. Which of the two you go for though is going to have to be your choice  

Also remember with the 100-400mm lenses give the lens some controled testing and then ask about the images quality - there is often a lot of sample variation with this lens and a lot of people who are put off about it have simply used a soft copy (or a copythat is not opticaly in line with their camera body and thus never comes back from "recalibration" any better, but is still softer than optimal).


----------



## robertwsimpson (Apr 28, 2010)

this is an image taken with the 100-400mm lens by me.  For my purposes, I think I would rather have the reach that the aperture.  I'm always taking "zoom pictures" outside, so lighting wouldn't be a HUGE problem, although it's always nice to have the aperture too... life is about compromises though.


----------



## AnneRiceBowl (Apr 28, 2010)

In the last photo, he's got that, "I KEEL YOU." look in his eye. 

Great job!


----------

