The "Post your pictures here" thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Had a Red Kite fly over our house earlier, 200mm is the longest lens i have, and he did not come that close, but managed these none the less.

kite1.jpg


kite2.jpg
 
Wedge said:
Had a Red Kite fly over our house earlier, 200mm is the longest lens i have, and he did not come that close, but managed these none the less.

*snip*
Click to expand...

My 'BIF' skills suck, I had a D700 with 70-200/2.8 (w/ 1.4x TC) and captive birds bombing around at a falconry display yesterday (images here) and don't think I got results better than yours! Good thing I don't care much for birding ;)

creed said:
Plz explain what the flash does with that lens?!
Click to expand...

Catchlight?
 
creed said:
Plz explain what the flash does with that lens?!
Click to expand...

The flash has been on the camera since I got it as I do mainly macro. Couldnt be bothered to remove it for a few test shots with this lens :p.

The Sigma 150-500 is my dads, he wanted me to take some shots with my camera @ 500mm to see if they were sharp, as his D70 is producing out of focus images. Seems to be ok to me so its either his camera, or hes trying to get sharp images @500mm handheld with too low a shutter speed.

BTW what is the lowest shutter speed you would need @ 500mm with image stabalization enabled? His D70 is crap with high ISO so that would probably be set to 200.
 
Mud said:
My 'BIF' skills suck, I had a D700 with 70-200/2.8 (w/ 1.4x TC) and captive birds bombing around at a falconry display yesterday (images here) and don't think I got results better than yours! Good thing I don't care much for birding ;)
Click to expand...

Greys sky's did not help me, pretty heavy PP to, but still not bad for a quick dash to my camera. Yours are however, way better ;)
 
Wedge said:
Greys sky's did not help me, pretty heavy PP to, but still not bad for a quick dash to my camera. Yours are however, way better ;)
Click to expand...

I took about 450 images and got very few BIF images with the bird actually in focus! I also didn't realise how quick they'd be :eek:
 
Mark A said:
BTW what is the lowest shutter speed you would need @ 500mm with image stabalization enabled? His D70 is crap with high ISO so that would probably be set to 200.
Click to expand...

If you've got good technique then 1/focal length is a good guide number, with heavier lenses or if you're technique isn't so good (or any number of other mitigating factors). I'd personally be looking at 1/800 or higher (which with f/6.3 the fastest at the long end will be hard work)...
 
Rojin said:
Nice! Was that from Prescott or were you lucky enough to get to Goodwood?
Click to expand...

Neither! Shelsley - very difficult to get good pics there though & the lighting as you can tell was drab...

:D

Loton park next weekend, then Shelsley, then Bikes, then Mallory, then Prescott, then more bikes, then Silverstone... (all this in the next five weeks :eek: !!)
 
p0ss3s3d said:
What camera did you use!!!

I think you should generally get 90%+ rate with 200mm @ f/2.8!!! Even with falcons!
Click to expand...

Fair enough it's been a few years since I was instagibbing, but tracking a bird zipping about my head at speed proved challenging for me!

bigredshark said:
He said with a TC - that'll screw the 70-200's AF a good bit unfortunately...
Click to expand...

Really? Perhaps I'd disadvantaged the lens more than I'd realised. I know what the 70-200 is capable of in terms of sharpness, and on those grounds alone I was a bit disappointed with the sharpness I achieved yesterday. To what extent that was poor form on my part I've yet to establish.
 
Janesy B said:
Don't think it's a Seagull...

Wouldn't mind some C&C on this one, just found it when reviewing my holiday pics.

Click to expand...

Not much to comment on but isn't San Francisco FANTASTIC? :D

I'm taking it that is the Coit Tower?

Got a few on my Flickr from my expedition. Shame i was only there for a few days at a conference but got a couple of shots out on a 2 hour whirlwind tour of San Fran.
 
Last edited:
Mud said:
Really? Perhaps I'd disadvantaged the lens more than I'd realised. I know what the 70-200 is capable of in terms of sharpness, and on those grounds alone I was a bit disappointed with the sharpness I achieved yesterday. To what extent that was poor form on my part I've yet to establish.
Click to expand...

Assuming you mean the Nikon 70-200 VR, even the TC-14E does bad things to the AF and, to a lesser extent, the sharpness unfortunately. I think your results are actually really good for that combo to be honest, my experience with the two hasn't been terribly positive to date.
 
bigredshark said:
Assuming you mean the Nikon 70-200 VR, even the TC-14E does bad things to the AF and, to a lesser extent, the sharpness unfortunately. I think your results are actually really good for that combo to be honest, my experience with the two hasn't been terribly positive to date.
Click to expand...

I've got the Kenko 300, so might be worse still...I had a TC17EII, and the results just weren't acceptable. I do very little with zooms or >150mm, going to the falconry was an excuse to get a bit more experience with the 70-200 tbh :o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom