Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

REDHEADS LOVE THE 20D !!!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 4:24:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38478069/original

More about : redheads love 20d

Anonymous
January 10, 2005 4:24:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:

> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38478069/original
>
>

OK, I got this "pair of redheads" up today:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/sa...

Bret,
Where are the sandhill cranes you are taking pictures of?
Are they some of the same members that winters in Florida?

The 400mm f/5.6L is supposedly the fastest autofocusing
canon telephoto, so you should be able to get spectacular
action photos, especially if you can get close enough for
full frame. My 500mm loses autofocus tracking even on the
1D Mark II camera when the birds are really flying fast
close to and nearly straight at me.

Roger
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 4:24:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm thinking of getting the 400mm f5.6 L lens and I would ask you if
you think it's better then the 300mm f4 L IS with the 1.4x tele
converter. The latter lens is a 420mm f5.6 with the converter.

I'm new to bird photography and just learning. I read Art Morris's book
on bird photography and he is very high on the 400mm f5.6 L

Here's a few links to shots taken with the 300mm f4 IS without the 1.4x
extender.

http://client.webshots.com/photo/240010188/245979529Xhu...

http://client.webshots.com/photo/240010188/240244357iNN...

http://client.webshots.com/photo/240010188/240251066tyc...
Any comments would be appreciated.

Art
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 4:24:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fyimo wrote:

> I'm thinking of getting the 400mm f5.6 L lens and I would ask you if
> you think it's better then the 300mm f4 L IS with the 1.4x tele
> converter. The latter lens is a 420mm f5.6 with the converter.
>
> I'm new to bird photography and just learning. I read Art Morris's book
> on bird photography and he is very high on the 400mm f5.6 L
>
> Here's a few links to shots taken with the 300mm f4 IS without the 1.4x
> extender.
>
> http://client.webshots.com/photo/240010188/245979529Xhu...
>
> http://client.webshots.com/photo/240010188/240244357iNN...
>
> http://client.webshots.com/photo/240010188/240251066tyc...
> Any comments would be appreciated.
>
> Art
>

I have the 300 f/4 L IS as well. I like the lens a lot.
I have never used the 400 f/5.6. It is not IS, correct?
I think for most things, the 300 f/4 plus a TC is more
flexible. But the 400mm reportedly has the faster
autofocus, which could be an advantage for action
imaging. Your images are very nice, so if just starting,
your off to a good start. (I'm just starting too--really
started about 3 years ago.) What changed for me,
as a large format view camera landscape photographer, was
getting the 500mm f/4 L IS lens. That is a sweet lens!
So, my bird combo is 500 mm f/4 and 300 mm f/4 plus
1.4 and 2x TCs. You really need that reach for birds.
The 400 f/5.6 is a specialty lens in my opinion,
when you need the fastest autofocus. Otherwise, the 300
+ TCs will do just fine. (The 400 f/5.6 may be a tab sharper
than the 300 f/4 +1.xx TC, but they would be pretty close.)
Perhaps Bill Hilton will see this and chime in; he has the
400 f/5.6.

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 4:24:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill wrote:
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
>>
>> OK, I got this "pair of redheads" up today:
>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/sa...
>>
>>
>
> Beautiful shot! Any post-processing?
>
> Bill

All processing in 16-bit.
Levels adjustment,
Curves (still less contrast than that of a saturated slide film),
adaptive richardson-lucy image restoration to increase
spatial resolution about 2x (equivalent to 32 mpixel image)
see: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1
to allow 16x24-inch prints at 300 ppi.
Final file size is about 200 mbytes.
some final curves adjustment in local spots to
allow printing.
Some local unsharp mask adjustments on the feathers.

This is close to my standard workflow.

Roger
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 10:17:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I started shooting birds in October when I bought the Canon 10D. I was
never a landscape photographer even though I owned the 20mm f2.8 lens.
I always liked shooting wildlife when I was taking film pictures so I
love the 1.6X multiplier of my film lens on the 10D and 20D bodies.
I sold my 300mm f4 without IS and bought the one with IS because it
really helps. I don't make any money from my photography so I think the
500mm f4 IS lens is out of the question for me. At 5K I would have to
sell to much stuff to get it because I'm retired and on a decent but
limited budget and can't justify it.

I could buy the 400mm f5.6 L without pain but I don't see the advantage
over the 300mm f4 IS with 1.4X converter. If someone familiar with both
lens could point out the benefits of the 400mm I might go for it. I
like sharp images and understand that the 1.4X extender does degrade
the image slightly.

Anyway, I like taking bird pictures aand i learn things everytime I go
out. I'm heading to Costa Rica this weekend and I hope to get some
great bird pictures while I'm there of birds I don't see here.

Art
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 2:43:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I went to your website and your photo's are truly outstanding.
Something I hope to work towards in the coming years. I will be limited
to the 300mm f4 IS lens and tele-converter combination for some time as
I think the 500mm f4 IS is out of the question.

I could get either the 100-400mm IS L lens or the 400mm f5.6 L lens and
add it to my lens kit. Does the 20D auto focus at f8 on a telephoto
with extender? I thought it didn't but if it does the 400mm f5.6 might
be an option as it would be a 560mm f8 and with the 1.6 factor a 896mm.
If it doesn't auto focus then it's use would be limited to birds that
are stationary like on nests and so on.

What are your thoughts?

Art
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 3:27:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The sandhills around here are at the Hiwassee Wildlife Refuge. They
stopover here every Jan-Feb. so the numbers will be increasing in the
next few weeks. Eventually there will be approx. 50,000 of them
scattered all over the countryside.

Now if I just had that 500 f/4.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 8:48:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fyimo wrote:
> I went to your website and your photo's are truly outstanding.
> Something I hope to work towards in the coming years. I will be limited
> to the 300mm f4 IS lens and tele-converter combination for some time as
> I think the 500mm f4 IS is out of the question.
>
> I could get either the 100-400mm IS L lens or the 400mm f5.6 L lens and
> add it to my lens kit. Does the 20D auto focus at f8 on a telephoto
> with extender? I thought it didn't but if it does the 400mm f5.6 might
> be an option as it would be a 560mm f8 and with the 1.6 factor a 896mm.
> If it doesn't auto focus then it's use would be limited to birds that
> are stationary like on nests and so on.
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
> Art
>

I also have the 100-400 L IS. My 100-400 is definitely not sharp
at 400mm. Bill Hilton also has this lens, and his is sharp at 400mm.
I need to send mine back to Canon as it shouldn't be that bad.
Since you already have the 300 f/4 plus a 1.4x TC I do not see the
need for getting a 400 f/5.6 fixed or a zoom to 400 (at f/5.6).
On the 20D, you need f/5.6 or faster for autofocus to work
(all the canon consumer cameras are that way; the pro models
focus at f/8 with the center sensor only). So getting a
400 mm lens that is already f/5.6 will NOT give you more reach
than you already have. The 400 f/5.6 L may be a bit faster
with autofocus, and a bit sharper, but a pretty small difference
overall, especially when you consider a new generation of digital
camera will likely come out in a few months that will probably allow
you to surpass what you are doing now. And if you are following
wildlife in action, like your example photos indicate, then autofocus
is a must unless you are super-human with super sharp eyes.

Personally, I would recommend keeping the 300 f/4 L IS. If you want
more focal length, stick with f/4 lenses at 400mm so you can add a
TC. Or get at least 500 mm f/5.6 (I don't know who makes one (sigma?).
Perhaps the next generation consumer camera will autofocus
at f/8 so you can use a 2X. Consider buying used. That can save you
money, and if need be, you can probably sell it for the same price
you bought it at.

I have to tell you though, of all the photo equipment I ever bought,
including my first 4x5 view camera, the 500mm f/4 lens was by far the
most outstanding life changing piece of camera gear I ever got.
It opened up so many new possibilities, I never would have had
the opportunity for previously. And I actually bought it to
do astrophotography, not wildlife! I have found so much fun
with wildlife, my main problem is finding time to sleep!
(I have done about 50,000 pictures in the last 3 years.)

But if you do decide to go for a bigger lens, consider in your
budget: carbon fiber tripod (~$600, Gitzo 1325 or equivalent),
wimberly tripod head ($565), and lens plates (couple of hundred).
Then flash brackets, photo backpack to put it in, etc.
After the lens, it was another $2,000 (approximately) to get
usable. The problem is, if you don't have the carbon fiber and
wimberly with such a big telephoto, you are at a real disadvantage,
and might as well stick with shorter focal lengths.

I started out without the carbon fiber and wimberly, and while I
got some stuff, I missed a lot too. So eventually, I found I
needed what those with the experience told my I needed.
They were right: the system works extremely well.

Just my opinion.

Roger
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 9:20:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks Roger,

Your images are outstanding and I would have to make a major commitment
to my photography to step up to a 500-f4 IS L lens.

Basically I would have to go from serious amateur to forming a company
and then try to make money at it. Then I would have to sell a lot of
other toys and equipment to come up with the 5K for the lens and now as
you point out about 2K for the support equipment.

Then I would have to convince my wife that it made sense for me to be
gone for vast periods of time to be where the birds are that actually
would sell in photographs. I assume these are eagles, hawks, herons,
snow geese, owls, and other birds of interest that someone would pay
you for a photograph.

That's a lot to think about right now. I guess in the short term I
will continue to use the 300mm f4 IS L and try to improve the quality
of my images. I also wondered if the 300mm f2.8 is a choice because it
could use the 2x extender and be a 960mm f5.6with IS. The 300mm f2.8 is
supposed to be awesome glass. It's about $1500 cheaper then the 500mm
f4 IS.

I really appreciate your time and thoughts and answering my question.
Art
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 9:32:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Your-Nice wrote:
> lol i thought it was a girl red head .

Maybe it is! Does anyone know how to tell a
female from a male sandhill crane?

here is a "red head" with icy legs:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/sa...

Roger

>
> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20050109202428.07016.00000017@mb-m29.aol.com...
>
>>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/38478069/original
>>
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 10:34:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

> Your-Nice wrote:
>
>> lol i thought it was a girl red head .
>
>
> Maybe it is! Does anyone know how to tell a
> female from a male sandhill crane?

The females have the high-heels.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 7:50:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm not opposed to buying the 400 f5.6 if it really helps me and maybe
the fast auto focus is the key. The 300 f4 IS is fast sharp and the
auto focus works great on the 20D. It does however change auto focus
speed and light requirements with the 1.4 extender on the lens.
Unfortunately, as a retired guy it will be a long time if ever that I
can get the 500mm f4 IS lens. I would have to sell some serious toys
like my Bass Boat or something radical.

Art
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 10:14:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote in message news:41E31A4F.1010304@qwest.net...
> Your-Nice wrote:
>> lol i thought it was a girl red head .
>
> Maybe it is! Does anyone know how to tell a
> female from a male sandhill crane?

You probably know this site:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/cranecam/about....

On http://www.savingcranes.org/species/sandhill.cfm they mention:
"In general, males and females are virtually indistinguishable but
within a breeding pair, males tend to be larger than females".

> here is a "red head" with icy legs:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/sa...

Cold feet? Must be a female ;-)

Bart
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 3:29:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <1105370242.153410.128000@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Fyimo" <arthurw@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>I could buy the 400mm f5.6 L without pain but I don't see the advantage
>over the 300mm f4 IS with 1.4X converter. If someone familiar with both
>lens could point out the benefits of the 400mm I might go for it. I
>like sharp images and understand that the 1.4X extender does degrade
>the image slightly.

The 300mm f4L IS is a very sharp lens. Not the sharpest, but up near
the top of the list. It is still sharper than most Canon lenses, with
either a 1.4x or 2x TC attached to it. With both stacked, it starts to
lose its edge. Of course, that is under ideal conditions. You will
need a lot more light with the TCs, and the narrower angle of view will
require faster shutter speeds, too, making it essential to have bright
light. So basically, if you use the 2x or 1.4x and 2x stacked, you'd
better be shooting something in bright sunlight, or close with a zooming
flash.

The 400mm f5.6L's main strength, from what I have read, is its autofocus
speed.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!