Swallows

[Andy_1984 275]

id have put these up on here ages ago if the upload attachments was working. having to rely on facebook to show these pics as photobucket is now crap and the others want to many rights to your photos, yes even farcebook

 

 

anyway, got myself a dslr to play around with and im loving it.

 

been having a mess around with some high speed photography using the swallows to do it up at harelaw.

 

hope you like

 

 

 

 

Some of my earlier practice shots below, can see ive improved in the above ones where I used raw mode instead of jpeg and figured out how to get an even faster shutter speed in the above ones.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2017 by Andy_1984

[Phone 685]

Andy,

 

Very well done.

We are waiting for you to become an "expert"

 

Phone

[Andy_1984 275]

"Expert" lol i dont know if i should take that as a snide remark or compliment. Thanks, i think

Edited June 15, 2017 by Andy_1984

[Phone 685]

Andy,

 

I'm pretty straight forward in most instances. A COMPLIMENT! You certainly chose a difficult subject.

 

Phone

[Andy_1984 275]

difficult indeed. ive taken many more pictures of them must be nearing 1,000 at a guess. my first attempt was 300+ photos with only a handfull of decent ones.

 

I need a lens with more zoom I reckon, just cant get close enough.

[ayjay 457]

I need a lens with more zoom I reckon, just cant get close enough.

 

Whatever lens you end up with - it's never long enough for birds.

 

You'll only get real detail (if that's what you want) by getting physically closer.

 

For bIf photos the camera can also make a big difference - the later versions of the Canon 7D for example will keep the focus locked onto a particular subject once you've managed to tell it to.

[Andy_1984 275]

Canon eos-1Ds mk3

 

I set it to tv (shutter priority, around 1000), evaluative metering, ai servo for focusing and on high speed shooting to take as many pics as i can till the buffer is full.

 

Got two lenses with it 17-40mm and 24-70mm

 

The latter being what i use most and what i used for the swallows.

 

Yes detail is what im after ive got hundreds of little blurred swallows lol.

 

I need to try and fully understand this focus lock i dont think im doing it quite right.

[Andrew 505]

Second snap for me mister :clap3:

[ayjay 457]

Canon eos-1Ds mk3

 

I set it to tv (shutter priority, around 1000), evaluative metering, ai servo for focusing and on high speed shooting to take as many pics as i can till the buffer is full.

 

Got two lenses with it 17-40mm and 24-70mm

 

The latter being what i use most and what i used for the swallows.

 

Yes detail is what im after ive got hundreds of little blurred swallows lol.

 

I need to try and fully understand this focus lock i dont think im doing it quite right.

 

The 7D (later models only) has something called Focus Tracking - it's perfect for bif photos, but it's not on the 1D unfortunately. Most birders that take photos will use a minimum of a 300mm lens for birds, more often a 400 or 500.

 

I know someone who uses a 300 very successfully for Dragonflies and for birds he adds a 1.4 extender to the 300 giving him a 420mm lens.

 

50mm (with a 35mm film camera) is reckoned to give the nearest approximation to life-size, so with a 400mm lens you have roughly 8X magnification, this can be confirmed by looking through a standard 8X magnification binocular, the view is very similar.

[Steve Burke 177]

50mm is often quoted as the focal length of a 35mm film camera to give neither a wide angle nor telephoto effect. However it's not quite correct. The true figure is 43mm, which is the diagonal measurement of 35mm film (that is actually 36x24mm). This gives a 45 degree angle of view.

 

Standard lenses in older times were made at 50mm purely as they were cheaper in those days to make to a high standard than a wider angle 43mm. Indeed my first SLR, a Russian Zenith had a 58mm lens. I do believe however that Pentax did do a 43mm lens at one time.

 

AyJay, does your friend get good results on birds as well with his extender? I'd assume that it would be a lighter and more compact set up but the maximum aperture would be less than without the extender. It might be something for me to consider.