[jgredline]

look into a "better beamer" flash extender or using a "snoot" to get more distance, also consider upping the ISO.

I have the 360 and am very happy with it. I have found it to be very powerful and very good to say 50-70 feet and thats pretty good, however, I am talking 50-70 yards...In which case cranking the ISO works well.

the photo of the chickadee is about a 10% crop (i.e. the image is 90% of origonal) I was pretty close when you consider magnification ratio and object size. probably 20 feet as a guess. I have done lots from 30-50 feet as well and used 400 ISO and flash extenders to get the light out that far with no problem, Remember many times there is no issue of ambient light because it is either too early in the morning, or you are under the cover of the forest.

That is an impressive shot...

I will, with this last comment toss another stone into the pond to see where the ripples lead to. I think earlier in this thread, I demonstrated that you could get great shots with a 28-105 and some luck. If you look at the chickadee, you can see that there is no substitute for getting close and patience, as it is not really significantly cropped. I guess the real point is when birding, and as my life list is approaching 300 species, I can make this observation, I believe there are two types of photos,

Yes, I read that earlier..In fact even though I don't comment on all your posts, I try and read as many of them as possible as you always offer great advice..Certainly I have learned from much from you. I totally agree on the luck part..Patience is very crucial...I usually will sit and wait in the same spot for hours on end...Relaxing and usually reading or simply pondering things...

- one is simply for the purpose of identification, where you see something, it is far far away, and you can only get a couple of shots of it before it is gone.

This is always a tough call...I am getting to a point where unless I take a good picture, I would rather not take it..I would rather continue the hunt...A few weeks back, I took a cool picture of a red bird and another of a blue bird and both where pretty blurry...They where simply to far away and I was really taxing the and asking the equipement to do to much. Thats when I decided to buy that 500F/4.5 and hopefully will be able to salvage a few more shots..Out here, we really do not have woods, but allot of open area. As a result we need to shoot at a distance so we do not scare off the birds..

- the other is one where you take the time, get in close, and get really good shots that yoou would print. These shots may be really niocely posed, display some unusual behavior, or a really characteristic position, like the chickadee upside down as I took it.

The two are quite different.

I agree and these are the Type I am after..Need luck with these. Zoo shots don't count..

I try, but am not always successful, as you have also indicated because you simply can't get close enough. BUT, I will also comment that even if you had a 1000mm lens the possibility to get a useable shot. Life is like that. Normally when I go out, it is with my 70-200 F2.8 and 2xTC. That by itself is quite imposing, and for last minute shots or spur of the moment type shots works well.

Agreed.

If you are going to go out with any longer combination, and I do have a 1000mm F11 spotting scope with T mount as well, you are in to taking a tripod along and it is much more deliberate to take photos. In fact, I usually have one body on teh mirror, and another still set up with either my 400mm equivelent combo or my 500mm equivelent combo just in case something interesting floats by.

I have not been using a tripod and with the new lens, I will have no choice in the matter. Maybe a good mono pod?

[Lowell Goudge]

Javier

Thanks for your comments

you might want to learn a little math.

for distant objects, i.e. those more than 10 times the focal length of the lens, the image height of any subject is as follows.

Image height = subject height x focal length / distance to subject

all units must be the the same(i.e. meters, inches milimeters ...)

If you consider an 8 inch high bird at about 75 yards using your 500mm, it will have a projected image height on your sensor of 1.6mm or 1/10th the height of your sensor, (the sensor is 16 mm) note that with a 6mp camera, your 1.6mm high image will be about 200 pixels in that direction.

While you can add a TC, and will need some additional stabilization (tripod or monopod) there is no substitute for getting close. same holds true of going to a K20D and cropping, it really changes the image to 400 pixels.

Anyway, those are the physical limits, good hunting, and I am sure the 500 will give you more keepers. Also, I use the AF500FTZ and AF540FGZ as they have a little more power and reach

[jgredline]

Javier

Thanks for your comments

you might want to learn a little math.

for distant objects, i.e. those more than 10 times the focal length of the lens, the image height of any subject is as follows.

Image height = subject height x focal length / distance to subject

all units must be the the same(i.e. meters, inches milimeters ...)

If you consider an 8 inch high bird at about 75 yards using your 500mm, it will have a projected image height on your sensor of 1.6mm or 1/10th the height of your sensor, (the sensor is 16 mm) note that with a 6mp camera, your 1.6mm high image will be about 200 pixels in that direction.

While you can add a TC, and will need some additional stabilization (tripod or monopod) there is no substitute for getting close. same holds true of going to a K20D and cropping, it really changes the image to 400 pixels.

Anyway, those are the physical limits, good hunting, and I am sure the 500 will give you more keepers. Also, I use the AF500FTZ and AF540FGZ as they have a little more power and reach

Thanks for the tips...Math happens to be my strong point so I will take a look at the formula.
I fully agree that there is never a substitute for getting close...As for the flash, I wanted the 540, but was not in stock when I bought my 360. From what I understand, power wise they are the same. Am I mistaken?

[Lowell Goudge]

Thanks for the tips...Math happens to be my strong point so I will take a look at the formula.
I fully agree that there is never a substitute for getting close...As for the flash, I wanted the 540, but was not in stock when I bought my 360. From what I understand, power wise they are the same. Am I mistaken?

I believe you are mistaken, the AF540FGZ is a GN of 54 (in meters)at ISO 100 the AF360 FGZ is a GN of 36 (in meters) at ISO 100

I guess that is how they came up with the product numbers

that is a big difference, and might give you some reach. Also the better beamer flash extender is promoted on the basis of doubling the flash guide number.

[jgredline]

I believe you are mistaken, the AF540FGZ is a GN of 54 (in meters)at ISO 100 the AF360 FGZ is a GN of 36 (in meters) at ISO 100

I guess that is how they came up with the product numbers

that is a big difference, and might give you some reach. Also the better beamer flash extender is promoted on the basis of doubling the flash guide number.

Hmmm, This being the case, I better get to ordering me a 540.

[OrenMc]

jgredline, you stated it was the weather seal that makes the DA 300 a keeper.

So the Sigma 100-300 is that good at the long end ? With a tc also?

[jgredline]

jgredline, you stated it was the weather seal that makes the DA 300 a keeper.

So the Sigma 100-300 is that good at the long end ? With a tc also?

yes and yes.

[OrenMc]

Sigma 100-300 to be delivered tomorrow!! Will post pics after weekend of playing.

I'm on my way down to pick up a Tokina ATX 80-200 f2.8 I got on ebay so I should have some pics later this evening with that. It's supposed to be like new condition. Couldn't find much info on this one as to IQ.
I think I have my ranges covered now so I hope I can say good-bye to LBA.
Well, after I save again I want to get a 400 or 500 prime. Thats going to be awhile though.

[jgredline]

Sigma 100-300 to be delivered tomorrow!! Will post pics after weekend of playing.

I'm on my way down to pick up a Tokina ATX 80-200 f2.8 I got on ebay so I should have some pics later this evening with that. It's supposed to be like new condition. Couldn't find much info on this one as to IQ.
I think I have my ranges covered now so I hope I can say good-bye to LBA.
Well, after I save again I want to get a 400 or 500 prime. Thats going to be awhile though.

Very Cool You did get the 100-300 F/4 CORRECT?

[OrenMc]

Yes , the F/4 EX DG IF HSM APO and all that other stuff
Thanks for all your help and steering me that way. I did a bit of research and this lens does score some pretty high points. I don't think I've heard anything bad about it. Good price also.
Now I just need to get out and learn how to use it. As I said earlier I'm going to Yellowstone in a couple weeks so I'll get some good use then.

It looks like the Tokina is a bust. Theres a line of oil/lubricant on the inside lens so I'm sending it back. I was hoping it would work out because its fast and has a little reach. Anyway, I guess thats how it goes sometimes.

Thanks again to all

[OrenMc]

So I took my new lens out yesterday for a little practice. I find that it really isn't that bad for handhold , however I do need alot more experience thats for sure.
some of the conditions I really pushed the lens because of lighting. Heres a few examples.
I like the bokeh of the reed but in some of the shots like the rabbit it is really grainy. The jet of course had good light so it came out pretty clear as did turtles under much less light.
Critigue away. Let me know if there is something I may be doing wrong.
I really want to be ready for Yellowstone.

[jgredline]

Where these with the TC on or off?
What did your histogram tell you?

[OrenMc]

No TC, haven't made that purchase yet. Hopefully before I head out next weekend.

As far as the histogram goes I wasn't using it. I know I need to start using that tool. I go manual most of the time, but I let the green mode do some work yesterday . I would have to look to see on which photos.
I keep telling myself I make things more difficult than they have to be, if I would just use the tools available. I am new to this so I believe as time goes on most of this will becomes second nature.
I am going back out in a few minutes and I will use the histogram this time. See if I can come up with some better shots. Thanks for pointing that out.
Again many thanks,
Oren

[jgredline]

No TC, haven't made that purchase yet. Hopefully before I head out next weekend.

As far as the histogram goes I wasn't using it. I know I need to start using that tool. I go manual most of the time, but I let the green mode do some work yesterday . I would have to look to see on which photos.
I keep telling myself I make things more difficult than they have to be, if I would just use the tools available. I am new to this so I believe as time goes on most of this will becomes second nature.
I am going back out in a few minutes and I will use the histogram this time. See if I can come up with some better shots. Thanks for pointing that out.
Again many thanks,
Oren

The reason I ask is because they all but for the plane, they look underexposed. I downloaded your rabbit image and according to PS CS3, it was under exposed about .7 stop. The problem with underexposing an image is that it tends to leave you with a noisy image. Here is your rabbit image with a bump in exposer and de-speckled in cs3.

[OrenMc]

There is much I have to learn in PP. I didn't know you could do that much with the small file you downloaded. Imagine what could be done with the full image.
Of course if I would have set up properly in the fisrt place. All the more reason to use the histogram.
I don't have CS3 but I do have Element 5. It's a start.
Much thanks for the critique.