[jddwoods]

A while ago after shooting a Pine Marten I saw the look they get on their faces. Them with their Canon and Nikon 500 or 600 ƒ4s, me with my DA* 60-250. It's a look something between shock and horror. A couple of guys insisted on seeing what I was getting with my little $2500 toy to compare to their $15,000 systems. First they refused to believe I had anything at all. Then after they saw my back screen, silence and the end of mirth and teasing. It kind of killed the mood for them.

There some images you can only get with the fastest AF and the heavy glass, but most of us are never in a position to take those images.

Got a chance to try out my very humble K-3 with 55-300 PLM. which, relatively speaking is an inexpensive combo on some birds. I am sure those guys with those big $12,000 rigs would have gotten better pictures, but all in all I think my very amateur skills and inexpensive lens did OK.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[normhead]

Got a chance to try out my very humble K-3 with 55-300 PLM. which, relatively speaking is an inexpensive combo on some birds. I am sure those guys with those big $12,000 rigs would have gotten better pictures, but all in all I think my very amateur skills and inexpensive lens did OK.

The surprising thing for me has been how often they don't get better pictures.

[audiobomber]

Got a chance to try out my very humble K-3 with 55-300 PLM. which, relatively speaking is an inexpensive combo on some birds. I am sure those guys with those big $12,000 rigs would have gotten better pictures, but all in all I think my very amateur skills and inexpensive lens did OK.

IMO the main point of expensive gear is not to take better photos in good light. A more sophisticated camera and faster lens allows you to take better photos in conditions that are more challenging.

If I may offer some advice, your shutter speed was too low for a really sharp image pf the geese. You would have had a better result at f8 and 1/750s.

[Wheatfield]

IMO the main point of expensive gear is not to take better photos in good light. A more sophisticated camera and faster lens allows you to take better photos in conditions that are more challenging.

If I may offer some advice, your shutter speed was too low for a really sharp image pf the geese. You would have had a better result at f8 and 1/750s.

He could bump his ISO as well. I'll take a little noise over subject movement.

[jddwoods]

IMO the main point of expensive gear is not to take better photos in good light. A more sophisticated camera and faster lens allows you to take better photos in conditions that are more challenging.

If I may offer some advice, your shutter speed was too low for a really sharp image pf the geese. You would have had a better result at f8 and 1/750s.

You are correct but this was a very gray winter day in fading daylight. I took this as a compromise given the lighting conditions. When I took this picture I tried bumping up the ISO and using a faster shutter speed but results were too dark and noisy as daylight was fading and it started drizzling. In this situation I may have been better off with a DA*300 or among my lenses the DA*200 with the Teleconverter.
BTW, if you should find yourself in the middle of Delaware the Bombay Hook National Wildlife refuge is a great place for bird photography, especially during what we call the snow goose spectacle when at the right time of day (early in morning or late afternoon) you can see and hear hundreds of these birds in the saltwater and freshwater marshes, along with the tundra swans wintering here.

[zapp]

When comparing two cameras for resolution why should one work with different lenses and point at moving targets...?

Btw. the whole DoF discussion is wrong as always. DoF does not scale linearly with focal length and pixel pitch is important to judge DoF. I am happy to assume that the APS-C rig did better - why, cannot be judged from the given setup.

[normhead]

When comparing two cameras for resolution why should one work with different lenses and point at moving targets...?

Btw. the whole DoF discussion is wrong as always. DoF does not scale linearly with focal length and pixel pitch is important to judge DoF. I am happy to assume that the APS-C rig did better - why, cannot be judged from the given setup.

The only way to understand DoF from a theoretical point of view is to look up what you're doing from a DoF chart.

But the practical thing is to say " I need more DOF, looking at your images and turning your aperture ring.

As for why the APS-c camera did better (or worse) in a given situation, that's for the experts. All I want to know is with the gear i have, what gives me the best image, and that is constantly being evaluated on an on going basis.

You have to know what is. You don't have to know why it is.

[M.B.Yates]

One thing a lot of the sucessfull birders do is in post... i use niksoftware to get my images up to their standard.... IMGP7615-Edit | Because of its long and slender neck, the Au? | Flickr

[kypfer]

One thing a lot of the sucessfull birders do is in post... i use niksoftware to get my images up to their standard.... IMGP7615-Edit | Because of its long and slender neck, the Au? | Flickr

Please could you explain what the Nikon software can do that can't be achieved using Photoshop, LightRoom, or Digital Camera Utility? I see Nikon CD's advertised on eBay very frequently for not much money, but I don't need to buy any more software if I can manage with what I already have