Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Main forum for general non waterfowl discussions as well as general duck hunting information about travel, rules and regulations, and other duck hunting info along with the general topics.

Moderators: Tealer, Indaswamp, Dep6, Preacher1011, lostpup, La. Hunter, steve-o, #1wingnut

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby OGblackcloud » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:46 am

OHIODUCKA5 wrote:Nice pics Honk. what are the birds with the little curly things on their heads?

Quail as in Calif. Valley Quail
User avatar
OGblackcloud
hunter
 
Posts: 13726
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 12:38 pm


Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby OHIODUCKA5 » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:48 am

OGblackcloud wrote:
OHIODUCKA5 wrote:Nice pics Honk. what are the birds with the little curly things on their heads?

Quail as in Calif. Valley Quail


Thanks OG :thumbsup:
I hope someday someone remembers this old dog with kindness and gives me to a puppy.

-Gene Hill

fadetoblack188 wrote:forget i asked.. mods please delete.. the scum bags on this site are overwhelming.
User avatar
OHIODUCKA5
hunter
 
Posts: 13204
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:46 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby Rick Hall » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:51 am

SPatrick wrote:Rick, the general consensus, at least from what I have gathered, is when you get into those upper echelon prime lenses, and tele zooms, Canon makes a better piece of glass. I feel at the level we are talking about though, the difference is small to none.


Trouble is, by the time one knows just what level he may achieve, he's already heavily invested in a make with glass to fit. If I were to take a fit sell photos again, I could begin doing so with any of several makes, but I'd probably end up wishing I'd invested in Canon from the git-go.
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.
User avatar
Rick Hall
hunter
 
Posts: 13689
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:03 pm

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby hamernhonkers » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:54 am

OHIODUCKA5 wrote:Nice pics Honk. what are the birds with the little curly things on their heads?



Thanks and those are Devil birds!!!!! Gambel's quail, they are little track stars and don't hold for nothing unlike their cousins in the eastern US. I have lost a few pounds off my fat arse chasing them through the desert more then a few times :sad: :lol3:
Hello

David wrote:
I have suspended the suspension on the suspended, allowing the suspended to post in a non-suspending manner.
User avatar
hamernhonkers
hunter
 
Posts: 3273
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:56 am

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby OHIODUCKA5 » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:55 am

hamernhonkers wrote:
OHIODUCKA5 wrote:Nice pics Honk. what are the birds with the little curly things on their heads?



Thanks and those are Devil birds!!!!! Gambel's quail, they are little track stars and don't hold for nothing unlike their cousins in the eastern US. I have lost a few pounds off my fat arse chasing them through the desert more then a few times :sad: :lol3:


hahaha.
Last edited by OHIODUCKA5 on Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
I hope someday someone remembers this old dog with kindness and gives me to a puppy.

-Gene Hill

fadetoblack188 wrote:forget i asked.. mods please delete.. the scum bags on this site are overwhelming.
User avatar
OHIODUCKA5
hunter
 
Posts: 13204
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:46 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby hamernhonkers » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:56 am

OGblackcloud wrote:Top and middle are all that I can see



Look bottom left and pick out the shining spot then touching it to the right :wink:
Hello

David wrote:
I have suspended the suspension on the suspended, allowing the suspended to post in a non-suspending manner.
User avatar
hamernhonkers
hunter
 
Posts: 3273
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:56 am

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby hamernhonkers » Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:02 am

Rick Hall wrote:
SPatrick wrote:Rick, the general consensus, at least from what I have gathered, is when you get into those upper echelon prime lenses, and tele zooms, Canon makes a better piece of glass. I feel at the level we are talking about though, the difference is small to none.


Trouble is, by the time one knows just what level he may achieve, he's already heavily invested in a make with glass to fit. If I were to take a fit sell photos again, I could begin doing so with any of several makes, but I'd probably end up wishing I'd invested in Canon from the git-go.


The problem with Canon and Nikon is they both think their Glass is more then its worth. Thank heavens Tamron and Sigma are starting to step up their quality and offering reach at an affordable price. I went with the Tamron 70-200 2.8 because everything I was seeing from this lens was almost on par with the canon but $1000 less. Still waiting for them to get the kinks worked out of the 150-600mm and then I will probably add it to the collection instead of a long Cannon.
Hello

David wrote:
I have suspended the suspension on the suspended, allowing the suspended to post in a non-suspending manner.
User avatar
hamernhonkers
hunter
 
Posts: 3273
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:56 am

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby Broken Paddle » Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:28 am

Buy the fastest lens that you can afford. The faster the lens, the lower the light needed. My 80-210 is a f4.8 & I can not use if it is cloudy out.
"I'm a man, but I can change, if I have to, I guess. " Red Green.

I tried it, it, it did not work!
Broken Paddle
hunter
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:55 pm
Location: Fomerly in Riverton, CT Now wandering spaceship Earth

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby Rick Hall » Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:57 am

hamernhonkers wrote:Second do not trick yourself into believing that a point in shoot or bridge camera will ever do well for BIF and shooting in low light when animals are most active.


I've seen some pretty nice examples of what the FZ200's 2.8 lens manages on the dpreview forum and a quick Google turned this up on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cjpk1/11998402623/ from a Nikon shooter who also likes his FZ.

Not suggesting such a camera can hang with the really nice stuff in good hands, just that I think it hard to beat for getting your feet wet. 2.8 full range 25-600mm zoom, 5 frames per second with auto focus, RAW capability for serious post processing and pretty dang good IQ is a whole lot of value for under $500. If after using it awhile someone decides they're serious enough to move up, they've still got a sweet "beater" for hard use and dicey venues where they'd not want to risk thousands of dollars - or simply not want to pack the big gear around.
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.
User avatar
Rick Hall
hunter
 
Posts: 13689
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:03 pm

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby KillerKowalski » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:12 pm

Canon full frame. Don't waste your money on cropped.
User avatar
KillerKowalski
hunter
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:25 pm

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby hamernhonkers » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:35 pm

Rick Hall wrote:
hamernhonkers wrote:Second do not trick yourself into believing that a point in shoot or bridge camera will ever do well for BIF and shooting in low light when animals are most active.


I've seen some pretty nice examples of what the FZ200's 2.8 lens manages on the dpreview forum and a quick Google turned this up on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cjpk1/11998402623/ from a Nikon shooter who also likes his FZ.

Not suggesting such a camera can hang with the really nice stuff in good hands, just that I think it hard to beat for getting your feet wet. 2.8 full range 25-600mm zoom, 5 frames per second with auto focus, RAW capability for serious post processing and pretty dang good IQ is a whole lot of value for under $500. If after using it awhile someone decides they're serious enough to move up, they've still got a sweet "beater" for hard use and dicey venues where they'd not want to risk thousands of dollars - or simply not want to pack the big gear around.


Rick that was probably the wrong choice of words there. Yes you can get some keepers with bridge cameras and point n shoots.

I started out just the way you are suggesting. The problem for me was non of my pics looked like what I was seeing on the net and especially when shooting BIF. I never could get in focus shots when trying BIF and I was always disappointed with the noise in just about any light either shooting static or moving. Now I can shoot 5,000 to 10,000 iso and then with some PP noise reduction have a pretty good photo. Of course all this was a few years ago and we all know how fast technology is advancing, so yes this could be a very good option for him to start out with :beer:
Hello

David wrote:
I have suspended the suspension on the suspended, allowing the suspended to post in a non-suspending manner.
User avatar
hamernhonkers
hunter
 
Posts: 3273
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:56 am

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby hamernhonkers » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:39 pm

KillerKowalski wrote:Canon full frame. Don't waste your money on cropped.



Interesting you say that :huh: Most guys are looking for reach and the crop sensor gives you so much additional reach over a full frame. What are you basing your reasoning for this on? Just out of curiosity :thumbsup:

With that could you imagine the 7d or 70d with the clean high iso capabilities of the 6d sensor :yes:
Hello

David wrote:
I have suspended the suspension on the suspended, allowing the suspended to post in a non-suspending manner.
User avatar
hamernhonkers
hunter
 
Posts: 3273
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:56 am

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby hamernhonkers » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:59 pm

Ok this is not completely fair because it is a canon 6d with a 100-400L but could you imagine getting this shot with a bridge camera? It's sooc and has only been cropped, the crop however is very heavy at near 70% and the exif data is intact. Its 400mm at f8 with +1 exposure and 4000 iso.

Image
Hello

David wrote:
I have suspended the suspension on the suspended, allowing the suspended to post in a non-suspending manner.
User avatar
hamernhonkers
hunter
 
Posts: 3273
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:56 am

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby HNTFSH » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:17 pm

hamernhonkers wrote:
KillerKowalski wrote:Canon full frame. Don't waste your money on cropped.



Interesting you say that :huh: Most guys are looking for reach and the crop sensor gives you so much additional reach over a full frame. What are you basing your reasoning for this on? Just out of curiosity :thumbsup:

With that could you imagine the 7d or 70d with the clean high iso capabilities of the 6d sensor :yes:


You DO lose quality with a crop sensor. It all depends on the Photog and their objective. I compared the 7D and 6D for months and finally bought the 5D. Both 6D and 7D gave up something - the 5D did not.
No such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people
User avatar
HNTFSH
Mr. Plond
 
Posts: 19105
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby hamernhonkers » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:33 pm

HNTFSH wrote:
hamernhonkers wrote:
KillerKowalski wrote:Canon full frame. Don't waste your money on cropped.



Interesting you say that :huh: Most guys are looking for reach and the crop sensor gives you so much additional reach over a full frame. What are you basing your reasoning for this on? Just out of curiosity :thumbsup:

With that could you imagine the 7d or 70d with the clean high iso capabilities of the 6d sensor :yes:


You DO lose quality with a crop sensor. It all depends on the Photog and their objective. I compared the 7D and 6D for months and finally bought the 5D. Both 6D and 7D gave up something - the 5D did not.


Was that the 5d or 5d3 you bought? And if its the plain 5d where do you feel it bridges the gap between the 6d and 7d?

Now if its the 5d3 I am sure I already know your answer.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9360 using Tapatalk
Hello

David wrote:
I have suspended the suspension on the suspended, allowing the suspended to post in a non-suspending manner.
User avatar
hamernhonkers
hunter
 
Posts: 3273
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:56 am

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby Rick Hall » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:47 pm

hamernhonkers wrote:Ok this is not completely fair because it is a canon 6d with a 100-400L but could you imagine getting this shot with a bridge camera? It's sooc and has only been cropped, the crop however is very heavy at near 70% and the exif data is intact. Its 400mm at f8 with +1 exposure and 4000 iso.

Image


At 4000iso, of course not. But, again, you paid a steep price and convenience premium to do so.
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.
User avatar
Rick Hall
hunter
 
Posts: 13689
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:03 pm

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby HNTFSH » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:04 pm

hamernhonkers wrote:
HNTFSH wrote:
hamernhonkers wrote:
KillerKowalski wrote:Canon full frame. Don't waste your money on cropped.



Interesting you say that :huh: Most guys are looking for reach and the crop sensor gives you so much additional reach over a full frame. What are you basing your reasoning for this on? Just out of curiosity :thumbsup:

With that could you imagine the 7d or 70d with the clean high iso capabilities of the 6d sensor :yes:


You DO lose quality with a crop sensor. It all depends on the Photog and their objective. I compared the 7D and 6D for months and finally bought the 5D. Both 6D and 7D gave up something - the 5D did not.


Was that the 5d or 5d3 you bought? And if its the plain 5d where do you feel it bridges the gap between the 6d and 7d?

Now if its the 5d3 I am sure I already know your answer.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9360 using Tapatalk


5D Mark III. It's for the ole lady but getting use to a Full Frame sensor takes ahold after awhile. The old 20D still takes outstanding shots.
No such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people
User avatar
HNTFSH
Mr. Plond
 
Posts: 19105
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby KillerKowalski » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:38 pm

5Ds all the way. That's all we shoot with. None have ever failed either. Telling you get a full frame. Worth every cent.
User avatar
KillerKowalski
hunter
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:25 pm

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby hamernhonkers » Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:06 pm

HNTFSH wrote:
hamernhonkers wrote:
HNTFSH wrote:
hamernhonkers wrote:
KillerKowalski wrote:Canon full frame. Don't waste your money on cropped.



Interesting you say that :huh: Most guys are looking for reach and the crop sensor gives you so much additional reach over a full frame. What are you basing your reasoning for this on? Just out of curiosity :thumbsup:

With that could you imagine the 7d or 70d with the clean high iso capabilities of the 6d sensor :yes:


You DO lose quality with a crop sensor. It all depends on the Photog and their objective. I compared the 7D and 6D for months and finally bought the 5D. Both 6D and 7D gave up something - the 5D did not.


Was that the 5d or 5d3 you bought? And if its the plain 5d where do you feel it bridges the gap between the 6d and 7d?

Now if its the 5d3 I am sure I already know your answer.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9360 using Tapatalk


5D Mark III. It's for the ole lady but getting use to a Full Frame sensor takes ahold after awhile. The old 20D still takes outstanding shots.


The 5d3 was my first choice but I wanted a fast prime too, so it was body only or body and glass. With kids being the priority and not wildlife (specifically bif) the body/glass won the battle and for my needs it was the right choice.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9360 using Tapatalk
Hello

David wrote:
I have suspended the suspension on the suspended, allowing the suspended to post in a non-suspending manner.
User avatar
hamernhonkers
hunter
 
Posts: 3273
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:56 am

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby hamernhonkers » Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:27 pm

Rick Hall wrote:
hamernhonkers wrote:Ok this is not completely fair because it is a canon 6d with a 100-400L but could you imagine getting this shot with a bridge camera? It's sooc and has only been cropped, the crop however is very heavy at near 70% and the exif data is intact. Its 400mm at f8 with +1 exposure and 4000 iso.

Image


At 4000iso, of course not. But, again, you paid a steep price and convenience premium to do so.


I did but then I think just how much better of glass I could have now if I would of just went with the best instead of buying my way up to what I have now. But of course that's just me.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9360 using Tapatalk
Hello

David wrote:
I have suspended the suspension on the suspended, allowing the suspended to post in a non-suspending manner.
User avatar
hamernhonkers
hunter
 
Posts: 3273
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:56 am

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby REM1100 » Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:22 am

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

[url=http://s206.photobucket.com/user/REM1100/media/_DSC5749.jpg.html]Image[/url

These pics were taken from my "Relatively Affordable" setup ....none of the lens had white markings on them and cost between $125-$350 used. The guy did not mention top of the line rigs or what pros use. I shoot for fun.
on the X in Saskatchewan
User avatar
REM1100
Provincial Moderator
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Western Canada

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby OHIODUCKA5 » Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:21 am

My old boss sent me this link. he said check out their point and shoot stuff.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
I hope someday someone remembers this old dog with kindness and gives me to a puppy.

-Gene Hill

fadetoblack188 wrote:forget i asked.. mods please delete.. the scum bags on this site are overwhelming.
User avatar
OHIODUCKA5
hunter
 
Posts: 13204
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:46 pm
Location: Ohio

Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby KillerKowalski » Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:30 am

Rem, not bad pictures. Some are very structured. Almost all are heavily PP. Your water has purple dots, the Drake Mallard's feet are over saturated, the red chopper is tinted wrong as you can see the red overblown into the sky. Getting a piece of PP software is like owning a third piece if equipment. Rule of thirds can help you.

B&H, Adorama and Amazon are the only three authorized online retailers for Canon or Nikon warranties. There's a black market with grey list equipment. Those products aren't covered under US warranties, so beware. Personally, I never have or will buy used camera equipment. To the hobbyist it may be okay. But, to a business that shoots daily it can be costly. If you buy a used body, download the exact actuations. Shutters have a life span on all cameras. Good luck with a used lenses. First, make sure it's not a grey market. If not, see if it's still under warranty. We just sent two of our Canon lenses in for repair last week. One was a defect. The other was dropped, but the lay person never would be able to notice. Repairs were over $600. It isn't cheap to fix camera equipment.
User avatar
KillerKowalski
hunter
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:25 pm

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby Rick Hall » Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:55 am

hamernhonkers wrote:
Rick Hall wrote:At 4000iso, of course not. But, again, you paid a steep price and convenience premium to do so.


I did but then I think just how much better of glass I could have now if I would of just went with the best instead of buying my way up to what I have now. But of course that's just me.


With any luck the OP will heed your advice and ignore mine, and I'll be off the hook when early efforts don't pan out, and he learns really good wildlife photography is a hassle and yet another case where it's more about the Indian than arrow.
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.
User avatar
Rick Hall
hunter
 
Posts: 13689
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:03 pm

Re: Questions about Waterfowl Photography?

Postby cootlover » Tue Apr 08, 2014 8:36 am

Hell just get a throw away 110 from walmart $3.99 :yes:
cootlover
hunter
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:39 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Honey Hole

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], GomerPyle, GOTDUCKS?, Redarrow and 27 guests