-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Ed Forum birdwatching 2008
- Thread starter Kotatsu
- Start date
-
- Tags
- birds birdwatching
Kotatsu
Phthirapterist
I second that!
We'll accept anything and everything you've seen! I am not too familiar with what you have in Greece, but I suppose there could be some very nice species there. Between the regular posters here, I believe we should be able to identify everything you see down there, at least after a while. I know Eric has some direct experience --- this year, even --- of several of the Mediterranean birds, so don't hesitate to ask.
Your unknown birds are, in order of appearance:
White Stork Ciconia ciconia
White Stork again
Juvenile Grey Heron Ardea cinerea
Adult Grey Heron
Adult Grey Heron
Spoonbill Platalea europaea
Little Egret Egretta garzetta
Adult Squacco Heron Ardeola ralloides
Black-crowned Night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax
I had a bit of trouble at first with the Spoonbill, as neither of the pictures in my book really fits (adult summer = black bill; juvenile = light legs), but the "puffy" face, the stance, and seemingly short neck gives it away to species level, at least. Egrets look sleeker, like a heron, and (usually) rest in the typical "huddled" heron pose. My guess would be it's a juvenile which has changed its leg colour, perhaps changing into an adult look?
Kotatsu
Phthirapterist
Sorry, I was the one who messed up; they are the same species, but that species is, as you wrote, P. leucorodia. In my defence, I was watching Rent at the same time as I did those identifications^^.
Ok, this is fun! (And while photos may not be the intent of the thread, they are all I have to offer.)
An easy one--we only saw about six billion:
What should be an easy one--even if in flight:
I think these guys are the same as the last:
A flock of these flew out of a cave, but I assure you they are not bats:
This blur flew under us on the bridge over the Corinth Canal (there are distinctive markings, though):
Lastly, two views of this cutie:
An easy one--we only saw about six billion:
What should be an easy one--even if in flight:
I think these guys are the same as the last:
A flock of these flew out of a cave, but I assure you they are not bats:
This blur flew under us on the bridge over the Corinth Canal (there are distinctive markings, though):
Lastly, two views of this cutie:
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
It was. I am planning on purchasing a camera, and I'm curious what some of the experienced birding photogs recommend as far as lenses.
Any thoughts on set ups?
I am not an experienced birding photog; in fact, I got my camera a week before I left on my trip. So, to the extent that my pics are any good, credit the good people at Nikon. These were taken with my D80, with a 55-200mm Nikkor DX VR lens. I love it--but then, I am biased; I have to love it, since it is already mine.
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
Nice pics. It's inspiring. People I've asked usually mention the Nikon or a Canon 40D. I've also heard a lens from 28mm is a good choice.
I think the proper question might be, what is a good focal length for the lens?
Remember, you are getting advice from an absolute newbie--albeit one who did his homework before buying.
28 mm is a fantastic wide-angle*. I have tons of shots with my wide-angle; if you have the pixels, you can take a wide-angle shot and make a great pic out of it. And I find myself using it more and more.
For birding, though... see, the thing is, birds startle. And they fly away. You won't find too many occasions when you are close enough to really utilize a wide-angle lens for birding**. Most of my favorite bird pics are at the very limit (200mm) of my zoom lens, and I often found myself wishing I had had more magnification. I really suggest looking at some websites or magazines that you think reflect the type of photography you think you will do, and look to see what lenses they use. If I were planning to do more birding, I would look for a lens that brought me substantially closer than my 200mm does. (I suppose a reiteration of ** is called for here.)
* for film;I hear the numbers are different for digital cameras--my [digital] wide-angle zoom is from 18 to 55 mm.
** remember, I am a complete newbie! Look for the advice of those with some mileage!
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
I think I've figured this one out - it's a red-tailed hawk, Buteo jamaicensis.
And my husband says I'm wrong about the female - he says he saw the other one and it was half again as big as the one I saw, so I guess the one I saw was the male.
I'm still going to try to get a picture. You can get amazingly close to them.
The Cornell Ornithology page says this under "Cool Facts":
The raspy cry of the Red-tailed Hawk is used in movies to represent any eagle or hawk anywhere in the world.
AK-Dave
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 586
Here are some hooter pics I took last week near my work:
http://picasaweb.google.com/david4069/GreatHornedOwls
I was using a flash, so most of the pics have redeye, but it looked too cool to fix. Makes them look like terminator owls.
- David
http://picasaweb.google.com/david4069/GreatHornedOwls
I was using a flash, so most of the pics have redeye, but it looked too cool to fix. Makes them look like terminator owls.
- David
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Most people who shoot (or try to shoot) birds would tell you that it's rare to wish for a shorter lens, and you'll never wish for a slower one. Basically, your limits will be what you can afford, and what you can support. A lens that is both long and fast can be huge in size and the price will knock you right over. Big lenses need big tripods with big heads. Bird photography can become a nasty and expensive habit.
But if you can get a 200 or 300 mm lens with decent speed and quality, you'll be able to get a lot. 400 or 500 is nicer, but decent speed in those sizes will cost you many bucks and be large to handle. Here's a little hummingbird I got some time ago (on 35 mm film) with my old 400/5.6 lens using an extension tube to bring the focus closer:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
As Mercutio says, with a 200 mm lens you'll find yourself often wishing for more, but it will at least find the bird sometimes. A couple of years ago we were driving and saw a hawk swoop down on a snowy field. I stopped the car, grabbed the camera, and shot out the window as the bird brought its prey back up to a fencepost. This picture is a crop of one taken with an 80-200 mm. zoom lens. Not good enough or sharp enough by far for publication, but a fun kind of thing to get:
I am also brand new to photography and my efforts are not nearly as good as Mercutio's. But I agree about the focal length. I got a cannon 4000D and it came with an 18-55 mm lens. But I also bought a tamron 70-300 (couldn't afford the canon equivalent) and I find I am nearly always trying to use the latter at full stretch. The problem is camera shake, so much of what I am taking is not sharp. I think as I learn to use it this might improve, and like Mercutio what I am getting is so far mainly due to the camera and not to any skill of mine. It is fun and I wish I had done this ages ago. But it is very very expensive to buy such equipment so it is probably important to do a lot of research before you commit
What is in the tree below the Black-crowned Night-heron?
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
A tripod is about the only cure for camera shake when you get to long lenses unless the scene is bright enough for a very fast shutter speed, and even then it's iffy. You may find that the added noise of a high ISO setting is a good tradeoff for faster shutter speeds. Grain (on film) or digital noise is still usually better than motion blur. If your camera can shoot continuous bursts, some people find that squeezing off three or four shots in a row will get you past the initial shake, and give you a clean shot. That's too expensive for us film burners, but no sweat with digital.
Kotatsu
Phthirapterist
Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus
In the second post, your sightings are (in order):
Mediterranean Gull Larus cachinnans (new to the list, I think)
Magpie Pica pica
Magpie again
Jackdaw Corvus monedula
A kestral Falco tinnunculus, but I'd really like to see higher resolution on this one. In Greece, you also have the Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni, which would have blue fields on the wings, lack black spots in the orange shoulders and inner wings, and lack a black moustache. I can't really tell on the picture.
Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs
Are all these taken at the same place you mentioned before?
Your juvenile is a Moorhen Gallinula chloropus
I have a Olympus E-510 with a 40-150mm lens (and a smaller one for hand-held birds, but as far as I know, I am alone in this thread to have the opportunity to use that regularly^^). I am a lousy photograph, though, so it doesn't help to have a good camera. However, I have some pictures that a friend of mine, who is a good photographer (one of those who like B/W photo), and my ex (who likes sepia) have both used it to make great photos, so there is potential.
I am a bit curious to find out if anyone is using a Mac, and could recommend a program I could use to lessen the size of the pictures... I am a bit of a newbie to Mac, and have no clue.
I think we have ended up with that one when we've had a mystery hawk before. Is t very variable?
Good pictures! Are those juvenile owls? They look a bit fluffy around the head...
Do you ahve Image stabilising? After having used my camera for over a year, I found out in Lapland that I actually have a setting that allows me to stabilise pictures, which has been very handy. I suppose most people would check such things the first thing they do, but just in case^^. I know that it may be easy to miss for an entire year...
Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo