www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

The first thread is getting a bit unwieldy so I hope you don't mind me starting a new one.

On Tuesday at my local AWT reserve at Willsbridge I snapped this jay tucking into something in the trees, berries I think.


then a surprise was this buzzard that allowed me just a single shot before taking off. I snuck up on it again but couldn't match this opportunity again.


On Wednesday I visited Backwell Lake in Somerset. The little egret was there again. I was stretching things a bit with the Sigma 100-300 with 1.4x TC, this being a 100% crop.


A mute swan flew past right in front of me and I fired two shots. With the second shot I just clipped the front of its bill but I got this one reasonably framed. It's almost full frame and gawd knows how I managed it. Pure luck.


All shot with Sony A700 plus 100-300 f4 Sigma. Shots 3 & 4 used 1.4x Kenko Pro300 teleconverter. EXIF is intact.

Very nice Eccles, the birds look very realistic. Now, are you saying that you have two lens on the camera and if so, why two? Would you have the camera on a tripod or are you on your knee's.
Shirley Ps. Saw a Siskin to-day.

The two lenses thing:
I have a teleconverter. This is a supplementary lens that goes between the camera and the primary lens to increase the effective focal length and give it a bit more range. There are two common teleconverter types, a 1.4x and a 2x. There are also 1.7x and 3x but they are less commonly used. A 1.4x will turn a 300mm lens into a 420mm, and a 2x will turn it into a 600mm. You don't get something for nothing, however. A 1.4x converter will cost you one stop in aperture and a 2x will cost you two stops. Also, they rely on the primary lens outresolving the sensor, so if that is not the case using one will not give very good results, and you may as well crop the image as necessary when post processing. This is because a 1.4x converter effectively does a 50% crop of the image before passing it into the camera, and a 2x does a crop to 25% of the original image size.
The image quality of my 100-300 lens is very high (it was an expensive lens!), so adding a 1.4x converter to it can still produce very good results. I have tried a 2x with it, and whilst it is better than upsizing the image with post processing, it is not that much better, and the two stop hit means my camera will not accurately autofocus using it. I have to manually focus instead.
Do not be persuaded to use a teleconverter with that 55-200 Tamron. It'll work but will not give very good results.
I used a monopod to take these shots. It's much lighter than a tripod, is more easily maneuverable, and with practice it can be almost as steady. Besides, the Sigma lens is heavy, and it's nice to be able to rest it!

Nice pics Eccles,
Shaun

Thanks Shaun. I'm still gobsmacked at the Swan in-flight shot as I hadn't a clue how I managed it. I fired the shutter a couple of times on a reflex action and it really was pure fluke that I got one.

Nice pics, like the swan and the Jay, I've always liked Jays.

I went to the park beside my college as I had a long while between classes to wait. It has two ponds and an small avery with various chickens, parrots, budgies and different pheasants. I took my compact camera and got a few pics (there was lots of gulls and I had to watch them "divebombing" so I did not recieve a lovley gift on my head! but it came close!:



This was a duck that seemed not to want to show its head for me!



Herring? Gulls:



White ducks (anyone know what they are?) :



is this a goldeneye duck?



Guinie Fowl:



White Dove:



Golden Phesant (I think):


Two chickens (french hens?) :



Two Pidgeons:



budgies:



and finally:

Hi Dave,

I think this is right but willing to be corrected if i'm not.
1. Greylag Goose
2. rear end of a Mallard Duck,
3. Black-headed gulls in winter plumage.
4. Pretty white duck?
5. Tufted Duck.
6. Guinea Fowl
7. White Dove
8. Golden Pheasant . Even better in the wild.
9.?
10. Pigeons
11. Budgies
12. The new speckled duck is a female Mallard.

Cheers
Denise

Slightly changed the last photos

Thanks Denise for the ID's, I am still working on what the white ducks are.

Shirley, I like the flying finch, looks like a hummingbird in that pic!

The white ducks are one of the many breeds of domesticated mallard - something similar to the Aylesbury duck.

I'm often amazed at the variety of wildlife that occurs in my local wildlife reserve. It's on the edge of a housing estate but the birds don't seem to mind. These were all snapped in the space of a couple of hours yesterday, a particularly good day.

Tree creeper



Great spotted woodpecker



Dipper



Goldcrest pretending to be a tree creeper



Sony A700, Sigma 100-300 F4 + Pro300 1.4x TC

Cracking photo's Mike.
I find Tree Creepers very hard to catch. Well done. The GSW and Dipper are really good.

Denise

Nice pics Eccles,
I had a great hour at C. Chase photographing the birds on the feeders when this first fellow turned up,Its been 20 years since i saw one of these,no apologies for the bad photo as I was just trying to get a record of it and i was shaking to much.It stayed for 5 mins before heading off.
Shaun.

Sorry to appear dim Shaun but what is the first and second bird, light or no light they are very interesting photos.
Shirley

Sorry Shirley,
The first is a Hawfinch,The second is a Coal Tit not showing its crown stripe.
Shaun.

Nice pics and great catch with the hawfinch, Shaun, but they're all very dark on my monitor. I had a quick go with the levels on the hawfinch but the detail is in the noise floor unfortunately, although if you shot raw you'll have a bit more latitude.

Thanks Eccles,
Not any good with photoshop im afraid sharpen contast and cropping is about my limit,
How dark are the coal and blue tit as they are showing ok on my screen?
Cheers Shaun

The bluetit and coal tit are very nice photos but I think the contrast gradient is too high and eye detail is lost in shadow. I hope you don't mind me having a tweak using the bluetit as an example. I've moved the centre slider in the 'levels' menu option to flatten the contrast a little. To my eyes this helps show more feather detail and brings out the catchlight in the bird's eye.
It seemed ok with a bit more sharpening too, although your more conservative approach may be preferrable as there's a bit of noise showing up after adding the sharpening.

Much better eye detail Eccles,I tend to run away from tampering with the pics to much but simple things like that can improve them a great deal.The Hawfinch was a distant 500mm range and above the skyline silhouetting it,so it was just a case of getting a record of it.
P.S I dont know if you have your local birdline number but it would be worth phoning every day as Waxwings are in good numbers in our area and I should imagine in yours now or soon,if your interested.
Thanks Shaun.

twitcher wrote: P.S I dont know if you have your local birdline number but it would be worth phoning every day as Waxwings are in good numbers in our area and I should imagine in yours now or soon,if your interested.
Thanks Shaun.

No Waxwings in our area yet (I look every online every day)

Denise