Generally speaking, in a very low light like we've had today, outdoor bird photography doesn't work very well for me. (I guess, if one uses a "better beamer", which I don't, or gets real close to an animal, good shots are possible too.)
For example, trying to shoot strongly irridescent birds such as Buffleheads just can not be done, because it is sunlight which ignites the irridescence. Granted, one can bring out some colours in the photoshop, but those images tend to look, well, photoshopped.
BIF photography gets even trickier because of camera's strong AF dependance on good light and high contrast. Obviously, it helps to have a large, contrasty and/or relatively slow fly-by target, such as Canada goose or Bald eagle.
What I like to do on days like this one is shoot head-on pijuns in flight. It's a good sport, plus it provides a badly needed drill for my reflexes and arm steadiness. In order to reduce the handicap, I am often using one of the best lenses for such shooting conditions: 200mm f/2 IS. You may take my word for it, even lenses like 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8 stutter badly on this target type in low light, never mind anything f/4 or slower.
Here is one shot like that from today. I estimate the bird was doing 30-35mph at that time, which is a very moderate cruise speed for pijuns. Sometimes I manage to get a nicer background than that. The lens IS was turned off, f/2, 1/1000 sec, ISO 100, manual exposure mode.
What you see is almost FF, i.e., the bird was no more than 12 ft distant. The DoF is quite thin, and unfortunately the sharpest focus is on the base of the bird's beak, and not on the eyes.
My keeper rate with shots like that is 1-2%. But I still keep doing them.
Disclosure: Non-living bait was used in the creation of this photograph.
Sure is, Conrad. That is a part of the challenge. With the 200mm f/2 IS wide open, it is hard enough AFing accurately on a stationary and well lit head portrait of a person.
However, the gain is that the background just about disappears.
morris wrote:
This is a beautiful image Peter. The 200 is a sweet lens
Morris
Thank you, Morris......200 f/2 IS (and 200 f/1.8) are indeed very special lenses. However, 200 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII are almost as good but much more cost effective.
mike717 wrote:
Nice job on the pijun Peter. You have me thinking that maybe next time I head to the park I should swap out the 400 for something a little smaller.
Mike
Thank you, Mike.
If the light is good, then getting a fast fly-by pijun with 400 f/5.6 lens is not very difficult.....then you get a more mainstream type of a shot like this:
(1DMkIIN + 400 f/5.6)
sritri wrote:
How many lenses do you keep on hand unless your home overlooks the pond ?
Generally only one lens which depends on the prevailing weather-light as well as the birds anticipated to be available. Knowing all that, a day's mission is defined and appropriate gear is chosen.
On occasion I will take an additional shorter and more nimble lens with me just in case, such as 400 f/5.6, when the primary lens is 800L.
But I still keep doing them. 
.
