arbitrage wrote:
Sometimes they pass just below me (I'm shooting from a floating bridge) so about 3m. But most of the shots are out at 15-30m so lots of cropping is usually involved. Of course when they do fly really close their speed through the FOV is so quick that it gets more and more difficult to pan along with them. Better shots if you manage a few at close range but so many misses. I have found shooting a longer focal length like 840mm and shooting them a bit further away works better usually.
I am quite convincing to swap 100-400 with 200-600 (at par I think, money wise), I have 1.4x too so I would be fixed with reach... waiting a good chance for a 400/2.8 or a (next to come?) 500/4 some time in the far future...
fadeslayer wrote:
I am quite convincing to swap 100-400 with 200-600 (at par I think, money wise), I have 1.4x too so I would be fixed with reach... waiting a good chance for a 400/2.8 or a (next to come?) 500/4 some time in the far future...
I really see no advantages in my bird photography for the 100-400 anymore.
I am keeping the 100-400 for now to do some bees, butterflies, flowers, frogs but no birds.
If one is tight on packing space or needs lower weight than the 100-400 makes some sense.
The 100-400 does very well with swallows also but then I'm usually having to put on the 1.4TC and that is now 2/3 stops slower than the 200-600 at 600mm. 2/3 stops can make a big difference in swallow shooting to gain SS.
I wouldn't hesitate at all swapping the 100-400 for the 200-600. As you can see in my photos (in the 200-600 thread or in N&W section), even using the 1.4TC on the 200-600 works for fast swallows and certainly works for every other bird you can throw at it.
These are images from last year but I just edited these files... I couldn't believe how many images I ended up taking during the peak of the burrowing owl season then...
This veteran burrowing owl just caught its favorite food mid-air but instead flying to the burrow it landed on a man-made structure very close to my position, close to the MFD of the lens. Then it devoured the catch in just a few seconds. The first 2 files were converted from horizontal to vertical and the last one is heavily cropped.
I looked it up and I believe this hasn't been posted here. I am not sure what she caught but I could see some faint legs sprouting from the body. It could be a very your crayfish.
mogul wrote:
You are right...the 7r4 really sucks, you should get rid of it. Joking of course...amazing how well the 600 takes TC's.
I am shooting the R4 more and more now. With the 600GM it is amazingly good. With the 200-600 I'm getting better and better results as I've discussed in other 200-600 threads but it isn't perfect with that lens.
