I have a bird table in my back garden for attacting birds.
Mostly it attacts pigeons, not that I mind particularly.
Last Thursday, I arrived home to find the back garden
covered in pigeon feathers -- big ones and all the downy
ones. No sign of a carcus, but obviously one of the cats
or a fox struck lucky.

Anyway, on to the point... What I have noticed is that
since Thursday, there's not been any pigeons in my garden,
nor can I see any for several garden's radius. There are
normally always a few to be seen in the trees and rooftops.
Even the two magpies which were around have vanished.
Also, the food on the bird table which normally lasts
only half a day hasn't been touched since then, so
much so that spiders have built webs across the bird table
openings which haven't been disturbed.

I guess I'm rather amazed that the birds were apparently
so truamatised by the capure of one of them that they've
left the area. I went round the lawn with the mower at
the weekend, mainly to suck up all the feathers, but
even now they're all gone, still no birds. This perhaps
implies a higher level of awareness than I would have
previous attributed to the birds.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I have a bird table in my back garden for attacting birds.
Mostly it attacts pigeons, not that I mind particularly.
Last Thursday, I arrived home to find the back garden
covered in pigeon feathers -- big ones and all the downy
ones. No sign of a carcus, but obviously one of the cats
or a fox struck lucky.

Anyway, on to the point... What I have noticed is that
since Thursday, there's not been any pigeons in my garden,
nor can I see any for several garden's radius. There are
normally always a few to be seen in the trees and rooftops.
Even the two magpies which were around have vanished.
Also, the food on the bird table which normally lasts
only half a day hasn't been touched since then, so
much so that spiders have built webs across the bird table
openings which haven't been disturbed.

I guess I'm rather amazed that the birds were apparently
so truamatised by the capure of one of them that they've
left the area. I went round the lawn with the mower at
the weekend, mainly to suck up all the feathers, but
even now they're all gone, still no birds. This perhaps
implies a higher level of awareness than I would have
previous attributed to the birds.


Quite possibly a raptor (is that the right term?) - something like a
hawk, falcon or similar bird of prey. Spectacular if you see a pigeon
one minute and a light dusting of feathers the next.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

On Jul 21, 11:26*am, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
I have a bird table in my back garden for attacting birds.
Mostly it attacts pigeons, not that I mind particularly.
Last Thursday, I arrived home to find the back garden
covered in pigeon feathers -- big ones and all the downy
ones. No sign of a carcus, but obviously one of the cats
or a fox struck lucky.

Anyway, on to the point... What I have noticed is that
since Thursday, there's not been any pigeons in my garden,
nor can I see any for several garden's radius. There are
normally always a few to be seen in the trees and rooftops.
Even the two magpies which were around have vanished.
Also, the food on the bird table which normally lasts
only half a day hasn't been touched since then, so
much so that spiders have built webs across the bird table
openings which haven't been disturbed.

I guess I'm rather amazed that the birds were apparently
so truamatised by the capure of one of them that they've
left the area. I went round the lawn with the mower at
the weekend, mainly to suck up all the feathers, but
even now they're all gone, still no birds. This perhaps
implies a higher level of awareness than I would have
previous attributed to the birds.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Perhaps a sparrow hawk has taken up residence nearby?

Keith

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I have a bird table in my back garden for attacting birds.
Mostly it attacts pigeons, not that I mind particularly.
Last Thursday, I arrived home to find the back garden
covered in pigeon feathers -- big ones and all the downy
ones. No sign of a carcus, but obviously one of the cats
or a fox struck lucky.

don't rule out owls and other birds of prey.
Bit big for a kestrel, but a peregrine or tawny owl is a fair match.

Also don't rule out the bird simply dying..Ive fod dea piegons in
prefect states of preservation in te wooods..just - died!

I suspect a lot of so called 'birds killed by cats' were actually
carrion before the cat came anywhere near.

Our cats and dogs found a qsuirrel on the lawn..young. Looked like its
back was broken. I surmised it had jumped and missed..




Anyway, on to the point... What I have noticed is that
since Thursday, there's not been any pigeons in my garden,
nor can I see any for several garden's radius. There are
normally always a few to be seen in the trees and rooftops.
Even the two magpies which were around have vanished.
Also, the food on the bird table which normally lasts
only half a day hasn't been touched since then, so
much so that spiders have built webs across the bird table
openings which haven't been disturbed.

I guess I'm rather amazed that the birds were apparently
so truamatised by the capure of one of them that they've
left the area. I went round the lawn with the mower at
the weekend, mainly to suck up all the feathers, but
even now they're all gone, still no birds. This perhaps
implies a higher level of awareness than I would have
previous attributed to the birds.

Pigeons are smart *******s.

Round here they fly away even if you point a stick at them.

Never mind a 410.

On 2008-07-21 11:26:11 +0100, (Andrew
Gabriel) said:

I have a bird table in my back garden for attacting birds.
Mostly it attacts pigeons, not that I mind particularly.
Last Thursday, I arrived home to find the back garden
covered in pigeon feathers -- big ones and all the downy
ones. No sign of a carcus, but obviously one of the cats
or a fox struck lucky.

Anyway, on to the point... What I have noticed is that
since Thursday, there's not been any pigeons in my garden,
nor can I see any for several garden's radius. There are
normally always a few to be seen in the trees and rooftops.
Even the two magpies which were around have vanished.
Also, the food on the bird table which normally lasts
only half a day hasn't been touched since then, so
much so that spiders have built webs across the bird table
openings which haven't been disturbed.

I guess I'm rather amazed that the birds were apparently
so truamatised by the capure of one of them that they've
left the area. I went round the lawn with the mower at
the weekend, mainly to suck up all the feathers, but
even now they're all gone, still no birds. This perhaps
implies a higher level of awareness than I would have
previous attributed to the birds.

It could be sight or could (more likely) be scent, although are the
cats normally around in the garden?

Some birds are smarter than the credit given to them. Some are
believed to be able to count to a small degree. So for example, when I
go to a hide to take photographs, one trick is to have two people and
the second one leaves. The less bright birds take this as a signal
that all is clear - can't tell difference between one and two people.
Smarter ones like crows and certainly raptors are not fooled by that.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for normality to return
in your garden. Are the birds feeding all that much at the table
anyway at this time of year? I tend to tail that off in the summer
and let them tuck into other things such as a rowan treee which is
laden with berries at the moment.

On 2008-07-21 11:35:02 +0100, Rod said:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I have a bird table in my back garden for attacting birds.
Mostly it attacts pigeons, not that I mind particularly.
Last Thursday, I arrived home to find the back garden
covered in pigeon feathers -- big ones and all the downy
ones. No sign of a carcus, but obviously one of the cats
or a fox struck lucky.

Anyway, on to the point... What I have noticed is that
since Thursday, there's not been any pigeons in my garden,
nor can I see any for several garden's radius. There are
normally always a few to be seen in the trees and rooftops.
Even the two magpies which were around have vanished.
Also, the food on the bird table which normally lasts
only half a day hasn't been touched since then, so
much so that spiders have built webs across the bird table
openings which haven't been disturbed.

I guess I'm rather amazed that the birds were apparently
so truamatised by the capure of one of them that they've
left the area. I went round the lawn with the mower at
the weekend, mainly to suck up all the feathers, but
even now they're all gone, still no birds. This perhaps
implies a higher level of awareness than I would have
previous attributed to the birds.


Quite possibly a raptor (is that the right term?) - something like a
hawk, falcon or similar bird of prey. Spectacular if you see a pigeon
one minute and a light dusting of feathers the next.

That would explain the observed scenario. Sparrowhawks are quite
plentiful in Berks, Bucks, Oxfordshire and Hampshire especially in
areas surrounded by trees. I just missed photgraphing one on Saturday,
but did make up for it by managing to find a Kingfisher at a nearby
lake. That 500mm prime lens is becoming ever more tempting.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-21 11:26:11 +0100, (Andrew
Gabriel) said:

I have a bird table in my back garden for attacting birds.
Mostly it attacts pigeons, not that I mind particularly.
Last Thursday, I arrived home to find the back garden
covered in pigeon feathers -- big ones and all the downy
ones. No sign of a carcus, but obviously one of the cats
or a fox struck lucky.

Anyway, on to the point... What I have noticed is that
since Thursday, there's not been any pigeons in my garden,
nor can I see any for several garden's radius. There are
normally always a few to be seen in the trees and rooftops.
Even the two magpies which were around have vanished.
Also, the food on the bird table which normally lasts
only half a day hasn't been touched since then, so
much so that spiders have built webs across the bird table
openings which haven't been disturbed.

I guess I'm rather amazed that the birds were apparently
so truamatised by the capure of one of them that they've
left the area. I went round the lawn with the mower at
the weekend, mainly to suck up all the feathers, but
even now they're all gone, still no birds. This perhaps
implies a higher level of awareness than I would have
previous attributed to the birds.

It could be sight or could (more likely) be scent, although are the cats
normally around in the garden?

Some birds are smarter than the credit given to them. Some are
believed to be able to count to a small degree. So for example, when I
go to a hide to take photographs, one trick is to have two people and
the second one leaves. The less bright birds take this as a signal
that all is clear - can't tell difference between one and two people.
Smarter ones like crows and certainly raptors are not fooled by that.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for normality to return
in your garden. Are the birds feeding all that much at the table
anyway at this time of year? I tend to tail that off in the summer
and let them tuck into other things such as a rowan treee which is laden
with berries at the moment.


Clever birds are crows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7027923.stm

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I have a bird table in my back garden for attacting birds.
Mostly it attacts pigeons, not that I mind particularly.

I had a Pigeon Incident about half an hour ago, curiously enough. Was
driving through town at about 10 mph when - as happens all the time - a
pigeon waddled out into the road about 25 yards ahead of me. I don't
usually make a habit of suddenly braking or changing course when a bird
travels in front of my car as (a) there's a risk of another vehicle
behind me running into the back of me and (b) 999 times out of 1000 the
bird gets out of the way in time anyway.

Not this time though. TBH I can't ever even remember it happening
before, but there was sickening 'splat' sound as Pidgie burst rather
comprehensively under my nearside front wheel, followed by a scream from
a passerby on the footpath holding her toddler by the hand. All rather
unfortunate... But thinking about it afterwards, maybe it will make the
kid think twice before running into the road in the future? "Squash a
pigeon, save a child..."

David

"Keefiedee" wrote in message
...
On Jul 21, 11:26 am, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
I have a bird table in my back garden for attacting birds.
Mostly it attacts pigeons, not that I mind particularly.
Last Thursday, I arrived home to find the back garden
covered in pigeon feathers -- big ones and all the downy
ones. No sign of a carcus, but obviously one of the cats
or a fox struck lucky.

Anyway, on to the point... What I have noticed is that
since Thursday, there's not been any pigeons in my garden,
nor can I see any for several garden's radius. There are
normally always a few to be seen in the trees and rooftops.
Even the two magpies which were around have vanished.
Also, the food on the bird table which normally lasts
only half a day hasn't been touched since then, so
much so that spiders have built webs across the bird table
openings which haven't been disturbed.

I guess I'm rather amazed that the birds were apparently
so truamatised by the capure of one of them that they've
left the area. I went round the lawn with the mower at
the weekend, mainly to suck up all the feathers, but
even now they're all gone, still no birds. This perhaps
implies a higher level of awareness than I would have
previous attributed to the birds.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Perhaps a sparrow hawk has taken up residence nearby?

Keith

Not long ago a sparrowhawk grabbed a pigeon out of my parents garden at set
of at full speed. It crashed straight through the garage window. Both birds
survived. The garden is still full of birds though.

Adam

Lobster wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I have a bird table in my back garden for attacting birds.
Mostly it attacts pigeons, not that I mind particularly.

I had a Pigeon Incident about half an hour ago, curiously enough. Was
driving through town at about 10 mph when - as happens all the time - a
pigeon waddled out into the road about 25 yards ahead of me. I don't
usually make a habit of suddenly braking or changing course when a bird
travels in front of my car as (a) there's a risk of another vehicle
behind me running into the back of me and (b) 999 times out of 1000 the
bird gets out of the way in time anyway.

Not this time though. TBH I can't ever even remember it happening
before, but there was sickening 'splat' sound as Pidgie burst rather
comprehensively under my nearside front wheel, followed by a scream from
a passerby on the footpath holding her toddler by the hand. All rather
unfortunate... But thinking about it afterwards, maybe it will make the
kid think twice before running into the road in the future? "Squash a
pigeon, save a child..."

David

My most impressive bird demise, from my POV, was when a skein of ducks
passed overhead. But not quite. One was just too low and hit the screen
just in front of the rear view mirror. Very, very loud thump. They are
quite heavy, solid birds and I was very glad it had not been a little
lower and to the right. I was quite surprised that the windscreen took
many months to crack much more.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

In message
,
Keefiedee writes
On Jul 21, 11:26*am, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
I have a bird table in my back garden for attacting birds.
Mostly it attacts pigeons, not that I mind particularly.
Last Thursday, I arrived home to find the back garden
covered in pigeon feathers -- big ones and all the downy
ones. No sign of a carcus, but obviously one of the cats
or a fox struck lucky.

Anyway, on to the point... What I have noticed is that
since Thursday, there's not been any pigeons in my garden,
nor can I see any for several garden's radius. There are
normally always a few to be seen in the trees and rooftops.
Even the two magpies which were around have vanished.
Also, the food on the bird table which normally lasts
only half a day hasn't been touched since then, so
much so that spiders have built webs across the bird table
openings which haven't been disturbed.

I guess I'm rather amazed that the birds were apparently
so truamatised by the capure of one of them that they've
left the area. I went round the lawn with the mower at
the weekend, mainly to suck up all the feathers, but
even now they're all gone, still no birds. This perhaps
implies a higher level of awareness than I would have
previous attributed to the birds.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Perhaps a sparrow hawk has taken up residence nearby?

ISTR sparrow hawks can only lift off with de-feathered prey up to
blackbird size.

Last week we had blood on the wall and a pile of feathers/intestines on
the lawn and wondered. The stripped carcass of a collared dove was found
20 yards away and binned. Shortly after that a juvenile hen sparrow hawk
turned up.

They tend to perch in tall trees overlooking a likely food source and
are clever enough to use buildings and even moving vehicles as a way of
approaching targets unseen.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On 2008-07-21 12:27:14 +0100, Huge said:

On 2008-07-21, Andy Hall wrote:

That 500mm prime lens is becoming ever more tempting.

I have a 300mm in a Nikon DX (so, the equivalent of a 450mm in 35mm) and it
isn't long enough for decent bird piccies.

I know. I was thinking about perhaps using the 300mm plus a 1.7
teleconverter with a DX. In principle that should be reasonable
although not quite as good as a prime. This has the advantage of
being somewhat less massive than the 500mm, both on weight and price.



I'd go longer than 500mm.

There's 600mm from Nikon but it's a very large beast. I suppose
500mm with 1.4 could be an option. I'm currently using a DX format
camera (D300) but am thinking about getting a D3.


When I was
still using 35mm film equipment I had a 1000mm catadioptric (aka "mirror lens")
for bird piccies and I even used an optical doubler with it sometimes.

Was this good? Mirror lenses seem to have fallen out of favour.



BTW, can anyone recommend a decent Nikon DX macro lens?

Do you specifically want a DX lens? I have the Nikon 105mm and that
gives excellent macro results as well as being a respectable walking
around short telephoto. They do do a 60mm as well, which is a
little less expensive. However, on trying both, I preferred the 105
because of being able to be a bit further away and the VR capability
which is useful on occasions e.g. hand held shots in low light.


I was taking piccies, or
rather trying to, of cinnabar moth caterpillars at the weekend and I could do
with one.

Some form of support or clamp for the plant is a real help. One
could improvise something, but I needed to send an order to Wimberley
in the U.S. so it was easy to add their Plamp to this.

I've been doing quite a bit of macro work lately. Apart from the
standard and obvious flowers and insects, there are plenty of other
subjects such eyes of animals.

On 2008-07-21 12:29:06 +0100, Rod said:

Clever birds are crows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7027923.stm

No images. Either this doesn't work or they are going to publish
something spectacular.

In article ,
Lobster writes:
I had a Pigeon Incident about half an hour ago, curiously enough. Was
driving through town at about 10 mph when - as happens all the time - a
pigeon waddled out into the road about 25 yards ahead of me. I don't
usually make a habit of suddenly braking or changing course when a bird
travels in front of my car as (a) there's a risk of another vehicle
behind me running into the back of me and (b) 999 times out of 1000 the
bird gets out of the way in time anyway.

Not this time though. TBH I can't ever even remember it happening
before, but there was sickening 'splat' sound as Pidgie burst rather
comprehensively under my nearside front wheel, followed by a scream from
a passerby on the footpath holding her toddler by the hand. All rather
unfortunate... But thinking about it afterwards, maybe it will make the
kid think twice before running into the road in the future? "Squash a
pigeon, save a child..."

Reminds me of an incident when I was a child and family was on
holiday in the Lake District. Driving along a country road, we
thought we hit a pheasant that darted out of the verge at the
wrong moment, although us kids in the back couldn't see where
it went when we swung round and looked out the back window.

About half an hour later, we were stuck in a traffic jam in the
middle of Cockermouth. A bloke steps off the pavement and pulls
the pheasent out of the radiator grill where it was apparently
dangling, trapped by its head. He took it home to cook.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 2008-07-21 13:25:15 +0100, (Andrew
Gabriel) said:

Reminds me of an incident when I was a child and family was on
holiday in the Lake District. Driving along a country road, we
thought we hit a pheasant that darted out of the verge at the
wrong moment, although us kids in the back couldn't see where
it went when we swung round and looked out the back window.

About half an hour later, we were stuck in a traffic jam in the
middle of Cockermouth. A bloke steps off the pavement and pulls
the pheasent out of the radiator grill where it was apparently
dangling, trapped by its head. He took it home to cook.

That's the irony. I'm given to understand that it's legal for him to
do that but not you.

Rod wrote:

Clever birds are crows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7027923.stm


It's too Orangey for crows. It's just for me and my dog.

Andy Hall wrote:


I've been doing quite a bit of macro work lately. Apart from the
standard and obvious flowers and insects, there are plenty of other
subjects such eyes of animals.

And fungi.

The problem I always have is sufficient light. I don't always want what
flash (even multiple flashes) brings to the picture. A good diy topic -
making a reasonably inexpensive, portable, lightweight-enough, non-flash
lighting rig for macro/close-up work.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-21 12:29:06 +0100, Rod said:

Clever birds are crows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7027923.stm

No images. Either this doesn't work or they are going to publish
something spectacular.


Still and moving pics. work for me - VirginMedia, Windows XP, Mozilla
and IE both work. Sorry if you have wasted your time - I did check
before posting - and again just now.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-21 12:27:14 +0100, Huge said:

On 2008-07-21, Andy Hall wrote:

That 500mm prime lens is becoming ever more tempting.

I have a 300mm in a Nikon DX (so, the equivalent of a 450mm in 35mm)
and it
isn't long enough for decent bird piccies.

I know. I was thinking about perhaps using the 300mm plus a 1.7
teleconverter with a DX. In principle that should be reasonable
although not quite as good as a prime. This has the advantage of being
somewhat less massive than the 500mm, both on weight and price.

Problem with many of the converters is loss of light... if you are
already losing a few stops through a long lens.

When I was
still using 35mm film equipment I had a 1000mm catadioptric (aka
"mirror lens")
for bird piccies and I even used an optical doubler with it sometimes.

Was this good? Mirror lenses seem to have fallen out of favour.

Slightly less flexible since IIUC they are usually fixed aperture.

BTW, can anyone recommend a decent Nikon DX macro lens?

Do you specifically want a DX lens? I have the Nikon 105mm and that
gives excellent macro results as well as being a respectable walking
around short telephoto. They do do a 60mm as well, which is a little
less expensive. However, on trying both, I preferred the 105 because
of being able to be a bit further away and the VR capability which is
useful on occasions e.g. hand held shots in low light.

The other question is can you stick an extension tube between the lens
and the camera?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Anyway, on to the point... What I have noticed is that
since Thursday, there's not been any pigeons in my garden,
nor can I see any for several garden's radius. There are
normally always a few to be seen in the trees and rooftops.
Even the two magpies which were around have vanished.
Also, the food on the bird table which normally lasts
only half a day hasn't been touched since then, so
much so that spiders have built webs across the bird table
openings which haven't been disturbed.

I guess I'm rather amazed that the birds were apparently
so truamatised by the capure of one of them that they've
left the area. I went round the lawn with the mower at
the weekend, mainly to suck up all the feathers, but
even now they're all gone, still no birds. This perhaps
implies a higher level of awareness than I would have
previous attributed to the birds.

Pigeons are smart *******s.

Round here they fly away even if you point a stick at them.

Never mind a 410.

Same here!, they "know" if its an air rifle or not!..
--
Tony Sayer

On 2008-07-21 14:03:52 +0100, Rod said:

Andy Hall wrote:


I've been doing quite a bit of macro work lately. Apart from the
standard and obvious flowers and insects, there are plenty of other
subjects such eyes of animals.

And fungi.

The problem I always have is sufficient light. I don't always want what
flash (even multiple flashes) brings to the picture. A good diy topic -
making a reasonably inexpensive, portable, lightweight-enough,
non-flash lighting rig for macro/close-up work.

Have you found any good local sites?

Pamber Forest and Harpsden woods are two food places near(ish) to here.

Have you tried multiple flash with reflectors etc. to avoid the
harshness of direct light? I've used an off-camera bounced flash with
white cards to good effect.

Otherwise, what kind of lighting are you thinking about? The
problem is always going to be weight of batteries.

Rod wrote in


snip
My most impressive bird demise, from my POV, was when a skein of ducks
passed overhead. But not quite. One was just too low and hit the
screen just in front of the rear view mirror. Very, very loud thump.
They are quite heavy, solid birds and I was very glad it had not been
a little lower and to the right. I was quite surprised that the
windscreen took many months to crack much more.

There was the pigeon that got hit by the kayak on top of the car - it wasn't
found for over a week when it was finally decided that it really was time to
get the kayak off the roof rack.

By that time it had stood in a week's worth of 40+ degrees mid-day
temperatures (Lavington, NSW), steadily cooking.

Not nice.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

On 2008-07-21 14:07:34 +0100, Rod said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-21 12:29:06 +0100, Rod said:

Clever birds are crows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7027923.stm

No images. Either this doesn't work or they are going to publish
something spectacular.


Still and moving pics. work for me - VirginMedia, Windows XP, Mozilla
and IE both work. Sorry if you have wasted your time - I did check
before posting - and again just now.

Ah, they've appeared now.

On 2008-07-21 14:17:01 +0100, John Rumm said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-21 12:27:14 +0100, Huge said:

On 2008-07-21, Andy Hall wrote:

That 500mm prime lens is becoming ever more tempting.

I have a 300mm in a Nikon DX (so, the equivalent of a 450mm in 35mm) and it
isn't long enough for decent bird piccies.

I know. I was thinking about perhaps using the 300mm plus a 1.7
teleconverter with a DX. In principle that should be reasonable
although not quite as good as a prime. This has the advantage of
being somewhat less massive than the 500mm, both on weight and price.

Problem with many of the converters is loss of light... if you are
already losing a few stops through a long lens.

Sometimes that can be compensated by increasing the ISO setting.
On mine I can wind it up to 800 without noticing noise and to 1600 on
most subjects.


When I was
still using 35mm film equipment I had a 1000mm catadioptric (aka "mirror lens")
for bird piccies and I even used an optical doubler with it sometimes.

Was this good? Mirror lenses seem to have fallen out of favour.

Slightly less flexible since IIUC they are usually fixed aperture.

So shutter priority and tweak ISO, although I don't think Huge will
have been doing the latter.




BTW, can anyone recommend a decent Nikon DX macro lens?

Do you specifically want a DX lens? I have the Nikon 105mm and that
gives excellent macro results as well as being a respectable walking
around short telephoto. They do do a 60mm as well, which is a
little less expensive. However, on trying both, I preferred the 105
because of being able to be a bit further away and the VR capability
which is useful on occasions e.g. hand held shots in low light.

The other question is can you stick an extension tube between the lens
and the camera?

You can, but again there's loss of light and with extension tubes you
have to move physically closer to the subject, added to which there may
be difficulty in focusing to infinity

Following up to John Rumm

I know. I was thinking about perhaps using the 300mm plus a 1.7
teleconverter with a DX. In principle that should be reasonable
although not quite as good as a prime. This has the advantage of being
somewhat less massive than the 500mm, both on weight and price.

Problem with many of the converters is loss of light... if you are
already losing a few stops through a long lens.

the Sigma 500mm f4.5 would be nice, not as big as the f4s, if its not too
much money
--
Mike:::::::::
remove clothing to email

On 2008-07-21 14:45:29 +0100, "Mike....."
said:

Following up to John Rumm

I know. I was thinking about perhaps using the 300mm plus a 1.7
teleconverter with a DX. In principle that should be reasonable
although not quite as good as a prime. This has the advantage of being
somewhat less massive than the 500mm, both on weight and price.

Problem with many of the converters is loss of light... if you are
already losing a few stops through a long lens.

the Sigma 500mm f4.5 would be nice, not as big as the f4s, if its not too
much money

That one's in the £2500 region, which is admittedly half the price of
the Nikon 500 f4. Like a lot of 3rd party lenses, it does lose a bit
at the ends, I'm told, so practically, it is probably only good to f5.6
That could be a problem wih lower light levels and/or higher
shutter speeds

Huge wrote:
On 2008-07-21, Andy Hall wrote:

Some birds are smarter than the credit given to them.

The greater spotted woodpeckers attacking the sides of the wooden feeders
instead of the mesh fronts where the peanuts are, certainly aren't.

)


Neither would you be if you speant all day bashing your head against trees..

Andy Hall wrote:

The other question is can you stick an extension tube between the lens
and the camera?

You can, but again there's loss of light and with extension tubes you
have to move physically closer to the subject, added to which there may
be difficulty in focusing to infinity

Obviously its not a fit and forget solution. Handy for closeup work, but
not so good for wildlife since might get spooked as you get closer.

I have a 135mm zoom on my film camera that has quite a good macro
facility - it works at the full telephoto end of the lens, so you can
stand 6 to 8 feet away from the subject and frame something about the
same height as a brick side on.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 2008-07-21 15:06:44 +0100, Huge said:

On 2008-07-21, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-21 12:27:14 +0100, Huge said:

When I was
still using 35mm film equipment I had a 1000mm catadioptric (aka "mirror lens")
for bird piccies and I even used an optical doubler with it sometimes.

Was this good?

I thought so. Some people don't like the fixed aperture and the annular "bokke"
(is that what it's called? I forget. The out of focus bits behind the in-focus
part of the picture.) I found the reduction in size and weight more than
compensated for the disadvantages. Of all the lenses I sold when I
switched from
film to digital (and from Olympus to Nikon), that's the only one I miss.

Mirror lenses seem to have fallen out of favour.

Cameras are like hi-fi. There's a huge amount of bollcoks spouted and much
following of fashion.

BTW, can anyone recommend a decent Nikon DX macro lens?

Do you specifically want a DX lens?

W-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-ll. Dunno.

The real question is whether you think you might want to go for a full
frame format in the future. Usually putting a DX format lens on a
full frame body is likely to cause vignetting for obvious reasons.
However, in Nikon products, the D3 switches to DX size and I believe
the new D700 does as well.

I only have one DX format lens - the ubiquitous 18-200. This is a
functionally useful lens, but at a price point of about £400 and 11:1
zoom ratio has its limitations. It's OK for typical walking around
applications as long as I stay away from the ends. For more
serious work, I'm using a 14-24 wide angle for that end, and a 70-200
for the mid/high end. Both of those are full frame lenses.

In the end, I decided on the full frame capable strategy and if I were
to sell the D300 and go for a D700, the 18-200 DX could go with that -
it's a popular combination.

I keep reminding myself that glass lasts a very long time whereas
bodies come and go.

Huge wrote:
On 2008-07-21, Andy Hall wrote:

That 500mm prime lens is becoming ever more tempting.

I have a 300mm in a Nikon DX (so, the equivalent of a 450mm in 35mm) and it
isn't long enough for decent bird piccies. I'd go longer than 500mm. When I was
still using 35mm film equipment I had a 1000mm catadioptric (aka "mirror lens")
for bird piccies and I even used an optical doubler with it sometimes.

BTW, can anyone recommend a decent Nikon DX macro lens? I was taking piccies, or
rather trying to, of cinnabar moth caterpillars at the weekend and I could do
with one.



The nice thing about my 200DX, is it takes every single manual focus
lens that fits my FE2's


If you want macro, simply get a dirt cheap AIS 105mm macro off ebay or
somewhere. But in fact I use my Angenieux sooms..pretty good at macro
work even for small insects.

Still the best zooms optically ever made for Nikon.

Lobster wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I have a bird table in my back garden for attacting birds.
Mostly it attacts pigeons, not that I mind particularly.

I had a Pigeon Incident about half an hour ago, curiously enough. Was
driving through town at about 10 mph when - as happens all the time - a
pigeon waddled out into the road about 25 yards ahead of me. I don't
usually make a habit of suddenly braking or changing course when a bird
travels in front of my car as (a) there's a risk of another vehicle
behind me running into the back of me and (b) 999 times out of 1000 the
bird gets out of the way in time anyway.

Not this time though. TBH I can't ever even remember it happening
before, but there was sickening 'splat' sound as Pidgie burst rather
comprehensively under my nearside front wheel, followed by a scream from
a passerby on the footpath holding her toddler by the hand. All rather
unfortunate... But thinking about it afterwards, maybe it will make the
kid think twice before running into the road in the future? "Squash a
pigeon, save a child..."

David
Well I was driving some years back towards silverstone for the grand
prix practice, at some fairly illegal speeds..when I suddenly felt an
urge to at least drop below 70..and as soon as i had done so a pigeon
burst from cover and destroyed itself on the windscreen.

Andy Hall wrote:

Have you tried multiple flash with reflectors etc. to avoid the
harshness of direct light? I've used an off-camera bounced flash with
white cards to good effect.

If you have a camera with a built in flash, one handy trick I have found
for this sort of work is to stick a bit of unexposed but developed slide
film (i.e. black) over the built in flash. That will stop most of the
direct illumination, but still allow sufficient IR to bleed through to
trigger any optical slaves.

Otherwise, what kind of lighting are you thinking about? The problem
is always going to be weight of batteries.

A ring flash is one way to go for closeup stuff.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-21 14:17:01 +0100, John Rumm
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-21 12:27:14 +0100, Huge said:

On 2008-07-21, Andy Hall wrote:

That 500mm prime lens is becoming ever more tempting.

I have a 300mm in a Nikon DX (so, the equivalent of a 450mm in 35mm)
and it
isn't long enough for decent bird piccies.

I know. I was thinking about perhaps using the 300mm plus a 1.7
teleconverter with a DX. In principle that should be reasonable
although not quite as good as a prime. This has the advantage of
being somewhat less massive than the 500mm, both on weight and price.

Problem with many of the converters is loss of light... if you are
already losing a few stops through a long lens.

Sometimes that can be compensated by increasing the ISO setting. On
mine I can wind it up to 800 without noticing noise and to 1600 on most
subjects.


When I was
still using 35mm film equipment I had a 1000mm catadioptric (aka
"mirror lens")
for bird piccies and I even used an optical doubler with it sometimes.

Was this good? Mirror lenses seem to have fallen out of favour.

Slightly less flexible since IIUC they are usually fixed aperture.

So shutter priority and tweak ISO, although I don't think Huge will have
been doing the latter.




BTW, can anyone recommend a decent Nikon DX macro lens?

Do you specifically want a DX lens? I have the Nikon 105mm and
that gives excellent macro results as well as being a respectable
walking around short telephoto. They do do a 60mm as well, which
is a little less expensive. However, on trying both, I preferred
the 105 because of being able to be a bit further away and the VR
capability which is useful on occasions e.g. hand held shots in low
light.

The other question is can you stick an extension tube between the lens
and the camera?

You can, but again there's loss of light and with extension tubes you
have to move physically closer to the subject, added to which there may
be difficulty in focusing to infinity




All good stuff. I have 400mm sigma f5.6 APO and that is as far as I
care to go..the pressman lenses like te 600mm 2.8 start gettng silly money.

Just get closer to the bird...

In any case. you find that at that sort of magnification, haze and dust
amd shutter shake will mar the image more than going to 1600 ASA will.
Practically speaking anything much more that 60meters way won't look
great no matter how big the lens is.

Following up to Andy Hall

That one's in the £2500 region, which is admittedly half the price of
the Nikon 500 f4. Like a lot of 3rd party lenses, it does lose a bit
at the ends, I'm told, so practically, it is probably only good to f5.6
That could be a problem wih lower light levels and/or higher
shutter speeds

yes, i wouldnt use many lens at fully open, but the 4.5 is a lot smaller
than the f4s. I'm very pleased to have the Pentax auto mode where ISO is
the variable in a body that goes to 6400. So you can go f8 at 1/1000 if its
sunnyish. (I just have the 170-500, cant afford the 500 prime)
--
Mike:::::::::
remove clothing to email

Mike..... wrote:
Following up to John Rumm

I know. I was thinking about perhaps using the 300mm plus a 1.7
teleconverter with a DX. In principle that should be reasonable
although not quite as good as a prime. This has the advantage of being
somewhat less massive than the 500mm, both on weight and price.
Problem with many of the converters is loss of light... if you are
already losing a few stops through a long lens.

the Sigma 500mm f4.5 would be nice, not as big as the f4s, if its not too
much money

Its pretty good. Chromatic is well controlled with the APO, but its not
overall as sharp as my 210mm zoom.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-21 14:45:29 +0100, "Mike....."
said:

Following up to John Rumm

I know. I was thinking about perhaps using the 300mm plus a 1.7
teleconverter with a DX. In principle that should be reasonable
although not quite as good as a prime. This has the advantage of
being
somewhat less massive than the 500mm, both on weight and price.

Problem with many of the converters is loss of light... if you are
already losing a few stops through a long lens.

the Sigma 500mm f4.5 would be nice, not as big as the f4s, if its not too
much money

That one's in the £2500 region, which is admittedly half the price of
the Nikon 500 f4. Like a lot of 3rd party lenses, it does lose a bit
at the ends, I'm told, so practically, it is probably only good to f5.6
That could be a problem wih lower light levels and/or higher shutter
speeds


Opps. I was talking about the 400/5.6..not the 500/4.5..old age..

4.5 outside credit card limits :-)

Still if I ever see an old but good 500/600mm F4 and a bit Nikon, AIS or
later, I will probably find a way..

Huge wrote:
On 2008-07-21, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-21 12:27:14 +0100, Huge said:

When I was
still using 35mm film equipment I had a 1000mm catadioptric (aka "mirror lens")
for bird piccies and I even used an optical doubler with it sometimes.
Was this good?

I thought so. Some people don't like the fixed aperture and the annular "bokke"
(is that what it's called? I forget. The out of focus bits behind the in-focus
part of the picture.) I found the reduction in size and weight more than
compensated for the disadvantages. Of all the lenses I sold when I switched from
film to digital (and from Olympus to Nikon), that's the only one I miss.


Hmm. I didn't miss mine when I traded it for a really good 210mm zoom.


Mirror lenses seem to have fallen out of favour.

Cameras are like hi-fi. There's a huge amount of bollcoks spouted and much
following of fashion.

It was the out of focus rings that got me. Just looked 'odd' Plus filter
difficulties.

Did good shots of a moon eclipse on it though.



BTW, can anyone recommend a decent Nikon DX macro lens?
Do you specifically want a DX lens?

W-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-ll. Dunno.

On 2008-07-21 15:48:54 +0100, John Rumm said:

Andy Hall wrote:

Have you tried multiple flash with reflectors etc. to avoid the
harshness of direct light? I've used an off-camera bounced flash with
white cards to good effect.

If you have a camera with a built in flash, one handy trick I have
found for this sort of work is to stick a bit of unexposed but
developed slide film (i.e. black) over the built in flash. That will
stop most of the direct illumination, but still allow sufficient IR to
bleed through to trigger any optical slaves.

I've used that trick in the past.

Some of the manufacturers are now including a mode where the built in
flash becomes purely a commander for off-camera units - for example
Nikon's Creative Lighting System provides for the built in flash to be
trigger only or trigger and contribute.



Otherwise, what kind of lighting are you thinking about? The
problem is always going to be weight of batteries.

A ring flash is one way to go for closeup stuff.

I've been looking at those, but wonder whether they achieve much since
the lighting is still effectively direct.

On 2008-07-21 15:54:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:


All good stuff. I have 400mm sigma f5.6 APO and that is as far as I
care to go..the pressman lenses like te 600mm 2.8 start gettng silly
money.

Just get closer to the bird...

In any case. you find that at that sort of magnification, haze and dust
amd shutter shake will mar the image more than going to 1600 ASA will.
Practically speaking anything much more that 60meters way won't look
great no matter how big the lens is.

This is very true.

I've been playing around with the 70-200 and a 2x teleconverter which
in effect takes me to 600mm. Notwithstanding the focus not being
optically as good as a lens without TC, the results in terms of shutter
shake are OK as long as either use a very stout tripod (I have a Gitzo
carbon one for that) and a solid head such as a Wimberley, or I use a
bean bag, then I am OK provided that I use a fully remote shutter
release and mirror up mode.

Otherwise, as you say, getting closer is the way.

With the Kingfisher I was jammy because it was no more than about 20m away.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:02:14 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-07-21 15:48:54 +0100, John Rumm said:


A ring flash is one way to go for closeup stuff.

I've been looking at those, but wonder whether they achieve much since
the lighting is still effectively direct.

A friend of mine does almost solely macro photography and uses a
ring-flash to good effect.

--
Frank Erskine