There was no flash involved. It even was a in a rather darkish spot under a tree. The shutter speed was 1/50 , and ISO 1600. I was very close to the bird, about 4-5m, had my 400mm lens fully extended, and hand held my Sony SLT-A77V and the lens is also a Sony G lens.
I think, I should have called this Rosella "immature", as it is just changing into adult plumage. That should be the time when you call a bird immature? What do you think??
I'm still thinking about the difference between "juvenile" and "immature".
I would like to hear your opinion on: when is a bird called juvenile, and when immature? Am I correct in thinking, when a bird has the first real feathers it is called a "juvenile", but when it changes into the adult plumage, it would be called "immature"?
So the Crimson Rosella in my photo could be called either? He is still moulting into the adult plumage? Then , when it has finished moulting , it is an adult?
Hi M-L working this week end so have not had time to get to the computer. A77 very interesting. The light in the above photo is remarkable for no flash...I figured you were using something very good, had dismissed canon, but not thought of Sony. Sony would have to be the top chip maker at the moment their colour and clarity is top of the pile. Your images are in a class of their own on this forum, now I understand why. Top quality body and lens + a natural eye are alway unbeatable.
400mm lens——my longest lens gives me 4X!!!
My little video camera is Sony chosen for those very same reasons, as anewbie to video I'm continually blown away by what it can do! I just need to get the most out of yet...it's going to take time.
On the juvenille/immature, not sure. The publications call them juvenile until they have the adult plumage. In the case of the longer living birds (rosellas etc) they are likely immature still at that stage as they (so we are told) don't mate for another year or so. Could that mean this is the time to call them adult? Interesting question. ad
Thanks for giving me those lovely compliments ad. You have no idea how much that means to me? You know sometimes I doubt myself, my camera and my ability. From time to time ,I guess we all post photos we think are good and get excited about, but when you don’t get any positive feedback, you begin to wonder? Most of the credit to my photography has to go to my Sony camera. Yes, as an Artist, (painter and sculptor), I do have a good eye, but I leave the taking of photos to my camera. I believe these days a good camera is so sophisticated, it knows best what to do. I don’t work on my photos, I don’t have Photoshop, I only ever use the Sony program that came with the camera. I do crop from time to time, if the photo is sharp enough and put my name to it. Otherwise I’d rather try harder next time. I think, even with a big lens, you only get good results if you get as close as you can. I don’t use a tripod or flash, I have a very steady hand and I’m good at sneaking up on birds.
Thanks again for your feedback. I love your videos, tell me, what Sony Video Cameras do you use?
First off i would like to appoligize for taking over your thread M-L (nice pics by the way) but my question is to aussiedavid............. why did you discount a Canon? For the life of me i can't see any reason to. The reflection in the the eye shows there is a light source of some sort?(car headlights?)Here is a pic taken at the dead of night with no flash Canon 40D @300mm ISO3200, f5.6, 1/30 handheld.
Fair enough, disregard the photo, but i must ask again, why? did you think a Canon (or a Nikon or anything else for that matter) could not take that picture.
Neil what Shorty said—No not sad, all modern cameras are very capable of taking great pics.
In reality—In good conditions—all modern cameras are very capable of taking great pics.
In not so good conditions the person using the camera makes the most of the conditions to make the best photo possible.
YourLumix FZ18 in good light & not pushing the zoom to the limit will produce excellent results... push the (limits light & zoom wise) and the results will not be so good it is as simple as that. ad
The reflection in the the eye shows there is a light source of some sort?(car headlights?)
were you talking about my photos? There was no car. But as I said, the bird sat under a tree, in a "darkish" spot. If you have a good look, the reflection in the eye shows the house , some trees, and the brighter parts are the sky above the house. I would zoom in to show it, but I don't like to post blurry photos. The King Parrot sat in the same tree, you can see the house, me and the sky behind me. The only difference , it was a nice and sunny day.
Sorry M-L, i was not trying to take anything away from your shot. I was just interested in why ad thought a Canon could not take a shot like that. But i can see that this topic could go on forever so i will just let it slide by.
M-L so they withstand flash...wow...very nice. ad
Thanks for the "wow" David.
There was no flash involved. It even was a in a rather darkish spot under a tree. The shutter speed was 1/50 , and ISO 1600. I was very close to the bird, about 4-5m, had my 400mm lens fully extended, and hand held my Sony SLT-A77V and the lens is also a Sony G lens.
M-L
I think, I should have called this Rosella "immature", as it is just changing into adult plumage. That should be the time when you call a bird immature? What do you think??
M-L
I'm still thinking about the difference between "juvenile" and "immature".
I would like to hear your opinion on: when is a bird called juvenile, and when immature? Am I correct in thinking, when a bird has the first real feathers it is called a "juvenile", but when it changes into the adult plumage, it would be called "immature"?
So the Crimson Rosella in my photo could be called either? He is still moulting into the adult plumage? Then , when it has finished moulting , it is an adult?
I'd love to hear what you think.
M-L
Hi M-L working this week end so have not had time to get to the computer. A77 very interesting. The light in the above photo is remarkable for no flash...I figured you were using something very good, had dismissed canon, but not thought of Sony. Sony would have to be the top chip maker at the moment their colour and clarity is top of the pile. Your images are in a class of their own on this forum, now I understand why. Top quality body and lens + a natural eye are alway unbeatable.
400mm lens——my longest lens gives me 4X!!!
My little video camera is Sony chosen for those very same reasons, as anewbie to video I'm continually blown away by what it can do! I just need to get the most out of yet...it's going to take time.
On the juvenille/immature, not sure. The publications call them juvenile until they have the adult plumage. In the case of the longer living birds (rosellas etc) they are likely immature still at that stage as they (so we are told) don't mate for another year or so. Could that mean this is the time to call them adult? Interesting question. ad
Juvenile / immature , much of a muchness isn't it ? Crimson's ( & King's for that matter ) can take 3 years to reach full adult plumage .
Neil
Thanks for giving me those lovely compliments ad. You have no idea how much that means to me? You know sometimes I doubt myself, my camera and my ability. From time to time ,I guess we all post photos we think are good and get excited about, but when you don’t get any positive feedback, you begin to wonder? Most of the credit to my photography has to go to my Sony camera. Yes, as an Artist, (painter and sculptor), I do have a good eye, but I leave the taking of photos to my camera. I believe these days a good camera is so sophisticated, it knows best what to do. I don’t work on my photos, I don’t have Photoshop, I only ever use the Sony program that came with the camera. I do crop from time to time, if the photo is sharp enough and put my name to it. Otherwise I’d rather try harder next time. I think, even with a big lens, you only get good results if you get as close as you can. I don’t use a tripod or flash, I have a very steady hand and I’m good at sneaking up on birds.
Thanks again for your feedback. I love your videos, tell me, what Sony Video Cameras do you use?
M-L
First off i would like to appoligize for taking over your thread M-L (nice pics by the way) but my question is to aussiedavid............. why did you discount a Canon? For the life of me i can't see any reason to. The reflection in the the eye shows there is a light source of some sort?(car headlights?)Here is a pic taken at the dead of night with no flash Canon 40D @300mm ISO3200, f5.6, 1/30 handheld.
frogmouth- by rawshorty, on Flickr"> frogmouth- by rawshorty, on Flickr
Shorty......Canon gear
Canberra
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawshorty/
Shorty if you honestly compare the two photos you have answered your question. ad
M-L don't have it with me at the moment will get back to you on that. ad
Fair enough, disregard the photo, but i must ask again, why? did you think a Canon (or a Nikon or anything else for that matter) could not take that picture.
Shorty......Canon gear
Canberra
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawshorty/
I'm just happy with my Panasonic Lumix FZ18 & it's 18x optical zoom & a monopod , sad really .
Neil
No not sad, all modern cameras are very capable of taking great pics.
Shorty......Canon gear
Canberra
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawshorty/
Shorty—JPEG processing engine. ad
Neil what Shorty said—No not sad, all modern cameras are very capable of taking great pics.
In reality—In good conditions—all modern cameras are very capable of taking great pics.
In not so good conditions the person using the camera makes the most of the conditions to make the best photo possible.
Your Lumix FZ18 in good light & not pushing the zoom to the limit will produce excellent results... push the (limits light & zoom wise) and the results will not be so good it is as simple as that. ad
Hi Shorty, when you said:
The reflection in the the eye shows there is a light source of some sort?(car headlights?)
were you talking about my photos? There was no car. But as I said, the bird sat under a tree, in a "darkish" spot. If you have a good look, the reflection in the eye shows the house , some trees, and the brighter parts are the sky above the house. I would zoom in to show it, but I don't like to post blurry photos. The King Parrot sat in the same tree, you can see the house, me and the sky behind me. The only difference , it was a nice and sunny day.
Enjoy.
M-L
Sorry M-L, i was not trying to take anything away from your shot. I was just interested in why ad thought a Canon could not take a shot like that. But i can see that this topic could go on forever so i will just let it slide by.
Shorty......Canon gear
Canberra
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawshorty/