lonestranger

MJ and I heard a bird last night that we need help identifying. It was calling repeatedly from 8-10pm, when we went to bed, and was calling again/still this morning when we got up at 5am. I have my suspicions but we'll see if those suspicions are supported by better qualified ears. Hopefully the audio file works, the call is faint but can be heard multiple times. North of Waterloo, ON, close to the Grand River. Well that didn't work...I'll try again NightBirdAudio.m4v

The photo that was posted on Oct 21, 2020 is identical to the photo posted above, you must have mistaken when the photo was actually taken. Nice shot, by the way. Posted Oct 21, 2020 Posted Tues. Nov 10, 2020

Looks like I missed that landing.

White-breasted Nuthatch heading back to the feeder.

There's a discussion regarding the posting of photos in the Site Problems and Questions for the Moderator thread, @VRVan. The discussion starts here...

Yellow-rumped warbler

I should have also added that equal length lenses will also have different focal lengths depending on the sensor size. A full frame DSLR with a 400mm lens will only give you 400mm focal length, a Canon crop body DSLR with the same 400mm lens will give you a focal length of 640mm using the 35mm equivalent, 400x1.6=640. If you could put that same 400mm lens on a P&S with a 5.6 crop factor, your focal length would be significantly longer, 400x5.6=2240mm in the 35mm equivalent. I hope that helps explain why the larger sensor of the RX-10 works against the 25x zoom magnification when comparing it to the P950..

I don't know what I was thinking, that should read 35mm equivalent, not 25mm.

Be careful of comparing 25x zoom on one camera to 25x zoom on a different camera, @Charlie Spencer. If one starts out with a 10mm lens and the other starts out with a 20mm lens, your 25x zoom will be 250mm and 500mm. When comparing lens magnification, it's best to compare the 25mm equivalent. As my example points out, 25x zoom can be significantly different from one camera to another.

Do you use the digital zoom on your camera, @Charlie Spencer? If not you may want to give it a try. I don't usually recommend using the digital zoom on point and shoot cameras because I always thought it just digitally cropped the image in the camera where you have less control and poorer results than doing the cropping on the computer in post processing, but that might be ideal for you. The image quality might drop in the digital zoom range but it might also help fill the frame with your subject which might actually help the camera get a better exposure metering. Remember, the more you can fill the screen with your subject, the better the odds of the camera getting the exposure right. You also have to remember that the longer you zoom out, the harder it will be to keep the camera steady and locked on your subject, this is where practice and good technique comes into play. I didn't take a wide angle shot this morning, but here's one from a few days ago that shows the tree and where I was shooting from. I took a few sample shots with and without digital zoom to show how the exposure is more accurate when your subject fills the frame. My subject is right in the middle of the frame, and in the shadows, a challenging shot for any auto or semi auto setting on most cameras because the rest of the tree being in direct sun with the bright sky in the background. This is max optical zoom, notice the better exposure that allows us to see what the subject actually is. This is max digital zoom, 8000mm. While it's not a pretty picture, it is definitely suitable for IDing purposes, if you're IDing trees. Getting closer is one of the simplest things we can do to improve our bird photos, while digital zoom probably isn't the best way to get closer, it might be better than not getting closer. Something to consider if you haven't already tried and dismissed the idea of digital zoom.

Canon's 100-400 mark 2 is a really nice lens, one that I regret having sold. It is compatible with your T5 and will definitely give you better photos, but it comes with a hefty price tag. The 400 f/5.6 is also a good birding lens in the canon line up, one that I used for years and years. Have you considered looking at used lenses? Keh.com has a wide selection of used camera gear and although I've never used them, I have heard them mentioned often as reputable source for used camera gear.

Rentals are available online, here's two links to check out. Both websites rent point and shoot superzooms, as well as DSLRs and lenses. https://www.borrowlenses.com/ https://www.lensrentals.com

This review of the P950 actually has a side by side comparison chart with the SX70 and the P1000. If you're not familiar with DPReview, it's a great site for researching and comparing just about any camera and lens on the market. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-coolpix-p950-review

Avery is the winner and gets to post the next photo.

Just to be clear, or confuse matters more, DSLRs are superior cameras, they're easier to operate, their autofocus is better and manual focus is easier, there is no shutter lag, burst shooting is faster with less buffering, bird in flight shots are easier, etc, etc, Without a doubt, DSLRs are less frustrating to work with and will typically produce better images. I would recommend a DSLR with a quality long lens over a superzoom, if you're interested in using your photos for more than just ID purposes, and you don't mind the added cost and weight that goes with buying a DSLR and long enough lens for birding. The problem with photography is the trade offs that we have to decide on. It doesn't matter if you're exposing for a brighter shot and need to decide whether to trade off a slower shutter speed and risk motion blur or risk adding noise by using a higher ISO, or if you're trying to decide if you want to trade off the speed/brightness of a 300mm f/2.8 lens for the reach of a slower but longer 2000mm superzoom camera. No matter which way you go, you're bound to be in situations where you wish you had of made a different trade off, but trade offs are unavoidable.

My tripod handles the 10lbs quite nicely, for birds that come to me....did I mention that I still use the P900?

I have a Canon 300mm F/2.8 on a full frame 5Diii camera that weighs about 10lbs....It takes stunning photos and I am quite happy with it, but ... did I mention that I also still use my P900? 😉

I still use my Nikon P900 and while it does have it's limitations and won't produce the same quality of image as a DSLR with a long quality lens, I'd highly recommend it for a birding camera, especially in Bird Watching mode. It is fairly quick to auto focus but like any camera, it slows down as the light drops. Manual focus is terribly slow making it virtually useless, or I don't understand how it's suppose to work which makes it useless. I just don't use manual focus, or manual exposure, with the P900. With the 2000mm optical zoom it's pretty easy to fill the frame with the bird which allows auto focus to find the target easily and get the right exposure. I often zoom right past the branches that the AF might otherwise focus on thus eliminating the need for manual focus most of the time. In my opinion, the zoom or reach of your camera is the main factor in getting decent bird photos. If you can zoom in close enough on your bird and fill the frame with your subject, there's less chance the camera will get the wrong focus point or the wrong exposure while using the auto settings. While the image quality of point and shoot super zooms can't compare to the quality of DSLR cameras with long lenses, you simply can't get a DSLR with 2000mm of optical zoom. For birding and getting IDable photos, I would recommend the longest lens possible, whether it's on a point and shoot or a DSLR. For the best quality images I would recommend buying lottery tickets because quality lenses for DSLRs get more and more expensive as they get longer. These first 2 photos show how the reach of a super zoom can come in handy. I spotted a bird fly into the tree on the far side of the yard, marked with a small circle in the first image taken at 24mm. The second photo shows the detail I could make out when the camera was at 2000mm. Neither photo is anything special, but as you can see, the super zoom put me close enough to easily ID the flicker. This last photo is one where I had trouble locking focus on the bird because of the branches in front of it. The solution was to zoom in far enough to make the small opening in front of the bird a bigger opening. Again, not a stellar shot, but I'd consider it to be a decent shot and worthy of the keeper pile.

Okay, here's an oldie. We'll go 48 hours(approx) and then pick a winner. Caption this...

I vote to wait for the original deadline.

Megapixels are nice to have lots of, but the more megapixel you squeeze into a sensor, the smaller the pixels get and the less detail they can collect. Because point and shoot cameras have very small sensors, the pixels are smaller and crammed together and image quality reflects that. DSLRs have bigger sensors with larger pixels and collect more detail than point and shoot cameras and typically produce better images. The same applies to full frame cameras, their sensors are even bigger and allow for bigger pixels which collect even more detail and produce even better images..

You may want to consider a variety of feeders as opposed to one specific feeder since different types of feeders are designed to attract different types of birds. Platform feeders are better for larger birds like jays and cardinals while feeders with small perches will deter the bigger birds and allow the smaller birds less competition for food. Suet feeders will attract the woodpeckers better than other feeders, finch feeders are popular with finches, etc, etc. The wider variety of feeders and water attractions you have, the wider variety of birds you'll attract. Just my spin on backyard feeding.

Whoa...I hope that rear firing weapon isn't loaded.

After 5 years of living at our old place, this is what I woke up to the first morning after moving to our new home. The Grand River is right across the road, making this place look like it's going to be an even better birding spot than the old place.