Waxwing fever!

I have to confess that I've succumbed to waxwing fever, spurred on by the reports I've seen of these winter visitors, and some smashing photos of the colourful birds. My first trip out was a dismal failure. My second, to birds seen less than five minutes from home resulted in redwing and field fare, plus a lone and frozen waxwing. At this stage I resolved to ignore further  reports!

However, seeing as there were more reported just a few miles up the road, on a route I had to pass on my way to and from Liverpool today, I threw a camera in the car and decided to drive along the road they were showing in on my way home. They proved simple to spot. The congregation of waxwing worshippers gave their location away! Having seen a few perched on a TV aerial I almost drove on by. But the chance of photographing the watchers was irresistible.

Only having the 70-200 with me I was a bit stumped for shooting the birders as the road is narrow. So I grabbed a few pics of the birds and some of the bloke blocking the footpath with his camera tripod before jumping in my car and heading off.

The birds were quite approachable, and I can see the attraction they could have as they perform their acrobatics reaching for berries. But the location didn't inspire me to make the effort to get such images. The whole scene was quiet surreal - people with cameras and binoculars staring into an ornamental tree in a quite residential street. I might go see if they (the birds and the birders!) are there tomorrow - taking a shorter lens...

---

Now here's a thing

The first shot is the full frame, the second (when clicked on) a 100% crop. I think this illustrates the value of that fast glass - lower ISO = more retained detail for cropping. Not that I'm suggesting a fast 200mm lens replaces a slow 500mm lens, but it does make one lust after a fast 500!

---

Fast glass

Okay, so it costs an arm and a leg, or in my case a boat and an outboard, but fast glass makes a big difference to image making. My local camera shop let me try out a lens before making my mind up to buy. It only took a few shots to convince me. Back home on the PC and I saw images that, when converted to b&w had the look I used to get with my old Pentax ME and the 1.7 and 2.8 lenses I used to use with it. Deep joy!

'Pro' lenses come with other benefits too. They feel much more solid and smooth in the hand, rather like the way even 'consumer' lenses felt back in the seventies. The auto focus is fast and accurate. They are also sharp and contrasty. I didn't bother sharpening the photo below because the lettering was crisp enough straight out the camera when reduced. Click it to see it bigger and clearer as the blog messes photos up when shrinking them.

Used wide open, or nearly so, they also give that 'look' that sets top quality wildlife photos (for instance)  apart from those that are good but 'not quite'. I think it's called 'good bokeh' these days, but out of focus backgrounds are so smooth, and well out of focus. Not wild wildlife, but the pic below demonstrates how this helps isolate the subject and enhance its  apparent sharpness.

When it comes to lenses you really do get what you pay for. A pity you have to pay quite so much to get it.

PS - same story, different teller.

---

The great ISO con?

I'd have thought that the main reason for wanting a camera that takes clear shots at high ISO values would be to use it in low light. Well, it is for me.

So why is it that the camera review sites post pictures taken at high ISO values in good light? And the low light shots are taken at low ISO values and slow shutter speeds? If you're going to stick a camera on a tripod it defeats the point of being able to up the ISO to maintain a fast shutterspeed and hand-hold or freeze action.

I know my D90s can produce detailed shots at ISO 2000 when the light is good, but when light levels drop then the colours fade, noise creeps in and the detail goes.

This bull was at ISO 2000 and is detailed enough. But it was shot in good light.

Yet this low light shot of mallards on ice was taken at ISO 560 and took some work to make presentable at this size. At 100% the 'detail' is grainy. Same lens for both photos, albeit at different focal lengths.

Some 'real world' low light/high ISO sample pics would be beneficial to accompany the reviews to give a clearer picture (ooh, bad pun!) of how the high ISOs perform in dim light, methinks.

---

Light and space

Sitting at my PC the other day I was struck by a shadow cast on the wall by light reflected from my pond. Two shots were framed, one deleted. The one I saved seems to have captured the quality of the light well. The wallpaper needs a lick of paint though...

Out in the cold wintry sun this afternoon I took a road little travelled. A bleak and deserted area of my locality. Not the best of photos but I like the diagonal and the negative space of the sky to the right. An area to visit again.

At the other end of this winding and rutted lane I saw a pale bird drop to the ground. Stopping the car I saw a barn owl lift back into the air and continue hunting. Not having a fast 500 on me (cough) I made the best I could of the 70-300, one stop of under-exposure and a correction and crop on the PC. Far from the best owl pic in the world, but a reminder of watching it hunt successfully.

---