Posts Made By: Alan Birnbaum

Fresno, California.

This is on the eastern edge of the Central Valley. The Sierra foothills start maybe ten miles to the east, or, at least that's where one downshifts to a smaller chainring on a road bicycle.

<<420mm 1/15 f/2.8>>

Handheld? Image stabilization on?

Our California Quail tend to be a bit skittish. There's a BIG advantage to being able to work handheld, and quickly, with any bird.

Canon has announced that they'll introduce TWENTY new compact digital cameras during 2004. I'd look for them to introduce similarly an image-stabilized long zoom camera, with coverage akin to that 35-350/3.5-5.6 lens that many of the news professionals use for fast-breaking stories.

You might have seen, for example, that when they announced the capture of Sadam Hussein, news photographers pointing in one direction with that lens, were immediately able to swivel around when Iraqi journalists started yelling right behind them, just a few feet away.

I'd look for Canon to use a sensor similar to the 1/1.8" 5 megapixel version now used for the G5 4X zoom camera, on such a larger range camera.

David Brokofsky allows:

<>

I'd see two possible good choices. In 10x50, Minolta Activa 10x50 gets you a weatherproof, fog-proof wide-field binocular, that can be handheld. It's usable for slightly longer range terrestrial (nature/birding) as well as astronomy.

If you're OK with astronomy only, and don't mind using a tripod, then Oberwerek 15x70, actually costing a bit less, will also get you into the game at under $200. I would consider getting their heavy duty C-mount binocular adapter, that allows mounting a zero power finder.

What David Brokofsky didn't mention was whether he already had ANY pair of full-size binocular. If he already has, for example, 8 x 40/42, then the 15 x 70 makes a good introduction to an astronomical binocular, and the two can be used at night in a complementary fashion.

But if he has NO full-size binocular, i.e., objective at least 40 mm, then a good dual purpose 10 x 50 makes even more sense. Later, if he feels he can use something larger, then the available selection of 20 x 80-90 makes that the choice for a second pair, obviously requiring tripod mounting.

The Oberwerk line now has, for example, a choice of THREE models in that group, which vary in construction, weight and eye relief, all important factors to consider.

<>

on the pair of depicted buzzards. Well, NO one ever said that Turkey Vultures were the "bluebirds of happiness." Anyway, I've got to get out of here, and chase down a lead on some REAL Mountain Bluebirds!

Oddly this seems to be an uncharacteristic angle for a Northern Harrier. As with the one I watched yesterday, at a local wildlife refuge, they tend to fly very low, swooping often just a foot or two above the ground, on the hunt for rodents and the like. That makes seeing their characteristic white rump patch, just barely visible in Tyler's nice shot, as obvious as a fighter jet's service insignia!

Only FOUR starlings? Come to Fresno County, where you can have the opportunity to photograph a winged CLOUD of Starlings, estimated as having up to 500,000!!

OK. Maybe 499,999, as I hear there's a Peregrine Falcon, who considers the local flock to represent a McStarlings.

Ah, the American Coot. Just because it swims like a duck, and rather seems to quack like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck. It's a "rail," an interesting group of waterbirds.

If and when you can photograph some of the less common rails, such as the Common Moorhen, Sora or Virginia Rail, please make sure you post those shots as well!

Do keep in mind that any critique of the 300/2.8 plus 2X teleconverter, if based upon edge resolution with a film camera, may not be valid for a DSLR, where the diagonal to be covered is not 43 mm, but instead only about 26 mm.

Seeing that Canon has a wonderful 300/4 Image Stabilized lens, about the same price or less than the Tokina, and a lot lighter, what was your rationale for getting the larger, heavier lens, that's not image stabilized?

I'd think the 300/2.8 mainly of advantage for indoor or night-time sports, rather than wildlife.

If what's need would really fit a 1.25" barrel size, then might not a Televue Radian 4 mm ocular substitute? At least on the newer series, FL is 460 mm, 460/115 is 4 mm, and that's the shortest of the Radians.

But of course there are a variety of other possibilities. Swarovski supposedly makes an adapter to use 1.25" oculars in their newer scopes as well.