Cliff Swallow

[Dorian Anderson]

Home in California for 6 whole weeks! Slowest time of year around here since all the ducks and shorebirds have migrated back to the Arctic, but I was able to squeeze this out of a local colony last week.

My arms nearly fell of getting this shot. This sort of action is when I wish I could afford a newer/lighter lens. 8.5lbs/3.9kg - ouch! - especially with the center of gravity moved out by the EF/RF adaptor.

Background is tidal mudflat. I nailed this bird as it swooped up and into its nest on the underside of the dock.

Canon 600mm f/4 IS on EOS R5
1/6400 at f/4, ISO 800
LR CC and Topaz (very light pass - 5 pts of NR - to combat effects of the crop)

[Volkan Akgul]

hi Dorian,

It's a difficult genre, I don't know how many times you have taken your lens down because of fatigue, but the result is excellent. you hit target 12

congratulations

[Steve Kaluski]

Nice one, I like the slight titled wings.

So you have many choice Dorian of RF, some still to be released later this year… 400f/2.8, 200-500, 500, or 600, but you will need deep pockets to save your ‘guns’ Dorian.

TFS
Steve

[Dorian Anderson]

Nice one, I like the slight titled wings.

So you have many choice Dorian of RF, some still to be released later this year… 400f/2.8, 200-500, 500, or 600, but you will need deep pockets to save your ‘guns’ Dorian.

TFS
Steve

Sadly, I wouldn't take any of those over my trusty 600/4 II, at least least not at the difference I'd need to spend to acquire any of them. I might be willing to find the big
bucks for a brand spanking new lens, but nothing Canon is making excites me enough to do it. Where's the 600/4 with the integrated TC? Nikon! Where's the 500/5.6 or
the 800/6.3? Nikon! Where's the 200-600/6.3? Sony! I just don't understand what Canon is doing these days. Sure they make a 100-500 but 1) it's shorter than the Sony
2) it's not as fast as the Sony and 3) -- incongruously -- it costs like $700 more than the Sony. And, on top of those disadvantages, it's wonky with the 1.4x TC attached
since the lens doesn't retract with it attached. I think the Canon bodies are great, but the lens line-up baffles me. I either want a lighter 600 or a 600 with more reach
(i.e. an int TC), and Canon keeps giving me crap. 200-500 doesn't does excite me as much as a lightweight 500/4 (with or without int TC) would. If I spend more time in
Africa (which looks likely as my company has me slated to do a bunch of stuff there) the 200-500 might be cool, but it doesn't do much for me on the bird front.

[Jonathan Ashton]

A fine shot - good focus and detail.

[Brian Sump]

Dorian, very good by me. Can only imaging the muscle drain flinging that hoss around....

You did great here. The head and leading edge of the wings are super sharp (as sharp as any I've seen tbh) and the even light over the top side presents very well.

Would have been great to get a little more light on the left side of the face but man, I would take this in my files in a heartbeat.

TFS!

[Andreas Liedmann]

Hi Dorian think you did very well under given subject / lens combo .... must have been very exhausting

I do really like the shot and your effort got rewarded .

No nits from my side , just a bravo

TFS Andreas

[Kurt Bowman]

You must need a good masseuse after holding that rig for that long! Really nice results you managed a cool flight angle and very sharp on the head! I know how hard it is to get these guys in flight, so nicely done Dorian!

[Daniel Cadieux]

This is so good. I like the top view, and the fact the tail is visible. I did some Tree Swallows last month and got nothing as good as you have here. I go the same muscle drain though ha ha.

[Arthur Morris]

Lovely. The BKGR and the detail on the back are very sweet indeed.

with love, a