Another Dowitcher

[Ian Cassell]

I have almost always used my 400/5.6 handheld (among other reasons, I hate using a ballhead for shooting birds), but I got a good deal a couple of weeks ago on an Induro GHB2 Gimbal head, so I figured I'd finally try it out this morning. It's going to take some getting used to going back to a tripod, but I think it's a skill I need to nurture. I also think I need to invest in a set of CF legs!

Canon 7D
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L (Induro GHB2 on Bogen 3021)
1/1600 f/6.3 ISO 200
Levels, sharpening in CS5

[Kerry Perkins]

Hi Ian, I like this one for the nice light, sharpness, low angle, and colors. Good pose and little rings in the water. I'm liking the crop! I might tone down the highlights on the bill and evict the dark blob that is roughly where the upper right ROT intersection would be (could be another bird?). Oh yeah, nice blur to the background too.

[John Chardine]

Beautiful warm light and although the phase angle of the sun is pretty severe, the head angle is such that it catches the light. Well done on the tripod acquisition. Although the 400/5.6 is eminently hand-holdable, the tripod will get you a higher keeper rate.

[Ian Cassell]

Thanks Kerry and John. I've been messing with it to try to tone down the highlights on the bill, but have been totally unsuccessful (I have no idea what I'm doing in that regard).

I've had a tripod, John, which I use for landscape stuff, but I've almost never used it for wildlife because of my issues with the ball head. I must say that the gimbal makes it a lot more pleasant than my ballhead. Now I'm considering blowing some money on a CF tripod (I'm using a set of very old and heavy Bogen 3021 legs).

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Well done, except the side lighting and the resulting dark shadow. The light was harsh (high contrast), though relatively low on the horizon the atmospheric conditions did not diffuse it. Dark shadows, bright lit side, by definition is high contrast. Soft light has either subdued shadows or none at all.
I know you are in Arizona Ian, and you have tough lighting much of the time. IMO, in this type lighting, you need both the low sun angle, as you have here, and minimizing the appearance of the shadow by having the sun at your back. The shadow, as mentioned, I find very distracting. Although much of it (as it looks on the histogram) is not technically blocked as shown, (R-0/B-0/G-0), finding each channel with the same number, as it is, means it was.
I am on the other side of the fence on the tripod as well. If you used one with this image, the shuter-speed you used means that it was un-necessary to avoid camera movement. If you have a heavy lens or you have a more or less stationary subject that will remain motionless, it seems appropriate.
However, a tripod only compensates for camera, and not subject movement. The tripod allows using a slower shutter-speed, and this boils down to a lower ISO and less digital noise problems. What this means is you keeper rate for subjects that don't move may be higher, but the inability to move your lens on a dime to point anywhere, is a severe limitation that means you will miss the most interesting shots such as peak action behavior that would require high shutter-speeds that would compensate for camera movement anyway.
What really soured me with tripods was that they were reducing my keeper rate. For example with one of my favorite subjects; green herons. After painstakingly moving in close, and having them fill much of the viewfinder, I would use a slow shutter-speed that the tripod allowed and get good details, but when the really interesting action happened, such as a strike and capture of a fish, I woud have a blur and likely the bird would move out of frame. This scenario was repeated with many types of birds. In most cases any shutter-speed I needed would negate the need for a tripod's use the eliminate camera shake.
With image stabilization, and lower noise at higher ISOs with newer cameras, use of a tripod(when not absolutely necessary) puts you at a disadvantage IMO.

regards~Billl

[Ian Cassell]

Thanks for the comments, Bill. As for the tripod, I'm undecided. I've been handholding my 400 up till now, but wanted to try something different. I know that one day I'll buckle and get a big lens, but for now, I'm undecided.

I appreciate your comments on the lighting. Although it was early morning low-angle light, you are quite right about the high contrast appearance. I sort of liked it, but I can understand your reasoning.

[Stan Cunningham]

I like the lighting as well Ian, but Bill is correct about our light here in AZ. Extremely frustrating at times, seems like any thing after 7 AM is rough this time of year, and that's a very short shooting window.
But again, I'm with you and like the shadow.

[Ian Cassell]

Thanks, Stan. The sun is now coming up at a bit before 6 and I agree that about 7 or 8 ends the good light for the most part. It's time to switch to evening shooting, I guess.

[Stan Cunningham]

Even that's tough. This is an Aberts at about 6 PM, used to love that time, wondering if I'm going to have to setup in the shade from now on. I'm going to try and post a few more of these and see what some of the pros on here suggest, they have helped me alot already.
I'm thinking about selling my 100-400 and replacing it with the lens you have. I just don't like the sharpness of that lens unless it's on a tripod or greater than 1/1000, and I usually shoot around F8 so that's tough to get. I rented the prime 400 5.6 and loved the flight shots I got in Bosque. And I have the 70-200 with a 1.4 so don't know why I need it any longer.
But I will be shooting bears most of the summer and will like the zoom capacity given how much they move.