It must have been radioactive . . . so I shot it with a Canon!

[tom turner]

He's so iridescent he almost GLOWS IN THE DARK!

This is possibly my most favorite bird image I've ever shot.

Yes, it is a mature male Indigo Bunting . . . a pretty rare sight this far away from the coast here in central Georgia!

 

[RonJ]

You have outdone yourself. Super image!

 

[the ringo kid]

Great image and-how can you tell the gender diff?

 

[boatme99]

Great image and-how can you tell the gender diff?

Do we need a remedial biology class here, Ringo?

 

[smokey04]

I have 8 in the yard eating wild bird seeds as we speak[post?]. The females are darker[not as irridescent] and have more brown in their feather coloration.They are beautiful birds. Nick

 

[the ringo kid]

Do we need a remedial biology class here, Ringo?

Heh heh, I never took that class. I was too squeemish and didnt like the idea of disecting frogs.

 

[the ringo kid]

I have 8 in the yard eating wild bird seeds as we speak[post?]. The females are darker[not as irridescent] and have more brown in their feather coloration.They are beautiful birds. Nick

Muchos Gracias. Next time I toss some bread or crackers in the yard--ill be studying those birds who come to eat some dinner.

 

[moe smith]

Not being a card carrying member of the audubon society I would have identified that as a blue bird, different from a blue jay but still in the bird family.

 

[rock doc]

Beautiful shot, Tom. Thanks for sharing.

 

[shouldazagged]

Incredible photo of what is one of my top three favorite birds. We don't see them around here, and I miss them.

The shot is superb!

 

[Fishslayer]

Not being a card carrying member of the audubon society I would have identified that as a blue bird, different from a blue jay but still in the bird family.

The Bluejay will be the one attacking your cat!


That's an awesome photo of a beautiful bird.

 

[Lee in Quartzsite]

Great shot! How about some details? Camera, settings, and lens? I have a new Canon Rebel T3i and still learning on how to use it.

 

[marvin the martian]

Beautiful shot! Can't wait for them to show up in my neck of the woods!

 

[DeathGrip]

Beautiful.

If I only had the camera skills.........

Here's the best I can do. A not to distant cousin.

Painted Buntings in my yard.

 

[Mac1184]

Great photo. We had a male visit our feeder (we live in Central Ga. too - Lake Sinclair). Very rare sight, maybe only once or twice in the last 10 years.

 

[Slim Chance]

Very nice! I struggle with trying to get good bird pictures. My feeder gets a lot of visitors.

 

[tom turner]

Great shot! How about some details? Camera, settings, and lens? I have a new Canon Rebel T3i and still learning on how to use it.

Hi,

CAMERA:
Canon T1i from 2009, the entry level DSLR of that era. Today's successor is the T3i, though the T3i's sensor is MUCH BETTER than mine in low light situations that require the ISO to be 1600 or higher in number.

Thus, you've got a fine camera body to start with indeed . . . and better than my earlier rendition of the T3i!

LENS:
Canon EF400/5.6 L
The lens is absolutely the very first place to invest your money when/if you want to step up! A great lens not only is sharper but the colors are dead on accurate . . . things thus really 'pop.'

In Canon's line up that means the "L" series lens. The model number ends with L and there's a tiny red band around the barrel. Most of them are also off-white and you see 'em all the time at professional games and such.

Canon's most popular lens for birding is the EF400/5.6 L. It is incredible FOR THE MONEY, and the auto-focus motor is super fast to help track auto races, shooting birds in flight, etc!

SETTINGS:
1/125th second @ 5.6. ISO set MANUALLY at 1,600 due to the low light conditions.

Hope this helps! Good luck and great shooting!!!

 

[Lee in Quartzsite]

Thanks for the info Tom. I am getting pretty good photos with just the basic Canon lenses. I have the EFS 18-55 IS II, the EFS 75-300 telephoto, and just added a EFS 18-135 IS. I am still experimenting with exposure settings and ISO speeds.

Two more questions....did you use an UV filter and a tripod?

 

[tom turner]

Hi Lee,

The only lens I use a filter on is my "kit" lens that came originally with my T1i, the EFS 18-55IS II. Why? Because it is my "snapshot" and bang around (aka "walk around") lens which can get touched by the grandkids or get banged into something.

It takes fine images and this will protect it in those sometimes harsh environments.

On my EF 50/1.4, my EF 200/2.8 II L and my EF 400/5.6 L is absolutely do not.

There's a never ending debate on the POTN (Photography On The Net) forum that's founded by Canon enthusiasts about filters. There are two very valid but different schools of thought:

1. Some argue that why would someone invest a lot of money on a premium lens that has cost is no object glass and then "ruin" the "ultimate" image quality with any degradation or distortion from a "cheap" filter.

2. Others say why would anyone spend in the thousands for a lens and NOT protect its expensive front!

Yep, both valid indeed!!! I feel this way . . . most all people who purchase the high dollar premium lenses either invest in a lens hood OR the lens hood comes with the lens. And, having the lens hood in place PROTECTS the "face" of the lens front like a football helmet by setting back the face of the lens from harms way. Thus, the hood protects without obscuring the lens face . . . the best of both worlds.

Gosh, I guess I'm not definitive at all either! Bottom line though, in truth I believe we all want our images to look the best we can get them . . . but want protection too.

Finally, a UV filter was sort of 'important' in the days of our 35mm film cameras due to how film interacted with excessive UV rays. That's not a problem with digital images and thus probably not necessary anymore except for a layer of lens protection anyway. It really doesn't harm anything to be there I suspect.

Yep, I used both lenses at the game too, and got some memorable photos with each.

Here's a handheld image, from my seat, with the EF200/2.8 telephoto with hood . . . when Justin Upton hit the second longest home run ever at the stadium.

In this case, the minimum to freeze action in sports is 1/500th a second (and that's what I used), and the EF200 was able to be stopped down (for a little more depth of field) in the NIGHT game to f/4.0.

Still, Upton's swing AND the ball moves faster than that! LOL However, look at the back of his uniform and things are as sharp as a tack on the letters . . . night games are when a 2.8 lens comes in handy!!!

ISO was set manually by me to 800 so I wouldn't get the graininess with my T1i @ 1600 and also get the colors that still "pop."

On the other hand, the only thing wrong with this EFS 18-55mm shot, is me and my buddy are in the way! LOL

(1/200 sec. @ f22, ISO 1600 at about 6PM, using flash to "fill" in the shadow areas of the face)

Hope this helps!

 

[tom turner]

Two more questions....did you use an UV filter and a tripod?

Sorry, I left the tripod question unanswered.

Yes, when at all possible I use a tripod, and a sturdy one. This goes all the way back to my photography classes in my college years.

My teacher said he could ALWAYS tell a tripod used photo upon close inspection due to additional sharpness. This set off my "b.s. meter," but then I discovered this to be pretty darn accurate, especially when shooting with long lenses!

For instance, I could NEVER have gotten the Blue Indigo shot above this detailed in the feather area without a tripod on THIS shot! Why?

The "normal" rules for an acceptably "sharp" shot:

1. 1/lens length in mm = MINIMAL shutter speed. I was using a 400mm so this would equal 1/400th second. HOWEVER . . .

2. For birds, since they jump and jerk around continuously, this normal rule is DOUBLED . . . so 1/400 x 2 = 1/800th second MINIMUM, and twice this amount is preferred anyway if the light is bright enough to get that fast a shutter speed.

In this new, DIGITAL SLR age we have a new rule addition . . .

3. Except for very expensive professional DSLR cameras, the makers use "crop sensors." Nikon's crop camera sensors are 1:1.5. Canon? 1.6. In other words, to keep costs down, the image sensors in consumer-priced DSLR cameras are much SMALLER in size by a factor of 1.6. HANG ON, I'm almost done . . .

Thus my 400mm lens only "sees" a smaller portion of its available image on the small sensor, by the ratio 1.6. 400mm x 1.6 = an effective focal length of a 640mm lens!

Going back to rule #2, TWICE the shutter speed of my 400mm on my Canon "crop body" is 1/640 x 2 = 1/1,280th of a second MINIMUM! Yes, the T3i, and even Canon's premiere Birding camera, the 7D are also 1.6 crop cameras. Greater lens length is always good for birding!!!

NOTE: Many photographers brag that they can shoot a 400mm, handheld, and get very sharp photos most of the time. They are right, but wrong. The photos may be 'acceptably' sharp in their opinion as they look beyond the flaws, but most of these images would not be commercially sharp.

TIP: ALWAYS make sure the bird's EYE is in sharp focus, or the photo will fail. It must always be sharp. Period!!!

BACK TO THE IMAGE. It was shot near last light. I know from experience that even with a tripod, the slowest I can SOMETIMES get away with is 1/125th second with a very still bird . . . which an Indigo Bunting rarely is!

For the mere 1/125th second that the lens was open on THIS shot, the bird had remained totally still. I got LUCKY as the camera rested on a very, very steady tripod!!! The very next shot in my two shot burst was blurry as heck because the bird moved almost imperceptibly.

Hope this helps! Tom