Duckfest 1-26 was BIG BOMBA

[TVC15]

So, I ended up not heading into Seattle until late, first of all, because I am a lazy mick.  Then it was ass cold and raining, so I decided to shitcan Discovery Park (prime duck country) and instead head down to the waterfront again.  The other day, it was nice and sunny, today, it was all Seattley and rainy and dark.  The good news is that there WAS more hot duck action, the bad news is that my Digital Rebel be fuckin with me.

It became evident that the image sensor needed cleaning, which I need to do in a dry place (re: not Seattle).  This means that most of my photos turned out unusable.  Fuck DSLRs!  I managed to salvage some pics, but they are not pretty.  I am PISSED.  FUCK DSLRS.  And to think that to trade up, I either have to go SLR, or go into the 3k-ish range.



These look like our ducks from the other day.  There were a lot more of them, though.



Bit closer in.  They are cute.



This is about how far away I am from them.  Note that this was taken like 30 seconds after the previous photo, so they had time to move around.



While looking off a pier I saw this.  I zoomed in for:



Can you identify, Frag?  I got another picture of it:



A little clearer.  I appear to lose some detail when I go full zoom.  It had an almost mosquito-like beak.

On the way out I snapped this with a point and shoot, and I blurred it--it was very gray out today which makes for shitty photos on automatic or p.



It was the group of ducks from before, but there were more of them now, and they were going into a water V formation.  The duck on the right, at the "bottom" of the V, was significantly fatter assed, and more clearly colored than the other ducks.  I take that to mean that he was the pimp.  Unfortunately, the fat pimp is the part that got blurred.

I'm trying to see if there's anything else that's not painful to look at.

[Junpei the Tracer!]

Have you ever thought about grabbing one of them,and dressing him up as Scrooge McDuck?

That'd be totally spectacular.

[Madrun Badrun]

I like junpei's idea.  Also your about 20 years too young to be getting into ducks whiteman. 

[BlueTsunami]

Oh yeah, I see the dust bunnies in the clouds. Such a pain in the ass. I've yet to clean the sensor on mine. Also, thats some long range zoom you've got. The first duck also looks like hes brooding.

[brawndolicious]

Next to the SF waterfront (I think Pier 39) there's this  with like 50 sea lions always sitting around.  My friend was taking a video of himself with some other people on Halloween on Pier 39 next to the sea lion area and that gave me audio proof that they have LOUD sex at night.  I need to go take pictures one day.

[TVC15]

Oh yeah, I see the dust bunnies in the clouds. Such a pain in the ass. I've yet to clean the sensor on mine. Also, thats some long range zoom you've got. The first duck also looks like hes brooding.

I didn't real post-process these, so I could have cleaned them up a bit.  The thing is I am not going to waste time fixing shitty pics.

I think a significant amount of detail is lost when I am using that lens.  So the zoom lens is more of a utility tool than it is a pretty picture tool.  Still, comes in handy.  It is a cheap zoom lens (it cost like 200ish), and it lacks image stabilization.  But one of the higher end zoom lenses, with a similar range to this, would probably cost me at least 700 bucks.  And I am buying a new fucking camera before I start getting into high end lenses.

[BlueTsunami]

You should be able to get the L series 70-200mm lens (without IS and max 4.2 Aperture) for around $500. It doesn't have the fancy abilities its bigger brothers have but you get some of the best optics you can get sub $1000.

Also lenses tend to be softer at the extreme of each focal length. Theres usually a sweet spot before the extremes of each end. With that said, the zooms you got on that lens (for that amount) is not bad at all and the overcast skies probably wasn't helping either.

[TVC15]

You should be able to get the L series 70-200mm lens (without IS and max 4.2 Aperture) for around $500. It doesn't have the fancy abilities its bigger brothers have but you get some of the best optics you can get sub $1000.

Also lenses tend to be softer at the extreme of each focal length. Theres usually a sweet spot before the extremes of each end. With that said, the zooms you got on that lens (for that amount) is not bad at all and the overcast skies probably wasn't helping either.

Yeah, when I have it extended, I tend to keep the camera in P, because I really don't know the considerations when using a more manual setting with a lens that large.  You saw how auto fucked up that last picture there--I don't think auto is particularly suited for bizarrely lighted Seattle days. 

[BlueTsunami]

Another problem is that Telephoto Lenses tend to have Focusing issues. You think your fully focused on an object but its slightly out of focus. I'm scared to buy an expensive Telephoto lens because of that (you'll either have to have it replaced or send it into the manufacture to get it recalibrated). If not, you'll have to deal with it by focusing and using manual focus to compensate.

[TVC15]

Another problem is that Telephoto Lenses tend to have Focusing issues. You think your fully focused on an object but its slightly out of focus. I'm scared to buy an expensive Telephoto lens because of that (you'll either have to have it replaced or send it into the manufacture to get it recalibrated). If not, you'll have to deal with it by focusing and using manual focus to compensate.

I get that all the time.  I tend to just chock it up to AF not being perfect.  It's fine 90% of the time.  I'm like half blind and my glasses are old, so I trust the camera.

[T234]

Oh yeah, I see the dust bunnies in the clouds. Such a pain in the ass. I've yet to clean the sensor on mine. Also, thats some long range zoom you've got. The first duck also looks like hes brooding.

I didn't real post-process these, so I could have cleaned them up a bit.  The thing is I am not going to waste time fixing shitty pics.

I think a significant amount of detail is lost when I am using that lens.  So the zoom lens is more of a utility tool than it is a pretty picture tool.  Still, comes in handy.  It is a cheap zoom lens (it cost like 200ish), and it lacks image stabilization.  But one of the higher end zoom lenses, with a similar range to this, would probably cost me at least 700 bucks.  And I am buying a new fucking camera before I start getting into high end lenses.

[BlueTsunami]

Another problem is that Telephoto Lenses tend to have Focusing issues. You think your fully focused on an object but its slightly out of focus. I'm scared to buy an expensive Telephoto lens because of that (you'll either have to have it replaced or send it into the manufacture to get it recalibrated). If not, you'll have to deal with it by focusing and using manual focus to compensate.

I get that all the time.  I tend to just chock it up to AF not being perfect.  It's fine 90% of the time.  I'm like half blind and my glasses are old, so I trust the camera.

I think you have the 350D? I've also heard that the higher end cameras play really well with AF (as in more accurate) but I guess the premium you pay, thats to be expected.

If your looking for a mid range telephoto lens, I suggest the EF 50mm Prime Lens (1.4 Aperture). Its quick (as in its speed in low light conditions), doesn't cost that much and the pictures you take with it are super sharp.

Here are some shots I took a couple of days ago that contain "so much homo" but I like them...

Slightly cropped to straighten the picture (was a little crooked)...



Highly cropped...

[TVC15]

What lens is that with?

[BlueTsunami]

Thats the Canon 50mm f/1.4 Prime Lens. Got it a month ago for $300 off of Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00009XVCZ

Its awesome, even though you can't Zoom with it. A nifty feature it has is the ability to have Auto Focus on and be able to use the Focus ring to focus in and out manually while still in AF (on the Lens).

[Fragamemnon]

The Unidentified Fowl Object is a red-breasted merganser hen. Note the telltale merganser beak (long and narrow, instead of billed or freakshow like a scoter) and there-but-not-obvious cr est. Differentiated from a common and hooded merganser female due to grey coloring all around and ruddy/rufous head, and a more narrow beak than the common/hooded.

The real key though is that red-breasteds are a lot more prone to seawater habitats than common ones.

[T234]

The Unidentified Fowl Object is a red-breasted merganser hen. Note the telltale merganser beak (long and narrow, instead of billed or freakshow like a scoter) and there-but-not-obvious cr est. Differentiated from a common and hooded merganser female due to grey coloring all around and ruddy/rufous head, and a more narrow beak than the common/hooded.

The real key though is that red-breasteds are a lot more prone to seawater habitats than common ones.

Fragamemnon::Ducks 

Prole::Animu Games

T234::Stuff He Can't Afford

[TVC15]

The Unidentified Fowl Object is a red-breasted merganser hen. Note the telltale merganser beak (long and narrow, instead of billed or freakshow like a scoter) and there-but-not-obvious cr est. Differentiated from a common and hooded merganser female due to grey coloring all around and ruddy/rufous head, and a more narrow beak than the common/hooded.

The real key though is that red-breasteds are a lot more prone to seawater habitats than common ones.

I will try to get to Discovery Park next weekend, but no promises.  I am considering my Digital Rebel benched for now, and on Saturday I have school shiz.  But I will try to bring you birds to identify!