Kicking off this year's odds and sods with Starlings in a rainbow on that extreme rarity: sunshine.
It was early morning, with the sun barely cresting the tree line. We were able to get out for our morning walk as it wasn't raining. This photo is my trusty Canon 80D and Sigma 18-300mm lens zoomed in at 300mm.
Pulling back a bit.
And finally all the way back.
Oh, 2024 got off to a good start with this.
So far my cat, perhaps two neighbouring cats visiting our garden, a local fox and Tawny owl, and this trap have accounted for at least five of the beasties. Sightings of rats in our garden are getting rarer, so I think I'm winning. Two rather timid and wary rats, that I know of, are proving more elusive to catch. I've resorted to buying a lethal trap. The trap was triggered, yesterday, but no rat, sadly. Though a mouse might have triggered it, and was small enough to be within the kill bar.
90% luck, 5% field craft, 5% camera skills.
Cheers BD, I didn't know there was one, I have a few that might sit well in there
Thank you ILR, they're lovely birds IMO
They are Scozmos always nice to see.
Very nice Scozmos, I find nuthatch are often good for a great pose.
Agreed Mac, I'm just working through a set I got yesterday, one bird was a real poser
I hereby award Scozmos the prize for ace identifier of birds from fuzzy photos. The photos I posted earlier are, as Sozmos said, those of a Goldcrest. Brilliant effort. Well done, mate!
Today, we encountered the smoking gun evidence. Strangely enough, at approximately the same place where we spotted these birds way back during last winter.
It's amazing how one's eyes plays tricks on you. I could have sworn the Goldcrests we saw earlier on were long and thin and much larger than the birds we saw today. The birds we did see today (three of them) were of the tiny proportions I would have expected. In fact, I first mistook them for Wrens, so tiny were they.
This particular bird was, at times, no more than about 8 feet from us. Amazing. It just flitted about, seemingly unconcerned about our presence. It would hover occasionally like a humming bird. Sadly, I wasn't able to photograph this behaviour today.
I'm mulling over getting a used Canon 100-400mm lens during the January sales. My Sigma 18-300mm is good (the above photographs prove it) but it does play up sometimes i.e. not focusing properly. The optics of the Sigma lens are good, but the Canon lens is supposed to be much better. The Canon lens isn't much heavier than the Sigma lens. The extra reach of the Canon lens would be most acceptable - especially as most shots are at extended ranges e.g. the Goldcrest photos are at 300mm, and yet the birds are tiny.
Any wide angle photos can be taken with my mobile.
Well captured Angus. I've never been able to get a decent shot of a Goldcrest. As for the Canon 100-400mm, I believe it is f8 at full zoom. You would probably need to use a high ISO to get shots in shaded, or our usual dull conditions, but it would be great if you got decent light. I use a Canon 70-300L which is f5.6 at full zoom and I do struggle if the conditions are not good. I can manage with stationary objects on slow speeds, but moving things are a no no. See what someone who has one thinks ...
Morning Angus and thank you, although, I think I just got there first Nice shots, I don't think I've ever got good shots of them. I know exactly what you mean about the size etc. When I'm out and about, small birds often look bigger, especially if I have something in mind that I want to see, they usually end up being a Chaffinch
Thanks, BD. I hesitate to say, but when a wee beastie is 8 feet from one it is almost impossible not to get a good photo; even though it was in a shaded location with a brightish early morning sun. However, said blighter was very small, very fast, and never stayed still for more than 2 seconds.
Ah, actually I was looking at the Canon 100-400mm L EF fit. I never look at Canon lenses, let alone a L series. All Canon telephoto lenses are out of my budget range. I think secondhand EF prices have dropped recently as people move to RF lenses.
After you mentioned it, I looked into your Canon 70-300mm L EF lens. I like the look of the size of lens, sort of like its weight, love the secondhand prices. As a tightfisted Yorkshireman, I will wait until the January sales in the hope of at least 10% off the price of a 70-300mm secondhand lens.
Although I was mulling a 100-400mm EF lens I felt it a bit large, but was swayed by its weight. I have been looking on the Park Cameras website, where they give weights of lenses. The lens was much heavier than my current Sigma lens. Though I was a tad suspicious of the weight stated on Park Cameras.
Reviews of your 70-300mm lens state it is built like a battleship, rugged and made out of metal. My suspicions of Park Cameras' stated weight grew, and were confirmed at what they said your 70-300mm lens was: 050gms.
Oh yes. They only have three digits for weight! It should be 1050gms. Almost twice the weight of my Sigma lens, but just about manageable. The Canon 100-400mm lens weighs in at over 1.6Kg. Getting close to the weight of my Sigma 150-600mm lens.
So Santa might bring me a 70-300mm L lens in the new year. It's nice and compact, with superior imagery over my Sigma; which, can play up with focusing at times - and not just on my R7.