2021......a Tortoise in lockdown hibernation?

[michael-ibk]

Very cool to see a Lapland Bunting! A rarity in your areas or do they turn up regularly?

[Galana]

I hope you are not keeping the bathroom too long.

Nice pose.

Good to see the Wheatears coming through. Go flush a few for me please.

 

Mea culpa.  ( Welsh for you want a cup of tea.)

I had not noticed you had slipped by your half century with ease.

Not bad for hibernating tortoises.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Galana
added text.

[Dave Williams]

18 hours ago, michael-ibk said:

Very cool to see a Lapland Bunting! A rarity in your areas or do they turn up regularly?

They are seen on passage most years Michael, I have been to photograph them in 2013,2019 and 2021. It's a limited window. One arrived Sunday, a second joined it Monday and I'll go and see if they are still there in a minute!!, 

[Dave Williams]

The Lapland Bunting were still there yesterday, and I believe today too but I didn't return. A different walk from our house and plenty of 54)Chiffchaff seem to have arrived including this one singing away in front of our house!

 

Chiffchaff by Dave Williams, on Flickr

[Kitsafari]

a lovely shot of the chiffchaff 

[PeterHG]

+ 1 for the Chiffchaff!

[Soukous]

13 hours ago, Dave Williams said:

plenty of 54)Chiffchaff seem to have arrived including this one singing away in front of our house!

 

They have not reached us yet. I'll know it when they do 'cos they start singing outside my window at 4:30am 

[Dave Williams]

33 minutes ago, Soukous said:

 

They have not reached us yet. I'll know it when they do 'cos they start singing outside my window at 4:30am 

They must have by-passed you  Martin...you are in a rough line between myself and @PeterHG!

[Dave Williams]

A grab shot out of the bathroom again! This time a 55)Eurasian Jay made a brief landing before taking off the minute I put my lens through the window!

I was playing with the R5 plus 100-400Mk2 plus a 2x TC. The lens is not a sharp combination and despite being under exposed there was a lot of noise at only ISO3200. Removal with Photoshop does nothing for the IQ either.

 

 

[Soukous]

1 minute ago, Dave Williams said:

I was playing with the R5 plus 100-400Mk2 plus a 2x TC. The lens is not a sharp combination and despite being under exposed there was a lot of noise at only ISO3200. Removal with Photoshop does nothing for the IQ either.

 

I foolishly purchased a 2x tc a few years ago. 

It has never impressed me, with either 300mm or 500mm primes. I got it our again a couple of weeks ago to see if I had judged it too harshly, but that just re-enforced my opinion. I won't be getting it out again.

 

[elefromoz]

an entertaining journey to 50, looking forward to what/where next

[Dave Williams]

7 minutes ago, Soukous said:

 

I foolishly purchased a 2x tc a few years ago. 

It has never impressed me, with either 300mm or 500mm primes. I got it our again a couple of weeks ago to see if I had judged it too harshly, but that just re-enforced my opinion. I won't be getting it out again.

 

I have used my 2x with the 500mm and been happy with it, both the Mk2 and now there Mk3. I won't be getting an RF version to go with the RF100-500 though. What I was hoping to find was that the 100-400 with a 2x TC giving a range of 200-800mm would be sufficiently sharp to justify keeping the lens because the RF version with a 1.4TC attached can only work between 420mm and 700mm. The RF 100-500 has slightly less reach than the 100-400 with a 1.4 attached but it performs better without the TC. Looks like it's goodbye EF lens!

[Galana]

Nice Jay whatever.

[Dave Williams]

I have just paid for and downloaded Topaz de-Noise, another added expense to buying the Canon R5 . I was sceptical before I tried it but I have to say, it works extremely well. Here's the Topaz version of the Jay which looks cleaner and sharper to my eye..

[xelas]

2 hours ago, Dave Williams said:

I was sceptical before I tried it but I have to say, it works extremely well.

Buying Topaz De-noise was probably the best investment in photography I have done. Although my old computers lacks the processing power, and thus conversions are slow, end results more than justify the time (and money) invested.

 

Which de-noise option has been applied, @Dave Williams?

[Galana]

I CAN see a difference when I squint and wonder if it works in reverse? That way when I get it wrong and turn in a decent image I can preserve my reputation with a winning EBC. Or I could save money and reputation by photoing through a sheet of wet newspaper.

[Dave Williams]

2 hours ago, xelas said:

Buying Topaz De-noise was probably the best investment in photography I have done. Although my old computers lacks the processing power, and thus conversions are slow, end results more than justify the time (and money) invested.

 

Which de-noise option has been applied, @Dave Williams?

The de noise one Alex

[Dave Williams]

37 minutes ago, Galana said:

I CAN see a difference when I squint and wonder if it works in reverse? That way when I get it wrong and turn in a decent image I can preserve my reputation with a winning EBC. Or I could save money and reputation by photoing through a sheet of wet newspaper.

Actually it’s not that much difference on ST but it’s huge on my Home Screen Fred. Mind you at 10.50 on a Friday night I’d hope you would be celebrating the weekend and then the difference would probably be even less 

[Galana]

27 minutes ago, Dave Williams said:

Mind you at 10.50 on a Friday night I’d hope you would be celebrating the weekend

Is it the weekend again already?

[shazdwn]

10 hours ago, Dave Williams said:

I have just paid for and downloaded Topaz de-Noise, another added expense to buying the Canon R5 . I was sceptical before I tried it but I have to say, it works extremely well. Here's the Topaz version of the Jay which looks cleaner and sharper to my eye..

 

That’s interesting. I’ve seen the Topaz program advertised but was also sceptical, however that does look like an improvement 

[Soukous]

11 hours ago, xelas said:

Buying Topaz De-noise was probably the best investment in photography I have done.

 

I think for me the best investment was buying a camera , but I do agree entirely.

Topaz De-noise is a very very good program. 

I bought it 2 years ago because I was struggling with some long range photos I did not want to lose. It saved my bacon then and is now the first one I use after converting the RAW file. 

With some images it is amazing, with others just OK, but overall terrific. 

 

To keep myself amused in lockdown I have been going back to photos I processed before I acquired De-noise and doing them all over again. The difference is significant. Every once in a while it also turns up a photo that I overlooked first time around. 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Soukous

[shazdwn]

On 3/20/2021 at 9:35 PM, Dave Williams said:

That weight gain comes at a price which I'm not altogether happy with.

food for thought @shazdwn!

Food for thought indeed. I certainly have no plans to substitute my 400mm f2.8 for anything else at this point, despite the weight (which is I admit much lower than earlier models). However I am considering trading in my 70-300mm L series for the RF version of the f2.8 70-200mm, well once the budget shock of the R5 has worn off anyway.  The 70-300 is a beautiful lens but has a design flaw that it cannot be used with a teleconverter, which would be useful for when I need to travel lighter. Also it is a variable f4 to f5.6. 

[Dave Williams]

10 hours ago, shazdwn said:

Food for thought indeed. I certainly have no plans to substitute my 400mm f2.8 for anything else at this point, despite the weight (which is I admit much lower than earlier models). However I am considering trading in my 70-300mm L series for the RF version of the f2.8 70-200mm, well once the budget shock of the R5 has worn off anyway.  The 70-300 is a beautiful lens but has a design flaw that it cannot be used with a teleconverter, which would be useful for when I need to travel lighter. Also it is a variable f4 to f5.6. 

The RF version of the 70-200f2.8 isn't compatible with a TC either...the EF one is though. The RF 100-500 is the possibly best option although you can pick up an RF f11 600 or 800mm for a very modest amount and they are very lightweight indeed.

 

[shazdwn]

7 hours ago, Dave Williams said:

The RF version of the 70-200f2.8 isn't compatible with a TC either...the EF one is though. The RF 100-500 is the possibly best option although you can pick up an RF f11 600 or 800mm for a very modest amount and they are very lightweight indeed.

 

Ahh, that complicates matters. Time to do some more research. 🤦🏻‍♀️

[Dave Williams]

10 hours ago, shazdwn said:

Ahh, that complicates matters. Time to do some more research. 🤦🏻‍♀️

 

The 100-500 doesn't come without complication either. It's proving to be a fabulous lens BUT my gripe is design and that when you attach a TC it limits the zoom range because of the physical make  up of the lens. The 1.4TC added can only be don when the barrel is extended to 300mm. Effectively you have a 420-700mm lens. The lens is also then permanently extended an extra 3 inches( plus the 1 inch of the TC) until you remove it again. The EF lens, the 100-400 has no such issues. Stick a 1.4TC on that and it still fully retracts and you have a 140-560mm lens. Something to consider.I was about to sell my 100-400 but I have changed my mind. For my next safari trip I will leave my 500mm f4 at home and instead take the 5D4 on the 100-400 and the R5 on the 100-500 with a TC attached. Two cameras that are easily manoeuvrable inside the confines of a car, especially when I'm driving too, and covering a range of 140-700mm . looking back at my last trip to KNP half my shots were less than 400mm, the other half at 700 ( the 500 plus 1.4). The 500mm is not ideal for quick grabs when you have to lift it over the steering wheel etc but that said the bokeh and extra light of f5.6 vs f10 ( on the 100-500) is a big plus.