Eagle photo opportunity (pics included)

[Dan Thiem]

I know some people are aware of this but there are tons of Bald Eagles near my house. From Red Wing to Wabasha along the Mississippi it's not uncommon to see fourty maybe fifty of these birds.

Wabasha actually has an eagle observation deck. One guy had some wierd looking balance pole for his camera. It sort of teederd on a pivot somehow.

Just thought I would let the camera guru's know about this location.

[Steve Foss]

Thanks Dan:

Would be nice to get there. I know eagles congregate around major rivers within their range during winter, as long as there's open water. Up here, we get them long into winter sometimes too, though mostly they focus on roadkill then. Not uncommon to drive past a roadkilled deer and see an eagle or two in with all the ravens.

That balance pole you're talking about is a monopod. Not as rock steady as a tripod, but provides better stability than purely hand-held.

[lawdog]

I lived in Red Wing for 8 1/2 years and I can vouch for the awesome eagle viewing there in the winter. The power plant keeps the water open year around, and when its bitterly cold and everything else is frozen, its really something to behold. Colvill park is probably the best place to see them, there can be 40+ eagles in and around the park there. Very very cool.

[Tom Wilson]

Dan,

That is some useful information--hopefully some of the guys will go check that out if they've never seen it. I have been going down there for the last seven years. I love going over to Reitz park there on the Wisconsin side while all of the Trumpeters are there. I usually start making my trips down there at about this time of year. If you ever see a big guy with a camera standing in the freezing cold--it might just be me. I think I'll be down there in two weeks, and probably three or four days immediately after Christmas. It is a wonder to behold to see so many Bald Eagles in one spot.

[hobbydog]

Quote:

---

If you ever see a big guy with a camera standing in the freezing cold--it might just be me.

---

That is a pretty good description there Tom That was my first thought....big guy taking pics of waterfowl on a weekday with cottonwoods in the background...that has got to be Tom. I wish it wasn't so cold the other day or I was dressed a bit warmer and I would have stayed to chat a bit longer.

Another good eagle spot in the winter is the Minnesota River east of the Cedar Ave Bridge. As the river freezes up the will congregate near the open water. There has nice hiking trails on both sides of the river.

[hobbydog]

Quote:

---

Wabasha actually has an eagle observation deck. One guy had some wierd looking balance pole for his camera. It sort of teederd on a pivot somehow.

---

Was it something like this that he had?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Wimberley-Gimbal-Tripod-Head-Review.aspx

[Dan Thiem]

No Dog, it was one huge contraption. It was basicly a tripod looking thing, but it had a long arm on the top that sort of rocked in a pivot so it could swing side to side and up and down. It had some sort of balance weight on one end. I can't really remember exactly how it worked, but I think it was for some sort of image stabilization. It was a pretty big thing. I'd say about six feet around and about four feet high.

[JollyT]

It could have been an astronomical binocular/camera mount on a tripod. They make some that will stay pointed in a set direction even when moved to diferent viewing heights for different people. Paralellagram arm design, with a counterweight on the other end. Pretty good for holding up 10x70 binoculars all night.

[Dan Thiem]

You may be right, because now that I think about it, it may have been a spotting scope or something like that.

[WifeKidsandDog]

Thanks Dan,

We're planning a family trip over in the next few weeks. I'm really looking forward to it. I hope we see the eagles, my daughters are disappointed they haven't seen them here yet.

Cheryl

[polarsusd81]

Well I just may have to take a short drive down there as well. I just moved to Inver Grove and have a good friend in Prescott. I am beginning to explore the area a little more. I noticed just the other day when leaving my apartment, a bald eagle soaring right above the apartment. I had a chill run through my body, they are so majestic. Unfortunately the camera was inside and we were on our way to the mall. I will post pics when I get a chance to go take some.

Tom

[buzzsaw]

Not a great shot as it was from forever away!! but this was taken on Sunday morning down in the MN River Valley in Bloomington.

[Tom Wilson]

It's better than my first eagle shot! Nice job on the backlit exposure too Mike.

Tom W

[buzzsaw]

Quote:

---

Nice job on the backlit exposure too Mike

---

I can't take credit, I was using the AF (Auto focus) feature. I went out and got a new lens for the camera today...a Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6 D Lens

[buzzsaw]

I was down at the MRV again this afternoon to tackle the low light conditions (like how I make excuses) and got an immature Bald Eagle that was fishing for some Shad.

[Steve Foss]

Good work, buzz. Still drooling over that Nikkor 80-400 VR, or are you gonna plop down some cash and get CLOSE to those eagles??

[buzzsaw]

Your killing me Steve! I got to look through another "birders" setup today and I believe he was at 800mm zoom and it was nice. I was quite aways away from the eagle today. This whole bigger is better cetainly does apply when it comes to photography. I'm looking forward to a nice sunny day and I'll break out the Tri-pod. I have another lens arring in a day or two... it's a Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6. I'm thinking about this whole teleconverter thing being a good option to get more reach.

P.S. What do you think of this "reasonable" priced lens? (Tamron Zoom Telephoto SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD IF Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF) and would it work well with my D50? Also, could I use a teleconverter with this if I deemed it neccessary to see mice on Mars?

If I get some positive feedback it may be in my bag soon.

[Steve Foss]

Well, now you're getting into Nikon/Nikkor country. It's a good country to be in, but a bit of a foreign country to me (though my country and Nikon country speak the same language), so I can speak about lenses in general but not what's a good value for Nikon. That makes it a Hobby and Tom Wilson kind of thing.

[Tom Wilson]

Buzz--Sorry I haven't given you any replies to this post yet....

Congratulations on the new camera!

As far as your desire for lenses--what can I say--(besides, I told you so)

The problem that you have is the same problem I have--you want to photograph birds. Birds are the niche of the photography world that unfortunately requires the most lens. Not just in zoom, but also in quality. I think you have started well, but my advice to you would be to not get too over zealous in buying new lenses without thoroughly checking them out. I see you've been looking at the 80-400 VR--This is no doubt a good lens, and it gets a lot of great reviews, but in every single review I've ever read--they all mention how slow it is. This is not what you want if you want to use it for a bird lens. My personal recommendation (and I would do this myself if I could afford it right now) would be to buy the 70-200 VR and the 1.4X teleconverter. I have this in a sigma version and I have found it very beneficial. The nikon version of the 70-200 is awesome--I will buy one as soon as I can. WIth that combination you will be shooting at 420mm at F4--that's great distance with great light. If you bought the 2X tele you would be shooting at 600mm F5.6 this is better than the other lens in both speed and light. The picture quality might be a little better than the 2X, but you wouldn't see it unless you blew your photo up pretty big.

It is your decision of course, and only you know what you want out of your photography, but please be a careful buyer, and do the research before you buy. Somebody else on another post sent you a link to Ken Rockwells review of the lens, I will give you this little opinionated tid bit--Ken Rockwell is a conceited, and very opinionated reviewer, but he dang sure knows his stuff. I have found his reviews to be straight up and very accurate. I haven't bought anything photographic in the last three years without checking there first, and I will tell you that he has been right on with his info. Again, check it out before you buy, and again congratulations--Keep them photos coming.

Tom W

[buzzsaw]

Hey Tom, nice hearing from you!

Quote:

---

The nikon version of the 70-200 is awesome

---

I ended up picking up a 70-210 mm 1.4-5.6 D Nikon Lens. I was also over at national Camera last night talking to the guy about that Tamron lens that goes out to 500mm... that would be a nice addition, I'm not sure if the wifey would be overly excited if I went out and got that right away, but it could happen.

[buzzsaw]

Heres some scenes from today in the valley.

[Steve Foss]

Good looking stuff. Are you liking your setup?

Also, could you resize the second eagle image and repost it? It's WAAAYYYYYY big, about twice the width of my screen.

[buzzsaw]

Whoa, you weren't kidding Steve! Afreeimagehost doesn't usually even let you upload photo's that large, I resized it quite a bit... although it's a hair larger than my "normal" posts.

Quote:

---

Good looking stuff. Are you liking your setup?

---

I actually love the camera... I like my Nikon leses and have not formulated a good opinion yet on the "cheaper" Sigma 70-300mm zoom... I do know that I will be getting a zoom lens upgrade to a 500 mm at some point as I take so many far away shots and I need the reach. i'm also strongly contemplating getting a teleconverter that will allow me to still use my autofocus feature and a 500mm zoom lens... I think the 1.4 teleconverter only loses one F-stop... I may be wrong on that though????

P.S. How in the world did you catch a walleye by pulling it backwards up through the ice?

[Steve Foss]

Quote:

---

How in the world did you catch a walleye by pulling it backwards up through the ice?

---

Well, buzz, I used a Nikon fising setup, because Nikon does everything backwards. Shoot, man, you left me that one on a platter. I can't resist a joke, even when it's untrue.

The 1.4 teleconverters I know of will cost you a stop, but I don't know enough Nikon lore to guide you on your choice. Canon teleconverters only allow autofocus on Canon lenses that open to f2.8. Not sure about what Nikon offers there. In general, losing a stop on an f2.8 lens in order to gain 1.4 times its focal length is an excellent tradeoff. You did mention a 500 zoom, however, and I don't know if anyone makes a zoom to 500 mm that opens wide enough to allow a teleconverter to maintain the autofocus feature. Could be you actually meant a 500mm fixed focal length, not a zoom with a max to 500mm.

Anyone? Hobby? Tom?

Tom, you still alive on the planet?

[Tom Wilson]

Yeah--I'm still alive. I have just been so incredibly busy, that I only get a couple of seconds a day to check out the site here. This has been the first little bit of time I've had recently to do more than read the posts. It's kind of funny--I check the site here at least four or five times a day when I'm home--the wife just shakes her head and laughs and calls me a forum junkie.

Anyways....

Mike--Steve is for sure right about the teleconverters--you will lose a stop of light with a 1.4X tele, and 2 stops of light with a 2X tele. This doesn't sound like a lot, but if you start with a 5.6 lens and add 2 stops, you're now shooting at F8--this also doubles you're speed due to the wider aperture. If you were shooting at 1/250 with a 200MM lens and then you add two stops, you'd be down to around 1/60th depending on the quality of light. This forces you to use a tripod. This is the issue with the lower grade versions of glass. I only use a tele with my 70-200 F2.8 lens, and this give me a 98-280 F4. Add that to the digital factor and I'm shooting a 147-420.

As far as your 500MM desires, there are several consumer glass companies that make 500MM zoom lenses. Sigma also makes a 500 fixed, but then you're back into the multiple thousands. I have to assume you're looking at consumer zoom glass, because if you're actually talking about spending $5K on a prime 500MM--Then I'm not talking to you no more

Sigma makes two--one costs around $600.00 (170-500), and the other costs around $900 (50-500 hsm). I own the 170-500 and it is a good lens, but I have to shoot it at a minimum of F8 or it isn't sharp, and it is super slow for focusing--as you have heard me whine before. The 50-500HSM was developed after I got started and has a much faster focusing speed--If I was buying today, I would buy it first. You cannot put a tele on the 170-500. You can put a tele on the 50-500 (often referred to as the "Bigma" because of it's size and weight), but you would absolutely need a tripod and good light. I also believe that you lose auto focus capabilities.

On a side note--and this is my opinion (both from experience and from research and reports from other photographers) Sigma is the only consumer grade glass that I would buy. I wouldn't buy another piece of Tamron glass to save my life. Don't let them yahoos at National camera tell you different--they push tamron because of the markups. (there are some good reviews though on their new macro lens) I have never owned a Tokina, but their reviews are not good.

Teleconverters--I have a sigma 1.4X that is supposedly matched to the sigma lens, it works, but photo quality is affected, I wouldn't even buy the sigma 2X converter.

The Kenko tele gets really good reviews.

As far as the Nikons go...you would get the highest quality with the prime tele, just like with the lenses--however the 1.4X and the 2X both cost around $550.00 each. I would look at the sigma's if you're looking for longer reach without your wife killing you. Other than that--you will still never have enough reach. Again, I remind you that it is a disease--it affects the mind, and the more it grows, the more you spend (and need)

Did you get yourself a nice sturdy tripod?

Tom W