Some friends came by for lunch today (pics) . . .

[Steve Foss]

. . . and wondered if you knew their names. No contest for an experienced birder, but there be many here who may be challenged by one or two of these. Can you name them all?

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Seven

Eight

Nine

Ten

[buzzsaw]

Great pics Steve! Good job cropping as well! I love those Grosebeaks (#3) we never see that type down here, well atleast I don't. #4 has me baffled and send some of those cute Redpolls to my yard!

[Nymph]

1.Pine Siskin

2.Female Evening Grosbeak

3.Male Evening Grosbeak

4.Young Pine grosbeak

5.Female Purple Finch

6. Male Goldfinch

7.Slate-Colored Junco

8.Male pine Grosbeak

9.Male Purple Finch

10.Redpoll

Great pictures.

[Steve Foss]

Looks like you got 'em all, Nymph. No. 4 may be an adult female rather than an immature of either sex, but that's a tough call to make, and my three bird guides conflict or don't distinguish well between then.

[Dotch]

Really super pics Steve and a nice little pop quiz. Like buzz mentioned, a few of those grosbeaks I've never seen here either but it was fun digging thru the guides looking. Congrats nymph on your high score!

[Lake Trout]

#4 Peterson's Field Guide has this as an immature Pine Grosbeak as was stated.

#10 Don't mean to be picky, but it is a Common Redpoll. There is a Hoary Redpoll as well.

Super photos. Have had them all in my yard at one time or another. We used to get 40-80 Evening Grosbeaks at the feeder at once ten or more years ago, but now barely see one or two a winter. Sad, because they are so beautiful...

[WifeKidsandDog]

Quote:

---

. . . and wondered if you knew their names. No contest for an experienced birder, but there be many here who may be challenged by one or two of these.

---

Oh I knew what they all were instantly

Nice shots, Steve. Love the variety!

[Steve Foss]

Cheryl: Glad you nailed 'em!

Lake Trout: It's good to be picky sometimes. We usually lose our evening grosbeaks by the end of November, but they've been sticking around our feeder since deer season started.

Here's why I said it wasn't easy to ID the gender/age of No. 4. And I'm not sniping at you, just explaining the way I approach bird identification.

Yes, Peterson's shows it as you said. However, Sibley, which I continue to use as my go-to guide because of its more detailed coverage of varying plumages and races, shows a russet variety adult female pine grosbeak that EXACTLY matches the posted picture. Peterson shows no such russet variety. The National Geographic guide does show one.

Sibley states that some adult females and first-year males have the russet plumage. Based on that, the image above could be either one.

Sibley also shows that adult females of either plumage variety have no washing of color down the chest and back, which is a contradiction to my Peterson guide, which does show that color washing.

I use a combination of Sibley, Peterson and the National Geographic guides for identification. Peterson because it's what I was brought up with, NG because it's very good, and Sibley because it's the best field guide on the market, bar none, in my opion. It's a little too big to take regularly in the field, however, so usually Sibley sits on my office table or in the vehicle.

When the guides conflict, or one guide shows details not found in another, a birder can't be positive.

[Tom Wilson]

Steve,

I had the National Audobon Society ID book, and I also had the Peterson, as of Christmas this year, I now also have the Kaufman, and the Sibley.

I remember arguing once with you over a sparrow about a year ago, and you telling me to get the Sibley. I am sorry that I didn't listen to you.

The Sibley is the Birder's Bible.

I like all of them and with four different books, I doubt there is anything that I couldn't ID, but if I could only have one--it would absolutely be the sibley.

Tom W

[Dotch]

Any of those come out in a CD ROM version? Would be nice as they could be updated as changes arose. That and I wouldn't have so much stuff all over the office. Have laptop, will travel.

[Steve Foss]

The Audubon Society has a CD for North American bird ID. Includes songs, range maps, all that great stuff, but the one I got (admittedly it's 7 years old and they may have changed it since then) uses only photos for ID, not the much better illustrations found in the top-notch printed guides such as Sibley, Peterson and N.G.

Try a Web search, or go to birder dot comm and see what they have available in their online store or links.

One other downside to the CD was that, even once it was loaded onto the hard drive, you had to have the CD in the CD drive to make it all work, so you'd have to carry it around on your laptop.

[Lake Trout]

I've never heard of the Sibley guide. I'll have to do a search on it.

[Steve Foss]

Full title is: "The Sibley Guide to Birds," written and illustrated by David Allen Sibley. Amazon or any online bookseller will have it, as will any of the mainstream bookstores. It's a bit higher priced than the others, but worth every penny. Think I paid $35 for mine when it came out about four or five years ago. Amazon also acts as a clearinghouse for used booksellers, and I've bought many used books in fine condition for pennies on the dollar through Amazon.

A most excellent companion to the Sibley is another by Sibley: "The Sibley Guide to Bird Life and Behavior." Full of tremendously useful information about the ancient through modern history of birds, the various classifications of birds, and a lot of great stuff on behavior. If you have the jing, it's a great buy.

[Dotch]

Thanks Steve. The plus side of a CD outweighs the down side for me as I am merely trying to satisfy my curiosity while on my whirlwind tours. There simply isn't time for birding when on those 5 AM - midnite work schedules. But since I'm outside during daylight hours anyway, it's nice to be entertained by things other than the crops. I have a Peterson & a Golden guide which are smaller but not always as detailed as I would like when it comes to habitat, nesting, food, and variations in plumage as you mentioned. Hauling CD's vs. large books when the laptop is already in tow is a small price to pay.

[Steve Foss]

Ahhh, but once you get the Sibley you can leave your Peterson and Golden behind, and you're even Steven for weight/volume but with the best guide on the market.

Getting the CD also will make you better at IDing birds from their calls. In fact, the Audubon Society offers CDs just of bird song that go great in a laptop or in your auto's CD player. Beats the inane chatter of radio jocks all to snot, I say.

I learned bird songs the hard way. Listened for a bird song when I started birding as an 11-year-old, then tracked down and identified the bird, and had to remember the song. Amazing how motivated an 11-year-old can be. Wonder how many I've forgotten since then. All those dead brain cells, you know.

[Dotch]

Gee, this could start to get expensive. I don't have a CD player in my truck so I suppose I'll have to get a new one...lol!

My fascination with birds started at a young age too. I was 5 in the winter of 1963 when I remember watching a downy feed on the suet (melted) from a wood block feeder hanging under the eaves at our farm near Stewartville. Mom showed me the picture of the bird in the old Peterson's guide and how the red on the back of his head identified it as a male. Seems like only yesterday. If this warm weather continues, I look forward to a February return of the horned larks in our pasture. In the meantime, I'd better go unload some hay. Thanks Steve!

[waskawood]

Steve, I have a couple questions. What distance were these picture taken and with what lens? How much cropping? Oh my, but the questions are just staring!!! I love my new equipment but I am not so sure that it is loving me back Thanks much.

Dave

[Steve Foss]

Dave:

Some are cropped quite a lot. Online resolution of 72 dpi allows for lots of tight cropping that still looks sharp enough. All these were shot RAW, which also makes for sharper images when there's a lot of cropping involved. Others were not cropped at all. You can't tell the difference on these 72 dpi computer monitors, but if I want to put some of them in the paper (180 dpi) I'd have some size limitations because of the crops, and if I wanted to print them professionally (240 to 300 dpi), I'd face even more size limitations.

All were shot with a Canon 20D, in RAW/large JPEG mode, with the Canon 100-400 mm L IS lens. Since all the birds required the same exposure, I set the camera on manual and exposed for the bird itself, not the background, checking the histogram on the camera back to make sure the exposure was right.

If I remember, that got me 1/400 second at ISO 400. That meant that all the birds were properly exposed, as was anything else in the images with roughly the birds' tone, but snow was generally a bit blown out (no data in the image at all), and darker backgrounds were underexposed. In the end, the subject's correct exposure matters the most. Overexpose it and you run the risk of having blown-out spots. Underexpose it and you'll have lots of digital noise (which appears as grain and randomly scattered pixels of odd color).

With the lens set at 400 mm (560 mm with the 1.6 conversion factor for my 20D), the lens only opens to 5.6, so the image stabilizer is key to getting sharp images, especially in low light.

If I could afford it, I'd get the 600 f4. When you're talking small birds, it's really the ticket. These were all shot from about 20 feet away with the lens resting on the rail of my deck. Nice thing was, none of these species are shy. Try shooting some of the more wary or treetop warblers with a 400 once, and you'll see how hard it really can be.