Different camera for BIF: Went out today with my Canon Sl1 and canon 100-400mm. All the opportunities were there at the park today Kingfisher, Osprey, fancy ducks and a Blue Herron.

Genessi Loc: SoCal

Went out today with my Canon Sl1 and canon 100-400mm. All the opportunities were there at the park today Kingfisher, Osprey, fancy ducks and a Blue Herron. Out of all the pics I took maybe a handful were ok. Now I am not that good when there's no sunlight but I am beginning to think that I need A different camera for BIF, I know the lens is great. Disappointed!! What do you think?

(Download)

terry44 Loc: Tuolumne County California, Maui Hawaii

looks pretty good to me you might do some editing to bring up your color and sharpness but 1,3 and five are sharp. you also could crop in a little to ake the subjects more prominent. All in all you did a nice job

Genessi wrote:

Went out today with my Canon Sl1 and canon 100-400mm. All the opportunities were there at the park today Kingfisher, Osprey, fancy ducks and a Blue Herron. Out of all the pics I took maybe a handful were ok. Now I am not that good when there's no sunlight but I am beginning to think that I need A different camera for BIF, I know the lens is great. Disappointed!! What do you think?

MtnMan Loc: ID

Don't know your camera specs or what shutter speed you used but I suggest at least 1/800 if handholding that lens.

I use M with min f-stop, auto ISO, and spot focus and metering...and min. Shutter speed as above.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Genessi wrote:

Went out today with my Canon Sl1 and canon 100-400mm. All the opportunities were there at the park today Kingfisher, Osprey, fancy ducks and a Blue Herron. Out of all the pics I took maybe a handful were ok. Now I am not that good when there's no sunlight but I am beginning to think that I need A different camera for BIF, I know the lens is great. Disappointed!! What do you think?

G, forget the camera. Most of what you showed could be taken with any camera.
Just don't tell me some of these have already been cropped?
Even without cropping, what will improve those shots a LOT, is to get WAY, WAY, WAY closer!!
You are way to far away. That is the hard part of wildlife, getting close enough. That's what takes the work.
Use camo, use a blind or dress like a duck, whatever it takes, but get closer.
BTW, THE 100-400 is NOT a good lens in low light. It's a very slow lens, especially at 400mm and likes lots of light. But that's almost any long lens.
Spend another $10k on a lens and you gain only 1 stop! Wowie!!
Work on getting closer and going out in good light. The best equipment still sucks in poor light. Good luck
SS

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Several long-lens Canon experts post routinely in the Birds-In-Flight / Birds-On-Water Forum at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-112-1.html .
I recommend that you ask for similar discussion in that UHH section.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Now there's an interesting concept, a EF 100-400 on an SL1. Is it the first gen or second gen 100-400?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking either; I have an SL1 that usually has a EF 24-105L mounted to it, my designated doggie cam, and I have both 100-400L lenses although the gen 1 version doesn't come out of the cabinet to much any more although I still use its sibling, the EF 28-300L all the time. I like the SL1 for what it is, small, light and full featured, a easy to use.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Genessi wrote:

Went out today with my Canon Sl1 and canon 100-400mm. All the opportunities were there at the park today Kingfisher, Osprey, fancy ducks and a Blue Herron. Out of all the pics I took maybe a handful were ok. Now I am not that good when there's no sunlight but I am beginning to think that I need A different camera for BIF, I know the lens is great. Disappointed!! What do you think?

Do not blame the gear. It does as it is told, no more, no less.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

There is definitively something left to be desired and if it is related to the way you read instructions this not a surprise.

Do read the MPS instructions...

More accurately... On an overcast day you always see the limits of any and all cameras. There is really nothing abnormal.

(Download)

Genessi Loc: SoCal

Thanks for looking appreciate the comments.

terry44 wrote:

looks pretty good to me you might do some editing to bring up your color and sharpness but 1,3 and five are sharp. you also could crop in a little to make the subjects more prominent. All in all you did a nice job

Genessi Loc: SoCal

I usually use TV but today I tried M ,Auto and even changed up on spot metering to eval. Thank you for your help.

MtnMan wrote:

Don't know your camera specs or what shutter speed you used but I suggest at least 1/800 if handholding that lens.

I use M with min f-stop, auto ISO, and spot focus and metering...and min. Shutter speed as above.

Genessi Loc: SoCal

Thanks for the advice SS. I can't get any closer unless I swim across the lake or get a bigger lens. Weather is better then hot sun but makes it tuff. Thank you for that advice about best equip will still suck in poor light.

SharpShooter wrote:

G, forget the camera. Most of what you showed coul... (show quote)

Genessi Loc: SoCal

I have the first gen 100-400mm. My SL1 does look silly with that lens, since it's crop sensor figured it would be better then my 6D. Next time I go out at this time and the weather is the same I will try with the 6D. I like to grab the SL1 with 16-300 tammy for general stuff, It is very lite. What camera do you use the 28-300 on.

rmorrison1116 wrote:

Now there's an interesting concept, a EF 100-400 on an SL1. Is it the first gen or second gen 100-400?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking either; I have an SL1 that usually has a EF 24-105L mounted to it, my designated doggie cam, and I have both 100-400L lenses although the gen 1 version doesn't come out of the cabinet to much any more although I still use its sibling, the EF 28-300L all the time. I like the SL1 for what it is, small, light and full featured, a easy to use.

Genessi Loc: SoCal

That's right!

davidrb wrote:

Do not blame the gear. It does as it is told, no more, no less.

Genessi Loc: SoCal

Nikonian72 wrote:

Several long-lens Canon experts post routinely in the Birds-In-Flight / Birds-On-Water Forum at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-112-1.html .
I recommend that you ask for similar discussion in that UHH section.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

terry44 wrote:

looks pretty good to me you might do some editing to bring up your color and sharpness but 1,3 and five are sharp. you also could crop in a little to ake the subjects more prominent. All in all you did a nice job

I don't think so. We obviously have different standards about sharpness and what looks good. The OP's images range from very soft to out of focus.