Osprey, Cape Cod, Late April 2018 – TRENT’S WORLD (THE BLOG) – Trent McDonald

These may be the best pictures of osprey I have seen. Possibly ever seen. Truly gorgeous shots!

Trent's World (the Blog)


I spent a chunk of the last week in April on Cape Cod.  On one of my walks down a Bell’s Neck in Harwich I watched about a half a dozen osprey hunt/fish.  I took well over 200 photos!  The sky was awful – it was cloudy and about noon.

Heres looking at you

My camera also did a weird thing in its focusing and exposure.  I have noticed that occasionally some settings will seem to change randomly.  Long and short, the exposures were awful for anything not pointing at the water.  The sun did eventually come out and a couple of osprey flew by, so I have a couple of “sunny photos”.

View original post 99 more words

Categories: birds, Photography, reblog

Tags: , ,

13 replies

  1. Thanks for the reblog, Marilyn!


    • Brilliant work! Long telephoto lenses really need more light than shorter lenses. I keep rediscovering this myself.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I usually do pretty god with my exposure, but I sometimes mess up. One thing, I often go to higher ISO with the long lens. This was at 320, so not that high of ISO but will more typically go to ISO 400 or even 800 if it is darker out.



        • It’s hard sometimes — especially when there’s water — to gauge the light properly. I use a spot meter, but that doesn’t always work either. Back in the day, my eyes could do a pretty accurate gauge. These really long lenses we use simply won’t give us a sharp image in lower light. In theory, they can, but they don’t. I won’t use any of the long lenses on my Olympus because they are too slow for me. F4 or 4.5 is not adequate for shooting birds, which is generally what I’m trying to do. And that’s the BOTTOM of the range. When you are moving, following a flying bird, you can’t set your shutter speed very low or all you’ll get is blur.

          Liked by 1 person

          • usually I do pretty good judging the light. I keep it on A priority, but manually change up and down with the dial. With a few of thses pictures I had it set at -1.3 and didn’t react quick enough, which is one reason i underexposed so much. I use the Oly 75-300 4.6-6.7, so it is 6.7 at the long end (I have an old 50-200 that’s a lot faster (I think 2.8, but it is at the Cpae so I can’t look), but doesn’t focus as easy). That is the reason I play with ISO so much – to speed up the shutter. The E-M 5 does pretty good at ISO 800 and E-M 1 Mk II does better at ISO 800 than my old standard four thirds did at ISO 200. I get a lot of practice sitting in a kayak taking pictures of flying birds, so I’ve gotten pretty good at bird on the wing shots. If I am standing, I can do 300mm on my Oly at a quarter of a second pretty consistently without too much shake.


            • I have a Panasonic super zoom — the FZ300 with a 2.8 – 4.6 lens that goes from 25 – 600. It’s not quite as good as the Olympus lenses, but it’s a Leica lens and it’s pretty good. Sometimes, it’s just less expensive to buy the camera than the lens. They heave an even higher end two — though they aren’t quite the same, but they have a bigger sensor and eventually, I’ll get one. Meanwhile, though my 300 tends to be my “single” choice camera when I just don’t know what I’m going to be shooting. I have to OM-D s — Garry uses one and I use the other. They are wonderful cameras and I love them, but I’ve never been really happy with their long lenses. They are either too slow or rather hard to use. I have most of the shorter lenses, many of them primes.

              Liked by 1 person

              • My favorite Oly lens of all times is still the 50-200 2.8-3.5 (I just Googled it). It was awful with he EM 5. In fact, it is one of the main reasons I bought the EM 1 Mk II since it was supposed to do the legacy lenses even better than the original four thirds. Nope. Some day I will have to put out real money and buy an expensive lens. The 75-300 is OK. I use it all of the time. I did pick up the 12-40 2.8 Pro. and it is a great lens.


                • I have trouble buying the really expensive lenses, especially because they are often not what I expected. I’ve tried a variety of Olympus long lenses and not liked any of them. I love their primes and short telephotos. The 45mm portrait lens in wonderful and when you get used to it, their 60mm macro is great, too, albeit as are most macros, a bit temperamental. I’m also happy with the 12 – 50mm lens (I like it a lot better than the 14-45mm). It’s Garry’s favorite lens, so I have two of them. I also bought the 1.4 25mm Leica lens which is faster than the 1.8 Olympus 25mm — but has a very different way of “looking” at the world.

                  I want the 75mm, but they haven’t reduced the price and I won’t pay the full price. I don’t need the lens that much. Also, if you wait, the price ALWAYS drops.

                  I had the 15 to 140 f4 and hated it. I hated the 40-150 even more. Maybe it’s the long telephoto lenses I don’t like. Too grainy? Too much distortion in the grinding? I’ve had couple that had bad areas: both longer lenses had a really blurry lower right bottom quarter and I couldn’t get past it. Other people seem to manage, but every lens is different, regardless of whether they are made by the same optical outlet. Not all Leica lenses are equal and some of the Olympus’s have been mediocre.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • Well, 15 – 140 is odd because it goes wide to telephoto so a lot of distortion. I have the 40-150 and hate it. The 75-300 is much better, but still obviously a cheap lens. The photos look great… until I compare with my old 50-200. I’ve discovered, with lenses and other things, that I end up spending more on inexpensive because I am not happy than if I would have broken down and put up for the high end from the beginning. And yes, I always buy when on sale.


                    • The 14 or 15 to 140 or 150 (depending on whether it’s Panny or Oly) IS hugely distorted and yes, I really hated it. I gave it away. I hated it that much. The 75 -300 probably is better because it’s long to long rather that wide to long. But my Panny with the long Leica lens is not particularly distorted, so maybe it has to do with size, too. Optics are not software. They are a physical process and I have notices that smaller lenses have a very different perspective than bigger ones. My FZ300 is a BIG camera, not a pocket special.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Typically the better the glass, the bigger and heavier it is. A few years ago a marine guard Made me stop taking photos of Air Force One, even though I had Secret Service permission, because he thought I was using a telephoto lens…


                    • The main problem most people have with my big Panasonic is that it IS so big. They figure ‘Oh, it’s a one-size fits all’ camera” … and it is, but it’s not a miniature camera. It’s the size of a DSLR, but not quite as heavy. There’s nothing “miniature” about it. It’s has a big hunk of glass in it.

                      None of my “tiny” cameras has been the quality I expect. I have a little Leica that’s sweet and easy to use, but it’s not as sharp as it should be. Its major advantage is that is has a good length (not super) lens — good for many things, but not birds. And it has great color qualities and has a menu most normal people make sense of. It’s a lot less distorted than other pocketable cameras I tried out. I’m very picky about lenses and cameras, but too poor to buy what I really want!


Talk to me!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: