Two egrets arrived at the swamp this weekend.

I'm getting more and more impressed with the way 300mm works with the 2x tele. Here it's stopped down just about 1/2 a stop...

<img src="http://tarkhan-mouravi.com/gallery/albums/misc/20080419_TM_6038.jpg">

Love the colors and contrast. Looks also very sharp. Another winner!

I'm having slight difficulties with birds. This is the closest I got to a bird with the 70-200. There's still room for improvement...

<img src="http://personal.inet.fi/surf/photography/feather.jpg">

<center><img src="http://www.kodak.com/global/images/en/service/digCam/eosDcs/eosdcs1.gif"></center><p>
and no silly LCD on the back to distract the photographer :)

The background is perfect. I love how the the little eye piece matches the vines. I need A nice 70-200 2.8 with a converter. Sucks it will be more than the 40D I just bought.....

damn, so long ago. SCSI DB15 connector. ISO 200 only, IIRC or was it 400.

<center><img src="http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee79/Jusfofun/Dunnock.jpg"></center><p>Camera went click and the bird went away.

There are some white crane looking birds around here that I see flying occasionally. I need to hunt them down and find out where they're at. My little 70-300 isn't going to do much though I'm afraid.

also easier to follow wildlife with a small/light lens than wielding the supertele around.... Ability to zoom helps too

In the end it's probably 90% about the light and only 10% about the lens, when it comes to detail

in-house studio. From what I remember, it was pretty grainy and very sensitive to the right amount of light.

But the alternative was to shoot medium format, then take it down to Duggal or some other lab in NY and then wait, edit, make selects, print, then reprint, retouch, etc. Then maybe scan the print or the positive on a drum scanner (not cheap) and then do all the mockups. The files were huge so there wasn't much retouching done. Pretty limited due to basically Apple Quadra 950s (the baller machine at that point).

Photoshop didn't have layers yet and no history function. No layer masks; only an alpha channel, etc, etc.

This was easy because you could just plug in the camera and yank the image off. The image wasn't RAW, it was a TIF. Heavy as **** camera too, and the image acquisition etc wasn't all that quick. Forget the capacity on the camera, too.

I wonder what kind of gear we'll be using 10 years from now. Maybe our current cameras will seem just as outdated in 2020 as the DCS1 is now. And considering all the technological leaps during the last 10 years, we might be shooting with something totally different in 2020...