• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Soggy Sparrowhawk (1 Viewer)

Andy Bright

Administrator
Staff member
England
Took this pic of a very wet Sparrowhawk earlier today. Camera at about 135mm with the scope at 35x.... therefore a worring shutter-speed of 1/8 sec, but got away with it due to the static nature of the bird.
Andy B
 

Attachments

  • sparrowhawksoggy3svga.jpg
    sparrowhawksoggy3svga.jpg
    73.9 KB · Views: 274
Wow, Andy! That is a fantastic close-up. I need to get back out & practise with my set-up now that our weather is cooling down here in Texas.
 
Sparrow Hawk

Andy

Please put my mind at rest, I have been thinking about what distance settings you wrote. 135mm @ 35x.

Roy.
 
Thanks everyone, much appreciated.
Roy, the camera was at a zoom setting that equates to 135mm on a normal 35mm camera....in our terms it was at about 3.5x on the Nikon cp4500 (so not quite max zoom) and the eyepiece was at 35x (or a fraction above). The bird was about 25 yards away.
Cheers,
Andy B
 
Sparrow Hawk

Andy

Thank you for explaining, I had a guess the distance would have been about 25 yards to fill the frame like you did but the 135mm through me. It was a lovely shot and you were really lucky to be so close to this beautiful bird.

Roy.
 
Stunning profile shot Andy.
I seem to recognise the tree from other pics of yours! (Jay on your website). Is this on your local patch or in your garden?
 
Hi Dylan, yes it's a Laburnum tree about 25 yards down my garden, the tree is practically dead but has some nice cracks in it for putting brazil nuts in for the G.S. Woodpeckers (if the Jays and Jackdaws haven't got to them first).
Cheers,
Andy B
 
Warning! This thread is more than 22 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top