I've had several spells of doing very welll with it - but ill health myself this past 6 months (deep depression over Lancashire) and last weeks crisis with my mam and finding out the extent she's not been looking after herself while I had my eye off the ball - has and will curtail its use. Once things settle down into the new routine I should be able to schedule some time out to play with the camera - but at the minute its gone that far off this planet I think I can see it circling around Saturn!!!!!! Its a damn good job it did come early now looking back cos if it was only turning up now I'd be stuffed for using it - so at least I have had some use of it this year - its a cracker too! Merry xmas wishes by the way and I hope 2009 treats us all kindly (and often!!!!) Pauline

Pauline,
Best wishes for Xmas and the New Year. How are you getting on with your very early present - the 500mm lens?
Peter

Ah right thank you - I'm more or less with you now! Sorry I am really dim with these sorts of things - as soon as stuff turns into 'small print' I've lost it but I get it a bit better now - its certainly something I didn't know and I still don't know what the 20D codes to.
As I understand it shooting in RAW means that post processing simply has to be done whereas shooting in large jpgs needs less doing. I've always used spot metering but after reading one or two articles recently I've started using the average more in certain situations - like egrets in ditches at dawn!! I seem to under expose a lot too and have been reading that this is not a good idea - I'm still thinking about this one! A lot of my images are on the dark and 'full bodied' side instead of light and airy......... I suppose its something I sort of guess at first off, then check the back of the camera, then carry on - course if its something flying past and I've got it wrong I've missed my chance! For very contrasty things I often go from AV to Manual so I can expose how I want.
I suppose I've got quite good with Paint Shop Pro and to a lesser extent PhotoShop and can very often 'rescue' images back here on the computer. Even in jpeg I've found it possible to select over exposed areas of something and bring up detail that has supposedly been lost. I also clean images up by removing obstrusive things - I no longer worry about the folks that say this isn't 'proper' photography - haven't got it all correct in the camera etc. Like a lot of film slide users I went to a lot of trouble (and many went in the bin) just to get that one cracking shot. Its the same process now except I do it on here - tho I do still try and take everything into consideration thro the lens at the time. I'm also prepared to wait - hours in some cases - for esp birds to come to the optimum spot and pause for the best pose before shooting - mainly cos I hate going thro 3 and 400 images trying to decide which is the best one - tho I've done that too! Determined one awful day to get a cracking shot of a sedge warbler singing in a howling gale at Southport so each time it climbed the blackberry stem I fired off shots till the card was full - all 290 something shots! I got two that were what I wanted and still substantially played with the background on one till I had what I thought my eye had seen! Ooops better dash - I'm going to be late for work............!
Pauline

Sorry for not explaining myself. If you think of the range of lightness levels from black through to white. A digital camera has to give each level a digital value. It does this by sampling the lightness at the image sensor. The accuracy of this digital value depends on the number of steps available to give a value between black and white. The greater the number of steps, the more accurate will be the result. Most digital cameras code to 12 bits or 4096 steps. Some will code to 14 bits or 16384 steps. Normally there is no problem except where a very wide range of lightness levels is required in an image (On a bright sunny day for instance where you have very bright highlights and deep shadows). The effect of this is that you can loose detail in the highlights or shadows even though the exposure may be correct. When I took up wildlife photography I was encouraged to use spot exposure metering and was happy using this method. I found however, that photographing a all white bird (Little Egret for example) the resulting exposure would be too much to the white and any background would appear too dark. This proved difficult for me to correct in post processing. The opposite would happen for a dark bird. I have three metering modes available, ESP, Centre weighted average and spot metering. What I found was that if I used centre weighted average, the image brightness was more satisfactory. Easier to adjust exposure offset in the camera and easier to control when post processing. I hope that makes sense. Its my thoughts and I may be wrong but I thought I would share them with you.
Peter

You're welcome and yes it is a grand site here and smashing folks. Afraid I'm a bit dim when it comes to the technicalities of photography - same with using flash - I can only do things by doing them - being practical - study and learning something first by theory sort of goes above my head - I didn't go to school enough or university so never learned how to learn if you know what I mean?! Can do - can't teach or explain!! So I;ve no idea about dynamic ranges ........
Pauline

Thank you Pauline for inviting me to be a friend. I am a bit shy and do not go out of my way to make invites but I am happy with those that I have received. Its a great community here and some very nice people. Love the jesting about the RBG lone male!
How does your new lens compare to the Bigma, weight and size? When I first started out with it I thought, my god, I look silly carrying it around across one arm, but now - I do not care. Studying how I use it, 500mm would be about right for 95% of the time. I shall dream of owning one. Who knows, one day.
I am pleased, but not surprised to learn you have good results and yes, pied wagtails are the very devil to get right. I throw away more shots of them than I keep. The ones I do keep are only saved till something better comes up. How do you find the dynamic range on your camera? Its something I have been playing with to try and get the best out of the camera without too much editing - I am absolutely hopeless at PP but all my shoots are RAW so I have to apply it.
I shall have a look at Birdguides.
Nice chatting and thanks for the update from Mr Green

Peter

Hi Peter - thought I had better reply here and not start dragging yet another thread off topic (I think Jason and myself have had quite enough fun that way with my Pied or White Wagtail thread!)
Have noticed you're not on my friends list and wonder how I have missed you - so shall remedy that straight away now!
The 500 is proving enormous fun - or it would be if I could just get out enough with it: its a nuisance its so big and unweidly and I still feel a bit nerdy when I'm walking about or using it - it draws so much attention! Its paid off recently with GT white egret at Astley, pied wag (which for all they're common - they are difficulat to get a decent pic but think I've suceeded this time and funnily enough it got used for the starling roost shots last w/e at Leighton Moss cos we were so far from the action! I put those on birdguides and one or two are saying it might get potw but I doubt it - thos it was a distance shot I won with a while back - makes me wonder what I bought a big lens for if distance shots keep winning. Ah but I suppose the point is even at distance the quality is there. If I have any regrets I wish I'd sprung for decent gear earlier in my life...