[mou] Mourning Doves

Wed Feb 20 05:56:09 CST 2008

I think your correct on the doves. I have had more doves staying longer and longer each winter for several years. A pair has been at my feeder every day this winter. Several times as many as a dozen or so have been here since December. 

  Ray Potthoff
  Spring Valley, MN

mou-net-request at moumn.org wrote:
  Send mou-net mailing list submissions to
mou-net at moumn.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://moumn.org/mailman/listinfo/mou-net_moumn.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
mou-net-request at moumn.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
mou-net-owner at moumn.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of mou-net digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. (no subject) (jenna olsen)
2. Re: Fw: help with scopes????? (Fagyal, Chris E (US SSA))
3. Re: Fw: help with scopes????? (Warren Woessner)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:33:22 -0600
From: jenna olsen 
Subject: [mou] (no subject)
To: Br-mn brdg-moumn 
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi

I learned of your site through an article in the Star Tribune's birding page. What a wonderful site you have and a more wonderful job you all do in educating and advocating for our feathered friends. Thank you for that.

Your organization has been put at the top of my charities list, which, due to financial circumstances is temporarily suspended and only a wish list right now. But know that when the time comes that I can again support the causes I feel strongly about, your organization will be one of the first I contribute to.

The reason I am writing is that we have had a Mourning dove regularly visiting our feeder areas. Is this normal for this cold of weather?

We have had regular visits during spring, summer and fall of a few doves for many years. I have noticed some staying later and later throughout the past few years of mild winters, but none that stayed through Dec, Jan, or Feb. There was a flock of about seven on the phone wires back in early Dec. A couple of days later, I found one frozen, it's wings open as if frozen in mid flight. I thought surely the rest had moved on. But there is one that still frequents the feeding area in our backyard. I notice it every other day or so, but it could be coming daily when I am not home. 

I am an amateur birder and my most prized visitor to my feeders was a Blue Grosbeak about twelve years ago.

Again, thanks for giving us a site like this.

Jenna Olsen

_________________________________________________________________
Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging.?You IM, we give.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://moumn.org/pipermail/mou-net_moumn.org/attachments/20080219/cf89d99e/attachment-0001.html 

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:58:52 -0600
From: "Fagyal, Chris E \(US SSA\)"

Subject: Re: [mou] Fw: help with scopes?????
To: 
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Further to this discussion a few things to consider:

1) You don't need to spend 2000$+ on a scope. Sure the Zeiss,
Swarovski, Kowa and Leica scopes are fabulous, but is it worth an extra
500-1000$ over say, a Nikon Fieldscope? Incidentally, the Zeiss 65mm
scope + the eyepiece (15-45 zoom on a 65mm scope) would run around
1500$. If digiscoping isn't the "goal", you don't need all the
adapters. If you want superior optics, just make sure you get a scope
with ED type glass, or better yet, Flourite elements. The Zeiss 65mm
scope, for example, has 4 super APO (apochromatic) objective lenses and
extra-low dispersion fluoride glass. Basically this gives you a lens
which will give you exceptionally bright, crisp images without much, if
any, of the color fringing you would see in a non-APO lens. Color
fringing, by the way, are the purplish outlines you see around say, bare
branches against a blue sky when looking through mediocre quality glass.
This scope with the 15-45 zoom eyepiece is 1500$. In comparison the
Nikon Fieldscope III ED 20-60x is 1199$ with the zoom eyepiece or a
Pentax PF 65ED II with a 20-60x zoom eyepiece for 879$.

2) I agree with Jeff about DSLR vs Digiscoping. I used to
Digiscope. The image quality compared to a good DSLR was, well,
atrocious. Aside from the few points brought up be Jeff below, are
things such as poor control of light, shooting through a lot of extra
glass resulting in significant detail loss, inability to shoot in raw
format (most of the point and shoots used for digiscoping don't allow
you to shoot RAW files), etc. Can digiscoping results be "decent"?
Sure. Can they match up to a DSLR? No. This can be seen very clearly
if you ask someone with a digiscoped image to print it at 11x14, or
16x20, because they can't really. The quality just isn't there to allow
upsizing in an image that already is compressed minimally 8:1 (Which is
what large-fine was in most digi-scoping type cameras when I used to do
it)

3) If I were to recommend a DSLR setup (in the same price range),
I'd modify it a bit from what Jeff uses. A) I'd use a Cannon 400mm
f/5.6L USM lens with the 40D, not the 100-400mm. The 400mm f/5.6L costs
less, and has far superior optics at all apertures, especially wide
open. I'd also not use a 2x teleconverter, ever (especially with the
zoom lens, but also not with a lens with an f/stop above 4.0). I've
applied a 1.4x TC to a 400mm f/5.6L before and the results were "ok"
(keep in mind you can't autofocus a 400mm f/5.6L or a 100-400 f/4.5-6.3L
IS USM with a 1.4X TC on it on any camera but a professional 1 series
camera, which the 40D is not), but I found myself not using the
teleconverter with that lens very often. Comparatively, with a 300mm
f/2.8L IS USM I'd use the 1.4 constantly, but the difference in image
quality is dramatic. The difference in price (about 300% more
expensive) is dramatic too.

I'd certainly take the advice of others and spend time looking through
various scopes. I would not go out and just order something from Eagle
Optics or B&H or whatever (By the way, Adorama is the last place I'd buy
from unless you like a lot of sales pressure. For scopes, buy from
Eagle Optics. For camera gear, buy from B&H). You really need to spend
time looking through the various scopes to determine if the differences
merit the price to you. You may very well look through a 1000$ scope
and find it to suit you just fine when compared to a 2000$ scope. I
will admit to you that the Zeiss scope has some of the best optics
through a scope I've ever seen. But budget comes into play, and you
have to determine what your budget allows. If you don't plan to be out
scoping early in the morning at dawn, or late afternoon at dusk, a 65mm
scope will suit you just fine over an 85mm one and save you 300$+ if you
decide to get the Zeiss scope. The larger scope just draws in more
light, but during most of the day, the difference is minimal.

Chris Fagyal

Senior Software Engineer

BAE Systems - Armament Systems

Fridley, MN

(763)572-5320

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://moumn.org/pipermail/mou-net_moumn.org/attachments/20080219/98feceec/attachment-0001.html 

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:52:54 -0600
From: "Warren Woessner" 
Subject: Re: [mou] Fw: help with scopes?????
To: "Fagyal, Chris E (US SSA)" ,

Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At the low-end of good quality, I find that 90% of what I need a scope
for is still met by my "spare", a Bushnell Spacemaster with a 30X
eyepiece,
Warren Woessner

________________________________

From: mou-net-bounces at moumn.org [mailto:mou-net-bounces at moumn.org] On
Behalf Of Fagyal, Chris E (US SSA)
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:59 AM
To: mou-net at moumn.org
Subject: Re: [mou] Fw: help with scopes?????

Further to this discussion a few things to consider:

1) You don't need to spend 2000$+ on a scope. Sure the Zeiss,
Swarovski, Kowa and Leica scopes are fabulous, but is it worth an extra
500-1000$ over say, a Nikon Fieldscope? Incidentally, the Zeiss 65mm
scope + the eyepiece (15-45 zoom on a 65mm scope) would run around
1500$. If digiscoping isn't the "goal", you don't need all the
adapters. If you want superior optics, just make sure you get a scope
with ED type glass, or better yet, Flourite elements. The Zeiss 65mm
scope, for example, has 4 super APO (apochromatic) objective lenses and
extra-low dispersion fluoride glass. Basically this gives you a lens
which will give you exceptionally bright, crisp images without much, if
any, of the color fringing you would see in a non-APO lens. Color
fringing, by the way, are the purplish outlines you see around say, bare
branches against a blue sky when looking through mediocre quality glass.
This scope with the 15-45 zoom eyepiece is 1500$. In comparison the
Nikon Fieldscope III ED 20-60x is 1199$ with the zoom eyepiece or a
Pentax PF 65ED II with a 20-60x zoom eyepiece for 879$.

2) I agree with Jeff about DSLR vs Digiscoping. I used to
Digiscope. The image quality compared to a good DSLR was, well,
atrocious. Aside from the few points brought up be Jeff below, are
things such as poor control of light, shooting through a lot of extra
glass resulting in significant detail loss, inability to shoot in raw
format (most of the point and shoots used for digiscoping don't allow
you to shoot RAW files), etc. Can digiscoping results be "decent"?
Sure. Can they match up to a DSLR? No. This can be seen very clearly
if you ask someone with a digiscoped image to print it at 11x14, or
16x20, because they can't really. The quality just isn't there to allow
upsizing in an image that already is compressed minimally 8:1 (Which is
what large-fine was in most digi-scoping type cameras when I used to do
it)

3) If I were to recommend a DSLR setup (in the same price range),
I'd modify it a bit from what Jeff uses. A) I'd use a Cannon 400mm
f/5.6L USM lens with the 40D, not the 100-400mm. The 400mm f/5.6L costs
less, and has far superior optics at all apertures, especially wide
open. I'd also not use a 2x teleconverter, ever (especially with the
zoom lens, but also not with a lens with an f/stop above 4.0). I've
applied a 1.4x TC to a 400mm f/5.6L before and the results were "ok"
(keep in mind you can't autofocus a 400mm f/5.6L or a 100-400 f/4.5-6.3L
IS USM with a 1.4X TC on it on any camera but a professional 1 series
camera, which the 40D is not), but I found myself not using the
teleconverter with that lens very often. Comparatively, with a 300mm
f/2.8L IS USM I'd use the 1.4 constantly, but the difference in image
quality is dramatic. The difference in price (about 300% more
expensive) is dramatic too.

I'd certainly take the advice of others and spend time looking through
various scopes. I would not go out and just order something from Eagle
Optics or B&H or whatever (By the way, Adorama is the last place I'd buy
from unless you like a lot of sales pressure. For scopes, buy from
Eagle Optics. For camera gear, buy from B&H). You really need to spend
time looking through the various scopes to determine if the differences
merit the price to you. You may very well look through a 1000$ scope
and find it to suit you just fine when compared to a 2000$ scope. I
will admit to you that the Zeiss scope has some of the best optics
through a scope I've ever seen. But budget comes into play, and you
have to determine what your budget allows. If you don't plan to be out
scoping early in the morning at dawn, or late afternoon at dusk, a 65mm
scope will suit you just fine over an 85mm one and save you 300$+ if you
decide to get the Zeiss scope. The larger scope just draws in more
light, but during most of the day, the difference is minimal.

Chris Fagyal

Senior Software Engineer

BAE Systems - Armament Systems

Fridley, MN

(763)572-5320

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://moumn.org/pipermail/mou-net_moumn.org/attachments/20080219/3273ce1f/attachment.html 

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
mou-net mailing list
mou-net at moumn.org
http://moumn.org/mailman/listinfo/mou-net_moumn.org

End of mou-net Digest, Vol 302, Issue 3
***************************************

---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://moumn.org/pipermail/mou-net_moumn.org/attachments/20080220/83364da3/attachment-0001.html 