Paul I certainly would grant you that. The hunt is part of the fun. But after years of photographing wildlife I've come to the conclusion that if you want excellent shots of wild animals and birds you really need to find subjects that are not weary of human beings. The best places to find these subjects are, in the case of birds, around feeders or at least very public areas where they are used to people. In the case of animals, National or provincial parks where they are not hunted and accept humans at relatively close proximity. In these types of areas 300 and 400mm lenses are usually all you need. Now many will not agree with this, that's fine. I've burned a lot of film shooting wild white tail deer and come away with only OK shots. Then I found an area where they run wild through a large heavily forested (but fenced in) wildlife preserve. They are wild deer but quite used to people. My good-ones-per-roll increased substantially. That's not to say it's not fun to go out and see what you can find in a forest , but you are going to have to work very hard to get average shots. This thread started with someone saying they wanted to use a 1000mm lens handheld. I will maintain that is not a wise thing. I have been simply trying to explain that A)you don't need a 1000mm lens to get excellent shots of birds or animals. B) Using any long lens demands excellent technique. If all you want is record shots of a bird, by all means hand hold a long lens and use 800 ASA film and go out and have fun. If you want publishable photos you'll never get them that way....
In a message dated 3/11/03 6:32:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >I've done that. It can be nice. But I prefer to find birds in their >natural habitat. The hunt is part of the fun. >Paul
