Re: Long lenses handheld?
i didn't say that. i said that some publications will pay less. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 09:40 Subject: Re: Long lenses handheld? > Really. Do you think all the great wildlife shots in outdoor photographer and > other magazines are shot in places other than National parks, from blinds > around feeders etc... These guys don't just walk around the woods with huge > lenses and 800 asa film hoping to find something that will sit still long > enough for them to shoot it. They go to where the pickings are good and work > it. I'm not talking about tame animals from a zoo, I'm talking about animals > that have grown accustomed to people and allow a fairly close approach. These > do not take away from the editorial value of a shot... > > In a message dated 3/12/03 9:33:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >the editorial value of such shots is less, if you submit to a publication > >that cares about these things. > >
Re: Long lenses handheld?
Really. Do you think all the great wildlife shots in outdoor photographer and other magazines are shot in places other than National parks, from blinds around feeders etc... These guys don't just walk around the woods with huge lenses and 800 asa film hoping to find something that will sit still long enough for them to shoot it. They go to where the pickings are good and work it. I'm not talking about tame animals from a zoo, I'm talking about animals that have grown accustomed to people and allow a fairly close approach. These do not take away from the editorial value of a shot... In a message dated 3/12/03 9:33:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >the editorial value of such shots is less, if you submit to a publication >that cares about these things.
Re: Long lenses handheld?
the editorial value of such shots is less, if you submit to a publication that cares about these things. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 09:15 Subject: Re: Long lenses handheld? > 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.
Re: Long lenses handheld?
This is true. But there are many areas Florida to name one, where these birds are easily approched. There are many areas in Ontario where Great Blues are quite approachable and easily photographed with a 300mm. In a message dated 3/11/03 9:29:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Besides, feeders limit your targets. I was going after a great blue >heron Sunday morning, then a kingfisher made an appearance. I think >those are two that you wouldn't find at a feeder. >
Re: Long lenses handheld?
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
Re: Long lenses handheld?
Paul Stenquist wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I wouldn't shoot them at the feeder. A properly placed branch above the > > feeder with the right background and you are off to the races... > > > 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. I like fuzzy animals, too, and I've spent many hours in the woods looking for them. Then it occured to me I could go to the zoo and get lots of fuzzy animals just sitting there for me. And I had absolutely no desire to go. It's better to watch yet another sunset, hoping again to ambush a fox that didn't show. I don't head into the woods so I'll have something to do with my camera, I bring my camera so I'll have something to do in the woods. Besides, feeders limit your targets. I was going after a great blue heron Sunday morning, then a kingfisher made an appearance. I think those are two that you wouldn't find at a feeder.
Re: Long lenses handheld?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I wouldn't shoot them at the feeder. A properly placed branch above the > feeder with the right background and you are off to the races... > 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
Re: Long lenses handheld?
On 10 Mar 2003 at 23:42, Ryan K. Brooks wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 3/10/03 11:17:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > >>I'm not sure I follow you here, but it's probably just me. If you want > >>to get an IS lens, certainly Canon are presently the folks with the goods. > >> > >> > >>You may be overestimating IS, though, if you think it replaces good > > > > technique. > > > >>Doug > > > > I'm with you Doug. I could care less about IS. My IS comes with three legs and > > it gives me stabilization with all my lenses. > > You can't do with your body what IS does. Too bad if your subject is moving, IS is not a substitute for fast glass. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html Pentax user since 1986 PDMLer since 1998
Re: Long lenses handheld?
All the bird people I know who take good bird pictures use very long lenses. Its not an easy task to get halfway up a tall tree to take a picture of an eagle or an owl. They tend to bugger off pretty fast when people approach and start crashing about in the branches. Also the bird watching platforms are not easy to move. Its no simple task to swim half way across a lake holding a camera over your head so you can take a picture of a rare aquatic bird with your 400 mm lens. Boats don't help much either. D ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:31 AM Subject: Re: Long lenses handheld? > I have found that it's very difficult to shoot birds in the wild with > anything less than an 800. Sure, at a backyard bird feeder, you can get > closer. But pictures of birds at the feeder get tedious in a hurry. I > frequently shoot birds in wooded areas where some of the best shots find > them high off the ground on tree branches. I use an 800 and monopod, so > that I can quickly aim up into the branches. > Paul Stenquist > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Not really sure about this comment, but it is always better to use a shorter > > lens and find a way to move in closer than stick a big long lens on and stay > > far away. Atmospheric haze, slower lens, camera shake all conspire against > > the users of very long lenses. This person wants to shoot birds. Find a place > > where they hang out ( a feeder or nesting area) and work them from in close. > > Eventually they get used to you and you should be able to get them with a 300 > > or 400... > > Vic > > > > In a message dated 3/10/03 11:47:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > >I love this. "I have no idea what you're trying to do, but I'm going to > > > > > > > > >tell you to do it differently." > > > > > > >
Re: Long lenses handheld?
I have found that it's very difficult to shoot birds in the wild with anything less than an 800. Sure, at a backyard bird feeder, you can get closer. But pictures of birds at the feeder get tedious in a hurry. I frequently shoot birds in wooded areas where some of the best shots find them high off the ground on tree branches. I use an 800 and monopod, so that I can quickly aim up into the branches. Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Not really sure about this comment, but it is always better to use a shorter > lens and find a way to move in closer than stick a big long lens on and stay > far away. Atmospheric haze, slower lens, camera shake all conspire against > the users of very long lenses. This person wants to shoot birds. Find a place > where they hang out ( a feeder or nesting area) and work them from in close. > Eventually they get used to you and you should be able to get them with a 300 > or 400... > Vic > > In a message dated 3/10/03 11:47:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >I love this. "I have no idea what you're trying to do, but I'm going to > > > > > >tell you to do it differently." > > > >
Re: Long lenses handheld?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/10/03 11:17:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not sure I follow you here, but it's probably just me. If you want to get an IS lens, certainly Canon are presently the folks with the goods. You may be overestimating IS, though, if you think it replaces good technique. Doug I'm with you Doug. I could care less about IS. My IS comes with three legs and it gives me stabilization with all my lenses. You can't do with your body what IS does.
Re: Long lenses handheld?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Man I don't want to go here again but I can't help it. If you want high quality images you have to use a relatively slow speed film with a tripod. In the case of a 1000mm lens — two tripods— one on the camera and one steadying the lens. One question: Why a 1000 mm lens? Use a 300 or a 400 and work on getting two or three times closer to your subject. Vic Gimbal mounts help too. I find them substatial enough for a 400mm, but a 600/4 67 combo requires a second tripod. See wimberely mount, etc. R
Re: Long lenses handheld?
Good luck with that. Ryan "my A*400/2.8 isn't nearly long enough for bird shots" Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not really sure about this comment, but it is always better to use a shorter lens and find a way to move in closer than stick a big long lens on and stay far away. Atmospheric haze, slower lens, camera shake all conspire against the users of very long lenses. This person wants to shoot birds. Find a place where they hang out ( a feeder or nesting area) and work them from in close. Eventually they get used to you and you should be able to get them with a 300 or 400... Vic
Re: Long lenses handheld?
Not really sure about this comment, but it is always better to use a shorter lens and find a way to move in closer than stick a big long lens on and stay far away. Atmospheric haze, slower lens, camera shake all conspire against the users of very long lenses. This person wants to shoot birds. Find a place where they hang out ( a feeder or nesting area) and work them from in close. Eventually they get used to you and you should be able to get them with a 300 or 400... Vic In a message dated 3/10/03 11:47:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >I love this. "I have no idea what you're trying to do, but I'm going to > > >tell you to do it differently." > >
Re: Long lenses handheld?
I love this. "I have no idea what you're trying to do, but I'm going to tell you to do it differently." BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why a 1000 mm lens? Use a 300 or a 400 and work on getting two or three times closer to your subject. Vic
Re: Long lenses handheld?
Longest lens I use is 600mm, I guess some people can't tell a tongue in cheek answer without a smiley. At 11:27 PM 3/10/2003 -0500, you wrote: Man I don't want to go here again but I can't help it. If you want high quality images you have to use a relatively slow speed film with a tripod. In the case of a 1000mm lens — two tripods— one on the camera and one steadying the lens. One question: Why a 1000 mm lens? Use a 300 or a 400 and work on getting two or three times closer to your subject. Vic In a message dated 3/10/03 8:16:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Yes, very fast film and bright sun. You'd be well advised to brace it >somehow, a monopod will work fine. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Long lenses handheld?
In a message dated 3/10/03 11:17:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >I'm not sure I follow you here, but it's probably just me. If you want >to get an IS lens, certainly Canon are presently the folks with the goods. > > >You may be overestimating IS, though, if you think it replaces good technique. > >Doug I'm with you Doug. I could care less about IS. My IS comes with three legs and it gives me stabilization with all my lenses. Even the obsolete K and M lenses.LOL. One area where IS lenses really come in handy is shooting off a small boat or from an airplane where a tripod or monopod is not going to help much... Vic
Re: Long lenses handheld?
Nick Zentena wrote: Isn't it > going to take a combination of very fast film and a sunny day to have any > chance to hold such a lens? How about a monopod instead? I regularly handhold a 400mm plus A2X-S converter (800mm equivelant). With iso 800 film and good light, I can shoot at 1/1000. But I've had good results at 1/500 as well. Sometimes handheld is desirable when shooting birds on a nature trail, although I do try to use a monopod when I can. Paul Stenquist
Re: Long lenses handheld?
Yes, very fast film and bright sun. You'd be well advised to brace it somehow, a monopod will work fine. At 04:30 PM 3/10/2003 -0500, you wrote: On March 10, 2003 04:04 pm, Gregory L. Hansen wrote: > Doug Brewer said: > > Why on Earth would you hand hold 1000mm? > > > > At 02:30 PM 3/10/03, you wrote: > > >I didn't appreciate before I'd tried it how much the image shakes when > > >you're holding 1000mm of telephoto by hand. > > All the usual reasons. Faster maneuvering, faster setup time when I go > from a shorter lens to 1000mm, one less thing to carry, especially when > I'm mainly going from point A to point B and bring a camera along for > opportunity shots. > > On the IS issue, why would I carry a tripod if I don't need one? I'm afraid to ask what depth of field do you get with a 1000mm lens. Isn't it going to take a combination of very fast film and a sunny day to have any chance to hold such a lens? How about a monopod instead? Nick Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Long lenses handheld?
On March 10, 2003 04:04 pm, Gregory L. Hansen wrote: > Doug Brewer said: > > Why on Earth would you hand hold 1000mm? > > > > At 02:30 PM 3/10/03, you wrote: > > >I didn't appreciate before I'd tried it how much the image shakes when > > >you're holding 1000mm of telephoto by hand. > > All the usual reasons. Faster maneuvering, faster setup time when I go > from a shorter lens to 1000mm, one less thing to carry, especially when > I'm mainly going from point A to point B and bring a camera along for > opportunity shots. > > On the IS issue, why would I carry a tripod if I don't need one? I'm afraid to ask what depth of field do you get with a 1000mm lens. Isn't it going to take a combination of very fast film and a sunny day to have any chance to hold such a lens? How about a monopod instead? Nick
