Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
At 09:14 PM 4/12/2004 -0400, you wrote: see inline. well, i am mostly shooting small birds right now more or less because that's what is handy to try and haven't had much opportunity to shoot anything very large except with tame ones. last weekend was the first time i could really try to take some of red-winged black birds, but i had all of 45 minutes to spend doing it, so i didn't have a chance to sit for a while and let them get used me so i could move in closer. OTOH, i did see a male/female pair sitting next to each other, enough to identify in binoculars, but not enough to photograph. The real challenge is to get close enough. With small warblers etc you have to get within 20 feet or so, which can be a real challenge. Around here, even the egrets and sandhill cranes are too skittish to let you get close - and since they are big birds, you don't have to get all that close. It makes one realize how lucky birders in Florida have it, where a lot of waterfowl are pretty habituated to humans. i can't find that tripod, just the 3046, in my Bogen catalog. i assume they are similar. I think the model numbers changed (or the model was updated) in the past. I've used this tripod for a few years now. the 13lbs total is only a little bit more than my setup. the Gitzo 1325 is rated to 26 lbs and weighs 4.5lbs. the leveling base weighs 1.5lbs and then the Wimberley head weighs 4lbs with the quick release. the head is rated to a lot more than 26 lbs. it's designed for 600 f4 lenses and has notes on using an 800 f5.6 on it. the lighter weight sounds nice, if it really is steady. I'm partial to the weight - especially when shooting in gales etc along the lake. Even then, the 13 lb Bogen sometimes blows over when I'm reaching in the bag to pull out the camera. I don't mind carrying the extra weight - and figure that the best way for me, personally, to carry less weight would be to go on diet :-0 do you use any special backpack for carrying the lens? the custom case is out of the question for normal use. I drop the lens, TC, and camera into a Domke long lens bag, which provides a minimal level of padding. That bag I drop into a regular backpack. The backpack is from the army surplus store - it's huge, rugged, and has a belt strap as well as the shoulder straps. I do have a bit of foam padding on the left shoulder, where I rest the tripod. do you use a beam focuser on your flash? it's something i haven't yet started doing, but i recognize that i will have to fairly soon. yeah, once at my location, i put everything together and leave it that way until i have to move a substantial distance. So far, I have not needed a beam focuser with either the AF500FTZ (with film) or with the 360 flash and the *ist. I really think that fill flash is essential when birding. When I go out shooting, I just set up in the field and leave things set up. If I'm going through a lot of brambles etc, I remove the flash and bracket since they are the most prone to getting snagged. I don;t use a cable release, but if I did I'd probably remove that as well. i have the lens strap attached and am wearing it oer my head when i mount the lens on the tripod. don't want any accidents. I do the same thing - though I usually think that if I did drop the lens, it would probably break my neck. Once on the ball head, I lock the quick release plate in place, so the lens won't fall off. the nice thing about the Gitzo leveling base on the tripod is that it makes it easy to change heads, if you need to. you thread the head on moderately tight with just fingers and then there is a lever to turn the thread itself an extra quarter turn to lock down the head. the base fits only Gitzo Systematic tripods, so you would have to switch brands. i don't know of anyone else's addon to a tripod that does the same thing. the Wimberley locks down with some easy-to-turn large knobs and doesn't budge under normal loads. The heavy duty Bogen that I use is fairly slow to change heads - you have to undo three locking screws and then unscrew the head itself. The lighterweigh Bogens have removable center posts, so with my lightweight tripod I can just pull out the center post and pop in a new one. But I prefer the heavier tripod for the 6x7 and for windy conditions. that's what i have found, and a larger aperture helps because of the higher possible shutter speed. FWIW, Canon has a 1200/5.6L IS lens that weighs almost 37 lbs. the A* 1200/8 has two 3/8 and four 1/4 mounting holes in the base. from what i can see. you want to use at least 3 of the holes on a long Arca Swiss plate. i use the Arca Swiss plates on all of my bodies and long lenses. especially on the Wimberley, i can balance the lens so that it moves freely and remains in position when i let go. the plates let me slide the lens to position it on the balance point as i add or remove things like extenders and the flash. Yes - those gimble heads are really nice. If I let go of my
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
Great work again Mark. I like the moon shot. Dave Yesterday I went to a nearby park and decided to try the *ist-D with some serious bird photography. Comments are appreciated - the link is: http://www.markcassino.com/paw/040410/ - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
see inline. Herb - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 12:03 PM Subject: Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots The real challenge is to get close enough. With small warblers etc you have to get within 20 feet or so, which can be a real challenge. Around here, even the egrets and sandhill cranes are too skittish to let you get close - and since they are big birds, you don't have to get all that close. It makes one realize how lucky birders in Florida have it, where a lot of waterfowl are pretty habituated to humans. the closest i got in the 45 minutes i had in the marsh was about 40 feet from some red-winged blackbirds. the sparrows i posted recently were really used to people and i was also in my car, so they came within 5 feet. i hit the minimum distance stop on my FA* 400 f5.6. the last several weeks, i have had much time when i was out shooting, so the opportunities were limited. a male/female pair of cardinals spooked after i got to within about 60 feet. ghe last several weeks have just not allowed much time to really do the close approach. of course, some birds are more skittish anyway. I drop the lens, TC, and camera into a Domke long lens bag, which provides a minimal level of padding. That bag I drop into a regular backpack. The backpack is from the army surplus store - it's huge, rugged, and has a belt strap as well as the shoulder straps. I do have a bit of foam padding on the left shoulder, where I rest the tripod. i'll be looking for a long lens bag. i want to find something designed for the 400 f2.8 form factor. the 600 f4 bag from LowePro may be too large. So far, I have not needed a beam focuser with either the AF500FTZ (with film) or with the 360 flash and the *ist. I really think that fill flash is essential when birding. I do the same thing - though I usually think that if I did drop the lens, it would probably break my neck. Once on the ball head, I lock the quick release plate in place, so the lens won't fall off. well if yuo did drop the lens, life would be over anyway 8-(.
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
see inline. Herb... - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 10:35 PM Subject: Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots Yes - the little bit of AF helps, and a true AF lens, of course, would be ideal. I use my 400 f2.8 almost entirely with a TC - the only exception being when shooting large water foul like swans. That may change with the *ist-D though well, i am mostly shooting small birds right now more or less because that's what is handy to try and haven't had much opportunity to shoot anything very large except with tame ones. last weekend was the first time i could really try to take some of red-winged black birds, but i had all of 45 minutes to spend doing it, so i didn't have a chance to sit for a while and let them get used me so i could move in closer. OTOH, i did see a male/female pair sitting next to each other, enough to identify in binoculars, but not enough to photograph. I have a monopod that I almost never use - it is not heavy enough for the A* 400. I use a Bogen 3036 Tripod with a 3049 ball head. Both are rated to hold 25 lbs. When walking out to locations I drop the camera, lens, flash, etc into a backpack. I put a strap on the tripod (just a standard laptop-bag strap) and sling it over my shoulder as well. It's about 30lbs of stuff - figure 13 for the tripod/head, 13 for the lens, and a few more lbs for the rest. Once at the location I mount the camera, lens, and flash on the tripod and lock it all in place, with the legs pre-set to so that tripod is at the right height when set up. I just carry the rig on my shoulder after that. It's not always easy, but it usually isn't all that difficult. i can't find that tripod, just the 3046, in my Bogen catalog. i assume they are similar. the 13lbs total is only a little bit more than my setup. the Gitzo 1325 is rated to 26 lbs and weighs 4.5lbs. the leveling base weighs 1.5lbs and then the Wimberley head weighs 4lbs with the quick release. the head is rated to a lot more than 26 lbs. it's designed for 600 f4 lenses and has notes on using an 800 f5.6 on it. do you use any special backpack for carrying the lens? the custom case is out of the question for normal use. do you use a beam focuser on your flash? it's something i haven't yet started doing, but i recognize that i will have to fairly soon. yeah, once at my location, i put everything together and leave it that way until i have to move a substantial distance. i have the lens strap attached and am wearing it oer my head when i mount the lens on the tripod. don't want any accidents. I would think the gimble head would be ideal. Can you lock it down tight? I also use this tripod for my 6x7 (these days) and for shooting in high winds were I need something heavier than the 3021, so I'd rather stick with the more general-purpose ball head. But for long telephotos, the gimble should be best. the nice thing about the Gitzo leveling base on the tripod is that it makes it easy to change heads, if you need to. you thread the head on moderately tight with just fingers and then there is a lever to turn the thread itself an extra quarter turn to lock down the head. the base fits only Gitzo Systematic tripods, so you would have to switch brands. i don't know of anyone else's addon to a tripod that does the same thing. the Wimberley locks down with some easy-to-turn large knobs and doesn't budge under normal loads. I've never even seen the beast but 1200mm would be a whole order of magnitude over anything I've used. I really think that beginning with 300mm and up, technique really becomes critical and the challenges of technique grow exponentially and you move into longer / bigger/ heavier glass. that's what i have found, and a larger aperture helps because of the higher possible shutter speed. FWIW, Canon has a 1200/5.6L IS lens that weighs almost 37 lbs. the A* 1200/8 has two 3/8 and four 1/4 mounting holes in the base. from what i can see. you want to use at least 3 of the holes on a long Arca Swiss plate. i use the Arca Swiss plates on all of my bodies and long lenses. especially on the Wimberley, i can balance the lens so that it moves freely and remains in position when i let go. the plates let me slide the lens to position it on the balance point as i add or remove things like extenders and the flash.
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
thanks for the information. i will have to think about this whole subject of teleconverters for a while. you see, today, i just got myself an A* 400 f2.8 too and it's not quite long enough for birding even on the *istD, so i am resigned to having to use a teleconverter on it quite a lot of the time. i have the A1.4X-L and A2X-L converters too and i find them to be quite sharp, but at 40-60 ft distances, the DOF is so low wide open that it's hard to be precisely on focus without some back and forth. that means time, and that means lost pictures. i guess that is where the AF converter is best. manually get focus close and let the camera do the rest. i also have the pair of current Sigma AF 1.4X and 2X converters and i find that they lose some contrast and sharpness over the Pentax Ls, and have frequent strange bokeh on top of that. i have been thinking about the 1.7X AF converter because the AF still functions somewhat but i was wondering about quality. i did do some chromatic abberation tests with the A2X-L converter mounted and the combination did very well. no visible abberation on the *istD images out to the corners. what do you use for a support when shooting with the 400 f2.8? right now, i have a Wimberley head on a Gitzo 1325, but it's hard to stalk a bird. instead, i pick a position and edge up a bit, but that is about all. is a big monopod good enough for this? incidentally, i mounted my *istD on an A* 1200 f8 this morning and tried to take a picture under complete overcast. my Gitzo 1325 with the Wimberley head is just not adequate to support the lens steadily. i could have tried holding and bracing more than i did, but i didn't think it was a good use of my time. this is a lens where if you can't shoot at 1/1000s or faster, you'll just get vibration blurs most of the time. i can see this lens being used on a tripod with an automatic adjusting monopod/ball head on the camera at all times. Herb - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 12:52 PM Subject: Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots Hi Herb - I mostly use the 1.7x teleconverter because it's a good TC on the 400mm f2.8. The AF capability is really minimal - it is enough to ge tthe final snap into focus, but otherwise has very limited range on a lens that long. I also have the 1.4x-L and 2x-L. In my tests, the 1.4x-L showed no discernable drop in quality when compared to the 400mm alone. But, I found the 560mm focal length to be too short for a lot of birding. The 2x-L showed a slight loss in contrast and sharpness is tests, but in practice I get very few sharp images whenI use it, which I attribute to poor technique (I must not be holding the rig steady enough.) I also find that the 2x-L can produce a horrible bokeh in some situations. I haven not formally tested the 1.7x. It's ironic, because my initial subjective reaction to it was quite negative. I almost sold it but decided to take it out for a final test run and found that I was wrong - it seems to be optically quite good.
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
Hi! So, Mark, you seriously lean towards digital. That's very interesting. I don't have much to say about the shots. They are very good and I particularly like the rather slow waves on the moon shot... I've been shooting here and there with all kinds of digi cams recently as my friend who previously used film PS's go digital now. So far I had very limited success rate as I realize this kind of tools needs a little learning to be done... I am fascinated by your progress... Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
At 01:53 PM 4/11/2004 -0400, you wrote: thanks for the information. i will have to think about this whole subject of teleconverters for a while. you see, today, i just got myself an A* 400 f2.8 too and it's not quite long enough for birding even on the *istD, so i am resigned to having to use a teleconverter on it quite a lot of the time. i have the A1.4X-L and A2X-L converters too and i find them to be quite sharp, but at 40-60 ft distances, the DOF is so low wide open that it's hard to be precisely on focus without some back and forth. that means time, and that means lost pictures. i guess that is where the AF converter is best. manually get focus close and let the camera do the rest. Yes - the little bit of AF helps, and a true AF lens, of course, would be ideal. I use my 400 f2.8 almost entirely with a TC - the only exception being when shooting large water foul like swans. That may change with the *ist-D though i also have the pair of current Sigma AF 1.4X and 2X converters and i find that they lose some contrast and sharpness over the Pentax Ls, and have frequent strange bokeh on top of that. i have been thinking about the 1.7X AF converter because the AF still functions somewhat but i was wondering about quality. i did do some chromatic abberation tests with the A2X-L converter mounted and the combination did very well. no visible abberation on the *istD images out to the corners. My own tests with the 2x-L showed it to be quite good on the A* 400. to test, I mounted the lens on a tripod and put a monopod on the camera. But in the field, the results are not as good. I think that the 400 + 1.7x is the maximum I can currently work with reliably. what do you use for a support when shooting with the 400 f2.8? right now, i have a Wimberley head on a Gitzo 1325, but it's hard to stalk a bird. instead, i pick a position and edge up a bit, but that is about all. is a big monopod good enough for this? I have a monopod that I almost never use - it is not heavy enough for the A* 400. I use a Bogen 3036 Tripod with a 3049 ball head. Both are rated to hold 25 lbs. When walking out to locations I drop the camera, lens, flash, etc into a backpack. I put a strap on the tripod (just a standard laptop-bag strap) and sling it over my shoulder as well. It's about 30lbs of stuff - figure 13 for the tripod/head, 13 for the lens, and a few more lbs for the rest. Once at the location I mount the camera, lens, and flash on the tripod and lock it all in place, with the legs pre-set to so that tripod is at the right height when set up. I just carry the rig on my shoulder after that. It's not always easy, but it usually isn't all that difficult. I would think the gimble head would be ideal. Can you lock it down tight? I also use this tripod for my 6x7 (these days) and for shooting in high winds were I need something heavier than the 3021, so I'd rather stick with the more general-purpose ball head. But for long telephotos, the gimble should be best. incidentally, i mounted my *istD on an A* 1200 f8 this morning and tried to take a picture under complete overcast. my Gitzo 1325 with the Wimberley head is just not adequate to support the lens steadily. i could have tried holding and bracing more than i did, but i didn't think it was a good use of my time. this is a lens where if you can't shoot at 1/1000s or faster, you'll just get vibration blurs most of the time. i can see this lens being used on a tripod with an automatic adjusting monopod/ball head on the camera at all times. I've never even seen the beast but 1200mm would be a whole order of magnitude over anything I've used. I really think that beginning with 300mm and up, technique really becomes critical and the challenges of technique grow exponentially and you move into longer / bigger/ heavier glass. Hope this helps - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
Hi Boris - So, Mark, you seriously lean towards digital. That's very interesting. Aside from a couple of rolls of Tri-X, I have not shot shot any 35mm film since I got the *ist-D. I have lots of 35mm film languishing in the freezer - but I'm sure I'll use it sooner or later. But, I'm still shooting with the 6x7 - knocked out a few rolls with it last week, maybe even got something useable I don't have much to say about the shots. They are very good and I particularly like the rather slow waves on the moon shot... Thanks! I've been shooting here and there with all kinds of digi cams recently as my friend who previously used film PS's go digital now. So far I had very limited success rate as I realize this kind of tools needs a little learning to be done... I do think that learning digital is just like learning any other new media - like transitioning from negative film to slides. But, it is of course easier to experiment and learn how to utilize digital. - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
Yesterday I went to a nearby park and decided to try the *ist-D with some serious bird photography. The red winged blackbirds were out in force, and while these birds are pretty common, they can be elusive and their jet black color really wreaks havoc on metering. I used my standard bird setup which is the A* 400 f2.8, and 1.7x AF adapter. With the *ist-D I wound up using the AF360FTG for fill flash. I was a little worried about the flash and *ist-D combo. It's important not to stop down too far when birding, but with a minimum ISO of 200 and maximum X Synch speed of 150, the *ist-D really forces you to either stop down or use the high speed flash. Since high speed mode takes a pretty big hit out of the flash power, I was worried that it would lack the strength to be effective. Ultimately, the flash worked fine when shooting at 1/250th or less (of course, it was set at either -0.5 or -1 for fill.). The only drawback with the *ist-D was the pause when the buffer filled up. I don't use the motor drive in film bodies, but I do shoot friarly rapidly when the opportunity presents itself. from time to time the *ist-D would pause and leave me jabbing at the shutter button in frustration In addition to two bird shots, I'm posting a shot of Monday's full moon setting over Lake Michigan. I had meant to shoot it with a lighthouse in the foreground, but mis-judged where it would ultimately set and wound up on the wrong side of the channel. So I just shot it with the waves as a foreground. Perosnally, I like it better without the lighthouse... This too was shot with the *ist-D. The lens was a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Comments are appreciated - the link is: http://www.markcassino.com/paw/040410/ - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
At 06:32 PM 4/10/2004 +0100, you wrote: You've got just the right shutter speed for the water in the moon shot. The waves are reasonably crisp until they break, at which point the motion is blurred. Looks great. Thanks, John - the water does have a cool 'molten metal' look to it. - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
Nice work Mark. All three images perfect - IMHO. Thanks, Ken! With the effective focal length of the bird shots being 1020mm, how has it affected your stalking? Were these all posted full frame? The effectively longer focal length made stalking much easier. It still requires getting pretty close to the birds, but the extra reach can be just enough to put you beyond their personal zone so they did not get spooked. Both bird shots were cropped to square up the aspect ratio. The first bird shot was shot vertically and I composted it with the full cattail head in the frame. But that made it look a bit top heavy, so I just cropped off a bit of the bottom to put it at the aspect ratio of an 8 x 10 print. It was not cropped horizontally. The second shot was composed horizontally, with the bird close to the center. I cropped a bit off both sides to get the more square aspect ratio and move the bird more off center, but it was not cropped vertically. These days I pretty much open up everything at the largest interpolation in Photoshop CS, and then do adjustments from there. The first image is about 13.5 x 16 inches at 300 dpi, the second is about 13.5 inches square - plenty big compared to the scans I get from 35mm! The moonshot is full frame. - MCC Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots Yesterday I went to a nearby park and decided to try the *ist-D with some serious bird photography. The red winged blackbirds were out in force, and while these birds are pretty common, they can be elusive and their jet black color really wreaks havoc on metering. I used my standard bird setup which is the A* 400 f2.8, and 1.7x AF adapter. With the *ist-D I wound up using the AF360FTG for fill flash. I was a little worried about the flash and *ist-D combo. It's important not to stop down too far when birding, but with a minimum ISO of 200 and maximum X Synch speed of 150, the *ist-D really forces you to either stop down or use the high speed flash. Since high speed mode takes a pretty big hit out of the flash power, I was worried that it would lack the strength to be effective. Ultimately, the flash worked fine when shooting at 1/250th or less (of course, it was set at either -0.5 or -1 for fill.). The only drawback with the *ist-D was the pause when the buffer filled up. I don't use the motor drive in film bodies, but I do shoot friarly rapidly when the opportunity presents itself. from time to time the *ist-D would pause and leave me jabbing at the shutter button in frustration In addition to two bird shots, I'm posting a shot of Monday's full moon setting over Lake Michigan. I had meant to shoot it with a lighthouse in the foreground, but mis-judged where it would ultimately set and wound up on the wrong side of the channel. So I just shot it with the waves as a foreground. Perosnally, I like it better without the lighthouse... This too was shot with the *ist-D. The lens was a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Comments are appreciated - the link is: http://www.markcassino.com/paw/040410/ - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
- Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] the link is: http://www.markcassino.com/paw/040410/ - MCC Wow. The sharpness and detail are amazing. You've done it again... Christian
Re: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots
great pictures, Mark. do you use the 1.7X because it is a good extender, does AF, or both? have you compared with other Pentax extenders? Herb... - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 12:31 PM Subject: PAW- Bird and Moon Shots I used my standard bird setup which is the A* 400 f2.8, and 1.7x AF adapter. With the *ist-D I wound up using the AF360FTG for fill flash.
