Re: stalking animals
Mark Cassino said: It's sheer speculation on my part since I don't have DSLR, but I'd theorize that the cropping effect in a DSLR that boosts the effective focal length of the lens would not similarly boost the effects of vibration on sharpness. If a point source of light were smeared out over 0.1% of a full-frame picture, it would be smeared out over 0.15% of the cropped-out digital sensor. Unless you compose it so that whatever was in the full frame is also entirely in the digital frame, but then that smear of light would cover a physically smaller distance on the sensor.
Re: stalking animals (was: Re: On cheerleading)
Mark, do you get any keepers at 800mm? And what do you suspect to be the culprit? Tripod/head combination in use? Mark Cassino wrote, in part: - at my present skill level I can consistently get sharp results with 680mm - at 800mm my results drop off dramatically. So I figure I should be able to get the same results in a DSLR at an effective 1020mm (680 x 1.5).
Re: stalking animals (was: Re: On cheerleading)
At 10:28 AM 7/11/2003 -0400, Christian wrote: Written by the man with a 400/2.8 and teleconverters HAR! :-) (I know, I know, you get really close to your subjects, evidenced by frame-filling shots of songbirds) I guess I should of seen that one coming :-0 But seriously - in this day of 500mm IS lens with 2x teleconverters and DSLRS with a 1.5x magnification factor there are a lot of birds shooting with the equivalent of a 1500mm rig. A while back I saw what appeared to be a fine bird image taken with an effective 1700mm setup. Now THOSE are long lenses! - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: stalking animals
Animals around my parts are exceptionally shy and its extremely rare that close encounters with wild animals can be experienced. Pål I almost (not quite) wish that were true here. The deer wander all over this housing development because they know somehow (through years of experience, I think) that they cannot be hunted here. Some people really hate them because they eat the patio plants, etc. I don't hate them, I like them, but sometimes they get too bold. Tonight I came home and couldn't enter the condo for about 20-30 minutes because a buck was standing on the walk way in front of it. I shooed him. No good. I went around the corner and approached from another direction. Still there, still staring at me. I retreated so he couldn't see me. Went and looked again. He'd moved about two feet forward in my direction, still staring at me. This happened about three times. Staring and staring at me, even though I was hiding part of the time. Finally, I gave up. Went back to my car and started the engine fully intent on driving down to the end and shining the headlights in his eyes. Well, the car was close enough to where he was. And he didn't like the engine starting, so finally he moved. Too bold, sort of challenging me. Not sure bucks EVER attack people unless extremely provoked, but maybe then. However, this guy had some antlers on him, four pointer, I think, and I simply did not want to risk it. OTOH, it does make getting deer pictures somewhat easier. ;-) (Note that the deer here are a little larger than a large goat would be.) Marnie aka Doe
Re: stalking animals (was: Re: On cheerleading)
- Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nice shot, Jostein! Personally, I think that there is too much emphasis put on longer lenses, autofocus, etc. Written by the man with a 400/2.8 and teleconverters HAR! :-) (I know, I know, you get really close to your subjects, evidenced by frame-filling shots of songbirds) Christian
Re: stalking animals (was: Re: On cheerleading)
At 18:05 10.07.2003 -0400, you wrote: Nice shot, Jostein! Thanks, Mark. Personally, I think that there is too much emphasis put on longer lenses, autofocus, etc. The technological solution is only part of the equation - you'll get better shots by getting close simply because you are not shooting through so much air, with the attendant effects of haze, thermal distortion, etc. Absolutely. However, there's a right focal length for everything. 300-400mm is pretty good for larger mammals, but I'd prefer to have your setup with a TC for birds. And a 200 macro for insects...:-) Cheers, Jostein
Re: stalking animals (was: Re: On cheerleading)
At 22:39 10.07.2003 +0100, Bob wrote: Nice shot! I took this one with a lousy LX+A 400/5.6, beanbag on top of a car (I wasn't exactly stalking). www.web-options.com/impala.jpg Wow. Nice mood, Bob. Lovely shot. I put stalking in the title of the thread, but using cars isn't exactly stalking in the strictest meaning of the word, is it? However, cars are quite good for reducing the fear-circle of animals. Cheers, Jostein
Re: stalking animals
Christian wrote: Written by the man with a 400/2.8 and teleconverters HAR! :-) (I know, I know, you get really close to your subjects, evidenced by frame-filling shots of songbirds) REPLY: It is amazing how close you need to be a small bird to fill the frame even with a 600mm with 1,4X converter. Most people have too high expectations about what a long lens can do. Even those of us who actually do use very long lenses are constantly being surprised. At least I am. Animals around my parts are exceptionally shy and its extremely rare that close encounters with wild animals can be experienced. Pål
Re: stalking animals (was: Re: On cheerleading)
Hi, Thursday, July 10, 2003, 9:58:44 PM, you wrote: I always thought that one needs the absolute top tech to get those wildlife shots. IS, USM, whatever. Then I realised that I hadn't really tried to stalk animals. So this spring and summer I have been doing my first attempts at real species photography. One of my proudest moments was when I got this shot of a roedeer: http://oksne.net/public/roedeer.jpg Tech. data: FA*400/5.6, MZ-S, Provia 400F, 1/125s at f/5.6, leaned on car window. Got nine exposures before it strolled off. More than anything else, this convinced me that I, myself, have been the limiting factor all along. Not Pentax equipment. Both humbling and encouraging, I suppose... :-) Nice shot! I took this one with a lousy LX+A 400/5.6, beanbag on top of a car (I wasn't exactly stalking). www.web-options.com/impala.jpg -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: stalking animals (was: Re: On cheerleading)
Nice shot, Jostein! Personally, I think that there is too much emphasis put on longer lenses, autofocus, etc. The technological solution is only part of the equation - you'll get better shots by getting close simply because you are not shooting through so much air, with the attendant effects of haze, thermal distortion, etc. - MCC At 10:58 PM 7/10/2003 +0200, Jostein wrote: I always thought that one needs the absolute top tech to get those wildlife shots. IS, USM, whatever. Then I realised that I hadn't really tried to stalk animals. So this spring and summer I have been doing my first attempts at real species photography. One of my proudest moments was when I got this shot of a roedeer: http://oksne.net/public/roedeer.jpg Tech. data: FA*400/5.6, MZ-S, Provia 400F, 1/125s at f/5.6, leaned on car window. Got nine exposures before it strolled off. More than anything else, this convinced me that I, myself, have been the limiting factor all along. Not Pentax equipment. Both humbling and encouraging, I suppose... :-) cheers, Jostein - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
