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 wildl
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
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
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
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
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 hun
[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
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 t
hor'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 d
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
[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 replac
[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?
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,
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. Fi
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
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
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
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
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 w
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 usua
20 matches
Mail list logo
