Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Photo Technique / Nature Photography / September 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Getting started with nature

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ray Creveling - 22 Aug 2004 12:55 GMT
I probably should have posted this message first :)

Hello to RPTN,

I am an amateur who as always concentrated mainly on people, street scenes
and action. After a long talk with the wife we've decided to begin saving
for a trip to Africa, the good news is my wife is now much more interested
in photography. The bad news is Nature (High Mag) and Landscapes are my weak
points. It will take us a good 24 months to get the money put away so I want
to start experimenting with techniques and concepts now. I will take any
advice on books and ideas you can offer. Also I could really use some ideas
on shots to explore (I am in Lancaster PA) to get a feel for the different
composition.

While I know my kit is not adequate for a Safari (No ultra long Tele) below
is what I have. I  have been happy with the 22-55 just having trouble on
where to begin.

Canon ?lan 7e
22-55mm f4-5.6
Tokina ATK 28-70 f2.8
Canon 75-300 MkII f4-5.6
Canon 50mm f1.8
Set of Kenko extension tubes
Insanely heavey Billora Video Tripod That I use with a Manfrotta ball head
and Manfrotta Focusing Rail For Macro
Canon 420 EX Flash
Canon ML-3 Ringlight

Thanks in advance,
--
Ray Creveling
http://www.blackcatblog.com
Mathias Schmid - 22 Aug 2004 16:17 GMT
> I am an amateur who as always concentrated mainly on people, street
> scenes and action. After a long talk with the wife we've decided to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> explore (I am in Lancaster PA) to get a feel for the different
> composition.

>     [... Equiptment ...]
>
> Thanks in advance,

Heyho, Ray!

Let's start with a book I'd recommend:
"The Art of Landscape Photography" by Chris Coe

It's on the cheap side (20$ish, I suppose (european here))
for a photography book, and I really and thoroughly
enjoyed reading it, and it gave me some good ideas what
to keep an eye out when shooting landscapes and nature in
general. Not sure if you'll like it, but it helped me a great deal
to get started =).

To get a feeling for shooting animals, I'd recommend an open-
air-zoo (not sure if there are any available in your vincinity), since
it allows you to get a feeling for animals movements and everything
around them, and allows you to develop some basic techniques
and concepts of what's important, while you're still having time
to adjust and readjust (repeat 1000 times over ;-)) since the animals
aren't exactly leaving the area...

Well, that's about all I can come up with now, since - as is usually
the case in photography: the more you shoot, the better you get.
It's all about practice, isn't it? =)

cheerio, Mathias
Dark - 22 Aug 2004 18:43 GMT
Ray..I'd get a 400 or the new Tamron 200-500mm that just came out and take a
roadtrip to the zoo in Philadelphia and practice my animal shots. You might
also want to look into a 2x teleconverter
Harris Austin

> I probably should have posted this message first :)
>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/2004
Roger Whitehead - 22 Aug 2004 22:05 GMT
> You might also want to look into a 2x teleconverter

Or, better still, put it between a lens and the camera body.  8-)

Roger
JPS@no.komm - 23 Aug 2004 02:13 GMT
>You might
>also want to look into a 2x teleconverter

His telephoto lens, the 75-300 Canon zoom, is too soft to benefit from a
teleconverter.
Signature


<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
  John P Sheehy         <JPS@no.komm>

><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Paul Schmidt - 23 Aug 2004 16:44 GMT
> I probably should have posted this message first :)
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Canon 420 EX Flash
> Canon ML-3 Ringlight

Not all nature shots need ultra-long teles my nature shots are all done
with a 200mm and 2x teleconverter at the long end (400mm max), a few
times I wanted something longer, a 500 with a 1.5x teleconverter would
be perfect.

The thing you need the most though, is practise, so take a few days
visiting nature areas near where you live, see what you want to shoot,
and then decide what you need to do that, better, if it's flowers then
you want to go short, if it's relatively harmless animals then your
probably okay, with what you have, if it's dangerous animals, or birds,
then you need to go long.
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 24 Aug 2004 04:12 GMT
> I probably should have posted this message first :)
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> Ray Creveling
> http://www.blackcatblog.com

Ray,
You have a good starter set.  I've used Canon Elans for a long time too.
I would recommend the books by John Shaw (all of them).
Actually, look at several books and choose ones that fit your
style.  I personally like John Shaw's photography and his books
are quite instructive.

You need to give some more information.
Landscapes: general style and how big of prints do you want to make?
Wildlife:   what type of animals, and portraits or action?
These influence what to get in equipment.

For landscapes: get a better tripod and use it with the finest grain
slow speed film (black and white or color).  Learn depth of field
and shoot f/8 to f/11 unless you need more depth of field
(or purposely trying to make something out of focus).  If you
want really big prints, larger than 20x30, try medium or
large format.  Prices on used medium format must be very  good
as many pros are switching to digital.  But large format,
used, is still cheaper than medium format.

Wildlife: what you want to do dictates a lot, and if you
want birds or animals in action, you need fast prime telephotos
and costs go up rapidly.  Your 75-300 is actually pretty decent
for a consumer lens.  If you want to step up, start looking at
fixed focal length telephotos, like the 300 f/4 IS L.
Really consider strongly the IS (image stabilized) lenses, as
they will be a virtual requirement for imaging from vehicles
on safari.  The 300 f/4 can use a 1.4x teleconverter for
420 mm f/5.6.  Costs go up dramatically beyond 300 mm  if
keeping fast lenses.   For example, the 500 mm f/4 is about $5700
compared to the 300 f.4 at about $1100.  But with the 500 f/4
you need a carbon fiber tripod ($600) and a top end head, like
a wimberly ($675), then mounting plates ($200), etc etc.

If you decide on a teleconverter, only get the top end models.
I use Kenko Pro 300s, or go with the Canon since you have Canon.

For wildlife action, you want fast, and you burn a lot of film.
A digital SLR will pay for itself in film costs in not too long
if you do much action.  Pro film, like provia 100F at $10/role
plus $8 for developing works out to about $0.50 per frame,
so only 4000 frames buys a camera like a 10D plus some compact flash
cards.  You'll probably shoot a lot more than that on a safari.

I did mostly landscapes until a few years ago.  I would do maybe
60 rolls per year (2160 frames) (plus a couple hundred sheets
of 4x5).  I couldn't imagine shooting that much in a week.
In Florida with digital, I'll now do 5000 images
in a week of birds.  And for high speed action, digital shines
over 35mm film.

Roger Clark
http://www.clarkvision.com
Robertwgross - 24 Aug 2004 05:56 GMT
Roger wrote:
>...Pro film, like provia 100F at $10/role
>plus $8 for developing works out to about $0.50 per frame, ...

I doubt if anybody pays that much for film and processing. It's about $5/roll
plus $4-9 for processing.

---Bob Gross---
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 24 Aug 2004 15:13 GMT
> Roger wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I doubt if anybody pays that much for film and processing. It's about $5/roll
> plus $4-9 for processing.

Roger,
You are right, if one mail orders., B&H is $4.49 per role (USA),
and $89.80 for a 20 pack.  Plus shipping ($6 slowest).
Locally (Denver) in camera stores
it runs $9 to 12/roll.  Processing by a pro lab (last time
I did a role of 35mm a year ago) was $7.50 plus tax.  Often one needs
to push a stop, so add a $1.  $8.50 plus tax.
So that puts 95/20+8 =  $12.75 per roll on the low end,
or $0.35 / frame.   That doesn't change the economics much.
I wouldn't trust developing pro film to anyone but a pro lab
unless you knew the lab people personally.

Roger
Nicholas O. Lindan - 25 Aug 2004 16:10 GMT
> > ...Pro film, like provia 100F at $10/role
> > plus $8 for developing works out to about $0.50 per frame, ...

'Professional slide film you do not need.  It's film that has
been well aged so the color response has stabilized to a gnat's
hair.  Unless you are doing work for reprographics don't waste
money - you will not see any difference.  Use your money to buy
more film.

> I doubt if anybody pays that much for film and processing.
> It's about $5/roll

If you are cheap EliteCrome 100 is $2.69.

If you want to see your slides in your retirement Kodachrome is
$5.99.  Kodak's Kodachrome processing can be less than $5.

Having a whole mess 'o purple/green Ektachrome slides I recommend
using Kodachrome.

Signature

Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer:  Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 25 Aug 2004 17:34 GMT
>>>...Pro film, like provia 100F at $10/role
>>>plus $8 for developing works out to about $0.50 per frame, ...
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> money - you will not see any difference.  Use your money to buy
> more film.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree.  It has nothing to do with color
accuracy, and more to do with the film's speed, grain and
general color.  Fujichrome 100F is the finest
grain color slide film available today, no cheaper consumer
film matches it.  Fujichrome velvia 50 had the highest resolution
of any film available today, better than kodachrome 64
(too bad you can no longer get kodachrome 25).  The
new Velvia 100 is unmatched.

The new E6 films have a life equal to or better than kodachrome,
but check Wilhelm's research for the details.

Pros, who spend thousands on film would use the cheaper film
if they were equal.  They are not.  There is a reason
why certain films are used more.  Besides, if going
on a once in a lifetime trip, why skimp on images,
when in the scheme of things it is a small cost?

>>I doubt if anybody pays that much for film and processing.
>>It's about $5/roll
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Having a whole mess 'o purple/green Ektachrome slides I recommend
> using Kodachrome.

Modern E6 films have much better life than older E6; have
you been under a rock?
The problem with kodachrome is it is being phased out.  It
is hard to find, hard to get processed, and the chemicals
are not environmentally friendly, especially compared
to E6 processing.

Roger
Nicholas O. Lindan - 26 Aug 2004 23:59 GMT
"Roger N. Clark wrote:
> > 'Professional' slide film you do not need. [It's aged ...]
> Sorry, but I strongly disagree.  It has nothing to do with color
> accuracy, and more to do with the film's speed, grain and
> general color.

Aging changes speed and grain?

> have you been under a rock?

Not yet.  I'm working my way to it in time.
But thanks so much for the nice comment.

Signature

Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer:  Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 28 Aug 2004 04:27 GMT
> "Roger N. Clark wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Aging changes speed and grain?

That is negligible.

>>have you been under a rock?
>
> Not yet.  I'm working my way to it in time.
> But thanks so much for the nice comment.

No offense.  Sometimes I'm under a rock.  I've Been there
quite a lot this year.  ;-)

Roger
Sly D. Skeez - 07 Sep 2004 18:37 GMT
Hey Guys,

I think the difference in opinion is the difference between Kodak and
Fuji. Kodak always used to (don't know the currect product line too
well) offer a number of nearly identical consumer films and
professional films. The difference (according to Kodak) was that the
pro films were aged to a good color balance and intended to be
refrigerated, and the consumer films were shipped "green" and aged
towards magenta, and were stored at any temp but hopefully not too
long in the dash of a car midsummer in Phoenix.

Anyway, Fuji seems to have gone a different direction. They offer a
couple consumer (slide) films, but I don't think there's any claim
that the pro films are similar to the consumer films. So Kodak has
(had?) Kodachrome 64 and Kodachrome 64 Pro version, but Fuji has Astia
100 and Fuji Velvia 100? Are they similar? Doesn't seem like it, but
maybe they are.

Jay Wenner
RSD99 - 08 Sep 2004 06:29 GMT
"Sly D. Skeez"  posted:
"...
but Fuji has Astia 100 and Fuji Velvia 100? Are they
similar? Doesn't seem like it, but
maybe they are.
..."

FWIW:
First:
Fuji lists BOTH Astia and Velvia as "Professional" films. In
fact, AFAIK they do not really have any "non-professional"
reversal (slide) films.

Second:
Are they similar?
NO ... they are definitely not similar, and Velvia 50 is a
third Professional emulsion, while Provia 100 and Provia 400
are the fourth and fifth. 64T Type II is the sixth pro
reversal film. Each one has a distinct 'feel' and intended
usage.

Their most recent literature breaks their Fujichrome
Professional Reversal films down as

Velvia 50
Grain = RMS 7
"The standard in ultra-high saturation film ... "

Velvia 100F
Grain = RMS 8
"High Contrast and Vivld Saturation ..."

Provia 100F
Grain = RMS 8
"Natural Contrast and Normal Saturation ..."

Provia 400F
Grain = RMS 13
"Natural Contrast and Normal Saturation for high speed ..."

Astia 100F
Grain = RMS 7
Low Contrast and Soft Saturation ..."

64T Type II
"Tungsten-type reversal film ..."

> Hey Guys,
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Jay Wenner
Ben Micklem - 08 Sep 2004 16:12 GMT
> Anyway, Fuji seems to have gone a different direction. They offer a
> couple consumer (slide) films, but I don't think there's any claim
> that the pro films are similar to the consumer films. So Kodak has
> (had?) Kodachrome 64 and Kodachrome 64 Pro version, but Fuji has Astia
> 100 and Fuji Velvia 100? Are they similar? Doesn't seem like it, but
> maybe they are.

I think Astia is the pro version of Sensia, and apart from the
storage/transport/release when the colour is at the same stage of aging, I
think the base is different on Sensia, but the emulsion is the same. At
least that is what I heard on the net somewhere.

Ben
Gregory Blank - 08 Sep 2004 17:31 GMT
> I think Astia is the pro version of Sensia, and apart from the
> storage/transport/release when the colour is at the same stage of aging, I
> think the base is different on Sensia, but the emulsion is the same. At
> least that is what I heard on the net somewhere.
>
> Ben

Astia is not as saturated,... Astia also appears to have less contrast.

Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

PWW - 25 Aug 2004 17:36 GMT
I went all digital a few years ago, so with that in mind;

Fuji is (or was the standard for nature and wildlife for quite a while.
Velvia and Provia has great colors and grain structure. Once I tried
Fujichrome that was all I used. Every time I tested a different film like
Ektachrome, I went right back to Fuji. The grain and colors was just so much
better for me.

One important aspect is who does the processing. I would hardily recommend
sending the film out by mailers to the manufactures labs, either Kodak or
Fuji. Smaller labs might not mix the chemicals correctly or use fast
processing chemicals (which adds a lot of contrast into the slide IMHO) or
they might not wash the film long enough and you will get quick color
changes in a couple of years instead of decades. Sure the large labs could
screw up also but the chances are a whole lot less.

Which ever film you pick use it a lot to learn the films idiosyncrasies
BEFORE any big trip or photo safari.

Personally I love Digital!!!
Film... We don't need no stinking film.. Just kidding folks.

PWW
Signature

PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
Over 1,000 Photographs Online at,
http://PhotoStockFile.com

On 8/25/04 11:10 AM, in article
NZ1Xc.12199$2L3.2251@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
<see@sig.com> wrote:

>>> ...Pro film, like provia 100F at $10/role
>>> plus $8 for developing works out to about $0.50 per frame, ...
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Having a whole mess 'o purple/green Ektachrome slides I recommend
> using Kodachrome.
The Wogster - 25 Aug 2004 19:40 GMT
> I went all digital a few years ago, so with that in mind;
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> changes in a couple of years instead of decades. Sure the large labs could
> screw up also but the chances are a whole lot less.

Actually a smaller lab is more likely to be more careful, you need to
make sure that the work you do is very good, because you can't afford to
lose customers.  Big labs are less likely to mind losing a customer,
because they have so many.  I don't do slides anymore, but looking for a
decent C-41 lab, I asked a couple of pros I met, and they both
recommended the same lab, so I will try that lab.

> Which ever film you pick use it a lot to learn the films idiosyncrasies
> BEFORE any big trip or photo safari.

This should be a given....

> Personally I love Digital!!!
> Film... We don't need no stinking film.. Just kidding folks.

Actually on nature trails, it can be hard to find an electric plug, to
recharge that digital battery.  My film camera gets a year out of a
battery, and I can carry a dozen rolls of film in my backpack easily....

W
PWW - 25 Aug 2004 21:49 GMT
On 8/25/04 2:40 PM, in article x25Xc.22161$DG.1040472@news20.bellglobal.com,

>> I went all digital a few years ago, so with that in mind;
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> decent C-41 lab, I asked a couple of pros I met, and they both
> recommended the same lab, so I will try that lab.

Actually that is not my experience at all. Every small lab I have ever dealt
with eventually damaged some of my slides. And I would move on to the next
one. I never had a single problem with the mailers. So eventually I went to
mailers alone. I am talking about E-6 labs, you know slides, not C-41
prints. I hope your "Pros" did not recommend a C-41 Lab for slides. :-) And
if you are talking about print film, forget it shoot slides.

Maybe I just shot a lot more, I used to shoot about 11 rolls a day average
when I was into a project. Most of the "Pros" I know also use mailers. But
hey, to each their own. They are your images.

>> Which ever film you pick use it a lot to learn the films idiosyncrasies
>> BEFORE any big trip or photo safari.
>
> This should be a given....

Should be, but you might be surprised how many people change film, cameras,
lenses just before a big shoot. I guess it is the procrastination devil in
each of us.

>> Personally I love Digital!!!
>> Film... We don't need no stinking film.. Just kidding folks.
>
> Actually on nature trails, it can be hard to find an electric plug, to
> recharge that digital battery.  My film camera gets a year out of a
> battery, and I can carry a dozen rolls of film in my backpack easily....

Hmmm. I never had a problem with my battery (besides you could carry extra
batteries), it usually gave out before I did, and with my newer Digital
Nikon, I can go for days and days and I can shoot thousands of images before
a battery problem. And with my trusty 4 gig Flashcard, I can save those
thousands right on that magic little plastic square. An example; recently I
shot all day and took well over 2 thousand images. Try that with film.
That's at least 55 rolls of 36 exposure.

I never have to be concerned when I see some wildlife action developing and
I only have 5 or 6 shots left my roll. And I have to make a decision to
change the roll quickly to make sure I have enough to shoot the sequence or
hope I can shoot it on the remaining slides. Heck with my new camera, I can
shoot 8 frames a second. In 5 seconds I would have ran through one 36 roll
of film. I am not advocating shooting like that but it is really nice to
have it when you need it.

I can view immediately a small image of what I just shot and check exposure,
placement and many other aspects. With slides one always needs to wait to
get slide back to be absolutely sure everything turned out correctly. And I
like to shoot in those dramatic weird lighting conditions.

And the quality is so much better than scanning slides into digital format.
Plus by shooting raw I can manipulate my image with super high quality
results using the original pixel data.

And one last advantage. I really shoot a lot more with digital. Because it
doesn't cost any more and I don't lose anything except time to try different
things. It is liberating for me. I did have to shoot something a few months
ago with film and it felt like I had to go back to using a Model -T. Yuck.

I love Digital...

PWW
Signature

PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
Over 1,000 Photographs Online at,
http://PhotoStockFile.com

Paul Schmidt - 26 Aug 2004 18:02 GMT
> On 8/25/04 2:40 PM, in article x25Xc.22161$DG.1040472@news20.bellglobal.com,
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> prints. I hope your "Pros" did not recommend a C-41 Lab for slides. :-) And
> if you are talking about print film, forget it shoot slides.

Mailers can also have problems, for example a mailer can get lost, film
can get too hot when it's over 90F outside, and the sun has been beating
dowm on the mailbox or postal truck all day, it's not uncommon for the
inside temperature to reach be 130F.

I shot slides from 1979 to 1981, shot B&W from 1977 to 1985, then kinda
quit all together for a while, did the usual family crap, for a few
years, and finally got back into it late last year.  Been shooting
strictly C-41 since then, tried the pro lab that was recommended, soup
and scan for $9.99, happy with the results, so far, it costs about $0.44
per frame, slide film costs $1.15 per frame.  Right now, starting to get
back into B&W, now have two camera bodies, one loaded with Ilford XP-2
Super (C-41 B&W) and the other with Fuji Superia.

> Maybe I just shot a lot more, I used to shoot about 11 rolls a day average
> when I was into a project. Most of the "Pros" I know also use mailers. But
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> lenses just before a big shoot. I guess it is the procrastination devil in
> each of us.

True, I tend to try changing things, one step at a time, you try a new
film one week, a new lab a different week, so you can compare results.
I have violated this on occassion, just did, tried XP-2 with a new lab,
but that's because I was so unhappy with the old lab.

>>>Personally I love Digital!!!
>>>Film... We don't need no stinking film.. Just kidding folks.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> shot all day and took well over 2 thousand images. Try that with film.
> That's at least 55 rolls of 36 exposure.

Everybody works differently, I am not a professional, and the $2.5K for
a camera, a couple of lenses and extra battery, and cards, nah, skip it.

Paul
JPS@no.komm - 26 Aug 2004 03:19 GMT
In message <412AB23A.3000301@qwest.net>,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote:

>The 300 f/4 can use a 1.4x teleconverter for
>420 mm f/5.6.

My 300mm f4L is actually pretty good even with a Tamron SP 2x and Canon
1.4x II stacked.  I'd say it has just as much pixel-to-pixel contrast
with the stack, wide open, as my 75-300 IS has by itself, wide open.  Of
course, wide open is f11 with the stack.
Signature


<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
  John P Sheehy         <JPS@no.komm>

><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
edgecomb - 24 Aug 2004 08:12 GMT
> I probably should have posted this message first :)
>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/2004

Dear Ray,
Let me start by saying you have the very best in camera equipment and for
Africa you will not need to out lay any more.
In order to qualify that statement you may like to look at my web site at
http://www.ebtours.co.za
Here you will see an example of some of my work and what I have to
offer..please do not feel obligated in any way but please feel free to write
me on any advise.
All you will require is a lenses of 300mm 200mm and wide angle 28mm
Regards,
Robb
Scott Elliot - 25 Aug 2004 04:50 GMT
On my first trip to Africa with a 35mm camera I took a 20-35/3.5-4.5,
70-200/2.8, 105/2.8 macro, 400/5.6 lens and 1.4x teleconverter.  I used the
400/5.6 the most, mainly for wildlife and the 20-35 second most, mainly for
landscapes.  The 105 macro got some use in places where we could get out of
the vehicle to take flower and insect pictures.  The 70-200 was least used,
but I was glad I had it on occasions.

I carried a heavy tripod, but you cannot get out of your vehicle in the game
parks so it was seldom used.  In places we visited outside the game parks I
used it for wildflower photos.  There was one place in Hwange, Zimbabwe
where the park attendant let me set up on the ground at the side of a
viewing stand, but that was an exception.  (I got some great ground level
shots of evening activities at a water hole, but got a little worried when a
hyena came around to my side of the water and when a big baboon walked right
by me.)

On my second trip I switched to a D60, mainly because of luggage
restrictions and the problem of trying to pack enough film and equipment in
carry on.  The lenses I took were the 20-35, 70-200 and 105 macro from the
first trip and a 50-500/4-6.3 Sigma lens with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.
The 50-500 was by far the most used lens.  An alternative would have been
the Canon 100-400 Image Stabilized lens.  That would have been useful a few
times when shooting from an open vehicle.  With the 1.6x cropping factor on
the D60 the 50-500 is the equivalent of an 80-800mm lens on 35mm and I
certainly did not find it too long.  For some bird and small, shy antelope
shots I used it with the 1.4x teleconverter.  The 70-200/2.8 and 2x
teleconverter were backup in case the 50-500 had problems, but I only used
the 70-200 once in a low light early morning situation.  The main
shortcoming of that combination was that on the D60, the 20-35 is only the
equivalent of 32mm at its widest setting and I did not have a wide enough
lens.

This time I took a lighter tripod and a home made window pod.  (We were
touring game parks in a vehicle with roll down windows so this was
practical.)  Again, there were few opportunities to use the tripod although
I did find places around camp and in some viewing stands where I could use
it.  The window pod was used for at least 80% of my shots in game parks.

Check what kind of vehicle you will be shooting from.  Some have open roofs
and a bean bag is more useful for telephoto shots than a window pod.

Some of the best photo opportunities are the very colourful birds and
vegetation.  If you take time to photograph these you will be glad of the
longest lens you can get and a solid method of supporting the camera from
within your vehicle.  Extension tubes are also handy if they come close
enough.

For the trip I am planning next year I hope to have a new Canon D20 camera.
If the new 10-22/3.5-4.5 lens turns out to be any good I will also consider
that.  I will also take a 28-135 IS for walking around shots and the 50-500
again.  The extension tubes and 1.4x teleconverter have also earned a place.
The 105 macro may come, it is very sharp, but the 28-135 with extension
tubes isn't too bad.  I will consider bringing the D60, 70-200 and 2x
teleconverters as back up.  I will certainly take at least one window pod,
and possibly a second so I can leave one mounted on both sides of the
vehicle.  I will also take a light tripod.  This time we will be going to
Namibia where except in Etosha there will be many places to get out of the
vehicle.

As for books, the most useful specific information I found was
"Photographing on Safari" by Joe McDonald.  Other, more general books on
nature photography by Freeman Patterson, John Shaw and Art Wolfe are also
favourites.

Scott Elliot

> I probably should have posted this message first :)
>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/2004
Michael Scarpitti - 08 Sep 2004 15:55 GMT
> I probably should have posted this message first :)

Here's what you need:

Leicaflex SL or SL2 (two or three bodies)

28mm Elmarit-R (f/2,8)
50mm Summicron-R (f/2)
90mm Summicron-R (f/2)
180mm Elmar-R (f/4) or 180mm Elmarit-R (f/2,8)
60mm Elamrit-R Macro (f/2,8)
400mm Telyt-R and 560mm Telyt-R (f/6,8)
James B. Davis - 09 Sep 2004 14:48 GMT
>> I probably should have posted this message first :)
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>60mm Elamrit-R Macro (f/2,8)
>400mm Telyt-R and 560mm Telyt-R (f/6,8)

Ya right, there's advise from a 'real Pro'.

Tell me, why are YOU here? Do you even have a camera?

--
Jim Davis, Nature Photography
http://jimdavis.oberro.com/
Standard Poodles for fun
BMW motorcycle for pleasure
Michael Scarpitti - 10 Sep 2004 02:36 GMT
> >> I probably should have posted this message first :)
> >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Ya right, there's advise from a 'real Pro'.

I'm better than 'pro'. Pros are hacks. Don't besmirch me my calling me a 'pro'.

> Tell me, why are YOU here? Do you even have a camera?

See the list above.
James B. Davis - 11 Sep 2004 04:05 GMT
>> Ya right, there's advise from a 'real Pro'.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>See the list above.

No, I'd like to see your work, your Nature Photography.
Because that list is a list of equipment most NP Pros do not use.

Please feel free to browse my humble images, although I do not call
myself a Pro.

--
Jim Davis, Nature Photography
http://jimdavis.oberro.com/
Uranium Committee - 13 Sep 2004 14:49 GMT
> >> Ya right, there's advise from a 'real Pro'.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> No, I'd like to see your work, your Nature Photography.
> Because that list is a list of equipment most NP Pros do not use.

Pros? Who cares what 'pros' use? Most pros are idiots.


> Please feel free to browse my humble images, although I do not call
> myself a Pro.
Gregory Blank - 13 Sep 2004 20:58 GMT
 The issue is marketing, its hard to get a true picture
when the industry sells a glamorized version of
what it means to be a professional photographer
and an image that very few lucky souls manage to
obtain.

I use what works for the job.

> Pros? Who cares what 'pros' use? Most pros are idiots.

Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Uranium Committee - 14 Sep 2004 14:16 GMT
> The issue is marketing, its hard to get a true picture
> when the industry sells a glamorized version of
> what it means to be a professional photographer
> and an image that very few lucky souls manage to
> obtain.

Very true. Every 14-year old overweight pimply kid pro photographer
wanna-be imagines himself on the beach surrounded by lovelies, or on
some mountaintop with herds of antelope during the mating season.

> I use what works for the job.
>
> > Pros? Who cares what 'pros' use? Most pros are idiots.
Ray Creveling - 10 Sep 2004 02:52 GMT
I'm sure that system would work fine. Just a couple of problems

1. I have a ton of Canon Gear
2. I don't like Leicas - Just don't feel comfy in my hands and this is about
fun and enjoyment
3. If I did like Leicas I don't want to mortgage the house for a camera
system (especially since I'm renting for six more months :)

Signature

Ray Creveling
http://www.blackcatblog.com

> > I probably should have posted this message first :)
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> 60mm Elamrit-R Macro (f/2,8)
> 400mm Telyt-R and 560mm Telyt-R (f/6,8)
Michael Scarpitti - 10 Sep 2004 16:56 GMT
> I'm sure that system would work fine. Just a couple of problems
>
> 1. I have a ton of Canon Gear

Sell it and get the good stuff.

> 2. I don't like Leicas - Just don't feel comfy in my hands and this is about
> fun and enjoyment

Have you used a Leicaflex SL or SL2? They are superb-handling cameras.

> 3. If I did like Leicas I don't want to mortgage the house for a camera
> system (especially since I'm renting for six more months :)

All of these are available used at quite reasonable prices.

> > "Ray Creveling" <rcreveli@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>  news:<R_6dnW8Rzb86FLXcRVn-qA@comcast.com>...
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004
James B. Davis - 11 Sep 2004 04:08 GMT
>> 2. I don't like Leicas - Just don't feel comfy in my hands and this is about
>> fun and enjoyment
>
>Have you used a Leicaflex SL or SL2? They are superb-handling cameras.

I know, I got it! You are Leicaaddict! Or some name like that some
idiot used to use in the groups, always trolling and causing fights,
etc. I think everyone else here has you killfiled already, since we're
more or less alone in this thread now.

You are amusing at times. I'm really looking forward now to seeing
some of your incredible Leica Nature Photography.

--
Jim Davis, Nature Photography
http://jimdavis.oberro.com/
Standard Poodles for fun
BMW motorcycle for pleasure
Uranium Committee - 12 Sep 2004 01:17 GMT
> >> 2. I don't like Leicas - Just don't feel comfy in my hands and this is about
> >> fun and enjoyment
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> You are amusing at times. I'm really looking forward now to seeing
> some of your incredible Leica Nature Photography.

I don't do that much 'nature' photography as such right now, as my
taste runs in different directions at the present. The Leicaflex
system has amazing adaptability. The 400 and 560 Telyts are superb
optics for nature. I prefer to shoot urban landscapes and field sports
(football, rugby, soccer, etc.) with mine.

You may want to talk to Doug Herr about the Leicaflex and nature work:

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/560R68.HTM

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/SL.HTM

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/SL2.HTM

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/400R68.HTM

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/180r28.html

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/180r40.html

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/28r28.html

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/90R20.HTM

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/50r14.html
Uranium Committee - 12 Sep 2004 01:36 GMT
> >> 2. I don't like Leicas - Just don't feel comfy in my hands and this is about
> >> fun and enjoyment
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> You are amusing at times. I'm really looking forward now to seeing
> some of your incredible Leica Nature Photography.

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/
Gregory Blank - 13 Sep 2004 01:51 GMT
He's just another nutless twit without the balls to consistantly post
using his own real name :-)

> >> 2. I don't like Leicas - Just don't feel comfy in my hands and this is
> >> about
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Standard Poodles for fun
> BMW motorcycle for pleasure

Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Uranium Committee - 13 Sep 2004 14:48 GMT
> He's just another nutless twit without the balls to consistantly post
> using his own real name :-)

I have begun using this other name to try to reduce the amount of spam
hitting my e-mail.

Did you look at Herr's site?

> > >> 2. I don't like Leicas - Just don't feel comfy in my hands and this is
> > >> about
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> > Standard Poodles for fun
> > BMW motorcycle for pleasure
Gregory Blank - 13 Sep 2004 20:53 GMT
Ok I'll lighten up a bit, just behave yourself!!

> > He's just another nutless twit without the balls to consistantly post
> > using his own real name :-)
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Did you look at Herr's site?

Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.