Re: Pro Wildlife Photographers Prefer FX Over DX!!
Paul
news:jpqdnchCXrnFV4jU...@supernews.com...
> After talking to many pro wildlife photographers from both the Nikon and
> Canon camps, I have found that most prefer shooting FX or full frame with
> their super-teles. And when told that DX is better for wildlife most got
> a
> nasty attitude.
>
> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Attitude.htm>
Of course. They were probably shooting 35mm before the digital era.
But remember, as pro's they can justify higher lens prices.
ASAAR
> After talking to many pro wildlife photographers from both the Nikon and
> Canon camps, I have found that most prefer shooting FX or full frame with
> their super-teles.
That would be true if the super-teles have sufficient reach to
allow the subjects to fill the FX frames. But I suspect that most
of your talking occurred in your dreams or waking fantasies. It
doesn't jibe with what most wildlife photographer's written
opinions. And of course by saying that you got this information by
"talking", you don't have to provide URLs to support your misguided
theory. You could at least have named those pro photographers, but
then we'd be able to check what they previously said on the matter.
> And when told that DX is better for wildlife most got a
> nasty attitude.
To discover who the true target of their hostility was, practice
this line : "Mirror, mirror on the wall . . ."
> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Attitude.htm>
No EXIF provided, but it's really foolish (if you can be believed)
to use a D3 and 500mm f/4 Nikkor, a kit costing over $12,000 and
weighing almost 10 pounds to take a closeup shot of your pet peon
that as posted, shows no more detail than could be produced by the
cheapest DSLR with kit lens, or for that matter, by a mediocre P&S.
And it should be noted, this also appears to be a frame filling shot
that even if compared with one produced by the same 500mm f/4 lens
on a DX body, can't be used to dispute the assertion of many
wildlife photographers that DX bodies provide big advantages when
they can't get close enough to the subjects.
John McWilliams
> ASAAR wrote:
>> No EXIF provided, but it's really foolish (if you can be believed)
>> to use a D3 and 500mm f/4 Nikkor, a kit costing over $12,000 and
>> weighing almost 10 pounds to take a closeup shot of your pet peon
> LOL! Worth every penny!
The lens may be, but Jerry's point stands. And: You don't got no
steekin' 500 ƒ4....
> Had Nikon released my 600/4 I would be shooting
> with that. I'm hoping to have my 600 by the end of the year.
Oh, right.
> Oh, did I tell you how sweet my 200/2 is?
I can hardly wait to pass on clicking the links that "show" this lens
you also don't have.
For those supreme images I have viewed, not a shred of EXIF data
remains. Ergo,
Post your proof!
--
john mcwilliams
John McWilliams
> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>>>> No EXIF provided, but it's really foolish (if you can be believed)
>>>> to use a D3 and 500mm f/4 Nikkor, a kit costing over $12,000 and
>>>> weighing almost 10 pounds to take a closeup shot of your pet peon
>>
>>> LOL! Worth every penny!
>>
>> The lens may be, but Jerry's point stands. And: You don't got no
>> steekin' 500 ƒ4....
>
>
>>> Had Nikon released my 600/4 I would be shooting
>>> with that. I'm hoping to have my 600 by the end of the year.
>>
>> Oh, right.
>
>
>> > Oh, did I tell you how sweet my 200/2 is?
>> I can hardly wait to pass on clicking the links that "show" this lens
>> you also don't have.
>
> any
> different? Dance, Baby, dance.
As if.
>
>> For those supreme images I have viewed, not a shred of EXIF data
>> remains. Ergo,
>
> Why should it matter when you "pass on clicking the links" you liar? It's
> alright, I understand "ASSar's" and your unique predicament.
You can grasp, I am pretty sure, that while I eschew clicking on any of
your links unless someone has commented favorably upon them, or made an
interesting comment that piques my curiosity, I have viewed perhaps a
dozen of your hundreds of links over the last 3-4 years. All right is
two words.
>
>> Post your proof!
>
> No! Must keep the mystique alive.
None for me; it's apprarent you use a camera phone, perhaps a P+S, and
flaunt your results in tiny JPEGs purposely stripped of EXIF data.
--
John McWilliams
frank
> ASAAR wrote:
> >> After talking to many pro wildlife photographers from both the Nikon
> >> and Canon camps, I have found that most prefer shooting FX or full
> >> frame with their super-teles.
>
> > That would be true if the super-teles have sufficient reach to
> > allow the subjects to fill the FX frames. But I suspect that most
> > of your talking occurred in your dreams or waking fantasies. It
> > doesn't jibe with what most wildlife photographer's written
> > opinions. And of course by saying that you got this information by
> > "talking", you don't have to provide URLs to support your misguided
> > theory. You could at least have named those pro photographers, but
> > then we'd be able to check what they previously said on the matter.
>
>
> And how many 400, 500, or 600mm lenses have you shot with again? Must be
> nice to be a parrot?
>
> > No EXIF provided, but it's really foolish (if you can be believed)
> > to use a D3 and 500mm f/4 Nikkor, a kit costing over $12,000 and
> > weighing almost 10 pounds to take a closeup shot of your pet peon
>
> with that. I'm hoping to have my 600 by the end of the year. Oh, did I
> tell you how sweet my 200/2 is? You really ought to get out and experience
> life a bit, Son. Grab a long lens and a decent body and snap a shot of
> Spot's bulbous brown round.
>
> Rita
What a crock. Having done wildlife, you don't need a 200 f2 for pretty
much anything. Except proving you have more money than brains. a 180
2.8 is just as good and you can spend the money on film, digital
cards, a printer, whatever.
You need at least a 300. A nice 400 would be nice, but once you get
beyond that, its not something you can use without a tripod and
depending on what you're shooting, you'll lose the shot by the time
you get the lens on the tripod.
The whole rationale for 35mm and digital is that its hand holdable.
none of that lugging around a tripod. Going up and down hills, into
the woods. Out in the brush actually looking for the bird. Or
whatever. At some point you'll start shooting where a backpack makes
more sense than an over the shoulder bag. Get to that point and you
stop lugging around every lens you own.
John McWilliams
> On Nov 10, 8:32 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:
>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>> After talking to many pro wildlife photographers from both the Nikon
>>>> and Canon camps, I have found that most prefer shooting FX or full
>>>> frame with their super-teles.
>>> That would be true if the super-teles have sufficient reach to
>>> allow the subjects to fill the FX frames. But I suspect that most
>>> of your talking occurred in your dreams or waking fantasies. It
>>> doesn't jibe with what most wildlife photographer's written
>>> opinions. And of course by saying that you got this information by
>>> "talking", you don't have to provide URLs to support your misguided
>>> theory. You could at least have named those pro photographers, but
>>> then we'd be able to check what they previously said on the matter.
>> <YAWN>
>>
>> And how many 400, 500, or 600mm lenses have you shot with again? Must be
>> nice to be a parrot?
>>
>>> No EXIF provided, but it's really foolish (if you can be believed)
>>> to use a D3 and 500mm f/4 Nikkor, a kit costing over $12,000 and
>>> weighing almost 10 pounds to take a closeup shot of your pet peon
>> LOL! Worth every penny! Had Nikon released my 600/4 I would be shooting
>> with that. I'm hoping to have my 600 by the end of the year. Oh, did I
>> tell you how sweet my 200/2 is?
> What a crock. Having done wildlife, you don't need a 200 f2 for pretty
> much anything. Except proving you have more money than brains. a 180
> 2.8 is just as good and you can spend the money on film, digital
> cards, a printer, whatever.
There has never been any indication, much less proof, that "Rita" owns
any good glass. He strips out all EXIF data, and no image among the
dozens I have examined speaks "Good sharp tele". Could be proved wrong,
though, and that'd be fine. I never look at his images first as one time
he posted a shot that was nothing but dog shit.
>
> You need at least a 300. A nice 400 would be nice, but once you get
> beyond that, its not something you can use without a tripod and
> depending on what you're shooting, you'll lose the shot by the time
> you get the lens on the tripod.
Monopod= enough support, much more facile for wildlife, including that
found on sporting fields. And so far I've only borrowed or lusted after
a 400. The longest I go regularly is 200 x 1.4 extender x 1.6 sensor
multiplier.
--
John McWilliams
George Kerby
On 11/11/08 12:17 PM, in article
8-WdnYYfAMDTUYTU...@comcast.com, "John McWilliams"
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I never look at his images first as one time
> he posted a shot that was nothing but dog shit.
"One time"?!? BAWHAWHAW!!!!
John McWilliams
> On 11/11/08 12:17 PM, in article
> 8-WdnYYfAMDTUYTU...@comcast.com, "John McWilliams"
> <jp...@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>> No EXIF provided, but it's really foolish (if you can be believed)
>>>>> to use a D3 and 500mm f/4 Nikkor, a kit costing over $12,000 and
>>>>> weighing almost 10 pounds to take a closeup shot of your pet peon
>>>> LOL! Worth every penny! Had Nikon released my 600/4 I would be shooting
>>>> with that. I'm hoping to have my 600 by the end of the year. Oh, did I
>>>> tell you how sweet my 200/2 is?
>>> What a crock. Having done wildlife, you don't need a 200 f2 for pretty
>>> much anything. Except proving you have more money than brains. a 180
>>> 2.8 is just as good and you can spend the money on film, digital
>>> cards, a printer, whatever.
>> I never look at his images first as one time
>> he posted a shot that was nothing but dog shit.
> "One time"?!? BAWHAWHAW!!!!
Not if you're speaking metaphorical dog shit- then there have been a
number I've seen.
But actual dog shit: one time, and never again. The only way it'll
happen if "Rita" posts a bunch of socks imitating real people who
convince me the link is worth pursuing.
--
john mcwiliams
John McWilliams
> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>>>> none of that lugging around a tripod.
>>>
>>> simply don't experience it in real life. I have no problem at all
>>> hand holding the
>>> 500/4 and D3 at slow shutter speed.
>>
>> Poast yer proof, pest!
>
> NO! Keep wondering, Son.
I wonder not. I don't think anyone wonders much; although you do have a
couple of fans who may pipe up.
It's up to you to show proof, not us, dodger boy.
--
lsmft
George Kerby
On 11/12/08 8:35 AM, in article
kuGdnfZNpq9NdIfU...@comcast.com, "John McWilliams"
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
Only if he can get "Toni" off him first!
RichA
> frank wrote:
> >> LOL! Worth every penny! Had Nikon released my 600/4 I would be
> >> shooting with that. I'm hoping to have my 600 by the end of the
> >> year. Oh, did I tell you how sweet my 200/2 is? You really ought to
> >> get out and experience life a bit, Son. Grab a long lens and a
> >> decent body and snap a shot of Spot's bulbous brown round.
>
> > much anything. Except proving you have more money than brains. a 180
> > 2.8 is just as good and you can spend the money on film, digital
> > cards, a printer, whatever.
>
> that's just me. The 500/4 works great, but sometimes zooming with your feet
> gets you way too close so the 200/2 works its magic. I won't even mention
> the sweet light gathering capability of it.
>
> > You need at least a 300. A nice 400 would be nice, but once you get
> > beyond that, its not something you can use without a tripod and
> > depending on what you're shooting, you'll lose the shot by the time
> > you get the lens on the tripod.
>
> in a while I do bust out the old monopod.
>
> > The whole rationale for 35mm and digital is that its hand holdable.
> > none of that lugging around a tripod.
>
> don't experience it in real life. I have no problem at all hand holding the
> 500/4 and D3 at slow shutter speed.
>
We should have a contest. See what people can actually do versus what
they think they can do. I figure I can handhold a 350mm lens (700mm
equivalent on a 10 megaxpixel 4/3rds sensor) at about 125th second,
unstabilized. But I suspect that if I were to do it, then take a
tripod shot, I'd see differences. So the question is, how much is
lost when you get an "acceptably" sharp shot with handheld with a long
lens?
Doug McDonald
> It's all relative. It comes down to whether you have a choice of an
> acceptable shot or no shot at all. I'm constantly moving on my wildlife
> hikes and a tripod is out of the question.
Then you're not a "real pro" wildlife photographer.
They sit still, and let the choreographers send the animals
into the shot according to the script.
Only amateurs depend on chance to get the shot!
Doug McDonald
an amateur wildlife shooter who actually has spent weeks
on photo tours with the pros.
Syd Akron
wrote:
Well, you were with some pretty lame "pros" then.
It depends on the animals. Some of them you can lie in wait for them. Others you
have to actively pursue them.
In either case you have to find where they are at. Rarely will you find one
where you can get to it on pavement. At least the animals worth photographing.
These "pro tours" didn't by chance happen where there was a lot of foliage in
the shape of vertical iron bars, or moats of water between you and the animals,
were they? At the "end of the trail" on your way back, was there a nice
refreshment stand where you could buy some colorful plushies of all the animals
you photographed? Were all these "pros" over 60 and sitting in wheelchairs or
converted their canes into monopods?
Go on some more "pro" photo tours. Tell us again how much you learned from these
"pros".
LOL
note 1: this is not in any way any acknowledgement of Rita's trollish snapshots.
That thing wouldn't know a wild animal or how to use a camera properly if its
life depended on it. I'm only letting you know that you are BOTH wrong if you
think only one method is useful for wildlife photography.
note 2: when I go on one of my many wildlife expeditions it's not for a matter
of weeks, it's a matter of months. Usually 9 or more months out of each year.
(I'm taking a break this year.) You can't even get to where the most interesting
animals are in a matter of a couple weeks. Any "pro" that is only out in the
wilds for a couple of weeks is a just useless weekend-warrior campground tourist
with a snapshot camera and snapshot talent to go with it. If charging for
canned-lessons then they're exploiting those amateurs out of their money, those
who know even less than they do. Is that what happened to you?
Doug McDonald
> These "pro tours" didn't by chance happen where there was a lot of foliage in
> the shape of vertical iron bars, or moats of water between you and the animals,
> were they?
No. One was on a small boat in SE AK chasing whales (before actively
chasing them became illegal) and one was in Kenya and Tanzania. I
should point out that WE we not using the pro choreographed techniques,
merely that the pros along to "instruct" us and collect their pay showed
us videos of how the actual pro footage (and stills) was shot ... you
know "making of the 'BBC Nature shoots the tree climbing lions of Lake
Manyara'".
> At the "end of the trail" on your way back, was there a nice
> refreshment stand where you could buy some colorful plushies of all the animals
> you photographed?
Yes, in Kenya ... there indeed was a "refreshment stand" where we were
served a very nice tea service by out tented camp staff. No plushies.
In Alaska we were of course on a boat; yes, we got yummie snacks in the
parlor (this was an 8 passenger yacht.)
> Go on some more "pro" photo tours. Tell us again how much you learned from these
> "pros".
>
>
Not really a lot, other than how they made the "real thing", as I
described ... posed shots ... yes, they use chase boats for the whale
shoots, which we used too, to get close to the whales. I think they were
there mostly as an attraction for the tours rather than to really teach,
though they surely tried to advise.
> You can't even get to where the most interesting
> animals are in a matter of a couple weeks.
I think you are exaggerating. Two weeks should get you there, especially
now in the days
of helicopters.
>If charging for
> canned-lessons then they're exploiting those amateurs out of their money, those
> who know even less than they do. Is that what happened to you?
yes ... I knew exactly what I was getting and paying for. I was happy,
despite not REALLY learning a lot. The Kenya guy tacked our week onto
the end of another BBC shot of something else, I forget what ... maybe
"hippos of Tsavo". He was a fun guy to be around. We really did see
plenty of lions in trees. It was money VERY well spent!
These guys really were real pros.
Doug McDonald
from Illinois