Question for wildlife photographers
PostingCoach
Hello,
I would just like to see if any of you could clear up a little matter. I was
informed by one person that if you're wanting to photograph wildlife in general
(she specified moose and lions) a Hasselblad is the only choice, and said that
"Victor Hasselblad designed them for the sole purpose of photographing birds"
in the first place. Another person says that a Hasselblad isn't the most
logical choice for wildlife photography. He claimed that a Pentax 6x7, a Leica
rangefinder, or any top quality 35 with a good telephoto would be a better
choice for going after moose and lions. Thanks in advance for your help.
dslr
I do wonder if someone's been having you on - many 'blads have been used
for shooting birds, but not many of those have feathers ;-)
--
regards,
dslr
stan
PostingCoach wrote:
Go for a good 4x5 with a motor drive. Excellent quality but a bit bulky
Short of that I'd use whatever you have available. Even a 35mm. Hard to tell if
this is a troll. I'm cynical given the last few weeks.
Stan
Visual Arts Photography
Bill Hilton
>I would just like to see if any of you could clear up a little matter. I was
>informed by one person that if you're wanting to photograph wildlife in
>general (she specified moose and lions) a Hasselblad is the only choice,
>and said that "Victor Hasselblad designed them for the sole purpose of
>photographing birds" in the first place.
This is true. Weddings and portraits were an afterthought.
>Another person says that a Hasselblad isn't the most
>logical choice for wildlife photography. He claimed that a Pentax 6x7, a
>Leica rangefinder, or any top quality 35 with a good telephoto would be
>a better choice for going after moose and lions.
I prefer to use my 8x10" view camera, especially for grizzly bears. Using
something as wimpy as 35 mm is downright unmanly and unsporting since you can
shoot from such a great distance. Takes all the excitement out of it.
Bill
(when does middle-school start anyway?)
Alan Browne
Read the history of H'blad on their site. There is mention of V.
Hassy's bird watching forays, but it is not linked to the 6cmX6cm
camera. (See exerpts below).
I believe most professional wildlife photogs today use 35mm with Canon
and Nikon taking top spots.
MF telephoto lenses are quite large for a given magnification, so
getting a shy bird in the lens would take quite a lot of lens. becomes
very burdensome in the bush. (On the other hand you can crop a a large
frame to "zoom" in w/o loss of resolution.) Still, MF's are
comparatively burdensome v. 35mm, and the film, more so per frame.
SLR's are favoured over RF's as long telephots are available that are
not available at all for RF.
I don't know if that clears anything up. See below.
Alan.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From the Hassy site:
"Since the day that Victor Hasselblad first set out, not to reproduce a
fallen German spy camera, but to improve upon it, we have consistently
endeavored to develop and advance the field of photography."
"When not in the plants or shops learning the business and production
side of the camera business, Victor [Hasselblad] was out in the
surrounding countryside, patiently waiting to capture the local birds
and other wildlife with his camera. "
"It would seem that one of them however, surrendered its cargo intact: a
fully functioning German aerial surveillance camera. Exactly where and
how the Swedish military gained the camera is perhaps uncertain, but one
thing is clear: this was a piece of equipment that the Swedish military
could sorely use. Capturing a German camera, however, and knowing how to
produce similar cameras were two separate things. A fact the Swedish
government soon realized."
"In the spring of 1940, the Swedish government approached thirty-four
year old Victor Hasselblad and asked him if he could produce a camera
identical to the recovered German one. Legend has it that Victor
responded “No, but I can make a better one”. That April, Victor
established a camera workshop in a simple shed in an automobile workshop
in central Gothenburg. Close by was a junkyard, a resource that came in
handy and supplied much needed raw materials. In the evenings, with the
help of the extremely talented mechanic from the automobile workshop and
his brother, Hasselblad began reverse engineering the German camera and
designing what would be the first Hasselblad camera, the HK 7."
"Once the war ended, Victor turned his team’s full focus onto the job of
producing this new style of consumer camera. And on October 6, 1948
Victor introduced the world to the first Hasselblad produced consumer
camera, the Hasselblad 1600F. This model, a single-lens, mirror reflex,
6x6 camera with interchangeable Kodak lenses, film magazines, and
viewfinders, was unveiled to great acclaim at a press conference in New
York City. The 1600F camera met with great critical acclaim and was a
truly groundbreaking feat of engineering."
Alan Browne
dslr wrote:
> PostingCoach wrote:
>
>
> I do wonder if someone's been having you on - many 'blads have been used
> for shooting birds, but not many of those have feathers ;-)
>
Love it!
Alan Browne
Yeah, I had my "troll alert" hairs stand straight up on this one.
Checked the headers ... no ind. it is our recent little cockroach, no
x-post.
So ... I replied.
By the way, no way! an 8x10 with a 6 fps motor drive IS the way yo go.
Cheers,
Alan.
Wes J
and weddings; while the Nikons are more suited for wildlife. Big telephotos
for Hasselblad are very costly, heavy, and don't go out far enough to feel
comfortable shooting lions. Unless you're one of those individuals that can
approach very close to animals without spooking them, 35mm is the way to go.
"PostingCoach" <postin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030809151345...@mb-m11.aol.com...
William D. Tallman
> I prefer to use my 8x10" view camera, especially for grizzly bears. Using
> something as wimpy as 35 mm is downright unmanly and unsporting since you
> can
> shoot from such a great distance. Takes all the excitement out of it.
Yep. Knew a guy who did that, he and his brother. They were old when I met
them.
One of them would set up just off a trail known to be used by grizzlies; his
brother would stand in the trail to serve as a model for framing and
focusing, and so the shot would be ready to go when a grizzly appeared.
The first few times they did this, the damn bear didn't stop long enough
for an exposure, so the next time out they set up with flash powder,
figuring to catch the bear in his tracks.
Well, this worked pretty well, until the bears stopped being spooked by the
flash powder. The next time a bear came by that had been photographed
before, instead of turning tail and skedaddling when the flash went off, he
raised up on his hind feet to get at the photographer. Problem was, the
bear had been watching for the flash and had been blinded by it, so he
wandered off in the wrong direction.
The brothers talked this over and decided that photographing bears had just
taken an exciting turn, that getting a picture of a bear on its hind legs
was just the thing they'd been looking for. So what they did was have two
flash charges, and catch the bear's attention with the first one, so they
could get an image with the second.
This worked even better, and pretty soon the two brothers began to compile a
stock of really impressive (read: saleable) bear pictures. Then one day
the bear happened to blink during both flash charges, and instead of being
blinded, he was able to see the two men. That wasn't a problem, of course,
because the fellows knew how to handle bears on the rampage.
The brother on watch simply shrugged, drew his Colt Frontiersman, stepped up
to the bear as it opened its arms and laid the barrel on the lower jaw of
the bear. And pulled the trigger. Bear went over backwards; end of bear.
That was sort of sad, because eventually all the bears in the area figured
out what was going on, and, having lost kin to this business, ran like hell
whenever they smelt photo chemicals. See, the last series of photos was of
the bear being blown away by the brother.....
'Course, about then, some of them new-fangled photographers with their wimpy
cameras started showing up looking for bear, and the brothers decided to
retire. The bears couldn't tell the difference between 8x10 field cameras
and the HCB pocket variety, and figured it was safer to stay away, so none
of the new guys got eaten by bear. But they didn't get any bear pictures,
either.
Just as well. Them new-fangled pocket cameras wouldn't have produced a
decent photograph in any case: the only reasonable photograph of a bear is
life-size, dontchaknow, and for knowledgeable clientele in the market for
bear pictures, stepping up close enough to the print to put their nose on
the lower jaw of the bear was required.....
Yep, photography ain't what it used to be.
Bill Tallman
Al Denelsbeck
news:20030809151345...@mb-m11.aol.com:
Disc Cameras. Nothing else. Easy drop-in film loading, auto advance,
built-in flash. Fits in a pocket. 15 frames is a perfect amount for
wildlife.
Duh!
- Al.
--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Steve Kramer
>
> postin...@aol.com (PostingCoach) wrote in
> news:20030809151345...@mb-m11.aol.com:
>
> Disc Cameras. Nothing else. Easy drop-in film loading, auto advance,
> built-in flash. Fits in a pocket. 15 frames is a perfect amount for
> wildlife.
>
> Duh!
>
> - Al.
NOW you tell us! And just what am I supposed to do with all the
disposable cameras I bought for my trip into the jungle?
Throw them away?!?
Steve Kramer
Chiang Mai, Thailand
http://www.photoenvisions.com
--
"The voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new horizons,
but in seeing with new eyes." - Marcel Proust
Alan Browne
Al Denelsbeck wrote:
> postin...@aol.com (PostingCoach) wrote in
> news:20030809151345...@mb-m11.aol.com:
>
> Disc Cameras. Nothing else. Easy drop-in film loading, auto advance,
> built-in flash. Fits in a pocket. 15 frames is a perfect amount for
> wildlife.
>
> Duh!
>
> - Al.
>
Well, if you're going to esoteric on us....
Scott Elliot
telephoto lens required for bird photography with a Hassy is so big that it
has to be permanently mounted on the chassis of a one ton truck. The stiff
truck suspension makes the lens very stable so you are guaranteed sharp
pictures.
An additional advantage is that the big truck usually knocks over the
tripods of all those wimps with little 35 mm cameras on tripods when you
drive up, so you are usually the only one who gets the shot. That is of
course unless some macho geek with an even bigger 8 x 10 telephoto lens
mounted on an industrial dump truck drives over you and wrecks your fun.
Scott Elliot
http://www3.telus.net/selliot/
"PostingCoach" <postin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030809151345...@mb-m11.aol.com...
>
stan
Steve Kramer wrote:
> Al Denelsbeck wrote:
> >
> > postin...@aol.com (PostingCoach) wrote in
> > news:20030809151345...@mb-m11.aol.com:
> >
> > Disc Cameras. Nothing else. Easy drop-in film loading, auto advance,
> > built-in flash. Fits in a pocket. 15 frames is a perfect amount for
> > wildlife.
> >
> > Duh!
> >
> > - Al.
>
> NOW you tell us! And just what am I supposed to do with all the
> disposable cameras I bought for my trip into the jungle?
> Throw them away?!?
>
> Steve Kramer
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
>
You can give them to a wedding photographer!
Stan
Visual Arts Photography
Alan Browne
Al Denelsbeck wrote:
> postin...@aol.com (PostingCoach) wrote in
> news:20030809151345...@mb-m11.aol.com:
>
> Disc Cameras. Nothing else. Easy drop-in film loading, auto advance,
> built-in flash. Fits in a pocket. 15 frames is a perfect amount for
> wildlife.
>
> Duh!
>
> - Al.
>
Well, if you're going to go esoteric on us....
Dallas D
meese?) hang out together.
Africa's top wildlife photographers mostly use Canon 35mm gear.
--
"I smile mostly everywhere. Well, there's some people might disagree. But
hey, I'm playin' with the Stones, man. You know, I mean why shouldn't I
smile?"
- Keith Richards
"PostingCoach" <postin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030809151345...@mb-m11.aol.com...
>
Michael Scarpitti
I would recommend the Leica 400mm 6.8 and 560mm 6.8 Telyts on any
suitable Leica R or Leicaflex body over anything else. Their light
weight and compactness (they break down into two parts) together with
their extremely high contrast make these long lenses superb performers
for wildlife work.
Alan Browne
Or rather a Canon, Nikon or Minolta 600 f/4 lens on the appropriate
bodies for another stop and a half of light essesntial to wildlife
photogs? Even with a 1.4 TC, you're only at f/5.6...
Cheers,
Alan.
PostingCoach
Thanks to all for the good advice. And from some of the replies that were
posted, I'm going to assume that the Hasselblad isn't the most obvious choice
for "moose and lions". =)
The same person that said the Hasselblads were designed "for the sole purpose
of photographing birds" also just happens to be the same person that said
"Nikon cameras are filter friendly". She claims that the "universal thread
design" of the Canon cameras are likely to "strip out or cross-thread" when you
try to use filters.
dslr
LOL.
--
regards,
dslr
Michael Scarpitti
these 6.8 lenses are actually closer to 6.0 in transmittance because
of their single-group construction. EXTREMELY contrasty images for the
same reason. These lenses blow away the lenses you're referring to.
See 'Self-Portait USA' for some excellent examples.
Steve Kramer
>
> I'd love to find the place (apart from a zoo) where lions and moose (mooses?
> meese?) hang out together.
Wasn't there something said in the Bible about this place?
... and it's 'moosi'
> Africa's top wildlife photographers mostly use Canon 35mm gear.
And good running shoes.
Steve Kramer
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Alan Browne
Gee, you *really* don't get it... 6.0 is still more than a full stop
slower than f/4 (even if what you're saying is true)...and for all that
your f/6.8 lens is only at 400 or 560mm. A 600 with a 1.4TC gets you to
840mm and it's still faster. These lenses, all, are very sharp.
Since this thread is about nature photography: pick up a few issues of
Outdoor Photographer and look at what the pros are using... I just
grabbed one of many copies on the shelf behind me: The only RF camera
was a Bronica 645 and that was more of a promo article than anything
else... All else is Nikon/Canon.
Forget it Scarpetti ... and BTW: you never answered on the R9...
Cheers,
Alan.
Alan Browne
Steve Kramer wrote:
>
>>Africa's top wildlife photographers mostly use Canon 35mm gear.
>
>
> And good running shoes.
>
First hunter: "let's run we forgot the bullets and that Tiger is coming!"
Second hunter: "I'm putting on my running shoes..."
First hunter: "Are you nuts, you can't outrun a Tiger!"
Second hunter: "I know, but I only have to outrun you!"
Cheers,
Alan
Steve Kramer
People ask me why I carry a very small dive knife on my shoulder harness
when I'm shooting underwater scenes. I tell them it's for sharks. They
reply that the blade isn't even long enough to penetrate a shark's skin,
to which I reply, it doesn't need too. Only the Achilles Tendon on my
dive buddy's left leg...
(Only kidding. I wouldn't do that. Don't need to anyway. I usually carry
an attaché case when I'm scuba diving. The sharks think I'm a lawyer and
leave me alone out of professional courtesy.)
Frank Pittel
: Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3F368F9E...@videotron.ca>...
:-)
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Frank Pittel
Al Denelsbeck <ne...@wadingin.net> wrote:
: postin...@aol.com (PostingCoach) wrote in
: news:20030809151345...@mb-m11.aol.com:
: Disc Cameras. Nothing else. Easy drop-in film loading, auto advance,
: built-in flash. Fits in a pocket. 15 frames is a perfect amount for
: wildlife.
: Duh!
: - Al.
--
Frank Pittel
: Al Denelsbeck wrote:
:>
:> postin...@aol.com (PostingCoach) wrote in
:> news:20030809151345...@mb-m11.aol.com:
:>
:> Disc Cameras. Nothing else. Easy drop-in film loading, auto advance,
:> built-in flash. Fits in a pocket. 15 frames is a perfect amount for
:> wildlife.
:>
:> Duh!
:>
:> - Al.
: NOW you tell us! And just what am I supposed to do with all the
: disposable cameras I bought for my trip into the jungle?
: Throw them away?!?
Dispose them. :-)
Frank Pittel
:>From: postin...@aol.com (PostingCoach)
On the positve side in a pinch you can always throw your 8x10 at whatever
is charging your way.
William Graham
Dallas D <dal...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bh5rpc$siq$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> I'd love to find the place (apart from a zoo) where lions and moose
(mooses?
> meese?) hang out together.
>
is most everywhere in the Nothern part of the North American continent......
William Graham
Steve Kramer <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote in message
news:3F3713B5...@seatraveler.com...
> Alan Browne wrote:
> >
> > Steve Kramer wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>Africa's top wildlife photographers mostly use Canon 35mm gear.
> > >
> > >
> > > And good running shoes.
> > >
> >
> > First hunter: "let's run we forgot the bullets and that Tiger is
coming!"
> > Second hunter: "I'm putting on my running shoes..."
> > First hunter: "Are you nuts, you can't outrun a Tiger!"
> > Second hunter: "I know, but I only have to outrun you!"
>
> People ask me why I carry a very small dive knife on my shoulder harness
> when I'm shooting underwater scenes. I tell them it's for sharks. They
> reply that the blade isn't even long enough to penetrate a shark's skin,
> to which I reply, it doesn't need too. Only the Achilles Tendon on my
> dive buddy's left leg...
>
> (Only kidding. I wouldn't do that. Don't need to anyway. I usually carry
> an attaché case when I'm scuba diving. The sharks think I'm a lawyer and
> leave me alone out of professional courtesy.)
>
sharks. - I said, "So the next time I go scuba diving off the Fairalons,
I'll bring a fly swatter instead of a bang stick."
Tony Parkinson
> Thanks to all for the good advice. And from some of the replies that were
> posted, I'm going to assume that the Hasselblad isn't the most obvious
choice
> for "moose and lions". =)
>
> The same person that said the Hasselblads were designed "for the sole
purpose
> of photographing birds" also just happens to be the same person that said
> "Nikon cameras are filter friendly". She claims that the "universal thread
> design" of the Canon cameras are likely to "strip out or cross-thread"
when you
> try to use filters.
>
Tony Parkinson
news:IFGZa.119317$YN5.84886@sccrnsc01...
>
> I was told that your chances of being killed by bees are greater than by
> sharks. - I said, "So the next time I go scuba diving off the Fairalons,
> I'll bring a fly swatter instead of a bang stick."
>
camp, when the first letter of the company's name came loose and fell from
the sign over the entrance saying "Welcome to Butlins", hitting him on the
head and knocking him unconscious. That's the nearest I ever heard to
someone
getting killed by a "B"
William Graham
Tony Parkinson <nospamne...@photoshot.com> wrote in message
news:bh7icb$b0f$2...@hercules.btinternet.com...
buggers.......More people in the US are killed by them than by sharkes every
year.......
Bruce Murphy
> Actually, if one is allergic to bee venom, one can be killed by the little
> buggers.......More people in the US are killed by them than by sharkes every
> year.......
So watch out for genetically modified flying sharks! :)
B>
Tony Parkinson
> Tony Parkinson <nospamne...@photoshot.com> wrote ...
> > A friend of mine was doing some photographs of his local Butlins holiday
> > camp, when the first letter of the company's name came loose and fell
from
> > the sign over the entrance saying "Welcome to Butlins", hitting him on
the
> > head and knocking him unconscious. That's the nearest I ever heard to
> > someone
> > getting killed by a "B"
> >
> Actually, if one is allergic to bee venom, one can be killed by the little
> buggers.......More people in the US are killed by them than by sharkes
every
> year.......
>
wasn't my intention to disparage your comments in any way, just an, on
reflection, admittedly poor, attempt at a little humour over breakfast.
;^)
Steve Kramer
>
> Steve Kramer <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote in message
> news:3F3713B5...@seatraveler.com...
> >
> > when I'm shooting underwater scenes. I tell them it's for sharks. They
> > reply that the blade isn't even long enough to penetrate a shark's skin,
> > to which I reply, it doesn't need too. Only the Achilles Tendon on my
> > dive buddy's left leg...
> >
> > (Only kidding. I wouldn't do that. Don't need to anyway. I usually carry
> > an attaché case when I'm scuba diving. The sharks think I'm a lawyer and
> > leave me alone out of professional courtesy.)
> I was told that your chances of being killed by bees are greater than by
> sharks.
This is true. Actually, in the US more people are killed by running into
deer while driving than any other animal/insect/fish related death,
followed by bee stings.
- I said, "So the next time I go scuba diving off the Fairalons,
> I'll bring a fly swatter instead of a bang stick."
There are very few recorded incidents of 'scuba divers' being attacked
by sharks. (Except in certain distinct regions.) Surfers yes. Surfers
look like shark food when seen from underneath; seals or turtles. Scuba
divers don't look like shark food. Thank God. Diving in Palau, in the
western Caroline Islands, we photographed literally dozens of gray reef
sharks on each dive, usually at distances of no more than several meters
away. We made 5-6 dives per day shooting a full roll of film on each
dive. Only a few of my shots came out well as I was shaking so much...
As long as we didn't get too close, they didn't get too aggressive. And
when we DID get too close, and they DID get a bit aggressive, we backed
off VERY quickly. Them suckers is big...
Tony Parkinson
> William Graham wrote:
>
> > I was told that your chances of being killed by bees are greater than by
> > sharks.
>
> This is true. Actually, in the US more people are killed by running into
> deer while driving than any other animal/insect/fish related death,
> followed by bee stings.
>
T P
© Monsanto 2003 ???
;-)
Steve Kramer
It's not that their driving is so bad, but when they are talking on
their cell phones while fixing their eye makeup that the trouble really
begins. How do you think they get those 'doe eyes?!?'
Dallas D
photograph on the front page of a 16-year old surfer who narrowly missed
being eaten by a shark down in Jeffrey's Bay. The shark, apparently a
4-meter long bugger, bit into his surfboard dragging it, and the surfer
atached to it under the water. Luckily his leash snapped and he managed to
get back to the beach. His board made it back in three pieces.
Silly kid went out and finished the competition heat afterwards.
--
"I smile mostly everywhere. Well, there's some people might disagree. But
hey, I'm playin' with the Stones, man. You know, I mean why shouldn't I
smile?"
- Keith Richards
"Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote in message
news:3F377BBB...@seatraveler.com...
Dallas D
--
"I smile mostly everywhere. Well, there's some people might disagree. But
hey, I'm playin' with the Stones, man. You know, I mean why shouldn't I
smile?"
- Keith Richards
www.imageunlimited.co.za
.
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zBGZa.118503$Ho3.15394@sccrnsc03...
Tony Spadaro
nasty. Put a lion in a studio and the Hasselblad will be a great camera .
Out in the field it's clumsy and slow operating. Long lenses for a Hassy
will cost more than the price of a excellent 35mm camera and an equivalent
IS lens, plus tripod, head, and day rental on the Land Rover with driver.
Get a Canon EOS and leave the Hassy in the studio it was born for.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
"PostingCoach" <postin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030809151345...@mb-m11.aol.com...
>
> Hello,
> I would just like to see if any of you could clear up a little matter. I
was
> informed by one person that if you're wanting to photograph wildlife in
general
> (she specified moose and lions) a Hasselblad is the only choice, and said
that
> "Victor Hasselblad designed them for the sole purpose of photographing
birds"
> in the first place. Another person says that a Hasselblad isn't the most
> logical choice for wildlife photography. He claimed that a Pentax 6x7, a
Leica
> rangefinder, or any top quality 35 with a good telephoto would be a better
William Graham
by a letter falling off of a sign in Kansas than by a shark......
William Graham
> There are very few recorded incidents of 'scuba divers' being attacked
> by sharks. (Except in certain distinct regions.) Surfers yes. Surfers
> look like shark food when seen from underneath; seals or turtles. Scuba
> divers don't look like shark food. Thank God. Diving in Palau, in the
> western Caroline Islands, we photographed literally dozens of gray reef
> sharks on each dive, usually at distances of no more than several meters
> away. We made 5-6 dives per day shooting a full roll of film on each
> dive. Only a few of my shots came out well as I was shaking so much...
> As long as we didn't get too close, they didn't get too aggressive. And
> when we DID get too close, and they DID get a bit aggressive, we backed
> off VERY quickly. Them suckers is big...
>
> Steve Kramer
Yes, but surfers don't carry bang sticks, so my clever comeback won't work
for surfing......Surfers are pretty defenseless when it comes to sharks,
come to think of it........
PostingCoach
>
> Whoever said that is not just wrong, but either very ignorant or very
> nasty. Put a lion in a studio and the Hasselblad will be a great camera.
> Out in the field it's clumsy and slow operating. Long lenses for a Hassy
> will cost more than the price of a excellent 35mm camera and an
> equivalent IS lens, plus tripod, head, and day rental on the Land Rover
> with driver. Get a Canon EOS and leave the Hassy in the studio it was
> born for.
Yes, she is (wrong)...
She says take the Hasselblad outside. She does have an EOS and she uses it
indoors/in the studio. She claims that even though the Canon isn't "filter
friendly", she still uses it as a "professional portrait artist", but she hates
tripods. She used one, once.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3F368F9E...@videotron.ca>...
> > >>>
> >>> Scarpitti wrote:
> >>>I would recommend the Leica 400mm 6.8 and 560mm 6.8 Telyts on any
> >>>suitable Leica R or Leicaflex body over anything else. Their light
> >>>weight and compactness (they break down into two parts) together with
> >>>their extremely high contrast make these long lenses superb performers
> >>>for wildlife work.
> >>
> >>Or rather a Canon, Nikon or Minolta 600 f/4 lens on the appropriate
> >>bodies for another stop and a half of light essesntial to wildlife
> >>photogs? Even with a 1.4 TC, you're only at f/5.6...
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>Alan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > these 6.8 lenses are actually closer to 6.0 in transmittance because
> > of their single-group construction. EXTREMELY contrasty images for the
> > same reason. These lenses blow away the lenses you're referring to.
> > See 'Self-Portait USA' for some excellent examples.
>
> Gee, you *really* don't get it... 6.0 is still more than a full stop
> slower than f/4 (even if what you're saying is true)...and for all that
> your f/6.8 lens is only at 400 or 560mm. A 600 with a 1.4TC gets you to
> 840mm and it's still faster. These lenses, all, are very sharp.
1. The speed is not always necessary. I have hand-held the Leica 560
lens at 1/30 sec successfully without support. Subject motion is
another issue. The compactness and light weight are a real boon to
those who have to carry this stuff around. If you want to ride around
on a jeep, you may not benefit. But carry that 600 f/4 around for a
while and you'll get sick of it real quick.
2. Technically speaking the Telyts are without peer in cotrast. Long
lenses are used at a great distance, through a lot of
contrast-reducing air. Multiple-elemnt lenses (telephotos) have many
air/glass surfaces that tend to degrade contrast. Also, air turbulence
limits 'sharpness' anyway, so high resolution isn't possible to attain
in any event. The Leic glass is optimized for contrast, and that
contrast is, I assure you remarkable, far in excess of what the lenses
you describe can achieve, and breathtaking.
>
> Since this thread is about nature photography: pick up a few issues of
> Outdoor Photographer and look at what the pros are using...
Who cares what the pros are using. My photos are better than theirs
anyway.
> I just
> grabbed one of many copies on the shelf behind me: The only RF camera
> was a Bronica 645 and that was more of a promo article than anything
> else... All else is Nikon/Canon.
>
> Forget it Scarpetti ... and BTW: you never answered on the R9...
What was the question?
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
Tony Parkinson
> Tony Parkinson wrote:
> > "Steve Kramer" <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote ...
into
> > > deer while driving than any other animal/insect/fish related death,
> > > followed by bee stings.
> > >
> > I always said they should never have let deer have driving licenses
>
> It's not that their driving is so bad, but when they are talking on
> their cell phones while fixing their eye makeup that the trouble really
> begins. How do you think they get those 'doe eyes?!?'
>
behind the wheel
Tony Parkinson
> Yes, she is (wrong)...
> She says take the Hasselblad outside. She does have an EOS and she uses it
> indoors/in the studio. She claims that even though the Canon isn't "filter
> friendly", she still uses it as a "professional portrait artist", but she
hates
> tripods. She used one, once.
>
but Portrait isn't the word I was thinking of
T P
>Yes, she is (wrong)...
>She says take the Hasselblad outside. She does have an EOS and she uses it
>indoors/in the studio. She claims that even though the Canon isn't "filter
>friendly", she still uses it as a "professional portrait artist", but she hates
>tripods. She used one, once.
Don't tell me, ...
her name's "JEREMY" !!!!
;-)
Alan Browne
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> 1. The speed is not always necessary. I have hand-held the Leica 560
> lens at 1/30 sec successfully without support. Subject motion is
> another issue. The compactness and light weight are a real boon to
> those who have to carry this stuff around. If you want to ride around
> on a jeep, you may not benefit. But carry that 600 f/4 around for a
> while and you'll get sick of it real quick.
HAND HOLD A 5 LB+, half meter long, 560mm at 1/30? "Successfully"? A
lens that is noted for being heavy at the long end....?
I suppose that is feasible if you're not taking any pictures, eh?
Here's some math for you: 1 line pair @ 40 lp/mm at 560mm, represents an
angular movement of a mere 0.0038°. Or, hell let's make it easy, 10
lp/mm (0.015°). If you can hold that position within those angles for
1/30 of a second with 5+ LBS of lens and camera you must make Arnold
Schwartznegger look like John Q. Milquetoast.
> 2. Technically speaking the Telyts are without peer in cotrast. Long
> lenses are used at a great distance, through a lot of
> contrast-reducing air. Multiple-elemnt lenses (telephotos) have many
> air/glass surfaces that tend to degrade contrast. Also, air turbulence
> limits 'sharpness' anyway, so high resolution isn't possible to attain
> in any event. The Leic glass is optimized for contrast, and that
> contrast is, I assure you remarkable, far in excess of what the lenses
> you describe can achieve, and breathtaking.
At what "great distance" do you believe a bird (or bear for that matter)
is usually photographed with a 600mm lens?
A bear standing on its hind legs and measuring 10', when shot in
vertical orientation, and taking only half the frame is at a distance of
270 feet....so close that on most any
day air-currents/convection and such do not matter in the slightest...
Double the distance and it still won't matter on most days.
http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/560R68.HTM notes the "curvature of
field" of this lens (there is a price for the lower wqeight, hmmmm?)
Further, the site shows some "hand held" shots up in the 1/250 range ...
and at that they are not particularly sharp. The author, a
professional, claims 1/125 for some shots ... again, not the sharpest...
Your claim of 1/30 is completely ludicrous. I won't ask you to show
proof as there is simply no way to verify it.
>
>
>>Since this thread is about nature photography: pick up a few issues of
>>Outdoor Photographer and look at what the pros are using...
>
>
> Who cares what the pros are using. My photos are better than theirs
> anyway.
How many ways can I write "HA-HA-HA" ----we're still waiting to see them...
>>Forget it Scarpetti ... and BTW: you never answered on the R9...
>
>
> What was the question?
Just look back at the posts...
Cheers,
Alan.
Steve Kramer
Oh... Right!
Sorry 'bout that. *grin*
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> >
> > 1. The speed is not always necessary. I have hand-held the Leica 560
> > lens at 1/30 sec successfully without support. Subject motion is
> > another issue. The compactness and light weight are a real boon to
> > those who have to carry this stuff around. If you want to ride around
> > on a jeep, you may not benefit. But carry that 600 f/4 around for a
> > while and you'll get sick of it real quick.
>
>
> HAND HOLD A 5 LB+, half meter long, 560mm at 1/30? "Successfully"? A
> lens that is noted for being heavy at the long end....?
Wanna see the slides?
>
> I suppose that is feasible if you're not taking any pictures, eh?
I still have the slides.
>
> Here's some math for you: 1 line pair @ 40 lp/mm at 560mm, represents an
>
> angular movement of a mere 0.0038 . Or, hell let's make it easy, 10
> lp/mm (0.015 ). If you can hold that position within those angles for
>
> 1/30 of a second with 5+ LBS of lens and camera you must make Arnold
> Schwartznegger look like John Q. Milquetoast.
It's a matter of technique and breating properly, releasing the
shutter part-way first, then almost thinking the release. I can do it
and have done it. Wanna see the slides?
>
> > 2. Technically speaking the Telyts are without peer in cotrast. Long
> > lenses are used at a great distance, through a lot of
> > contrast-reducing air. Multiple-elemnt lenses (telephotos) have many
> > air/glass surfaces that tend to degrade contrast. Also, air turbulence
> > limits 'sharpness' anyway, so high resolution isn't possible to attain
> > in any event. The Leic glass is optimized for contrast, and that
> > contrast is, I assure you remarkable, far in excess of what the lenses
> > you describe can achieve, and breathtaking.
>
> At what "great distance" do you believe a bird (or bear for that matter)
>
> is usually photographed with a 600mm lens?
Long lenses are used farther away that short ones. Or do you use them
inside your apartment?
>
> A bear standing on its hind legs and measuring 10', when shot in
> vertical orientation, and taking only half the frame is at a distance of
>
> 270 feet....so close that on most any
> day air-currents/convection and such do not matter in the slightest...
> Double the distance and it still won't matter on most days.
>
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/560R68.HTM notes the "curvature of
> field" of this lens (there is a price for the lower wqeight, hmmmm?)
>
> Further, the site shows some "hand held" shots up in the 1/250 range ...
>
> and at that they are not particularly sharp. The author, a
> professional, claims 1/125 for some shots ... again, not the sharpest...
>
> Your claim of 1/30 is completely ludicrous. I won't ask you to show
> proof as there is simply no way to verify it.
Wanna see the slides? The lens is NOT particularly heavy.
> >>Since this thread is about nature photography: pick up a few issues of
>
> >>Outdoor Photographer and look at what the pros are using...
> >
> >
> > Who cares what the pros are using. My photos are better than theirs
> > anyway.
>
> How many ways can I write "HA-HA-HA" ----we're still waiting to see them.
OK, you're on, bubba!
> ..
>
> >>Forget it Scarpetti ... and BTW: you never answered on the R9...
> >
> >
> > What was the question?
>
> Just look back at the posts...
WHICH posts?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
Duncan Ross
>Date: 11/08/03 23:33 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <2fd2ff8c.03081...@posting.google.com>
>1. The speed is not always necessary. I have hand-held the Leica 560
>lens at 1/30 sec successfully without support.
Was that at night with electronic flash..? ;^D
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3F38382C...@videotron.ca>...
>>
>>
>>lens that is noted for being heavy at the long end....?
>
>
> Wanna see the slides?
Sure, but that would prove nothing. There is no recorded info on the
shutter speed and lens used.
>
>
>>I suppose that is feasible if you're not taking any pictures, eh?
>
>
> I still have the slides.
>
>>Here's some math for you: 1 line pair @ 40 lp/mm at 560mm, represents an
>>
>>angular movement of a mere 0.0038 . Or, hell let's make it easy, 10
>>lp/mm (0.015 ). If you can hold that position within those angles for
>>
>>1/30 of a second with 5+ LBS of lens and camera you must make Arnold
>>Schwartznegger look like John Q. Milquetoast.
>
>
> It's a matter of technique and breating properly, releasing the
> shutter part-way first, then almost thinking the release. I can do it
> and have done it. Wanna see the slides?
I wanna see you DO IT and then see the slides. Cannot be done
__dependably__ by anyone.
>
>>>2. Technically speaking the Telyts are without peer in cotrast. Long
>>>lenses are used at a great distance, through a lot of
>>>contrast-reducing air. Multiple-elemnt lenses (telephotos) have many
>>>air/glass surfaces that tend to degrade contrast. Also, air turbulence
>>>limits 'sharpness' anyway, so high resolution isn't possible to attain
>>>in any event. The Leic glass is optimized for contrast, and that
>>>contrast is, I assure you remarkable, far in excess of what the lenses
>>>you describe can achieve, and breathtaking.
>>
>>At what "great distance" do you believe a bird (or bear for that matter)
>>
>>is usually photographed with a 600mm lens?
>
>
> Long lenses are used farther away that short ones. Or do you use them
> inside your apartment?
Nonesense reply, that we should expect from you I guess. 250 -300 feet
as I illustrated for you below is fairly typical as a short distance for
big shy game. Further, the pro using your fabled 560mm lens in his
examples is at very short distances to get his birds...less than 100
feet and then some.
560/600 can be used at ranges as short as 25 feet away. Ever photograph
a hornets nest? want to get up nice and cozy with a 50, or stand back
and avoid the stings?
>>A bear standing on its hind legs and measuring 10', when shot in
>>vertical orientation, and taking only half the frame is at a distance of
>>
>>270 feet....so close that on most any
>>day air-currents/convection and such do not matter in the slightest...
>>Double the distance and it still won't matter on most days.
>>
>>http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/560R68.HTM notes the "curvature of
>>field" of this lens (there is a price for the lower wqeight, hmmmm?)
>>
>
> Wanna see the slides? The lens is NOT particularly heavy.
Sure. But whatever you show there is no "proof" of what speed they were
shot at.
>
>
>>How many ways can I write "HA-HA-HA" ----we're still waiting to see them.
>
>
> OK, you're on, bubba!
Post the links here babyface.
>
> WHICH posts?
You are such a lazy dullard. But here is the post:
---------------------------------------------------
M.S. wrote:
> Try Leica R9 and Leica R lenses if you're interested in the best body
> there is.
>
> Otherwise, keep your ignorant rantings to yourself.
I replied:
Your devotion to Leica is amusing, but the R9 is not top SLR dog.
Either of the F5, EOS-1v or Maxxum 9 blow it away handilly. The only
advantage that the R9 has is the use of R series lenses, and that is
something to talk about. But the body...
How fast is the R9 shutter. 1/8,000. Not bad, but the Maxxum 9 is
faster. 1/12,000.
What is the exposure compensation resolution of the R9? Only 1/2 stop
huh? Okay if you're shooting snaps on print film I guess.
Max sync? Only 1/250 huh? 1/300 on the Maxxum 9.
Built in film motor speed of the R9? What? Only 2/sec? Ha-Ha. Oh,
you need an expensive add-on widget to go faster? Okay (giggle).
Is the viewfinder of the R9 only 93%. Pity, eh?
How many spot metering points on the R9? Oh it's not really a spot but
a heavilly weighted centre? I see. And just in the centre, eh? Okay.
Auto Bracketing is half steps too, I guess. Hmm. Oh, AND you need the
expensive add on motor drive widget to do this? ooops.
A "mechanical" cable release for the R9. How ... quaint.
Remote control of the R9... cool.... oh? need the winder gadget again,
eh? Ah. too bad.
Built in flash? None on the R9 you say. Hmmm. With the built in flash
on the Maxxum 9 I remote control other flashes ...TTL, not just slave.
The R9 is indeed a fine SLR, but it is just shy of the top marks.
Cheers,
Alan.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3F38382C...@videotron.ca>...
> >>
> >>
> >>HAND HOLD A 5 LB+, half meter long, 560mm at 1/30? "Successfully"? A
> >>lens that is noted for being heavy at the long end....?
> >
> >
> > Wanna see the slides?
>
> Sure, but that would prove nothing. There is no recorded info on the
> shutter speed and lens used.
I did this in 1977, and every slide was perfectly sharp. Of course, I
was 27 years old at the time. I don't know if I could do it now.
> >>I suppose that is feasible if you're not taking any pictures, eh?
> >
> >
> > I still have the slides.
> >
> >>Here's some math for you: 1 line pair @ 40 lp/mm at 560mm, represents an
> >>
> >>angular movement of a mere 0.0038 . Or, hell let's make it easy, 10
> >>lp/mm (0.015 ). If you can hold that position within those angles for
> >>
> >>1/30 of a second with 5+ LBS of lens and camera you must make Arnold
> >>Schwartznegger look like John Q. Milquetoast.
> >
> >
> > It's a matter of technique and breating properly, releasing the
> > shutter part-way first, then almost thinking the release. I can do it
> > and have done it. Wanna see the slides?
>
> I wanna see you DO IT and then see the slides. Cannot be done
> __dependably__ by anyone.
I no longer own the 560. I do have the 400. as I said above, I'm not
sure I could it as well now. But I did it several times, and all were
sharp. I must confess I had extraordinary abilities in the area of
-hand-holding.
>
> >
> >>>2. Technically speaking the Telyts are without peer in cotrast. Long
> >>>lenses are used at a great distance, through a lot of
> >>>contrast-reducing air. Multiple-elemnt lenses (telephotos) have many
> >>>air/glass surfaces that tend to degrade contrast. Also, air turbulence
> >>>limits 'sharpness' anyway, so high resolution isn't possible to attain
> >>>in any event. The Leic glass is optimized for contrast, and that
> >>>contrast is, I assure you remarkable, far in excess of what the lenses
> >>>you describe can achieve, and breathtaking.
> >>
> >>At what "great distance" do you believe a bird (or bear for that matter)
> >>
> >>is usually photographed with a 600mm lens?
> >
> >
> > Long lenses are used farther away that short ones. Or do you use them
> > inside your apartment?
>
> Nonesense reply, that we should expect from you I guess. 250 -300 feet
> as I illustrated for you below is fairly typical as a short distance for
> big shy game. Further, the pro using your fabled 560mm lens in his
> examples is at very short distances to get his birds...less than 100
> feet and then some.
Even over shorter distances, in dirty air contrast suffers.
> 560/600 can be used at ranges as short as 25 feet away. Ever photograph
> a hornets nest? want to get up nice and cozy with a 50, or stand back
> and avoid the stings?
>
> >>A bear standing on its hind legs and measuring 10', when shot in
> >>vertical orientation, and taking only half the frame is at a distance of
> >>
> >>270 feet....so close that on most any
> >>day air-currents/convection and such do not matter in the slightest...
> >>Double the distance and it still won't matter on most days.
> >>
> >>http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/560R68.HTM notes the "curvature of
> >>field" of this lens (there is a price for the lower wqeight, hmmmm?)
> >>
> >
> > Wanna see the slides? The lens is NOT particularly heavy.
>
> Sure. But whatever you show there is no "proof" of what speed they were
> shot at.
What can I say? You won't accept them no matter what I do, right?
>
> >
> >
> >>How many ways can I write "HA-HA-HA" ----we're still waiting to see them.
Instead of instant ridicule, why not accept this as fact? The lens was
designed for hand-holding, unlike most of the glass you cite.
Leicaflex cameras are quite heavy, and this aids in positional
stability. This lens is definitely hand-holdable at slow speeds.
Michael Scarpitti
> Hello,
> I would just like to see if any of you could clear up a little matter. I was
> informed by one person that if you're wanting to photograph wildlife in general
> (she specified moose and lions) a Hasselblad is the only choice, and said that
> "Victor Hasselblad designed them for the sole purpose of photographing birds"
> in the first place. Another person says that a Hasselblad isn't the most
> logical choice for wildlife photography. He claimed that a Pentax 6x7, a Leica
> rangefinder, or any top quality 35 with a good telephoto would be a better
> choice for going after moose and lions. Thanks in advance for your help.
Are you serious, or is this simply a question? Are you intending to
purchase some equipment, or just curious?
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3F368F9E...@videotron.ca>...
> > >>>
> >>> Scarpitti wrote:
> >>>I would recommend the Leica 400mm 6.8 and 560mm 6.8 Telyts on any
> >>>suitable Leica R or Leicaflex body over anything else. Their light
> >>>weight and compactness (they break down into two parts) together with
> >>>their extremely high contrast make these long lenses superb performers
> >>>for wildlife work.
> >>
> >>Or rather a Canon, Nikon or Minolta 600 f/4 lens on the appropriate
> >>bodies for another stop and a half of light essesntial to wildlife
> >>photogs? Even with a 1.4 TC, you're only at f/5.6...
Gee, You really 'don't get it'. Amateurs don't have people to lug
around all that equipment like the pros. Those lenses you describe
above require tripods, whereas the Telyts don't. They're designed for
hand-holding.
Alan Browne
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:<3F38FF17...@videotron.ca>...
>
>>Nonesense reply, that we should expect from you I guess. 250 -300 feet
>>as I illustrated for you below is fairly typical as a short distance for
>>big shy game. Further, the pro using your fabled 560mm lens in his
>>examples is at very short distances to get his birds...less than 100
>>feet and then some.
>
>
> Even over shorter distances, in dirty air contrast suffers.
>
This would be the same for all lenses: your precious Leica is not imune
to the laws of physics.
1) In the "great outdoors" the pollution count is negligible optically
2) For the ranges shot at the effect is negligable, regardless of lens.
You're spinning your wheels Scarpitti....
>>Sure. But whatever you show there is no "proof" of what speed they were
>>shot at.
>
>
> What can I say? You won't accept them no matter what I do, right?
>
> Instead of instant ridicule, why not accept this as fact? The lens was
> designed for hand-holding, unlike most of the glass you cite.
> Leicaflex cameras are quite heavy, and this aids in positional
> stability. This lens is definitely hand-holdable at slow speeds.
you cannot get more than the "odd" shot, sharply, in natural light at a
speed of 1/30 with a 560mm lens. Period.
The lens in question is designed to be used with a shoulder brace. That
would earn you an extra stop. Good technique, you should be able to go
one stop slower than 1/FL for speed. That's two stops. So I'd go as
far as 1/125 or even 1/100 and even then you will have drawers full of
blurry bloopers.
(and if that line isn't dangling bait for scatalogical jokes...!!!)
At 1/30 you are a full 3 stops under the speed at which VERY GOOD
technique would be required to hand hold the shot.
Alan.
Alan Browne
1) Nature photogs as a lot don't have people to lug their lenses around.
2) In effect, if you read what you wrote above, you are admitting that
the Telyts's are compromised for lightness by sacrificing a flat field.
3) Regardless of that, as I'm sure somebody has muttered at you, the
rule of thumb for shutter speed for a hand held shot is 1/FL of the lens
or faster. With good technique and no rush, you can squeeze another
stop out of it, for your 560mm lens that would go 1/280th of a second.
I'm a generous sort, so let it slide to 1/250. From there, with some
luck, patience and a lot of zen meditation, you could probably get down
to 1/125... but your success rate will be rolling away now... even with
the gentlest of shutter release you will move the camera. In an earlier
post I outlined the math for you. We are talking on the order of 1/3 of
1/100 of a degree, and haven't even mentioned mirror slap yet.
4) The Telyt's are designed for hand holding indeed (or rather for use
with a shoulder brace) but there is a limit to how far you can go with
that. ...and no, no, no, it ain't 1/30 of a second 560mm FL.
So, no Scarpitti, I do not believe you. If you had said 1/125, I
probably would applaud you for your abilities.
Telyt's CAN be used (GASP) on a Tripod.
Cheers,
Alan
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3F36F492...@videotron.ca>...
> >
> >>Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> >>
> >>>Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3F368F9E...@videotron.ca>...
> >>>
> >>>>> Scarpitti wrote:
> >>>>>I would recommend the Leica 400mm 6.8 and 560mm 6.8 Telyts on any
> >>>>>suitable Leica R or Leicaflex body over anything else. Their light
> >>>>>weight and compactness (they break down into two parts) together with
> >>>>>their extremely high contrast make these long lenses superb performers
> >>>>>for wildlife work.
> >>>>
> >>>>Or rather a Canon, Nikon or Minolta 600 f/4 lens on the appropriate
> >>>>bodies for another stop and a half of light essesntial to wildlife
> >>>>photogs? Even with a 1.4 TC, you're only at f/5.6...
> >>>
> >
> >
> > Gee, You really 'don't get it'. Amateurs don't have people to lug
> > around all that equipment like the pros. Those lenses you describe
> > above require tripods, whereas the Telyts don't. They're designed for
> > hand-holding.
>
> 1) Nature photogs as a lot don't have people to lug their lenses around.
Maybe some do, but amateurs certainly don't. The Telyts are highly
portable, and you can simply carry one tube and two heads, which is a
nice feature.
>
> 2) In effect, if you read what you wrote above, you are admitting that
> the Telyts's are compromised for lightness by sacrificing a flat field.
That was Leica's decision, and it is a sound one. You can't have
everything in any design (high speed, compactness and light weight,
perfect correction, and high contrast). There are inevitable
compromises. The Telyts have ASTONISHING contrast. You have to see it
to believe it! We're talking in any event about a miniscule amount of
curvature, and I never saw it in my shots. By the way, I'm having some
of these scanned for your benefit.
> 3) Regardless of that, as I'm sure somebody has muttered at you, the
> rule of thumb for shutter speed for a hand held shot is 1/FL of the lens
> or faster.
Yes, I know. I teach photography.
> With good technique and no rush, you can squeeze another
> stop out of it, for your 560mm lens that would go 1/280th of a second.
> I'm a generous sort, so let it slide to 1/250. From there, with some
> luck, patience and a lot of zen meditation, you could probably get down
> to 1/125... but your success rate will be rolling away now... even with
> the gentlest of shutter release you will move the camera. In an earlier
> post I outlined the math for you. We are talking on the order of 1/3 of
> 1/100 of a degree, and haven't even mentioned mirror slap yet.
Don't mention it. With Leicaflexes, it doesn't exist. The Leicaflex
cameras have a 'brake' in the mirror system that eliminates mirror
slap. The mirror is accelerated very fast at first and then gently
stopped. Nobody else had a system like it.
> 4) The Telyt's are designed for hand holding indeed (or rather for use
> with a shoulder brace) but there is a limit to how far you can go with
> that. ...and no, no, no, it ain't 1/30 of a second 560mm FL.
Well, I did it every time I tried. Let me tell you how, You have to
hold the thing and watch the movement of the image on the screen,
which of course reflects your body's movement, which goes in cycles.
In other words, there are times when your arm and body and camera are
stationary. After a while, you'll notice how these cycles repeat
themselves, and you time your exposure right when you anticipate the
motion is going to stop. I was lucky enough to have done it every time
I tried (6-7 times). I had NO blurred images in those 6-7 slides. This
was in 1977 or so, and I doubt I could do it today, but I'm willing to
try.
> So, no Scarpitti, I do not believe you. If you had said 1/125, I
> probably would applaud you for your abilities.
I'll have the scan soon. The nature of the image (trees silhouetted
just at dawn) will convince you that I'm not lying.
>
> Telyt's CAN be used (GASP) on a Tripod.
You can't bring tripods everywhere, and I hate climbing hills with
extra weight.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:<3F38FF17...@videotron.ca>...
> >
> >>Nonesense reply, that we should expect from you I guess. 250 -300 feet
> >>as I illustrated for you below is fairly typical as a short distance for
> >>big shy game. Further, the pro using your fabled 560mm lens in his
> >>examples is at very short distances to get his birds...less than 100
> >>feet and then some.
> >
> >
> > Even over shorter distances, in dirty air contrast suffers.
> >
>
> This would be the same for all lenses: your precious Leica is not imune
> to the laws of physics.
> 1) In the "great outdoors" the pollution count is negligible optically
> 2) For the ranges shot at the effect is negligable, regardless of lens.
>
>
> You're spinning your wheels Scarpitti....
>
> >>Sure. But whatever you show there is no "proof" of what speed they were
> >>shot at.
> >
> >
> > What can I say? You won't accept them no matter what I do, right?
> >
> > Instead of instant ridicule, why not accept this as fact? The lens was
> > designed for hand-holding, unlike most of the glass you cite.
> > Leicaflex cameras are quite heavy, and this aids in positional
> > stability. This lens is definitely hand-holdable at slow speeds.
>
>
> you cannot get more than the "odd" shot, sharply, in natural light at a
> speed of 1/30 with a 560mm lens. Period.
6-7 times, 100% success rate. Not attempted before or since, but 100% it was.
>
> The lens in question is designed to be used with a shoulder brace. That
> would earn you an extra stop. Good technique, you should be able to go
> one stop slower than 1/FL for speed. That's two stops. So I'd go as
> far as 1/125 or even 1/100 and even then you will have drawers full of
> blurry bloopers.
>
> (and if that line isn't dangling bait for scatalogical jokes...!!!)
>
> At 1/30 you are a full 3 stops under the speed at which VERY GOOD
> technique would be required to hand hold the shot.
>
> Alan.
I have a scan of the slide for anyone interested.