Loons

[Tom Wilson]

I think I remember a previous loon post started, but I can't seem to find it. Here are a couple either way.

[Tom Wilson]

Here's number 2

[Steve Foss]

Here are two more....

[Steve Foss]

[Steve Foss]

Oh heck, one more

[jonny_redhorse]

Superb loon shots guys!.......doesn't get any better!...... I posted one awhile back but too far away...these are clear!....great photos!...johnny

[buzzsaw]

I think we have some closet professional photographers on this thread! Those pics are Napoleon Dynomite!

[Steve Foss]

Buzz:

And throw away the closet. With the advent of the Web site and the last two years of working hard to build up a comprehensive library of nature images, it's clear I'd like to make my living at it (and do, partially, in fact, since I do most of the shooting for the paper on top of the nature work.) I've had one showing in Ely that went quite well, and the work appears in the newspaper I edit as well as in a couple other outdoors publications. A couple dozen prints have been sold through word of mouth and folks seeing them in the papers, and some hard work to market the Web site and its prints for sale may make all that possible. So far, there's more money going out than coming in, but a guy's gotta have hope and drive, right?

Also, with the advent of the high quality digital cameras, and since nearly everyone has a computer these days to process images, anyone with an eye and the desire can take some very nice images, especially when it doesn't require a hugely high resolution (anything above 8 megapixels) or very powerful telephoto lenses. For a few hundred bucks and the elimination of the ongoing costs of film and film development and photo-store printing, a person can get a 6 to 8 megapixel compact digital camera with a zoom lens, and even compacts in the 3 to 5 megapixel range can yield very sharp 8x10 prints. I think there are a LOT of people out there with the desire and the eye who have been put off for years by the expense it takes to make good film photography happen, and we're seeing a good number of those folks posting images right here on FM.

It's a brave new world, and it's nice to see how many are joining in the digital age.

[buzzsaw]

Well said Catfish! I really appreciate seeing what you and Hobbydog put on this site (others as well) It gives us all a standard to strive for. I have a Fuji Finepix 2800 and it's only a 2 megapixel camera w/6 x optical zoom and I think it fairs pretty well. I am however contemplating stepping up to the Cannon EOS digital rebel XT or the EOS 20D. I'm just not really sure yet, so feel free to chime in with your thoughts.

[Steve Foss]

In short, the XT and the 20D have the same sensor, so you'll save a few hundred bucks by going with the XT and won't lose on the 8.2 megapixel count. Also, one of the knocks against the original digital Rebel was that it took to long to "wake up," costing some good shots, and the XT wakes up very quickly.

I got the 20D knowing they were about to come out with the XT, but wanted the 20D anyway. It's faster and has a lot more features. It can fire off 23 large jpegs before it has to write to the memory card, or six RAW before writing. It also writes to the card faster. There are so many other features that make it a better buy (well, for my money) than the XT. You'll need a decent lens, even if you buy it in the kit that comes with the Canon 18-55 (which I recommend getting.) For another $150, you can pair it up with the 70-300 Tamron I've mentioned in other posts. With the digtal conversion factor (the sensor is smaller than a photo negative, so most Canons digital slr cameras have a 1.6 multiplication factor, although the 1DS and 1DS Mark II have full-sized sensors), you're really shooting something like a 115-480 witht that Tamron, and the macro feature allows you very close work. However, there is no image stabilization in the less expensive lenses, so may sure you get a good tripod as well to eliminate hand shake.

Also, you can go online and do searches for each camera and read up on the ins and outs. Lots of online boards and groups and magazines that review cameras, and they generally know what they're talking about.

[buzzsaw]

Thanks Catfish, thats some good information!

[hobbydog]

Hey buzz....don't listen to catfish....that Canon stuff is pure junk

Seriously, he is right on about the brave new world digital has made possible. I used to shoot a bit of 35mm over the years but the cost of developing makes it tough to shoot a lot of pics.

With digital you can shoot 100s of pics a day and the average joe (me) can manage a few keepers out of a days shoot. Then if you have a good day job and can afford good glass you greatly improve your odds.

Warning: It can get expensive in a hurry. The difference between good, better and best glass goes something like $300, $1500 and $5,000. The camera type...Rebel or 20D is not as important as lens you will put on it. It is likely a good lens will out live several bodies. The camera bodies are going to be like computers for a few years to come. Prices will drop and pixels and features will increase.

I really like my Nikon D70 because of the instant startup time and I can shoot continuous 3 fps till the card is full. The only downside is I wish it had at least 8 mpxs.

As far as selling pics.....like I said, I got a good day job, I get the same thrill out of a good pic as I do a big fish or a good shot on a duck. I let anyone use my pics as long it is not for profit, a few have gone to state waterfowl pubs. Also I do it because it is another "excuse" to get out in the wild. My wife said I couldn't buy more till I sell something though

Loons are pretty easy to shoot as they are quite social and you can get close.

[Steve Foss]

I think dog's on the money, for the most part, except of course the de-canonization.

But the good, better, best glass thing is only partly true, in my book. And remember, when I say "in my book," that's what I mean. My own experience only, and different people are going to believe different things based on their own experience.

The difference between the $300 and $1,500 is pretty big huge. It's the difference between "consumer" grade lenses and "professional" lenses.

The difference between the $1,500 and the $5,000 glass isn't in most cases that the glass is better or clearer, but that you're getting a lens that opens to the fabled f2.8, and that costs a lot more money to produce. Most of the $1,500 zoom lenses by Canon and Nikon are just as sharp, I believe, but only open to f4.5 or f5.6, and that's a HUGE difference in how fast your shutter speed can be. I've shot Canon 300 mm f2.8 lenses, the costly ones borrowed from one source or another, and those images were no more sharp than those from the 100-400 I have now. And if you add in the imagae stabilizer on the 100-400, it tends to negate some of the advantage of the f2.8, because the IS feature, or VR for Nikon, buys you at least a couple stops, sometimes three. Of course, a 300 f2.8 with image stabilization is something to drool over, but I'll likely never be able to afford that unless my Powerball retirement plan comes through.

Meanwhile, I say shoot with what you've got, hope to upgrade whenever you can if that's important to you, and take great pleasure in turning what's in your mind's eye into something to share. It's all about having the best time possible, after all.

Dog, your second loon image is lovely. It's the water reflection that makes the image for me. The longer I shoot, the more I care about what's in the background of my subject. Over and over again I've seen that it can make the difference between an average shot and one for the glossy mags.

[Tom Wilson]

These are from this morning on a some-what metro lake.

All taken with a Nikon D70 and Sigma 70-200 2.8 with 1.4x teleconverter.

[Steve Foss]

Tom, you mentioned earlier editors citiquing your images as needing more sharpness, blaming it on the glass. And you shot those last with the 1.4 teleconverter. That makes me wonder if it's not the teleconverter causing a touch of the blur or grain (yep, these very nice images look sharp as heck on our screens here, but remember, most computer monitors are only 72 dpi, which is VERY low res, and only with a high res print or slide can you really assess sharpness.)

Reason I say that is that I also bought Canon's best 1.4 converter, but the time I used it with the 100-400, which, with the digital conversion factor and the coverter itself yielded a rating of about 900 mm, seemed like a great way to get "closer." But all the images I shot looked grainy to me, and since the tremendously sophisticated autofocus on my the 100-400 doesn't work with the converter and I was forced to manual focus I lost confidence in my focusing ability. But even the ones I knew where focused perfectly were significantly more grainy than the ones without the converter, and I determined it wasn't worth the decline in photo quality it brought, so it stays in my bag now. I'm better off shooting RAW without it and cropping a little more if I need to because of the 640 mm instead of the 900 mm. I ran several experiments and got sharper results cropping more with the 640 and enlarging than cropping less with the 1.4 and enlarging less. Could that be an issue with your 1.4?

Maybe you should do some detailed tests with the digital Nikon and the lenses, both with and without the converter. Or maybe you already have and your tools yielded different results from mine.

Thoughts?

[hobbydog]

I pretty much have the same setup only I have the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR with the Nikon TC-14E 1.4x II Teleconverter. I bought the combo after a lot of research and excellent reviews. I am very happy with it. The pic below is taken with full open (f 4.0 with the TC 1.4)at 1/1000. would like to try it with the 2X teleconverter but reviews are not quite as good.

[Tom Wilson]

Very nice HD. Love those Blue's.

[Steve Foss]

So nice, so nice.

My Canon 1.4 will allow autofocus use only with Canon lenses that open to f2.8 or wider. I'd like to give it a shot with one of those lenses to see if the autofocus can provide a tack sharp and ungrainy image with the teleconverter, but, alas, my 100-400 only opens to f4.5, so the converter will stay in the bag for now.

[fishface5]

Guys, I am in aw of your talents. Beutifull pictures! I only have a dile-up conection but I'll wait every time. It's always worth it. Thanks. Jim

[Tom Wilson]

Here's one I got early this summer.

[jonny_redhorse]

hey Buzz.....I think that fuji of your's takes fantastic photos even though it is a lower megapixel camera.....I guess I am "partial" to fuji's since I use a fuji myself(fuji s5000.... 3.1 megs)...one thing about the fuji's I don't really like is the outcome of the color"red" in photos...it's common knowledge that the reds get "blown out"in these fuji's...my camera takes some excellent photos as with the twin white-tail deer that I took couple weeks ago. there is an inherent "graininess" to the camera I have but you get what you certainly pay for for sure..I also wasn't satisfied with the built in 10x zoom that comes with the camera.....soooo...I bought a teleconverter(olympus T-con 17)..(1.7 times magnification)...only thing about the teleconverter is you better not be drinking to many beers the night before you use it ..lol!....just about need a tripod!..plus there's some "chromatic aberation" (that fine "purpleish" line around your subject when taking a picture with a light background)...I paid a 100 bucks for the teleconverter but still not really a very good lens..I'm finding that it stays in the case more and more lol!..All said and done...my camera "package" with the converter came to $450 .00...but the technology has changed so much in the last 2 years that I'm thinking of upgrading myself here shortly...fuji 5200 sure looks nice!(5.1 megs and image stabilization(a must have on my next camera))...but the Cannons sure look nice too!...maybe christmas....lol! thing is my camera isn't "broke" or anything just want better, clearer photos...one thing that I've found out is that a guy needs a "better" telephoto lens if your going to do a lot of nature shots...and not a "cheapy"...ST.....Tom...and Hobbydog have some great info on nature photography that have really helped with my own pics....invaluable info!...some great photos on this forum (National Geographic quality for sure!)...I'm learning!......jonny