Longest focal length with Canon Digital Equipment

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
message ...

You don't use flash around grizzly bears ;-)

I don't think they'll ever make a lens long enough for me to get a good shot
of a bear - I think I'd prefer to shoot from around 10 miles (and
increasing!)

On a more serious note for a sec, I was very impressed with the quality of
your stacked TC bear shot Roger - interesting that you used ISO 400 - do you
have to do much noise cleanup of ISO 400 images when printing larger sizes?

Cheers,

Colin

C J Southern wrote:

Thanks everyone for the insightful information. Much as I would love a
1200mm beast, I perhaps should have mentioned that that one is really "off
the menu" for the obvious reason.

At present I'm using the 2x Teleconverter on my 70-200 F2.8L IS USM - I need
more time to get to know it, but to date I haven't been at all impressed
with the combination. I spent a good couple of hours yesterday googling for
info on teleconverters - I guess that the conclusion I reached was "they
seem to produce an acceptable result in some circumstances, but not in
others - just what the critical factors are I'm still not certain (It's be
mounted on my Gitzo 1548 Tripod on a 55mm Really Right Stuff ballhead - I'll
be getting a Wimberley head as soon as the new version is available (mid
December)).

I think for now I'll save up for a 600mm F4, and use it with a 1.4x TC on my
20D. Something in the 1D(s) Mk II vein is on the cards, but I have a feeling
that there's something better not tooooooo far away - roumer seems to favour
a 1Ds Mk2N @ 22MP.

Colin:

You might check out:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...lens-sharpness

I considered a 600mm, but got the 500 for carrying on airplanes.
The 500 fits in a carry-on legal photo backpack (for those
airlines that do not have weight restrictions).
The 500 is also more portable in the field. Carrying the
500 on a Wimberly head carbon fiber tripod plus
other gear in a backpack can get very tiring in a few hours.
If I remember correctly, my 500 f/4 + 1D II plus Wimberly
on a Gitzo 1325 tripod weighs about 24 pounds. Then add
another 20+ pounds in a backpack (other lenses, second body,
spare batteries, food (not in bear country) rain gear, etc,
and you have a lot to carry.

Roger

Skip M skrev:

What the heck are you photographing that you feel frustrated at being
limited to slightly over 600mm, or the equivalent thereof?

If you want to shoot shy birds of standard passerine size, the FOV
equivalent of 600mm at FF is often positively wide.

The longest I have for shooting shy birds is a Panasonic FZ-20 with a
Raynox DCR-2020 2,2x teleconverter in front, supposedly the FF
equivalent of 924 mm. Lots of times, this combo hasn't been anywhere
like long enough.

Jan Böhme

"Jan Böhme" wrote in message
oups.com...
Skip M skrev:

What the heck are you photographing that you feel frustrated at being
limited to slightly over 600mm, or the equivalent thereof?

If you want to shoot shy birds of standard passerine size, the FOV
equivalent of 600mm at FF is often positively wide.

The longest I have for shooting shy birds is a Panasonic FZ-20 with a
Raynox DCR-2020 2,2x teleconverter in front, supposedly the FF
equivalent of 924 mm. Lots of times, this combo hasn't been anywhere
like long enough.

Jan Böhme

When I read things like this, I wonder how those poor photographers for
National Geographic got those great photos of Birds Of Paradise with ASA400
film, Nikon Fs or Canon F1s and 400mm lenses w/2x extenders...
Heck, some of them used K64...
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Skip M wrote:
"Jan Böhme" wrote in message
oups.com...
Skip M skrev:


What the heck are you photographing that you feel frustrated at being
limited to slightly over 600mm, or the equivalent thereof?


If you want to shoot shy birds of standard passerine size, the FOV
equivalent of 600mm at FF is often positively wide.

The longest I have for shooting shy birds is a Panasonic FZ-20 with a
Raynox DCR-2020 2,2x teleconverter in front, supposedly the FF
equivalent of 924 mm. Lots of times, this combo hasn't been anywhere
like long enough.

Jan Böhme

When I read things like this, I wonder how those poor photographers for
National Geographic got those great photos of Birds Of Paradise with ASA400
film, Nikon Fs or Canon F1s and 400mm lenses w/2x extenders...
Heck, some of them used K64...

Good technique

C J Southern wrote:

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
message ...


You don't use flash around grizzly bears ;-)


I don't think they'll ever make a lens long enough for me to get a good shot
of a bear - I think I'd prefer to shoot from around 10 miles (and
increasing!)

There are situations where it is safe at good telephoto distances.
Do some research on Katmai National Park (Alaska) and you'll see
such situations, and where the park service does a good job
of protecting both you and the bears.

Or check out Churchill, Canada for polar bears.
You ride in a tundra buggy--pretty safe.

On a more serious note for a sec, I was very impressed with the quality of
your stacked TC bear shot Roger - interesting that you used ISO 400 - do you
have to do much noise cleanup of ISO 400 images when printing larger sizes?

Yes, iso 400 is more noisy than 100. But it is still much much
better than in the film days.

Roger

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 18:26:27 -0800, "Skip M"
wrote:

"Jan Böhme" wrote in message
roups.com...
Skip M skrev:

What the heck are you photographing that you feel frustrated at being
limited to slightly over 600mm, or the equivalent thereof?

If you want to shoot shy birds of standard passerine size, the FOV
equivalent of 600mm at FF is often positively wide.

The longest I have for shooting shy birds is a Panasonic FZ-20 with a
Raynox DCR-2020 2,2x teleconverter in front, supposedly the FF
equivalent of 924 mm. Lots of times, this combo hasn't been anywhere
like long enough.

Jan Böhme

When I read things like this, I wonder how those poor photographers for
National Geographic got those great photos of Birds Of Paradise with ASA400
film, Nikon Fs or Canon F1s and 400mm lenses w/2x extenders...
Heck, some of them used K64...

Well, you can hide in a blind for a couple days...or go to a zoo!
Nevertheless, using a telephoto longer than 400mm is a mistake.
You'd do better with a good telescope since they are made to
produce high contrast images with very long focal lengths. Pretty
hard to do that with 10-15 elements in the optical train, which is
what most telephotos have.
-Rich

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

I don't think they'll ever make a lens long enough for me to get a good shot
of a bear - I think I'd prefer to shoot from around 10 miles (and
increasing!)

There are situations where it is safe at good telephoto distances.
Do some research on Katmai National Park (Alaska) and you'll see
such situations, and where the park service does a good job
of protecting both you and the bears.

More people are killed each year by bison -- yet people will happily stroll
right up to a bison, for some reason. I saw some dumbass get arrested trying
to feed one at Yellowstone this past summer.

If you want the pictures you need to know how to deal with them. I haven't
photographed bear, but with bison, staying in your car is a really good plan.
Sure, they could take out your car just as easily as they could take you out,
but they don't see the car as a threat and basically ignore you. Maneuvering
is tricky, of course.

With bear, I suspect the best plan would be to forget about the wild ones and
get one with a handler. That's the route I'd take, since 100 yards is too
far away for a good shot and approaching any closer would be both dangerous
and illegal (illegal on US federal land, at least).

--
Jeremy |

In message Jeagf.4324$dv.3421@fed1read02,
"Skip M" wrote:

When I read things like this, I wonder how those poor photographers for
National Geographic got those great photos of Birds Of Paradise with ASA400
film, Nikon Fs or Canon F1s and 400mm lenses w/2x extenders...
Heck, some of them used K64...

The process of editing and culling does wonders for ones' work!

I show people select bird images of mine, and they comment on how much
detail they can see. That's because I don't show them the 99% of the
images that are crap!
--


John P Sheehy

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:


I don't think they'll ever make a lens long enough for me to get a good shot
of a bear - I think I'd prefer to shoot from around 10 miles (and
increasing!)

There are situations where it is safe at good telephoto distances.
Do some research on Katmai National Park (Alaska) and you'll see
such situations, and where the park service does a good job
of protecting both you and the bears.


More people are killed each year by bison -- yet people will happily stroll
right up to a bison, for some reason.

Yes. I've seen tourists go up beside a bison so their friends
can take a picture!

Check out the book: Death in Yellowstone. You know the
outcome of each story, but its astounding what people do,
e.g.: Bison lying beside the road. Car pulls up.
Guy starts to take a picture, but his wife says "that's
not a good picture, let me help." She gets out of the car
and goes over and kicks the bison to make it stand up.
You know the rest (see book title).


If you want the pictures you need to know how to deal with them. I haven't
photographed bear, but with bison, staying in your car is a really good plan.
Sure, they could take out your car just as easily as they could take you out,
but they don't see the car as a threat and basically ignore you. Maneuvering
is tricky, of course.

With bear, I suspect the best plan would be to forget about the wild ones and
get one with a handler. That's the route I'd take, since 100 yards is too
far away for a good shot and approaching any closer would be both dangerous
and illegal (illegal on US federal land, at least).

It all depends on the situation. In Katmai, the bears are feasting
on salmon, and barely give people a look. In Katmai National
Park, you can stay on viewing platforms and be very safe.

Approaching wildlife usually stresses the animal and should be
avoided (bird or any animal). It is best to let the animal
approach you, but in the right (safe) circumstances.

In Yellowstone, I had an opportunity to follow a grizzly along the
firehole river, he on one side, me on the other:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...682.b-600.html
(this is full frame). This bear visited the same area every day,
at about the same time, so being at the right place at the
right time was easy.

The scariest moment I've had was when I was hiking through the
forest in Alaska and I encountered a moose:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...185.b-700.html
(note this was taken with 135mm focal length).
The moose was on one side of a tree, lying down, and as I came
around the tree, he stood up, startled, about 8 feet from
me. He was about 6 feet tall at the shoulders. I yell
out "Whoa!" and slowly backed up. I then photographed
him from a safe distance sparing with another male for a couple
of hours, all with a 28-135 mm lens:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...009.b-700.html
Unfortunately, the forest had so much clutter the photos
aren't great. Moose are probably the most dangerous animals
in North America, so I feel lucky this moose didn't charge.

Roger