Camera For Photographing Animals?

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:28:38 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:33:37 -0500, G.Adams wrote:

How often people like me would have to share my photography and videos with
those biologists, to show as proof that they've been doing nothing but telling
others misinformation all their lives. Information that they learned from books,
not from real life. Heh, funny, just last night I took an infrared photo of a
wild gray-fox, a wild opossum and one of her young, and a wild raccoon all
eating off the same small plate at the same time. Most any biologist in the
world is going to tell you that that wouldn't happen in nature. Species that
different are not going to ever dine together, and especially not one of them
with an immature young one like that. And yet, I have a photo to prove it. Funny
that.

Where do these posters come from? A few days ago it was a Florida
panther photographed devouring a wild boar, and today its a fox, an
opossum, and a raccoon sharing a bowl.

Fantastic photographs, but no links to give credence to the claim. If
I could capture a Florida panther, even at a distance, on an SD card,
you can bet I'd post the link here. Fantastic imagination is more
like it.

How much money you got? I never post my important photography on the net, and
certainly not for free. Only amateurs do that. Those that are looking for an
uplift to their empty lives and trying to get praise from equally untalented
snapshot photographers and net trolls.


I have seen a Florida panther in the wild, but I was driving down the
Florida toll road about dusk and caught a mere glimpse of the animal
loping off into the brush. I was sure enough that it *was* a panther
to make the claim, but no way could I have stopped the car and taken a
picture. There are only about 50 to 80 wild panthers remaining in
Florida.

I've also seen a wild boar, but I was too busy moving out of her way
to think about a photograph even if I had my camera with me. She was
with her family, and no unarmed person familiar with mother wild boars
asks one to pose.

You don't "ask" one to pose. You camouflage yourself and then remain in wait in
their usual foraging areas. Happily snapping off as many photos as you want with
your silent P&S camera that will never draw her attention toward you. It's easy
to spot their foraging areas. Haven't you ever seen those spots that look like
it's been upturned by tractor-treads?

I also never claimed that I ever do this unarmed.

C'mon, I mean really, if you're going to reply in a thread about photographing
animals then at least show some experience of ever having done it properly.


The Florida panther is a small animal compared to what most people
think of when they think of "panther". Kipling's "Bagheera" is a
giant compared to the Florida panther according to the illustrations.
The wild boar, on the other hand, is bigger, fiercer, and far more
dangerous than a Florida panther. I think it would be the boar
devouring the panther in a match-up.

You've not seen the variety in sizes of wild-boars have you. Nor the variety of
sizes of the Florida Panthers. Which, btw, aren't even an endangered species.
Their broader nose and bent tail-tip are just recent genetic defects from
inbreeding for the last century. When their usual routes to the rest of the
cougars, mountain-lions, etc. (all the same species, note their sizes) were cut
off by human habitation. In order to strengthen the Florida Panther species they
had some mountain-lions from Texas flown in not long ago. Quite a joke actually.
For one thing it now proves they aren't a unique species, and for the other they
now lose endangered species status by their own scientific admission.

The whole thing is all quite silly. The Florida Panther was only named an
"endangered species" for political purposes. People living in that area don't
want to give up rights to their land, but local officials who are put into
office by huge developers are using the panther's "endangered species" status to
try to get those people forcibly removed from their homes and lands that they've
had for many generations. So the developers can put up high-rises. But then
you'd have had to research the full story to know what's really going on in that
area of the world.

The mountain-lion (Florida Panther) needs to exist in that habitat, every
habitat needs a good foundation of top predators. But at least be honest about
it. Scientists and politicians alike in Florida have now lost all credibility.


Raccoons, opossum, and armadillos (especially flattened ones on the
road) are easy to photograph in Florida. Here's one shot with a D40,
but a P&S would have done as well:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...13/raccoon.jpg Not a
brag shot because of that Spanish Moss behind the animal that looks
like a clump of gray.

Fox are more difficult subjects. They're around, but usually spotted
around dusk and just on the edge of an open area. The lighting is
bad, and they usually spot you first.

Then get yourself one of the many excellent long-zoom P&S cameras that can take
images in total darkness using IR light alone. I use mine often just for that
purpose, getting photos that nobody with a DSLR will ever obtain. Just as I did
again last night at about 1:25 am when they all were feeding, nose-to-nose out
of the same small plate.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:33:37 -0500, G.Adams wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:55:08 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-22 10:30:53 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" said:

Can anybody recommend something for photographing animals?

The main problem seems tb that the animal will look this way and
that - faster than one can click the shutter.

I'm thinking burst mode...

Professional wildlife photographers use DSLRs, often in burst mode.

Not all of them do, and none of them that I know personally do. The ones I know
need to travel as light as possible to get into those remote areas where the
animals live. DSLRs are reserved for those who like to take snapshots at their
local zoo or when they step out of the car while on a canned tourist-trap
adventure. When together and challenging each other we often use the fact that
they had to use burst mode as a way to tease them for not being a very good
photographer. If you can't predict when to take that shot and get it in one
shot, you're a lowly amateur. At least amongst the pros that I shoot with. Your
pros must not be as experienced nor talented.

Now that's funny! Hilarious as a matter of fact.

Look, there's so much information out there, there's no reason for
anyone to ask the so-called experts with their own agendas on a
newsgroup. If you want to know what professional wildlife
photographers really use, just google "wildlife photographer". You'll
get the websites of a lot of good ones, from National Geographic pros
to guys with quite a few books published.

You'll find on many of their sites a page of what equipment they use.
You'll also find links to magazine interviews and/or books on wildlife
photography with suggestions on what kind of equipment to use.

Google is your friend.

Steve

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:07:44 -0500, G.Adams wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:28:38 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:33:37 -0500, G.Adams wrote:

How often people like me would have to share my photography and videos with
those biologists, to show as proof that they've been doing nothing but telling
others misinformation all their lives. Information that they learned from books,
not from real life. Heh, funny, just last night I took an infrared photo of a
wild gray-fox, a wild opossum and one of her young, and a wild raccoon all
eating off the same small plate at the same time. Most any biologist in the
world is going to tell you that that wouldn't happen in nature. Species that
different are not going to ever dine together, and especially not one of them
with an immature young one like that. And yet, I have a photo to prove it. Funny
that.

Where do these posters come from? A few days ago it was a Florida
panther photographed devouring a wild boar, and today its a fox, an
opossum, and a raccoon sharing a bowl.

Fantastic photographs, but no links to give credence to the claim. If
I could capture a Florida panther, even at a distance, on an SD card,
you can bet I'd post the link here. Fantastic imagination is more
like it.

How much money you got? I never post my important photography on the net, and
certainly not for free.

Absolute verification of fabrication. I hope you didn't hurt your
back leaning away from the monitor so your nose wouldn't grow through
the screen.

Only amateurs do that. Those that are looking for an
uplift to their empty lives and trying to get praise from equally untalented
snapshot photographers and net trolls.


I have seen a Florida panther in the wild, but I was driving down the
Florida toll road about dusk and caught a mere glimpse of the animal
loping off into the brush. I was sure enough that it *was* a panther
to make the claim, but no way could I have stopped the car and taken a
picture. There are only about 50 to 80 wild panthers remaining in
Florida.

I've also seen a wild boar, but I was too busy moving out of her way
to think about a photograph even if I had my camera with me. She was
with her family, and no unarmed person familiar with mother wild boars
asks one to pose.

You don't "ask" one to pose. You camouflage yourself and then remain in wait in
their usual foraging areas.

Yeah, right. And your camouflage was a visitor's ticket to the only
place you've ever photographed a wild animal: the zoo.

Happily snapping off as many photos as you want with
your silent P&S camera that will never draw her attention toward you. It's easy
to spot their foraging areas. Haven't you ever seen those spots that look like
it's been upturned by tractor-treads?

I also never claimed that I ever do this unarmed.

With a cap pistol to go with your Instamatic.

C'mon, I mean really, if you're going to reply in a thread about photographing
animals then at least show some experience of ever having done it properly.


The Florida panther is a small animal compared to what most people
think of when they think of "panther". Kipling's "Bagheera" is a
giant compared to the Florida panther according to the illustrations.
The wild boar, on the other hand, is bigger, fiercer, and far more
dangerous than a Florida panther. I think it would be the boar
devouring the panther in a match-up.

You've not seen the variety in sizes of wild-boars have you. Nor the variety of
sizes of the Florida Panthers. Which, btw, aren't even an endangered species.

Try to keep up. They went on the endangered list in 1967.

The whole thing is all quite silly. The Florida Panther was only named an
"endangered species" for political purposes. People living in that area don't
want to give up rights to their land, but local officials who are put into
office by huge developers are using the panther's "endangered species" status to
try to get those people forcibly removed from their homes and lands that they've
had for many generations. So the developers can put up high-rises. But then
you'd have had to research the full story to know what's really going on in that
area of the world.

Most of the remaining 80 or so Florida panthers live in the Everglades
or Big Cypress swamp (in southwest Florida adjacent to the
Everglades). Federal land.

The one I saw was a bit north and east of that in the Deseret property
that the Florida Turnpike runs through.

Raccoons, opossum, and armadillos (especially flattened ones on the
road) are easy to photograph in Florida. Here's one shot with a D40,
but a P&S would have done as well:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...13/raccoon.jpg Not a
brag shot because of that Spanish Moss behind the animal that looks
like a clump of gray.

Fox are more difficult subjects. They're around, but usually spotted
around dusk and just on the edge of an open area. The lighting is
bad, and they usually spot you first.

Then get yourself one of the many excellent long-zoom P&S cameras that can take
images in total darkness using IR light alone. I use mine often just for that
purpose, getting photos that nobody with a DSLR will ever obtain. Just as I did
again last night at about 1:25 am when they all were feeding, nose-to-nose out
of the same small plate.

Pull the other leg, it's got bells on it. (And I'm not even a Morris
Dancer)


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:55:42 GMT, Steve wrote:


On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:33:37 -0500, G.Adams wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:55:08 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2008-10-22 10:30:53 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" said:

Can anybody recommend something for photographing animals?

The main problem seems tb that the animal will look this way and
that - faster than one can click the shutter.

I'm thinking burst mode...

Professional wildlife photographers use DSLRs, often in burst mode.

Not all of them do, and none of them that I know personally do. The ones I know
need to travel as light as possible to get into those remote areas where the
animals live. DSLRs are reserved for those who like to take snapshots at their
local zoo or when they step out of the car while on a canned tourist-trap
adventure. When together and challenging each other we often use the fact that
they had to use burst mode as a way to tease them for not being a very good
photographer. If you can't predict when to take that shot and get it in one
shot, you're a lowly amateur. At least amongst the pros that I shoot with. Your
pros must not be as experienced nor talented.

Now that's funny! Hilarious as a matter of fact.

Look, there's so much information out there, there's no reason for
anyone to ask the so-called experts with their own agendas on a
newsgroup. If you want to know what professional wildlife
photographers really use, just google "wildlife photographer". You'll
get the websites of a lot of good ones, from National Geographic pros
to guys with quite a few books published.

You'll find on many of their sites a page of what equipment they use.
You'll also find links to magazine interviews and/or books on wildlife
photography with suggestions on what kind of equipment to use.

Google is your friend.

Steve

Without their corporate sponsored agendas, right? The equipment sponsors and
publishing houses that keep food on their tables.

:-)

Sigh ... more useless net morons whose only brush with reality is Googling for
it.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:12:31 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

Most of the remaining 80 or so Florida panthers live in the Everglades
or Big Cypress swamp (in southwest Florida adjacent to the
Everglades). Federal land.


Wrong-o, oh moron of major proportions. There are still MANY private-land
hold-outs all throughout that area. But then you'll never know this, you've
never even been there. You just proved that.

You virtual-photographer trolls are so easy to expose.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:19:16 -0500, G.Adams wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:12:31 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

Most of the remaining 80 or so Florida panthers live in the Everglades
or Big Cypress swamp (in southwest Florida adjacent to the
Everglades). Federal land.


Wrong-o, oh moron of major proportions. There are still MANY private-land
hold-outs all throughout that area. But then you'll never know this, you've
never even been there. You just proved that.

I've been in parts of the Everglades, but only on the Tamiami Trail
which goes through the Big Cypress. The "big developers" you mention
in your earlier post are not interested in creating subdivisions or
skyscrapers in or near either. The Miccosukees may be interested in
building a casino near them, though.

My guess is that the closest you've come to Florida wildlife is a ride
on the Disney Jungle Cruise.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:34:10 -0500, "mcdonaldREMOVE wrote:

G.Adams wrote:


And there are the usual resident-trolls that just parrot what they've read on
the internet without having any real-life experience. They usually reveal
themselves by knowing nothing about the huge advantages of P&S cameras for doing
wildlife photography and instead blindly and ignorantly tell everyone that you
need a DSLR for that.

OK ... I've never been very good a high-grade wildlife photography,
perhaps because I've always used an SLR or later, a DSLR. Oops ...
one of the best wildlife photos I ever made ... of a very mad rhino ...
was made by a 4x5 sheet film rangefinder camera.

If a P&S is so much better, SHOW US THE SHOTS YOU'VE MADE WITH
ONE, with EXIF data.


No thanks. Unlike you I make my fortune off of my photography (well, one of the
ways). It's not for free. Even if I did, then all you useless resident-trolls
would just jump around wildly proclaiming that I forged the EXIF data, or that
couldn't possibly have been taken with that camera and lens, or that I stole
those photographs. I've played this game before in the past with all the useless
and obnoxious little trolls, those just like you. Can't you tell? Now it's fun
just watching you jump around while you desperately try to manipulate anyone
into posting a worthwhile photo from reality, just so you can tack it to your
basement wall where you live under your mommy's bedroom.

(that's what trolls do, that's what trolls are, that's all they'll ever be)

You aren't even something that deserves to be convinced.

And you are, "WHO"? Or better asked, "WHAT"?

Nothing but another useless net troll. Something that I would normally scrape
off the bottom of my boots after having hiked through a buffalo preserve in the
Rocky Mountains. (Yes, done that too. yawn Get over it. You wouldn't be in
such disbelief if you hadn't lived under your mommy's bed your whole sad life.)

Enjoy remaining un-enriched and un-entertained in your mommy's-basement
virtual-reality world.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:42:26 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

I've been in parts of the Everglades, but only on the Tamiami Trail
which goes through the Big Cypress.

Of this I have no doubt. That's not even considered the Everglades. And only
briefly does it pass through Big Cypress Preserve on its northernmost region.

All your posts show that you are too afraid to get any closer to wildlife than
where you can drive your car, and on pavement only no less. How amazingly sad
that is.

For good wildlife photography I employ just one traveling rule -- AVOID
PAVEMENT.

May you grow balls enough to learn that some day.

Now go away troll, you bore me.

'G.Adams' is of course another identity for Vern/anti-dslr-troll. Ask
him to name another photographer he knows, or just show an image, and
you will see his abilities.

See other posts and take his advice with a suitable large dose of emetic..

BTW I wonder why Vern removed his sample p&s wildlife image?? (O:

(I've got it cached if anyone wants a laugh.)

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:40:07 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote:

'G.Adams' is of course another identity for Vern/anti-dslr-troll. Ask
him to name another photographer he knows, or just show an image, and
you will see his abilities.

See other posts and take his advice with a suitable large dose of emetic..

BTW I wonder why Vern removed his sample p&s wildlife image?? (O:

(I've got it cached if anyone wants a laugh.)

Oh, please do! Then I'll tell you later why I posted that one just for you.

LOL

(trap set ...)

(awaiting his mouse-turd trail...)