Camera For Photographing Animals?

G.Adams wrote:
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.

But I didn't ask *you*.

Do continue playing your game - everyone else is now onto you - job done.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:51:18 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote:

G.Adams wrote:
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.

But I didn't ask *you*.

Do continue playing your game - everyone else is now onto you - job done.

Just what were the odds of you starting yet ANOTHER OT thread. Just like any
typically moronic newgroup troll always does.

LOL

You just can't stand being outted for the resident-troll that you are, can you.

Let's see how many more times you can do it.

LOL

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:12:57 -0500, G.Adams wrote:

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.

But it is where some of the remaining Florida panthers are. If you
knew anything about these animals, you'd know that.

Where, exactly, did you photograph your panther? Make something up.
Quick.

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.

But when I talk about someplace I've been or something I've
photographed, I back it up with a link to my photograph.

You want a cat picture? Here's (scanned print) of some lions I took
on a trip to Masai Mara in Kenya. Just so you know I took the
picture, it's scanned on my passport page with my Kenya visa stamp.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...r213/kenya.jpg

Honest people provide proof. Bull****ters claim they have pix but
never show them.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:14:34 -0500, G.Adams wrote:

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.

:-)

Exactly, without their corporate sponsored agendas. And even if there
was a corporate sponsored agenda, Canon or Nikon wouldn't mind them
pushing a P&S if that's what they actually used for their job instead
of an SLR.

Hell, if the pros that shoot wildlife photos for those books and
National Geographic really *did* use a P&S, you'd see that plastered
all over the equipment sponsor's advertising. The fact that you don't
tells a lot. Mostly it tells that you're FoS.

Steve

G.Adams wrote:
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 (w

Oh, right; sure ya do. You are a four flusher.

Of course you can't prove a single thing with your own photography.

--
lsmft

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:59:19 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:12:57 -0500, G.Adams wrote:

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.

But it is where some of the remaining Florida panthers are. If you
knew anything about these animals, you'd know that.

No, that's NOT where the only remaining Florida panthers are. If you knew
anything at all about them then you wouldn't have made such a stupid statement
revealing your ignorance and zero experience.


Where, exactly, did you photograph your panther? Make something up.
Quick.

I don't have to make anything up. I can give you exact GPS coordinates if I want
to. I used to get my information from the guys who fly the panther spotter
planes, they used to let me know where I'd have some better luck.

Oh wait, no sense telling you where those places were. There's no pavement
there. You'd NEVER be able to visit or go see it.

Pity.

Go ride on your pavement back to your Orlando Disney Rides.


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.

But when I talk about someplace I've been or something I've
photographed, I back it up with a link to my photograph.


Why? Because your life is so amazingly boring and that you never get enough
recognition for your lack of accomplishments in life? Go ahead, pull out that
slide projector, let's all start yawning and vowing to never visit you again.


You want a cat picture? Here's (scanned print) of some lions I took
on a trip to Masai Mara in Kenya. Just so you know I took the
picture, it's scanned on my passport page with my Kenya visa stamp.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...r213/kenya.jpg


OH look everyone! A canned shot taken from the back of one of those cushy
tourist-trap "expedition" busses on a wildlife preserve where they feed them to
pose pretty for the tourista! LOL

Or did you download that bad photo from somewhere on the net. Certainly you
wouldn't claim that bad image as your own, would you? REALLY? Catch-22, admit
you downloaded it somewhere, or now prove to the world that you are one helluva
****-poor photographer. Which shall it be?

LOL

(See how that works? This is why I don't even bother showing my photography to
trolls like you.)

Honest people provide proof. Bull****ters claim they have pix but
never show them.

Not at all. It is insecure morons that are that desperate to be believed by
net-trolls and think that their forged proof on the net holds any validity in
real life.

Yep, still boring....

A couple minor chuckles, but I've had more entertainment from a pathetic Vagisil
commercial on TV.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 02:01:48 GMT, Steve wrote:


On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:14:34 -0500, G.Adams wrote:

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.

:-)

Exactly, without their corporate sponsored agendas. And even if there
was a corporate sponsored agenda, Canon or Nikon wouldn't mind them
pushing a P&S if that's what they actually used for their job instead
of an SLR.

Hell, if the pros that shoot wildlife photos for those books and
National Geographic really *did* use a P&S, you'd see that plastered
all over the equipment sponsor's advertising. The fact that you don't
tells a lot. Mostly it tells that you're FoS.

Steve

Wow, what convoluted thinking you have. Does it hurt trying to twist reality
around to fit in that small space between your ears?

DSLR gear is where they make their biggest money.

They're not fools, like you.

It's not about the photography with them, it's about the money. Are you
seriously this brain-dead?

Wow.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:14:30 -0500, G.Adams wrote:

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.

But it is where some of the remaining Florida panthers are. If you
knew anything about these animals, you'd know that.

No, that's NOT where the only remaining Florida panthers are.

Some, not only. Deseret, where I saw the panther, is further north.

But when I talk about someplace I've been or something I've
photographed, I back it up with a link to my photograph.


Why? Because your life is so amazingly boring and that you never get enough
recognition for your lack of accomplishments in life? Go ahead, pull out that
slide projector, let's all start yawning and vowing to never visit you again.


You want a cat picture? Here's (scanned print) of some lions I took
on a trip to Masai Mara in Kenya. Just so you know I took the
picture, it's scanned on my passport page with my Kenya visa stamp.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...r213/kenya.jpg


OH look everyone! A canned shot taken from the back of one of those cushy
tourist-trap "expedition" busses on a wildlife preserve where they feed them to
pose pretty for the tourista! LOL

Actually, when you go to the game preserves in Kenya, a guide is
required by the preserve. We chartered a guide in Nairobi. The
vehicle is Land Rover.

(See how that works? This is why I don't even bother showing my photography to
trolls like you.)

Honest people provide proof. Bull****ters claim they have pix but
never show them.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:

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.

Poster not posters. Don't use the plural! It's one clueless poster,
trolling under a multitude of identities.

SMS wrote:
tony cooper wrote:

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.

Poster not posters. Don't use the plural! It's one clueless poster,
trolling under a multitude of identities.

Clues! He's got a few clues, just doesn't put them together
convincingly, nor entertainingly, just repetitively.

Or perhaps he's just "differently clued"....

Have a ly day!

--
John McWilliams