John - your "absurd" statement is insulting to
those who pioneered in photography before there
was electronic circuitry! I'll take an older
photo of Ivory-billed Woodpecker over anything
shot of the same species recently... :-) That
said, of course you are right, with the example
you used. I don't know any "serious" photographer
who would even attempt to photograph a flying or
perched bird at 500 ft with a skimpy zoom! Apples
and oranges? But, I disagree about auto-zooms and
mega-teles being "ipso facto" superior to manual
focus similar or smaller lenses. AGAIN, it is the
photographer who makes the image, by depressing
the shutter release, not waiting for the camera's
ignorant computer, which even pros will tell you
often focus on things unwanted - hence the reason
they want a camera that can blast off 10 or more
frames a second for several minutes while they
pan and watch the lens go in and out of focus at
500 feet. Of course, something only 50 to 100
feet away can be locked onto the focus, and every
shot tack sharp, but it isn't likely to happen
that ALL will be. I challenge anyone to get
better photos of birds in dense thickets with
such a megally-wonderful lens. Or a Least Bell's
Vireo feeding a cowbird using that recommended
"best" equipment... I made the linked photo from
inside a thicket at 6 feet with a 28-300 Vivitar
zoom on a Konica-Minolta 7D [7 mp]
http://blackfoot.net/~larkwick/LeastBellsVireos.html
[third image down - the image was cropped a bit
and resolution reduced from 4.x mb for use on the
web]. Unless one takes his/her mega-zoom or tele
and attaches about a 6 inch empty-space tube
twixt the camera and lens, they cannot get within
about 15 feet - thus the effective distance is
BETTER with my 300mm macro-zoom (actually only
280 as I measured against a straight 300) at
about a pound than their 500mm at about 6-8
pounds, handheld. And with that tube on that
bazooka, the light would be terribly low for
focusing, virtually requiring a tripod. That huge
amount of "stuff" in the thicket might make any
bird suspect it's being invaded... Of course
knowing how one's subject will respond dictates
the methods and proximity of the photographer.
And, as we all know from the "ethics of birding",
in order to do so, such an encumbered
"professional" would have more than likely had to
remove vegetation from the shrub that hid the
nest in order to get clear shots like I got
without having to remove anything but distance
[leaf and twig removal being a no-no - which a
"professional" photographer once tried to do when
I showed him a vireo nest he wanted to photograph
for an LA Times piece - I told him leave the
twigs alone and move a foot; he did NOT get what
I would call a "pro quality" image -- experience
in some realms does not necessarily transfer to
others, no matter how large someone's ego may be
or expensive and impressive their equipment or clothing] - Jim Greaves

At 01:00 PM 3/14/2010, John Stubbs wrote:
>For anyone who wishes to dispute the incremental
>benefits of better gear , I would propose an
>in-the-field experiment.? Let's take someone
>with an off-brand, non-autofocus 100-400mm slow
>zoom and an older 5 or 8 ? megapixel digital
>SLR, handheld, out to the Samish Flats while the
>Peregrines are still hunting Dunlin.? Their
>counterpart will have a 500mm prime Canon with a
>1.4X teleconverter fast ? autofocus lens on a
>tripod with a Wimberley head and a 16-megapixel
>camera back with four or eight frame multiple
>shot mode .? We'll shoot? in-flight images for
>a morning and do a comparison of the best ten or
>fifteen shots after editing and basic
>post-processing from each photographer ? at the
>end of the morning and compare results.? I know who my money's on.