Jim and everyone,



I'll weigh in only one more time here with two points.



1.)? I find it interesting that the people with the expensive gear aren't the ones criticizing the abilities of people who choose to use less expensive gear.? I respect people's choices, and in case people missed it in my first post, almost all the time nowadays I'm using my $300 superzoom digicam.? I think the people with the ego in this thread are the ones who imply or outright state that people who make different choices than they do ?clearly are inferior photographers.? Who has the narrow-minded viewpoint here?



2.)? More importantly, knowing your background as a wildlife biologist, I'm surprised that you would tout getting a photograph of a bird while buried deep in a thicket as a good thing.? One of the benefits of large lenses is being able to stay a safe and biologically reasonable distance away from your subject.? I have seen way too many photographers - with the entire range of equipment, not just high end, low end or no end - ignoring good birding etiquette to get that all-important shot.? I think that type of behavior gives all wildlife photographers a bad name.



Now you now why I meant to erase the tweeters address rather than Doris's in my?original e-mail - it's because I've seen this?"my way ? is superior to your way and I'm superior to you" attitude in this?topic before.? As I mentioned offline to several people, the folks in this thread who attack other people's personal choices and abilities are eerily reminiscent of other similar attitudes I saw when I was the COO of a very well-known photographic company.? There were a number of fantastic photographers at that company who I admired greatly because of their ability to capture all manner of images on film, and in particular to print prints in the darkroom that would have made Ansel Adams proud.? Unfortunately, there was a high percentage of these same people who totally pooh-poohed ?digital photography ?COMPLETELY (not just what equipment you chose to buy) ?and did so in a particularly strident and personally attacking ?manner.? Anyone who gave any credence to digital photographer simply was an uneducated slacker?who clearly didn't know anything about photography. ? Stuff like...Obviously people who use digital simply?aren't skilled enough to use film or do darkroom prints; digital photography isn't and never will be 'art', digital photography isn't 'real' [and presumably little grains of silver in an emulsion is 'real', I guess?!]?and on and on.? Those folks are strangely absent and very, very silent these days - because their closely-held universal tru ths proved not to be so universal.? Anyone remember the days when Tom Till only did hand-developed Cibachrome prints and swore never to do otherwise?? Interestingly, Tom is not only selling digital prints now, but he's giving digital workshop tours.? The point is that with a few minor wording changes, the attitude in the "people who own expensive equipment obviously don't have photographic ability or a good 'eye' comments reflect exactly the attitude that my old film-is-king-friends at the company had.?



'Nuff said, except to thank the off-line responses I got who also took issue with the attitudes expressed by a couple of other folks in this thread.? Folks...buy whatever you want, respect other people's choices, and have fun shooting birds (except don't disturb them in the process).





John Tubbs

Snoqualmie, WA

johntubbs at comcast.net

www.tubbsphoto.com





----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Greaves" <lbviman at blackfoot.net>
To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 10:11:18 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [Tweeters] Re: camera equipment

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.

_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters