PhotoNet Site Help
Subforums
13,109 topics in this forum
-
- 1 reply
- 345 views
-
- 3 replies
- 337 views
-
- 7 replies
- 391 views
-
- 27 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 2 replies
- 293 views
-
- 8 replies
- 480 views
-
- 18 replies
- 499 views
-
- 28 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 8 replies
- 177 views
-
- 5 replies
- 280 views
-
- 5 replies
- 190 views
-
- 3 replies
- 143 views
-
- 4 replies
- 215 views
-
- 0 replies
- 132 views
-
- 10 replies
- 738 views
-
- 13 replies
- 455 views
-
- 2 replies
- 239 views
-
- 13 replies
- 503 views
-
- 2 replies
- 287 views
-
- 3 replies
- 535 views
-
- 46 replies
- 3k views
-
- 4 replies
- 288 views
-
- 3 replies
- 236 views
-
- 21 replies
- 989 views
-
- 6 replies
- 404 views
.thumb.jpeg.ab83b07a9b7b3c56bf8891eeac42c94f.jpeg)
-
Who's Online 12 Members, 0 Anonymous, 179 Guests (See full list)
-
Recent Gallery Images
-
Recent Forum Wide Posts
-
By Gerry Whitmarsh · Posted
Can't find anything for Leo, but hey, it is a cat though:-) -
Pliobond works quite well for reattaching the camera coverings. It's what I use and so do many of the repair shops. -
-
By ilkka_nissila · Posted
Yes, that's generally true, especially at the prime's native focal length. However, without testing the 200-600 it would not be obvious, whether it is better or worse at 600mm than the 400/4.5 with 1.4X at 560mm. The 400/4.5 is really nice in its handling and its weight at 1.2 kg is substantially lower compared to the Sony 200-600 (2.1-2.2kg). I think this increases the applications of the 400/4.5 as one can just walk around with it and enjoy it while a heavier and longer lens may make the experience less comfortable. However, of course, if one has to work with subjects at different ranges, or control the framing and how much environment is shown, then the zoom would be in its element. I can imagine shooting scenarios that would favour one lens over the other. For example, there is an area of water near me where one can get really close to the water and low on the ground without distractions, and have line of sight to birds in the water at different distances. The 200-600 would be ideal for this situation. I would place it on a tripod really low on the ground so that the horizon is kept level (using a fluid or gimbal head) and lie on a pneumatic matress. In this way, I could stay in one spot for several hours and wait for the birds to appear in photogenic places and the zoom would allow me to control the framing. However, the 400/4.5 would be my preference when walking on hills and in forests, taking photos of deer and moose. The lighter lens would allow me to move without discomfort and its faster maximum aperture would put me typically at ISO 3200 or 6400 instead of 6400-12800 of an f/6.3 lens. Even with the 1.4X attached (+0.22 kg) it would be much lighter than the zoom. -
Sometime back Kat Von d a well known tattoo artist was sued for using a recognizable photo of Miles Davis. I don’t know how it turned out. I don’t think it has been decided yet. I just did a quick search and the most current news that showed up said the case was waiting for the Warhol case to be decided.
-
