bob_royse

This is an interesting question. The only things I have hanging on my walls are 2 paintings that a talented artist friend of mine made some 15 years ago based on some of my earliest photographs when I lived in South Africa. Above my sofa is a painting of a lioness copied exactly from my photo with a vivid new mountainous background, and above my mantle is an eland rendered like a Bushman painting only with a perfect likeness. As you know, I photograph mostly birds now, but I don't have any bird pictures of any sort hanging anywhere.

 

I haven't put away my slide projector in years (laziness) and it sort of sits permanently in my dining room pointed at a white wall with low reflection paint for whenever I really want to look at my bird photos.

 

I've thought long and hard about going digital, but haven't yet for a few specific reasons.

 

#1 Money. Sure you could save some bucks on film. I photograph mostly birds nowadays here in Ohio, where I live, with maybe a couple trips per year when I can afford them. I spend maybe around $2000 per year on film and processing, so a $4k camera would be paid for in 2 years. Or so it appears on the surface. You have to throw in the expense of having a modern computer that can handle large files, the price of Photoshop, those card things, an external hard drive to store digital files, a laptop for travel, and ideally a spare second digital camera body for backup when travelling, all which need to upgraded as technology advances. I choke at the dollar signs when I think about it. Throw in the facts that have been repeated above several times about the camera bodies becoming quickly obsolescent and having little resale value down the road, and going digital becomes harder to justify quickly. I'd much rather spend my money on travel, seeing and photographing new species, than sitting at home paying for computer related equipment and soon to be obsolete cameras.

 

 

#2 End use. What do you do with your photos? How do you and, especially, others look at them? Yes, digital photos can make nice prints, but so can film. If you make more than 50 or so prints per year, then maybe purchasing a digital camera and expensive printer would be worth it to you. I have a local lab that does an oustanding job with my prints from film when I get requests, which is less than 50x per year at the moment. I only have so much wall space to clutter with prints and don't do it for my own pleasure. I do give a lot of slide shows to various nature groups. I love to see my slides through a loupe or projected. I hate looking at computer screens. Even though I consider myself an amateur and don't market my images, I make about $5000 anually from selling rights to publishers who request slides only for the most part. Where would digital fit in for me at the current prices? I personally can't justify the expense.

 

On the flip side, I do believe that I will go digital within 2 years assuming Canon eventually offers a camera body I would feel comfortable buying. It would have to be reasonably priced and offer enough features to make me feel confident that I'll get a couple years out of it and would pay for itself many times over for what I do with it. There currently isn't a demand from publishers for digital nature photos. When that happens, will the digital files being recorded with current cameras now be what the market asks for? I am impressed with what beginning photographers who start out digital can do. It can take years of trial and error with film to get to the same level of the instant feedback digital offers. If you're knowldgeable about how you favorite films work in various situations already, then that's not an advantage.

 

There is no easy answer over when to go digital for anyone. It really all comes down to two things as far as I can tell : money and end use. Only a few years ago, spending a couple thousand dollars on a camera or lens seemed outrageous to most nature photographers, but nowadays there seems to be no shortage of folks who can dump $20K+ per year on cameras, computers, and travel without blinking. Nature photography has changed, or probably more accurately, nature photography has become more popular within the wealthiest top 1%. What I see on some internet nature photography forums is a vast division between the people who love and study the natural world and people who have seemingly endless resourses of time and money to spend on digital photography. Digital photos do look prettier on the internet, but all hasn't come full circle yet. I think your excuse about not wanting to sort through slides is a mighty flimsy reason to go digital when considering the time and money needed to look through digital files.

 

Robert Royse

 

www.roysephotos.com

 

Something useful if you do any work near the ground and sometimes have to get on your knees is a pair of knee pads. Home improvement stores sell all sorts of them from fancy and expensive leather models to simple pieces of foam with velcro straps. The latter are inexpensive, weigh nothing and can be packed easily. Your knees will thank you for using them!

I have the Angle Finder C, but would have bought the "B" if they still made it. The C has a magnifier on it, which I don't find useful. It could possibly be useful for people who do a lot of high, very high, magnification work.

 

 

I think the angle finder, of any maker for any camera, is probably the most uncelebrated, but extremely useful and relatively inexpensive accessory that any nature photographer could stash in their camera bags. I'm sorry that I didn't own one years ago. The most comfortable working position when doing photography close to the ground is to just sit down and look through an angle finder.

 

Nowadays I do mostly bird photography. Virtually all my recent shorebird photographs have been taken through an angle finder. I hear about all these people crawling around on their hands and knees through the mud and muck putting damaging strain on their backs and necks and getting their hands too filthy top operate the camera (especially a problem if you're still changing film like me). Why? Binoculars are an absolute necessity when I do any shorebirding or shorebird photography and I can easly keep them handy when sitting down and not when I'm on my belly. I also find that shorebirds are easier to closely approach when looking through an angle finder than when looking directly at them as a possible perceived predator. I suppose because Arthur Morris doesn't use an angle finder for his shorebird photography nobody else does, but that doesn't mean they can't be a useful, if not a far superior, way to photograph shorebirds.

I have used tapes to call in birds at times. All the previously mentioned warnings and considerations in regard to not subjecting the bird to stress can't be emphasized enough.

 

I find photographing passerines with the use of tapes works best just when the bird arrrives on territory in the spring. There's a narrow corridor of time for each species depending on what species you want to photograph and where in its range you are. Once the birds are paired up and nesting, it becomes harder to call them in and it also may cause more stress, especially if they're feeding young. From a photographic point of view, early spring is also best, since many birds arrive to establish their territories before the trees are fully leafed out. It becomes nearly impossible to photograph something like a warbler in a forest interior once deciduous vegetation is full. Migrants rarely respond to tapes. Of course, don't play the tape very long, and never repeatedly play the tape on the same bird at different times. Obviously, if the bird is carrying food to a nest, get out of there fast. Do your studying first. Take time to listen to the bird's territorial boundaries, find a nicely lit spot, and give it a try ONCE. Don't go back the next day because the light may be better. Find a different bird. Of course, don't play tapes where it's illegal, such as some nature reserves and national parks, or other heavily birded areas where a few individuals may be sujbect to constant playing of tapes. There are countless vast state and national forests that are seldom birded that offer opporunities to study birds on their breeding grounds. It's best to photograph species at the center of their ranges where they're most abundant, and not isolated rarities at the periphery on their ranges. Sometimes it may take dozens of tries to find one that makes a good photographic subject.

 

 

Again, if the bird seems stressed, stop immediately. Stressed birds may flit about the treetops frantically and will probably never come in close to you for a nice pose. Some stressed birds will just sit there with its beak wide opened like it's panting. Stop immediately if you see that too. Other birds may come in and sing for you and those usually make the best subjects.

 

Of the available tapes, the Stokes is better than the Peterson's, since it gives longer examples. I usually just make my own tapes. Good mikes can be puchased from Mineroff Electronics. They offer kits in the $1000 range that give you everything you need to get started. Their website is :

 

http://www.mineroff.com/

I have used both the newer and older Canon 2x converters extensively with the 600 f4 IS lens. There very certainly is noticable light falloff at the corners when the older version is used on the lens wide open. It usually disappears by f10 or so. It's most noticable when there is a plain blue sky/water background.

 

The newer 2x is a different optical design that eliminates the light falloff problem because it has a recessed rear element.

 

The difference in sharpness or contrast between the two 2x's isn't especially significant IMO, but the difference in the edge to edge illumination definitely is.

I've been doing shorebird photography lately, and dragging my tripod

into the mud and muck. The knobs on my Gitzo 1548 now seem to be

cemented in place and won't budge. I've been liberally applying

penetrating oil, but they still won't budge. Has anyone had similar

problems with Gitzos? Are there any solutions out there?

I posted a review at my website a couple of years ago on this lens when it first came out, so I'll refrain from rewriting it here. I took it down from my website about a year ago, since much of the information seems outdated now that many people are using digital cameras (which I know nothing about and can't afford), but the page is still accessible here :

 

http://www.roysephotos.com/600IS.html

 

The same can also be found on one of Arthur Morris' archive pages. I forgot which one.

 

I still feel that IS is incredibly important for bird photography, especially when using teleconverters. I certainly would recommend getting a Canon 600IS + a body for it if you're seriously interested in photographing birds. When or if a Nikon 600VR does come out, it would probably be a long time before its price was less than the combined price of a Canon lens with an EOS3.

I just got this gizmo. I've never owned an agle finder before and I don't know how I ever lived without it. Angle Finder B apparently isn't available now (2002), but the "C" is certainly a well made optic and well worth the price for anyone who does any sort of photography near ground level. For anyone who doesn't already always carry an angle finder in their shirt pocket, the $175 price tag offers a whole new photographic perspective, with comfort, for a lot less money than a new lens, a hokey "ground pod", or a trip to the chiropractor - or neurosurgeon(!) (because of trying the same shot without an angle finder).

 

The Angle Finder C is the best bargain I've come across in the Canon system. You won't need a computer to use it.

There's no need to turn off the IS. IS is only activated when the shutter release button on the camera is depressed.

 

Carrying the tripod over your shoulder is made more comfortable if you put some pipe insulation on the upper leg joint. It adds some padding that's easier to take over a long haul than the bare tripod legs.

I'll offer another view on the Makro-Planar vs. 200/180 lenses.

 

I used to use Contax (and certainly still would if I was rich and could own everything I wanted). The RTS3 to me is the ideal camera body for macro nature work. It's so incredibly ergonomic. All you have to do is get evrything in place and flip the levers (AE lock, mirror lock, etc.) and shoot. Now that I use Canon, because bird photography is so important to me, I rarely even use my absolutely fantastic 180L macro lens with its fancy IF and tripod collar. Why? Because the camera is such an annoyance. I have to press tiny buttons and remember to repress them when I'm finished. Gloves on cold days for macro work? Forget about it with Canon. I've used Nikon too at one time or another, and I like Nikon less than Canon. I'd very happily own another RTS3 and a 100 Makro Planar if I could afford to.

 

As far as using the Mutars with the 100 Makro Planar, it is a balance problem, for sure. You absolutely need to use the Contax cable release and have everything in place before you press the shutter open. For higher magnification work, both mutar 1 and 2 can be used with the 100 Makro-Planar. The Mutar 1 will show light falloff at wide apertures unless a Contax extension tube is placed between the camera and Mutar. The Mutar 2 will need a tube between the lens and mutar to mate properly. Both combinations will give outstanding optical results, though, when properly used. For lower magnification work, the 100-300 Vario-Sonnar and 180 Sonnar both work very well with extension tubes. I've never used the 80-200, but presume it would work well too.

 

I definitely miss my Contax stuff. If you like Contax cameras and lenses, go with Contax if you can.

There are lots and lots of places off the beaten track in Michigan to do nature photography any time of the year. I have been going up there regularly to photograph birds, but opportunities exist for all sorts of nature photography as Ken's website shows. There should be plenty of wildflowers around still in late June.

 

The farther north you go the better it is. My favorite area of Michigan is the eastern UP (I've never been to the western side), but there are many out-of-the-way spots to explore in the northern Lower Peninsula too. Traffic is usally no sweat once north of the Saginaw Bay, and getting up there doesn't usually take long. I can usually get from my home in Columbus, OH to the Mackinaw Bridge in 7 hours. Universal Maps publishes detailed maps for all areas of northern Michigan which can usually be picked up at gas stations in the areas you're in. Also recommended are the USFS maps for venturing onto forest roads in the Huron or Hiawatha National Forests. They can be picked up at forest headquarters in Mio (for Huron) and St.Ignace, Sault Ste.Marie, or Munising (for Hiawatha). That's all you really need to get out and explore. There are many bogs in the eastern UP that will have better light for most types of photography in June compared to the forests with dense deciduous vegetation.

 

As everyone else mentioned, insects will be fierce in June, so be prepared.

 

I have several trip reports at my website :

 

www.roysephotos.com

 

that deal primarily with the birding.

I have used the both extensively with the 600/f4 IS. I really don't see a difference regarding contrast or resolution, but the newer 2x is absolutely superior as far as light falloff in the corners is concerned. The newer model has a recessed rear element which greatly reduces that problem. If you plan to use a 2x at nearly wide-opened apertures against a clear sky background, then the newer model is definitely worth the extra money. If you want to use a 2x for increased magnification in stopped-down macro shots, then find a good deal on the older model.

NW N.Dakota is one of America's prime birding destinations in June. If you're at all interested in prairie nesting species, the NWR's shouldn't be missed. Salyer was flooded when I was there in 1999 and few roads were open. Check ahead before going. Lostwood is probably the best for photography. Just across the border in Montana is what I consider to be one of the very best bird photography locations anywhere, Medicine Lake NWR. It's definitely better for photography than any on the ND NWR's.

 

I found T.Roosevelt NP to be too crowded for my tastes when I was there, especially the south unit. I'm not a fan of any national park for that reason. You will find some easy-to-photograph mammals there, though. The parks are surrounded by the Little Missouri National Grasslands. For general scenery and birding, picking up a USFS map to that area will offer countless miles of roads to explore away from the crowds.

 

For some nice badlands scenery in Montana, Makoshika State Park is just accross the border from T.Roosevelt NP. The scenery is similar to the NP, but there are less crowds.

I haven't been to Kruger in over 10 years, but I do still have the notes from 3 trips in the 80's.

 

I saw sables almost every day in the northern part of the park, mostly in the Letaba and Shingwedzi areas. I only saw them one time in the south near Pretoriouskop. I only saw Roan in the Letaba area, and only once or twice each visit.

 

I saw wild dogs at least twice per visit in the southern part of the park only. I still remember the smell of one pack that trotted beside my car in the rain. I know people who went there regularly, but never saw any, though. It's just a matter of luck and being in the right place at the right time.

 

I don't know what the current population of rhinos there is. I saw whites regularly and easily in the southern part of the park and also near Shingwedzi. I only saw a black there once and it was moving into some dense vegetation and didn't allow for a photo op. The game reserves in Natal/KwaZulu were the best places for seeing and photographing both rhino species from what I recall, especially the waterholes at Mkuzi.

 

 

Of course a lot can change, but as someone else said, get all the info you can find before heading there. I'm sure there are some good, relatively current books available. The staff can be helpful in steering you to the right areas for the most recent sightings.

I visited NDakota and NE Montana in 1999, and Montana again last year. I'd suggest just calling the various refuges you're thinking of visiting before you leave. It's still 2 months away and who knows what the situation will be like then. In 1999, Salyer NWR roads were mostly closed due to flooding, but as Cliff Beittel said, upland places such as Lostwood NWR were fine. My favorite refuge in that area is Medicine Lake NWR in extreme NE Montana. Most of the ND specialties can be found there.

 

I've posted summaries from both those trips at my website:

 

http://www.geocities.com/roysephotos

 

They might give you some ideas about where to visit. There's definitely no shortage of interesting places to explore up there, so if one place is too flooded, there are many alternative choices.

Since nobody has mentioned it, you not only will probably need a "better beamer", but an auxilary battery pack as well. I often use a 600/f4 + 2x with fill flash for birds, BUT I also have a Quantum TurboZ. (The regular Quantum Turbo is better, but it's very heavy). There are other manufaturers for battery packs, and I'm not qualified to discuss their relative differences, but you will need one of them. Without a battery pack you can't expect a reasonably fast recycling time between shots or not to have to change batteries in your flash unit several times during a roll of film. Even with a freshly charged Quantum TurboZ, I get about 4 rolls of film on a 1200mm f8 lens with the "better beamer" at 40 ft. and under (even less if it's very cold).<div></div>

I added a review of the Canon 600 f4 IS for bird photography to my website at

http://www.geocities.com/roysephotos/600IS.html

 

Most photo.net regulars already know what my opinions on the lens are and you'll find no surprises there. At least I didn't supply any place for people to post their disagreements there :)

I suppose that Shun does add some considerations. If you're going to Africa on a guided tour then maybe you should consider arriving a couple days before hand. If you're going on your own, you could probably use a day or two to deal with orienting yourself and getting supplies anyway. When I lived in Cape Town, I flew back and forth from Cleveland a few times and did have my luggage delayed by a day once (at JFK where it didn't make the connection).

 

As far as baggage handlers go, do you really think that airline baggage handlers are cut from a different cloth than the people that handle the shipping of lenses from factories to dealers to UPS agents to you? Just pack camera gear as well the factory or dealer did and it should be OK.

While I've never done this on a transcontinental flight, I always put my 600/f4 in a suitcase when flying. Of course it's inside its trunk and well padded with tee-shirts, socks (unused), etc.. I've never had a problem. I wouldn't want to lug it around airports anyway. When or if I ever get to Africa again, I don't think I'd change my usual packing procedures. A bigger concern really is film. Make sure you carry all you'll need.

I'm just curious why you're considering the 400/f2.8. It's roughly the same price, size and weight as the 600/f4. If you're willing to pay the money and deal with the weight, why not just get the 600mm? The 600mm IS with the 2x makes an excellent 1200mm that's easy to use and extremely sharp, by the way.

I'll also put in my 2 cents in favor of pushing ProviaF 100. It has no objectionable color shift at when being pushed one or two stops. Grain is excellent with a one stop push, only really noticable in dark backdgrounds. It does get significantly more grainy with the 2 stop push, though. As a previous poster also mentioned, try rating it at 160 for a one stop push and 320 for a 2 stop push. This can vary between labs, so be sure to run some tests for yourself before you head off for an important shoot, taking the film to the lab you intend to regularly use for processing.

 

Robert Royse

http://www.geocities.com/roysephotos

According to the manual, the minimum focusing distance of the Canon 600/f4L IS lens is 4.777 meters with the 12mm tube, and 4.182 meters with the 25 mm tube. You lose roughly 1/2 stop with a tube.

 

In reality, you'll seldom need tubes with that lens. Since getting it, I've used the 2x to shoot at 1200mm for 95% of passerine shots, something I certainly wouldn't attempt without IS! It's razor sharp. 18 ft. is more than adequate magnification at 1200mm for all passerines, including warblers.

 

Here's one of the few times I used an extension tube on that lens. I attached a tube (I forget which, but probably the 25mm) along with the 1.4x. The light was too low for an f/8 lens, and the bird was close so I could use a "short" 840mm lens on it. As you can see, minimum focusing distance really isn't an issue with that lens.<div></div>

I'd say that the first priority should be to become a better naturalist. It's free and doesn't require the expense of film, which can be steep for an 11 year old. Join the ABA! They offer some publications and excellent seminars for talented young birders. Master basic birding skills! I'm continually outraged by the fact that some "nature" photographers can't indentify the birds by sight and sound around them. Study, study, study! Also learn as much as possible about the flowers, tress, common insects, etc. in your area.

 

On the photography side, a good macro setup would be an excellent place to start. Good nature photography opportunities on a small scale exist just about anywhere and can be practiced without the need for travel.

If you have time to get set up, then the Wimberly head is as good as any out there. It can be locked as solidly as any other tripod head.

 

But not as quickly.

 

To me the biggest disadvantage of the Wimberly head (well, really second after its weight) is that the horizontal axis can only be adjusted by the tripod collar of the lens or the varying lengths of your tripod legs. Other adjustments are free and easy with the Wimberly. With IS Canon telephotos you can often get away with keeping the tripod collar a bit loose for freedom, but that adjustment is pretty wobbly on all the Canon and Nikon telephotos I've ever owned.

 

With that said, the Wimberly is the only way to go if you're shooting flying birds, such as this one (a Snow Goose at Bosque a couple weeks ago). Wimberlys make the whole rig seem weightless.

 

For me, even though I value the virtues of the Wimberly head, I'll continue to use a ball head for most of my bird photography. I currently have the Arca B1 and hate it. It's tiny and light, but a pain to tighten quickly (and nearly impossible to do so with gloves on). If I was rich, I'd get a Foba. Seeing as that I've never used it, that's just pure speculation on my part :) The only tripod head I ever liked was my first Studioball. That head became as wobbly as hell and the new ones don't use the Arca plates. I've never tried the Kirk head, but the tension knob looks the same as the Arca, which, as I said, I hate.

 

Maybe someone who has actually bought and used all these tripod heads can offer further illumination to this subject, which has already been discussed ad nauseum here.<div></div>