bob_royse

Thanks to Arthur Morris for his comments about the NAPA conference. It sounds like something that a lot of people would enjoy attending. Unfortunately it seems like every year they are held in southern CA or FL. If you aren't a professional who lives in one of those expensive areas, then it's strictly off limits to you. Why should I have to spend 2 weeks salary to attend one and a lose another week's salary for taking time off? Nature photography can be pursued all over N. America. Why are the conferences only held there? I'm a hard working musician who can't afford to throw away money indiscriminately on travel. My own professional orginization, the International Double Reed Society, holds annual conventions scattered across N. America, and even the world. Large attendance from all is encouraged. Over the past 20 years I have attended a hand full of them (and performed solo recitals at them) when it was convenient. It will NEVER be affordable or convenient for me to travel to southern FL or CA in Jan. If the NAPA conferences are so great and they want a lot of serious enthusiasts to attend, then they should make them more accessible.

The units mentioned that are sold by Arthur Morris and Kirk are small, compact and very useful. Don't waste your money on anything else. They come in 2 sizes and I believe the SB25 uses the larger one. You might be better off calling Arthur Morris, since if he's not in someone will answer the phone (407)860-2013. Kirk's toll free number is (800)626-5074.

 

I once had that massive plastic contraption that Lepp sells, but I threw it away. It does the same basic thing, but it puts a lot of weight on the flash head and takes up a lot of prime real estate in your suitcase or camera bag.

I just got a new catalogue from Kirk Enterprises in the mail showing

their new line of telephoto flash brackets. I was planning on getting

the RRS flash arm for my 600mm lens in the next few weeks, but the

new Kirk product looks interesting as well. If anyone has yet seen or

used one of the Kirk flash brackets, I'd appreciate comments about

sturdiness in the field and convenience.

I've been on two of Arthur Morris' ITP's. I can only highly recommend

them to everyone of all skill levels.

 

<p>

 

I was one of the first participants on one of his Florida trips. I

have been a fan of his bird photography since his work began being

published in the birding magazines in the early '90's - long before

he was recognized in the photographic world. I like his way of

capturing the character of his subjects in natural (or natural

looking) light - the way I see them in my binoculars. When I came

across an ad for a workshop from him I eagerly signed up. I was the

only participant on that trip, but he didn't cancel. (At this point

in his career I would think that his tours are well booked, though).

That was 5 years ago and it remains the most prolific expenditure of

film ever from me with the highest percentage of keepers. He knows

where the best times and spots are and offers the best exposure

advice for the situations.

 

<p>

 

Arthur was an elementary school teacher before becoming a full-time

photographer. That pays off well for him in that he has the patience

and people skills to deal with all sorts of photographers in his

tours. Many pro photographers undoubtedly lead trips to puff up their

wallets and portfolios, but Arthur genuinely seems to enjoy his

ITP's. The field trips, which are the backbone of thr trips, are

loosely constructed. You can follow him around and ask stupid

questions or wander off to explore on your own. The "classes" are

basically slide shows where here dicusses all the techical and

aesthetic aspects of his and the participants photos.

 

<p>

 

The second ITP I took was last spring at Pt.Pelee. That was more on

my home turf - photographing tiny passerines at migrant traps along

Lake Erie. Unfortunately 1998 will go down as one of the worst

fallouts of warblers in the past decade along Lake Erie (for birders

and photographers, but the birds themselves got to their breeding

grounds in excellent numbers with good weather and winds). The

photography wasn't great, but it was a good opportunity to see

Arthur's lastest work and methods and get some constructive input

into my photography, so it was well spent money from me.

 

<p>

 

As I said before, I highly recommend his tours to everyone who is

interested in photographing birds. Whether you're a birder who knows

little about photography, a photographer who knows little about

birds, or someone who knows a lot on both fronts, Arthur Morris'

unabashed energy any enthusiasm for his work is well worth the price

of admission.

Before I can give my opinion about what I think are your best

options, it would be helpful to know what types of photography you do

and what types of lenses you use.

 

<p>

 

The Arca B1 head should be good for most anything. I used to use a

Studioball, but when I switched from using a 500mm to 600mm lens I

got the B1, which is half the weight of the Studioball but far

sturdier with the big lens.

 

<p>

 

As far as the center columns go on the Gitzos, I like them. I had one

on the 341 that I used with my 500mm lens. It gives you something to

grab onto when carrying the rig over your shoulder. They also keep

the tripods legs from folding inwards, which can be annoying. I sold

that tripod to get the 1548 for the 600mm and will forgo the center

column only to save weight.

 

<p>

 

With that said, I still grab my Bogen (Manfrotto) 3221 for everything

else. I just find the leg locks on it far easier to deal with. It's

sturdy enough for everything but big lens work, especially if you

regularly use a cable release.

Since my previous comment, I've had a chance to study up on the new

550EX when used with the EOS3. The 1/200 flash synch is really no

limitation for me, since for fill flash at less than full power (i.e.

for my songbird photography) use is possible at faster shutter speeds

with the EOS3. Much to-do in the manual of both the flash and camera

is made of the "FEL" (flash exposure lock). Perhaps it might be

useful for someone somewhere, but like the AE lock, it's only a

temporary device (16 sec. limit). It's really a sham compared to the

truly useful flash meter of the Contax RTSII that now is nearly a

decade old. For serious flash photography, a flash meter with the

flash set in manual is far easier to deal with. As far as the

cordless flash goes, it is necessary to use 2 (or more) 550EX units.

Considering that they're about $500 each, I will gladly deal with the

cords when using 3 flash units.

 

<p>

 

I do like the camera though, and wish that I had two of them instead

of one EOS3 and a 1N.

I've had the EOS3 for a few days now and am very happy with it. After

years of using Contax and Nikon cameras, I switched to only Canon a

few months ago. I then purchased an EOS1N. In my opinion the EOS3 has

some small, but ergonomically friendly improvements. I'm happy that

the auto bracketing and drive buttons have been put on the outside of

the camera and the double exposure (which I rarely use) has been put

in the little plastic door. I also appreciate that the cable release

socket is now on the opposite side of the camera from where the hand

rests. The large oval of AF sensors makes it easier for me to

initially track a flying bird over the 1N's line of horizontal

sensors. The new PB-E2 grip also makes vertical shooting easier since

the AF lock and control dial are easier to reach while holding the

camera. I do wish there was an eyepiece blind built in, but that's

really only an inconvenience. The 97% viewfinder is not even

noticably different for the most part, but I do wish that Canon went

the extra mile and made a 1/250 sec flash synch. I do wish that Canon

would offer a real AE lock that actually locks indefinitely as is

featured on all Contax cameras. I see no reason why they couldn't

have added a custom function to enable that wonderful feature of the

Contax cameras. I have yet to sort through the new flash manual and

have yet to reach a verdict about the utility of the eye-control

focusing.

Shun, 99% of the people who visit national parks in South Africa do

so in their own (or rented) vehicle. I'm sure Mr. Smit won't be

joining a bunch of foreign tourists in a "safari vehicle". And yes,

400mm can be short for birds in Africa too. That's why teleconverters

are used on it.

I lived in SAfrica for 3 years in the 80's and spent as much time as

possible in the national parks and game reserves. I think that a

400/2.8 might be the ideal lens. 400mm is certainly the most

practical length for photographing mammals there I feel. You can

definitely use the speed of f2.8 for those leopards and other

predators at dawn. Weight really isn't an issue since most

photography is done from or near your car.

 

<p>

 

I've never tried that lens, but I would guess that comparing the

sharpness of the 400+2x vs. 600+1.4x would be difficult. Keeping the

rig steady would be the major concern for both. The direction and

quality of light would probably have more effect on the contrast than

if one or the other lens was used.

 

<p>

 

If you want my advice for what it's worth, I say get that 400/2.8. It

sounds like a great deal.

My solution for shooting on the ground may not be for everyone, but

it's simple and works for me. I always carry my Zeiss 10x40

binoculars with me no matter what I'm photographing. They make for a

great place to set my camera with the height easily adjustable. I

place a lens sack on top and nestle the camera/lens rig securely.

 

<p>

 

Don't try this in the mud :)

I've been photographing out of the passenger's side of my car for

years. It always seems that the interesting species and/or good light

is over there despite my best efforts. I think that a bean bag kept

by my big lens is the best way to keep ready for any quick situation

on either side of the vehicle.

 

<p>

 

As far as your "console" is concerned, I don't really know what

you're talking about, but I always drive manual transmission sedans

and have a gear shift to lean across. If the photography is good,I

don't even notice what kind of awkward position I might be it.

I've explored the roads outside of "The Wilds" recently. I must say

that it is the best place I've discovered in Ohio to photograph Short-

Eared Owls. There were, as expected, plenty of Northern Harriers and

a few Rough-Legged Hawks as well. I'll certainly go back again soon

to photograph those particular species. There are some dense

concentrations of SEOwls close to the roads on Zion Ridge Rd.,

International Rd., and Rt.360 s of the "Wilds". There are a lot of

birders around, locals looking at the deer, as well as general

traffic, but the SEOwls can be photographed from the road here more

easily than other places I've found them. A 500 or 600/f4 + TC's is

mandatory, but flight shots can be gotten with some work with shorter

AF lenses.

 

<p>

 

I'll still stand behind what I said earlier about the general area -

if you want to explore, study, and photograph the grassland species

of the reclaimed strip mines, Woodbury is the place to go to. The

"Wilds" can't hold a candle to it.

I suggested the 180+2x over a 300/f4 + 1.4x because I presumed that

you wanted to photograph birds in your backyard. Here the minimum

focusing distance is a primary concern. Chickadees and juncos are

quite tiny! Some newer 300/f4's, such as the Canon IS lens, get down

to 5ft. or so without tubes, but generally adding a lot of extension

and a teleconvertor on a 300mm lens down to 5ft. can get unwieldy. I

have also found than most lenses that I've owned (Zeiss, Nikon, and

Canon) in the 180 range perform quite well with a 2x.

I think a good place to start for photographing birds in the back

yard is with a close focusing lens in the 400/f5.6 range. (I assume

that you're talking about photographing birds near a feeder or,

pehaps, a water source from a blind.) You can get quite close to some

feeder birds in a blind and a minimum focusing distance of around

5ft. would be best. Anything slower than f5.6 will be too difficult

for the necessary quick focusing and won't stop movement with quality

film. The Sigma APO macro 400/5.6 might be a good choice. In the

Nikon line, a 180/f2.8 + 2x would also be a good choice. I think that

a 200/f4 + 2x is too slow for focusing ease. The background DOF will

be extremely minimal with all choices and shouldn't be a primary

concern here. The 180 + extension tube could also be a great flower

lens.

The are many choices in lengths, speeds, weights, and sizes for

telephotos. The is a market, apparently, for all of them and picking

the right one depends on what you're photographing, where you live or

travel to, and whether or not you have to carry it far. One man's

meat is another's poison so they say.

 

<p>

 

I, personally, never do wildlife photography while backpacking and

probably never will. I do a lot of hiking for birding and

landscape/macro photography and would never carry anything bigger

than a 300/f4 or 400/5.6. I live in Ohio and I'm not likely to

encounter any suitable subjects that warrant carrying a big lens

without a specific intention.

 

<p>

 

As far as the cynics for 400mm lenses go, I found that 400mm was the

ideal focal length for photographing wildlife from a vehicle while I

lived in Africa. A 400/f5.6 is also a great choice for handheld shots

of flying birds in good light anywhere in the world. I have had no

interest in mammal photography in recent years and I'm definitely not

qualified to speak on the behalf of the best moose lens.

 

<p>

 

Yes, 500mm lenses can be carried farther more easily than 600mm's,

but the thing is 700mm is just too short to capture the subjects I'd

be likely to encounter when carrying it for considerable distances

(e.g. White-Eyed Vireos and Blue-Winged Warblers in an open meadow

area). Carrying a 600mm short distances is really no big ordeal and

sticking one in a backpack to get to a specific destination, such as

a mudflat, a mile or so away is no problem either.

 

<p>

 

To each his own.

You don't state what wildlife you're talking about photographing and

you don't state what equipment (tripods etc.) give such bad results

with the 200/f2.8 and 2x.

 

<p>

 

I've owned the Canon 180/3.5 for several months now and have gotten

downright spectacular sharpness from it with a 2x. Do some serious

testing with a mirror lock and cable release to see it you're getting

your money's worth from the 200/f2.8 and 2x combo.

 

<p>

 

A 400/f5.6 is a great focal length. With Canon you can get it from a

varity of ways (200+2x, 300/f4+1.4x with or without IS, 100-400IS or

the probable optical ultimate 400/f5.6). 400/5.6 is the best

compromise of size, length and speed. But it's a compromise.

 

<p>

 

IMO here are the virtues of the "big" lenses:

 

<p>

 

300/f2.8 - Relatively small, fast and lightweight. Good for carrying

long distanses and travelling. An ideal lens for an African trip

where mammals in low light will be important and a 1.4x 420 can be

used most of the time. A 2x can be slapped on for the "bird shot".

With a 1.4x it makes a great lens for photographing birds from a

blind as well.

 

<p>

 

400/f2.8 - probably better for sports photographers, but could be

ideal if you really need f/2.8 for mammals in low light. If you need

something longer, than get something longer. (the weight of the Nikon

400/f2.8S + 2x could also be a consideration for some). The close

focusing 800/f5.6 for warblers might be worthwile also, but a 600/f4

+ 1.4x and ext. tube probably would AF as quickly.

 

<p>

 

500/4 or 4.5 lenses - with a 1.4x starts you off into serious bird

photography, but leaves you frustrated when that Henslow's Sparrow

that you've worked so hard to photograph is singing out in the open

35ft. away. 700mm just doesn't cut it, unfortunately. If you're happy

with f4 at 280 or 300 mm, then a 500mm could be a logical next step.

A 500mm lens is neither here or there as a focal length in it own

right IMO. I owned a 500mm for years and rarely used it as such, and

99.9% of the time had a 1.4x, 2x or extention tube on it. If you're

idea of bird photography is a heron or egret, then go ahead and get a

500, but most serious bird photographers wouldn't lose any sleep

stepping on one of those junkbirds if a Sedge Wren was nearby (just

kidding!!!). There's not much that this type of lens can do that

wouldn't be better served by a 400/5.6, 300/2.8 or 400/f2.8 +TC's,

or......

 

<p>

 

600/f4 - I've owned one for a short time now and don't know why I

ever bought a 500mm. At this time in photographic history (which, of

course, could change fast at this pace) the 600 f/4 is king. On paper

the 600 is only 20% longer than a 500mm - so what? In reality there

is abigger difference. It's the square root that gets amplified by

the increased focal length. That Henslow's Sparrow at 35ft. will

occupy 44% (not 20%) more of the frame at 840mm than at 700mm (36 vs.

25 - not 6 vs. 5).

 

<p>

 

Don't but what you don't need, but don't waste your time with

equipment that is only a compromise either.

I was at Cord Camera yesterday (and had a chance to play with the

EOS3, 100-400, etc. for a while). For what it's worth, that Canon rep

also felt that the 300/f4 IS+1.4x is sharper than the 100-400L at

400, especially at the corners. He's used both and that's what he

said. The 100-400 is currently available for sale, but it will be

Feb. until the EOS3 and new flash will be avilable.

 

<p>

 

It was also Leica day at Cord and it was fun to play with their stuff

too. The modular telephoto system seemed pretty cool. The 800/5.6 set-

up seem pretty tiny compared with a Canon 600/f4 and focuses down to

about 12 ft.

This sounds interesting from your description. Jasper-Paluki is very

well known as an area for congreations of Sandhill Cranes, but I've

never heard it described as a good place to photograph them.

According to my calculations I could get there in a doable 4 1/2

hours from Columbus, Ohio, but there are similar sights within a 45

min drive from where I live that annually produce SCranes in the

hundreds (only). According to the info I have, Jasper-Paluki has no

road network and is a hunting area (for geese, of course). From

everything I've heard, it's not worth the time or bother to go there

for photography since you really can't get close enough to them. I

sort of think that I might be better off photographing Ohio's meagre

showings of eastern strays and evenually going to N.M.'s Bosque.

 

<p>

 

I don't know much about Chicago traffic, but it looks to be about

only an hour from Chicago. I also don't know anything about motels in

rural NW Indiana, but the nearest town appears to be Medaryville.

Where are the best places to stay? Maybe I should have e-mailed you

directly, but, perhaps, if Jasper-Paluki was a really great photo-op

sight more people would like to hear more about it.

The "Ft. Myers Beach" (a.k.a. Little Estero Lagoon) IMO really is THE

place to make bird photographs in that area. Personally, I don't care

to ever spend my money to go to Sanibel again, but just jumping on a

plane and shelling out the $$$$$ for a few nights in that Holiday Inn

along that beach I think might be worth the price. I've never burned

more film with a higher percentage of keepers anywhere.

 

<p>

 

If you go there, definitely take something longer than 300mm.

Don's comments spurred me on to actually test out the utility of IS

with a car motor on. I had a about 8 frames left on a roll of film so

I shot those frames on a large tree trunk that had lots of small bark

patterns. I used the 300/f4IS + 1.4x at 1/125 sec. I shot some with

the motor off and some with the motor on, some on a beanbag and some

resting on the window. I honestly can't see a much of difference

between any of them through my loupe.

I've owned the IS lens for only a couple of weeks, but I'm very

pleased with it so far. I find it to be a high quaity lens with or

without the 1.4x. I haven't done any testing with it trying to find

out how many lines per millimeter it is capable of resolving and

probably never will, since it has already proven its quality to me.

 

<p>

 

I think that this lens has a lot of useful applications for wildlife

photography. I thought about waiting for the 100-400, but decided

against it because I was skeptical that a zoom of that sort would

free of light fall off wide open when photographing flying birds

against a plain sky background. Also you do have almost an extra f-

stop at 300mm. Besides flying birds, the IS could be useful for

birding trips especially at migrant traps where a lot of tired

passerines are encounterd at close range flitting around too quickly

for tripod adjustments. I think it would be the ideal lens for an

African national park or any where else that shooting is done

primarily from the car. Constantly stopping and starting the car's

engine and positioning a beanbag is time consuming and often startles

the animals being photographed. And let's not forget the lenses close

focusing ability at less than 5 feet making it ideal for

photographing small creatures and birds from a blind such as

hummingbirds.

I can see the shift as also being very useful for 35mm landscape

photography in addition to the tilt. If there is a tree in the

horizon or anywhere close to it I find that I'm forced to compromise

some how. Now that I've recently started using the Canon system it's

the 24T/S lens that holds the greatest allure to me for that reason.

The Wilds is in Muskingum Co. - not Tuscarawas, sorry. That's SE of

Zanesville.

I believe that the Wilds is in Tuscarawas Co. I've never been there,

but it is an area where exotic species are kept in an enclosed area.

You can't drive through there on your own, but have to go with a tour

bus of some sort. The fact that the species aren't in their natural

habitat and you can't drive your own car in there doesn't sound like

a good place for photography to me. The roads outside of the park are

popular with birders, but the traffic doesn't make it ideal for

photography.

 

<p>

 

That general area of Ohio, however, can be a great place to do

wildlife photography. The Wilds is on a reclaimed strip mine. Several

reclaimed strip mines in Ohio are state wildlife areas now and can be

explored hassle free. I visit the Woodbury Wildlife Area in Coshocton

Co. often, especially in the summer to photograph Henslow's and

Grasshopper Sparrows as well as species such as Bobolink, Prairie and

Blue-Winged Warblers, etc. Further east, the Egypt Valley Wildlife

Area also hosts typical species of the reclaimed strip mines and also

has more marsh habitat.

Shun mentioned the equipment to take. I do feel that having only a

400/5.6 would be very limiting for that trip. Sure, you can probably

get some decent shots of tame herons at Ding Darling, but you'll also

be visiting other places such as the "Little Estero Lagoon" (a

fantastic place for photography!) and the Venice Rookery. I think

that Arthur Morris might rent an EF Canon 500/f4.5, and a FD 800/5.6

if you don't have a suitable lens. I'm sure he'll be happy to answer

you questions personally, but I believe he's in Africa right now. He

was an elementary school teacher before going into photography full

time. I'm sure that many pro photographers lead tours and workshops

just to pad some more bucks into their wallets, but Arthur Morris

genuinely enjoys leading his tours and teaching.