christopher_insull

Not trying to be a big meany but it consistently boggles my mind that some people

could have so much money invested in gear and yet not know how to handle very

simple photography challenges. Whatever happened to technique? The latest and

greatest gear does not a photographer make.

Again, no offense, if I had money to burn maybe I would do the same thing.

Take the 70-200 and the 24-85, shoot raw, as far as exposure goes: its impossible

to say without seeing the place, how bright are the fluorescents? How much daylight

will there be? Aperture priority is probably not a good idea, if its very dark in there

your shutter speed might drop low enough that you'll get camera shake. If its dark I

always go shutter priority or manual. But again, impossible to say without seeing the

place. I never think too far ahead because there is always some last minute element

that you couldn't have expected. Besides, thinking on your feet and improvising is

one of the most enjoyable things about being a photographer. IMHO. Good luck.

A great shot of an animal in a zoo or in an otherwise controlled situation can be great

photography, but a great shot of an animal that was captured in the animals natural

environment is, in my opinion, a great shot as well as art. Photography as art is, in

my opinion not just the finished image but also the experience of taking said image.

Taking the time to find and then approach a wild animal, to spend that time and feel

that connection is tied to the artistic experience. So in the end I don't really have a

problem with zoo pictures or the like, its just that I don't get any satisfaction from

that type of "Nature Photography".