dick_ginkowski

Gerry, Helix is nothing to write home about! And Calumet, while honest and prompt shipping, is generally way overpriced (though I do shop them)!

<p>

Seriously, I had a similar experience with Bryan at Really Right Stuff but he sent me some excellent material. I have some serious problems with Bryan's "Take It Or Leave It" attitude toward the way he does business. For example, no web site or E-mail capability (almost business malpractice not to have such at this time), no credit cards (we're almost in the 21st century and Bryan operates in the 19th) which delays shipping and no dealer network. Now I understand that he's well-versed but I still have some understandable hesitancy in doing business with him. And yes, I did sense some "attitude"

when I spoke with him but I diffused it during our conversation. This is by no means to bum rap RRS products but their business practices certainly need improvement.

I recently purchases a Kirk ballhead and am satisfied with it. I had

a minor problem (cosmetic flaw) and, since I was going to be 30 miles away from Angola, Indiana, decided to stop in Monday and see their operation.

<p>

Kirk recently moved into a larger (and immaculately clean) facility. They will be adding stuff to their inventory as they expand. I found them to be patient, knowledgable, honest and committed to nature photography. (This, of course, doesn't mean that others aren't.)

<p>

I post this because I know that I always like to know *who* I am dealing with, do they really exist, etc. (One nice thing about living in the Chicago area, for example, is the ability to order computer stuff from places I know really exist and where I can drive to if necessary to return a defective item.)

One of the contributors spoke of close focusing problems. A good extension tube will allow for close focusing with "big gun" lenses.

<p>

Incidentally, a mid-winter trip to Ding Darling NWR in Florida may help with your bird photography. I hadn't done much before that trip but the opportunities were almost endless there and there are always lots of other photographers and bird watching enthusiasts there to help if you get stuck.

Boy, did you get the answers today!

<p>

Mine will be short and sweet.

<p>

Get -- immediately, if not sooner -- Arthur Morris' BIRD PHOTOGRAPHY: PURE AND SIMPLE book. $9.95 buys you what amounts to a fairly extensive crash course in nature photography and puts it in plain English. You won't regret this purchase. Enough said.

I'll second Bob on using Canon 2x. The Canon is *matched* for L lenses. You should be able to find a decent one on the used market.

<p>

I'll try to put Bob's answer on quality in plain English. With L glass, the 2x reduces image quality to that of mortal lenses. Which, of course, is pretty darn good.

Sorry you didn't get an answer earlier.

<p>

If you're in Banner Elk, you're within an easy drive to Grandfather Mountain, a photo friendly destination. The Blue Ridge Parkway has been closed this winter.

I want to thank everyone who's contributed their thoughts.

<p>

This has been very interesting. Some of the responses didn't come close to my topic but were nonetheless interesting. I didn't think of the need that schools might have although today it seems videos are utilized almost exclusively.

Buy it. (You can get a discount by ordering it on line from Barnes and Noble or Amazon.)

<p>

It's a very good book from a great teacher.

I would highly recommend getting the Tamron converted from a place that will let you try it and send it back.

<p>

Last year I looked at the Tamron 300mm f/2.8. The Tamron rep was "loose" in his accuracy and said it would work with a Canon 2x. To call his bluff I pulled one out of my pocket. It didn't.

<p>

Lenses and 2x converters should be matched (optically and mechanically). This doesn't mean that Tamron can't work well on a Tokina lens. Just that you need to try it and get your money back if it doesn't.

<p>

BTW--one way to save $$$ is to shop the used bins.

Periodically I look at my backlog (hundreds of boxes of slides) and try to sort out the keepers vs. throwaways. Obviously some shorts (in my case, too many) are automatic throwaways. But there seem to be a lot of "tweeners" that confuse the issue.

<p>

For example, I usually bracket (even then the EOS metering seems to have a mind of its own) because of the variability of the metering on my EOS 1n and A2E. Sometimes I will shoot varied exposures manually. When the slides come back, I will obviously have some that are way overexposed or underexposed and they make it to the trash bin.

<p>

Left behind may be a perfect exposure or a "tweener" -- a shot that looks pretty good but technically isn't perfect. Let's say I'm shooting gulls at Acadia National Park or Moose at Baxter State Park (both in Maine). A perfectly exposed gull which shows great detail in the white area may be part of an overall slide that appears too dark and has no "zip" to it. The "tweener" has more "punch" and contrast but maybe the white area is slightly overexposed. The shot is actually more accurate vis-a-vis how I saw it at the time it was taken.

<p>

As for the moose, if I shoot on the money or a little under, it'll be a dark blob. Opened up a bit the brown fur is a bit lighter but there appears to be a little more "punch" and details. (Again, too much exposure and its tossed.)

<p>

Which leads me to the dilemma. Currently as I build by inventory I am keeping both the "right ons" and "tweeners" next to each other on the slide page and would submit both. The photo editor should be able to choose which is the best fit. (I understand some publications prefer slightly lighter slides as their scanning/separation process darkens them and vice versa.) Does anyone else do this? Comments on the practice? Thanks!

Don't overlook the Domke Outpack Wasitpack. Very reasonable and very versatile. Normally I use the Tamrac Rolling Phot Backpack to transport my gear (i.e., on the plane and in the car) but the Domke Outpack stores most of the odds and ends that I take with me. Also have a water bottle holder (essential for field work).

<p>

Another plus--for us "big guys" the Domke belt fits.

Hi, folks. I just got a Canon EF 300 f/2.8 L and now have the problem

of how to support it. I presently have a Gizto 1228 tripod (must have for physical reasons) for a Kaiser medium ball head (garbage, IMO).

<p>

With my other lenses the problems aren't so drastic but they sure are with the 300. Lots of shake and vibration. I think it's time for a new head. I read the reviews and comments here but need more insight.

<p>

Lots of people like the hard-to-get Kirk, but are they as good as the Arca-Swiss?

<p>

And what about Studioball? Seems rto be rock solid, but quite heavy.

<p>

Saving $50 on Kirk v. Arca isn't the issue--I want the most for my buck, period. It's no savings if it doesn't meet my needs.

<p>

Kirk says its ballhead is only rated for 15 pounds. (The 1n, 2X and lens come in at just under 9 lbs.) I think Arca-Swiss is rated for more weight.

<p>

Comments, please! (Thanks!)

Been there. Done that.

<p>

Yes, Sandy Stream Pond (easy .4 mile hike) is a great spot for moose, if you're lucky. I went there in October (after Acadia) and was warned that I might have to wait to see a moose but I had the opposite experience. As soon as I got there I was face-to-face with a cow (and not set up to shoot) who proceeded to relieve herself and then walk off before I could get more than a couple of quick shots. I felt as if I "lost my moose" but a few minutes later a huge bull walked from the other side into the middle of the pond. I shot him for a couple of hours. I wish I had wading boots so that I could have gotten closer.