ligia_dovale

<p>One of the legs of my Gizto 1325 got locked. After trying boling water and hammering, etc., the locking mechanism finally came apart, however, the bushing suffered a little. Tried to get a replacement and being told that I need to order the whole replacement kit for $199.00. I would appreciate any recommendations regarding fixing this bushing for less. Thanks! </p><div></div>

<p>Which camera would you prefer for an amateur photographer. Nikon D5100 or the D7000? I am being asked this question and do not know the answer. Your input is appreciate it. </p>

Paul, I am 100% with you, if you can fix the Arca B1 by yourself, you should do it. I sent mine to them for repairing, but after three times back and forth, it is still not working properly.

 

At the present time, I am again having problems with the pan head and the screw mechanism that locks it. I do have quite a bit of mechanical ability and would prefer to fix it myself, not so much to save money, but to avoid all the trouble that this people put me through.

 

I am hoping that someone responds to you providing the instructions on how to fix the B1 so that I can fix mine myself. Or should we take the chance and just do it? !!!!!

You could call the Alaska department of transportation and find out about the road condition. Sorry, I did not keep this telephone number after I drove through it last July. If you drive slowly, it should be fine, it is just a dirt road for the most part of it. It is advisable to get the Mile Post when you drive in Alaska, great information about every turn of the road.

Tom, I find your report extremely interesting. I have always associated Alaska with pleasant temperatures in July, it has been that way during my visits. I cannot imagine being at Denali when it is 90 degrees out there, the park would lose its charm to me. I was lucky that during the last year's visit to Denali in July, we even got a snowfall, the first one in July in 80 years! The temperature on that day only reached 42 degrees. Wishing that the weather improves for the sake of everyone and the animals.

I agree that the 300 f/2.8 is a great lens and works extremely well with the 1.4x and the 2x teleconverters. However, I find the 500 f/4 a more suitable lens for most bird situations. I do not own the 600 f/4, however, most of my friends who own it say that it is too heavy. I also find its focusing minimum distance inconvenient. I would not like to work with the 600 f/4, even it is was given to me for free !!!!! Uhm ... I would accept it as a present ... I could sell it and get other lenses that I do like.

 

www.LigiaPhoto.com

I usually underexposed for the whites one third to two thirds after taking a reading off the blue sky. Here is a shot of a White Egret taken recently in Florida. There is detail troughout, this image could not be sharper and the whites are just right. Sorry if the small resolution jpeg does not show the real quality of the image.

The shuttle bus drivers won't let you get off anywhere near the wildlife, not even for a second to shoot from the ground. They will take you one mile away and you could then get off the shuttle and hike back. Just cross your fingers that the wildlife subject is still there by the time you hike back.

 

You need a reservation because the shuttles are jam packed most of the time. This is the case even with the 5:30 AM shuttle, which is the first one to leave the visitor's center.

Always place your hand on top and hug it tightly. And congratulation! The 500 is way more versatile than the 600 mm. You will enjoy it.

Even with the use of a sturdy tripod, the 500 mm will not render good sharp shots unless that extra precautions are taken in consideration. I doubt it that would be able to get any decent shots with a monopod. And by the way, are you referring to the 500 mm f/4? This is a big, heavy lens that requires extra sturdy handling.

You might be able to get great shots of wildlife subjects with just a 300 mm and Velvia 50ASA, even birds in flight. However, you should expect wasting film also. Not every shot of a bird in flight is going to come out sharp when using Velvia 50ASA. When they do though, you might get a trophy shot. That is provided that the lighting conditions were right, of course.

 

There are too many factors involved in taking a good shot of a wildlife subject, much more when using a slow film. A simple answer to your question does not exist, in my opinion.

I visited in December 2002. There is information (distances from Albuquerque, etc.) and images, a representation of the birds that you can see at the refuge, in my website. Please go to www.LigiaPhoto.com and then click in the New Mexico button. If you find the information useful, please e-mail directly and I will give you specific information about places to stay. Thanks!

Note to Walt: I have had in very high regard this "amateur-based bulletin board." IMHO, it is a very good, serious board. I also believe that there are experts in several fields (not just photography) who are members of Photonet.

 

In addition, there was a previous discussion about the same subject, that is, the eyes of the animals versus using flash, however, no one presented any scientific facts. It was interesting that someone compared the light from the sun with that one coming from a flash, but I do not feel that this is a fair comparison; the animals are very smart, they would not look directly into the sun, I think! I really wish that I had the knowledge/expertise to further study this matter, but I don't, or perhaps the money to pay for such studies. For now, I can only say that if my own eyes would suffer from such an ordeal, why not the eyes of a tiny bird? And if by chance, there is somebody out there who has concrete facts, I would like to know the specific sources and read more about it. I am just another concerned animal lover.

 

PS: As far as wildlife photography goes, I feel that the natural light cannot be beat.

There are a number of professional photographers who photograph hummingbirds with 4 and 5 flash heads. The birds does not seem to have any instant reaction to the light emitted by the so many flashes. However, it is my concern, that the eyes of the birds or animals in general, might suffer some or a lot of damage. There have not been any scientific studies done in regard to this matter. As far as I my own eyes go, I would be blinded if I am attacked by four flash heads over and over. Ever worse, if I had to fly immediately after the attack. If you have any scientific information, please follow through with my posting. I need facts, not theories.

I also second the 2 and 3 stop Hitech's soft edge. If you can, also get a 2 stop hard edge and you would be all set. This way, you would have 2, 3, 4 and 5 stop graduations. I have not used the 7 by combining all three, but the 4 is quite useful.

I started offering these services for a minimal amount about one year ago, only because I was being invaded with hundreds of pictures to critique. It takes time to do it well and I have other work to do, so by charging people does not bother me so much.

 

I do believe though, that any picture, no matter the subject, follows the same rules of composition. It does not matter if it is travel photography, abstracts or animal behavior, they all have something in common and that is, a perfect lighting situation and a good composition. I am an artist as well and this comes naturally to me, however, for others, it is not that easy. That is why it is good to get some advice when you are not so well acquainted with these rules. One of the beginner photographers whom I started tutoring two years ago, has already won a prestigious contest in her short career as a nature photographer. That is very rewarding to me, however, I cannot afford my time critiquing, I rather shoot !!!!!

I have been lucky and unlucky with the D-100. Lucky, because I have won two prestigious contests with pictures taken with this camera. The F-5 has given better results, but it is good to win prizes with pictures from the D-100 to compensate for all the money that I spent on this piece of junk. Unlucky because as I have previously said, I have received three brand new D-100s in a short period of time because they keep having problems. The first D-100 was not metering properly, I could not even take a picture, it refused to shoot with any lens. I was with Nikon for two hours on the phone while away from home on a photography trip, they were of no help. I then received the second D-100 overnight. This one developed several problems. After coming back, I wrote a two-page letter to Nikon and sent the camera back. They were unable to fix it, I was then sent the third brand new D-100.

 

To my dismay, I took the third D-100 to Alaska during another photography trip and the first time that I tried to use the 20-35 mm, f/2.8 (the only lens that I had taken for doing landscape photography with this camera,) the D-100 refused to recognize the lens, it gave me an error sign and again refused to shoot. After cleaning the contacts with alcohol, once again, I spent about two hours with Nikon on the phone and they could not solve the problem, they just asked me to send the 20-35 mm back to them. According to my previous experiences, I could not trust in their judgement. I then run into another photographer with a D-100 and we tried the 20-35 mm on his camera ... it was working fine. This lens is also working fine on my F-5. According to the process of elimination, the D-100 is the culprit. After that, I have had some more problems with this third D-100. Of course, I have already called Nikon, this time the results were the worst, got to talk to a supervisor who seems to be a totally neophyte about cameras.

 

All along, the CCD of all these D-100s gets easily dirty and one cannot even clean it at home. I was aware of this problem, however, it is inevitable that an outdoor photographer has to change the lenses in the wild. When you have a subject in front and you need to switch to another lens, you cannot take the time to cover the camera or get into a bubble wrap to change a lens. If you do it, you miss the opportunity altogether.

 

I just wish that I could get back the money that I paid for this camera, instead of having to test and/or running on more problems with a fourth D-100.

I would do it, go for it !!!!! The only disadvantage is that when you are shooting action, it is better to have two camera bodies that are exactly the same, so that you can react quickly, with not too much thinking involved.

 

I find it disgusting that Nikon prices are always a lot higher that Canon, while Canon seems to have taken the lead and is doing a better job in regard to the image stabilization system. Canon lenses are getting better as we speak, no wonder that several top professional photographers have switched to Canon.

 

In regard to the D-100, it is a good camera as long as it works. I have had three (3 !!!!! ) brand new D-100 since I first got the first one in February. The third one is again OUT OF ORDER. If I could start or switch to a new system, I would definitely choose Canon. And if I had the choice to use both, I would be in seven heaven!

I have photographed sea mammals around Prince Rupert. The best would be to be ready with two camera bodies, one with the 80-200 (fast lens) and another camera body with a longer lens. The longer lens could be a 400 or a 500 mm plus the teleconverters. All these lenses should be fast in order to work well with the teleconverters.

I watched while he was being administered the CPR. Did not know that there was actually a doctor and a nurse involved. The oxygen arrived about one hour later. I am still numb.

In regard to the Polar Bears, I have been told that they are the most dangerous predators on earth. They would kill any thing, as they know that they just have to bury the source of food in the snow/ice and it would stay in good condition for a very long period of time. I am just saying what I learnt from the biologists. Please reply to the biologist of the Roger Williams Park Zoo in RI.

 

And by the way, I spent one week at Katmai this July. There were no incidents with the bears, in spite of us being surrounded by the bears 24 hours a day. In my observations, every one was following the rules as far as keeping the distance and taking good care of the food supplies. There were occasions where it was inevitable having a grizzly 10 feet away, fortunately, they were not interested in humans at all

Sundaram, check this out to learn more about the creatures that you will be photographing:

http://www.moose395.net/howto/mainemoose.html. There is one shot where you can see a photographer holding a lens while a young Moose is touching it and other pictures that would give you an idea of how close the Moose can get.

Baxter State Park is in northern Maine. Mount Kathadin, which can be seen from Sandy Pond, is the north end of the Appalachian Mountain Trail.

Sundaram, the Moose at Sandy Pond could be very close to you when they are at your side of the shore. In this case, even a 200 mm would be sufficient,. I have taken portraits of Moose with a 300 mm at Sandy Pond. One time one Moose came within one foot from me (I did not make the slightest movement or shoot to avoid scaring him, another photographer in the distance took the picture of this Moose checking me out.) In any event, it is possible that the action would be happening at the opposite side of the pond. In this case, a 300 mm is not enough. Not even a 500 + the 1.4X. You would be getting environmental shots with lots of trees included, but not the Moose filling the frame. Another possibility is that you hike around the pond and try to get closer, but the trail does not circle the pond in its entirety, so all depends on where the Moose are. In all, I would say that you might be missing lots of pictures with just a 300 mm. I�ll be there after you, please send me an e-mail and let me know how it went. Thanks and best of luck!

I think that you would be happier with the 500 mm. I agree that the 300 f/2.8 is the sharpest of all, however, its range is not long enough for many wildlife subjects. It is great to have it as an addition, but not as a primary lens for shooting wildlife. In the other hand, if you add the teleconvertes to the 500 mm, you would have a lens that would allow you to get closer to plenty of wildlife subjects, including small birds. I would not trade my 500 f/4 for a 600 mm, f/4, not even if the trade was even. I was very satisfied before and now, with the addition of the multiplication factor of today's digital SLR cameras, it is even a greater lens for a large assortment of wildlife subjects.