ed_erkes

<p>I decided to email highspeed flash.com and ask for the prices for the products. The price for the Pro model is $2400 while that for the Ultra is $4000. This is quite expensive in my opinion, since you need a minimum of three units for effective lighting (and four unit would be better). You can achieve similar results with regular flash units, except they do have to be much closer to the subject than the specialized units such as the older Olsen flash heads or the Microflash Pro or Ultra. I'm going to try to attach a photo that I took with four Nikon SB28s.<br>

Ed</p><div></div>

<p>I was just curious as to why they wouldn't list the prices...they only have two types of flash units--the Pro and the Ultra. Since they won't bother to list the price, I have a suspicion that they are outrageously expensive. I think I'll keep my old, but still functional Olson units. <br>

Ed</p>

<p>Greg, I checked the website highspeedflash.com and couldn't find a listed price for their flash units. Can you provide this info for me. Thanks.<br>

Ed</p>

When I purchased my 200 400, I tested it against my manual focus 400mm f3.5 and 600mm f4 lenses with and

without teleconverters, using a USAF resolution test chart, heavy tripod and flash exposure (to eliminate the effects

of internal camera vibration). The 200 400 was just as sharp as my 400mm f3.5 and sharper than my 600mm f4.

With 1.4X teleconverters, the 200 400 was sharper than both the 400 f3.5 and 600 f4. There is only a slight dropoff in

sharpness with the 1.7X converter on the 200 400, compared to the 1.4X.

 

Ed Erkes

http://members.photoportfolios.net/ederkes

Check out "Wild Photo Adventures." It's had limited showing on the networks, but episodes can be viewed online at

http://www.wildphotoadventures.com/

I've photographed with host Doug Gardner a few times--he's a talented photographer and down-to-earth nice guy!

Sorry but I don't think I misinterpreted your post. Why mention that the disturbance of birds at the nest is illegal in a post about nest photography if it was not related to the topic. Also, you state later, "If one is in the position (such as I am) to legally photograph bird nests as part of a permitted research program....".

Maybe we are just arguing about semantics---my intent was only to clarify that nest photgraphy is not illegal. The issue of nest photgraphy is largely an ethical one since we all can "legally" photograph nesting birds. Whether we do it or not is an ethical issue, not a legal one.

Sorry to disagree with you but, again, PHOTOGRAPHY of birds at the nest IS NOT Illegal. And the law makes no distinctions between cavity and cup nesting birds.The Cornell Lab of Ornithology had a home study bird photography course in the early 1980's (long after the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty) and discussed in detail the photography of birds at the nest. I agree that there are serious risks involved and if you want to advocate no nest photography that is fine, but to state that it is illegal is inacurrate. How could the Cornell Lab promote a CitizenScience Nest Monitoring program if it were illegal.

You stated that "disturbing" birds at nest sites is illegal in the United States. I don't believe that this is true and wonder what source you have for this information. I have maintained a bluebird box trail for over twenty years, am a member of the North American Bluebird Society (which has provided guidelines on what is legal and illegal regarding monitoring of nestboxes) and also do volunteer work monitoring bluebird and wood duck nestboxes at a local refuge---no permits required for monitoring. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology has an active Citizen Science NestWatch Monitoring program where they actually encourage people to monitor not only cavity-nesting but also cup nesting birds--with guidance on how to monitor while minimizing disturbance. No one should photograph birds at the nest without careful research, observation, extreme care. But illegal-- I don't think so.

The Nikon 600mm VR lens is significantly more expensive, however, since it is a newer lens, it may provide better vibration reduction because advances in image stabiliization technology have probably improved since the Canon lenses were manufactured

I glued a washer to the top of the lens hood and sight through the camera hotshoe and along the top of the washer. Practice sighting by this method and you'll soon learn how far you need to compensate to be on target when you look through the viewfinder.

This may not be an economical solution, but the best remote trigger device I know of is the Time Machine at http://www.bmumford.com/photo/camctlr.html

 

Ed

I've written an article on the Nikon D2X AF system at the following link:

http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0606/ee0606-1.html

It was my attempt to organize info from a variety of sources and develop a

personal method of photographing with the D2X. It is fairly detailed (about 6

pages long) and probably isn't an easy read. But I wrote it to hopefully help

other D2X users. I'd appreciate any comments, suggestions for improvement,

etc..

 

Ed Erkes

Bill, it is true that the majority opinion is similar to the one in this thread. My question is: Is it an informed, knowledgeable opinion?

 

Ed

This topic is being discussed in another forum at this link:

 

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=5120&b=vf2&st=0&la=634&ph=34&sid=27618&u=27618

 

I copied my last response in that thread:

 

Jerry,

Your example illustrates my point exactly. Individuals feeding bears "for years" will definitely lead to habituation and harm to the wildlife. Also, feeding wildllife in any National Park is illegal. But to use that example as proof that all baiting or other luring techniques are unethical is, too be blunt, ludicrous.

I consulted a number of wildlife photography references in my personal library. Of the 16 books that I consulted, 12 advocated the responsible use of lures: either baiting, calls, or decoys. Three did not address the topic at all and only one was against the use of lures. To be conservative, I did not include bird feeders, baiting with bird seed, or providing a water source as positive responses. Positive responses were the imitation or playing of calls, decoys, and live or dead animals as bait (fish, road kill ,etc..).

 

The lone book against lures was Larry West's How to Photograph Birds. John Shaw's books did not address the topic.

 

The following books discussed and advocated the responsible use of lures:

George Lepp Beyond the Basics;

Joe McDonald The New Complete Guide to Wildlife Photography;

Art Morris The Art of Bird Photography;

Moose Peterson The Nikon Guide to Wildlife Photography;

L.L. Rue How I Photograph Wildlife and Nature;

Gilles Martin Nature Photography: Learning From a Master;

R. Simmons and B Littlehales National Geographic Photography Field Guide : Birds;

Tim Fitzharris Wild Bird Photography;

Tim Gallagher Wild Bird Photography;

Laurie Campbell Guide to Bird and Nature Photography;

Chris Gomersall Photographing Wild Birds; and

Paul Hicks Photographing Birds in the Wild.

 

Ed Erkes

You might be interested in checking into the Carolinas Nature Photographers Association at www.cnpa.org. They have regional chapters, with Raleigh being a newly formed chapter. I forwarded you an email about the Raleigh chapter.

I do a lot of birds, close-ups and some scenic photography.

 

Ed Erkes

http://www.photoportfolios.net/

I'm a long-time Nikon user who recently was pondering the same question. I even put my name on the list for the 20D, but called and cancelled it. I bought a used Nikon D1X for $1700. However, I did not have any Canon EOS lenses-- and had a whole lot of Nikon lenses. I do mainly nature photography and chose the D1X because it is sharp (probably as sharp as the newer 8MP 20D) and it has a flash sync of 1/500s. It can also sync at any shutter speed if you use the PC synch. But if low light photography is important, then the 20D might be the best choice. The D1X will have more noise at high ISOs (800 and above). However, I've shot the D1X at ISO 500 and made 8X10 prints that are sharper than my film results (Fujichrome 100, Polaroid Sprintscan 4000, and Epson 2200).

 

Ed Erkes

http://www.photoportfolios.net