photoprospect

<p>Thanks Dave for the hint... don't repellents have an effect on plastic/rubber camera parts?<br>

Wish we could see Coromande, but our current itinerary (still very tentative and trying to reduce the amount of driving) is as following:</p>

<p> <strong>NORTH ISLAND</strong><br />1 Auckland - land, spend a day and fly to Invercargill on the South island<br /> <br /> <strong>SOUTH ISLAND</strong><br />0 Invercargill (land, get the car, move to Te Anau right away)<br />1 Te Anau<br />2 Milford Sound<br />1 Queenstown<br />1 Glenorchy<br />1 Wanaka<br />4 Lake Pukaki, Mt Cook(heli-hike if possible), Lake Tekapo<br />3 Christchurch & Banks peninsula<br />1 Lake Coleridge<br />1 Arthurs Pass<br />2 Greymouth<br />1 Westport<br />1 Golden Bay<br />1 Blenheim<br />0 Havelock<br />1 Picton<br /> <br /> <strong>NORTH ISLAND (again)</strong><br />0 Wellington<br />1 North Island Volcanoes<br />1 Lake Taupo<br />1 Lake Rotorua<br />1 Hamilton<br />2 Auckland<br /><br /></p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>Sorry for hijacking the thread, but the question could also be relevant to the OP.</em><br>

Is tripod photography (without flash) also prohibited?</p>

<p>@ <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4603386">michael stout</a>:<br>

From what I hear regarding NZ (lots of rain and sea spray), it's highly advisable to get a proper rain cover.<br>

There are lots of different versions, but the <a href="http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/hydrophobia-70-200-rain-cover.aspx">Hydrophobia</a> line seems to be especially impressive.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Jean Spector<br>

<a href="http://www.photoprospect.com">http://www.photoprospect.com</a></p>

<p>Thank you <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6056632">Lindsay</a> for your comment<br>

The ratio was accepted and we're now planning accordingly</p>

<p>Enormous amount of thanks goes your way Ross!<br>

You've supplied a lot of extremely useful info.</p>

<p><strong>@ Nathaniel</strong> - thank you for the information, it reinforces our preferences of some places. I'll consider sharing the time between the islands differently - say, 1:3 weeks for the North:South islands.</p>

<p>P.S. I thought the overnight meant spending a night in some expensive hotel on location - boat ride is definitely out of the question as we both get seasick quite easily ;-)</p>

<p>Thanks for you your replies :-)<br>

Some clarifications:</p>

<ul>

<li>I've not yet started to plan the itinerary and the list is not in any specific order</li>

<li>This post's main is reason is to reduce the number of places by 50%</li>

</ul>

<p>Jean Spector</strong><br /> <b>Signature URL removed. Not allowed per photo.net Terms of Use.</b></p>

<p>Me and my wife are going to New Zealand for a month in Feb 2011<br /> We'd like to make our trip like this:</p>

<ul>

<li>We're a <strong>couple of around 30</strong>, <strong>average fitness</strong> - neither overweight, nor a working-out type</li>

<li>We have <strong>28 days</strong> with a <strong>car </strong>(flying into/from Auckland)</li>

<li>We'd like to spend a <strong>couple of nights in each place (on average)</strong> so as not to rush it</li>

<li>I'll spend <strong>2 hours</strong> in the morning <strong>and 2 hours</strong> in the evening purely <strong>taking photos</strong> (to make use of the best light)</li>

<li>We'd also like to do some <strong>wine tasting and other touristy activities</strong>, but:</li>

<li>We could take a couple of half-day hikes, but we're <strong>not hikers</strong>, so the great walks are out</li>

<li>No extreme sports, boat rides will be avoided at all costs (except the inter-island ferry)</li>

<li>Night life would be nice on a couple of occasions, but it's not too high on our list</li>

</ul>

<p>I compiled a list of places that are of interest to us, but <strong>need to remove at least 50% of those from the list list in order to match the time we have - and that's where I need your help</strong>. Please suggest places to be removed (if you can spare the time to specify the reason to remove/keep any specific place it'll be more than welcome). Note: the list of places is not an itinerary - it's just a list and the numbers are for reference, e.g. <em>remove #23 as it's a boring place and spend 3 days in 22 instead as it was the most beautiful place we saw during our trip</em>)</p>

<p>North island places:<br />=================<br />1. Lake Rotorua > Wai-O-Tapu and Waimangu > Champagne Pool<br />2. Lake Rotorua > Pohutu (30m high geyser)<br />3. Lake Taupo <br />4. Hamilton > Lost world<br />5. Abbey caves<br />6. Bay of islands <br />7. Lake Waikaremoana<br />8. Waitomo caves<br />9. Haruru falls<br />10. Hokianga > Horeke > Wairere Boulders National Park <br />11. Kauri coast > Baylys Beach <br />12. Coromandel > Tip of the Coromandel peninsula <br />13. Auckland<br /><br />South island places:<br />=================<br />14. Queen Charlotte Drive <br />15. Farewell Spit <br />16. Golden Bay <br />17. Gentle Annie Beach <br />18. Blenheim > Marlborough (Food & Wine festival second Sat&Sun of Feb)<br />19. Franz Josef Glacier <br />20. Lagoon at the Ryton River > Lake Coleridge<br />21. Fiordland > Milford Sound<br />22. Fiordland > Doubtful Sound<br />23. Invercargill<br />24. Queenstown <br />25. Kaikoura <br />26. Christchurch <br />27. Abel Tasman National Park <br />28. Lake Tekapo and Lake Pukaki <br />29. Lake Matheson</p>

<p>Thanks for reading this far!<br /> Jean Spector</strong><br /> <b>Signature URL removed. Not allowed per photo.net Terms of Use.</b></p>

<p>Anna,<br>

I'd suggest one of the Micro4/3 cameras make by Olympus and Panasonic - they're smaller/lighter than DSLRs and give you high quality images due to their relatively large sensors (as opposed to the G11/S9 compacts mentioned above) and great lenses. Some of the them also offer top-notch HD video (e.g. Panasonic GH series). If the budget is a concern, take a look at Olympus E-PL series - these are the cheapest of the bunch, extremely compact, but still offer same level of image quality.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Jean</p>

<p>Without having been to Hawaii, I'd recommend to go with the 70-200 over the 100-400. That is unless you're going for wildlife.<br>

Why? Because when there's enough light for the 100-400 (unless used on a tripod) it's time for a nap (or a dip) as the most beautiful light is already gone. Same goes for the evening - the best time is when there isn't a lot of light available.<br>

I'm not trying to be a snob - many pros on an assignment will shoot for 12 hours/day and more - what I'm trying to say is that I find that a couple of hours in the morning (about 6AM-8AM) and a couple in the evening (an hour before and an hour after sunset) give me over 80% of the keepers.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Jean</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3728023">Sarah Fox</a> ,</p>

<p>It's true that nowdays anyone can pick up a digital camera and snap some photos, but "professional" - besides charging for your work - also bears a connotation of being superior to amateur.</p>

<p>I'm talking about images of more exotic and varied locations than what amateurs can provide, more angles of the same place, better light and cropping, better angle, better post-processing - resulting in better impact. Of course, professional photographer should have some marketing strategy, should cater for specific audiences (which amateurs never do) and have his/her images arranged to be easy to find (search engine optimization, excellent keywording) and purchase (pricing, payment options). That's what differentiates between professional and amateur photographers IMO. Oh, and don't forget to keep the passion that brought you into this profession in the first place - if you lose it, you lose all your advantage.</p>

<p>If you can't differentiate yourself enough, then you need to improve either one or both your artistic and business sides of photography. Of course you can sell your images on micro-stock sites, but there aren't many people who can earn their living entirely from micro-stock.</p>

<p>Sarah, from the little I saw you seem a very capable photographer and shouldn't be afraid of amateurs stealing your clients. You must understand that you're playing in a different league. After all, Bentley won't complain if someone decides to give away some cheap cars, won't they? Why? Because people who drive cheap cars are not their potential clients. Same here - people not willing to pay for images are not your potential customers, and even if they are forced to pay they'll choose the cheapest option which will usually be some beginning pro, i.e. the same amateur that instead of giving his photos away now tries to make some money with his hobby.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Jean</p>

<p>On one hand I don't think $150 for several hundred images would kill your business (I hope you've planned investing some money in marketing). I'm talking abut micro-stock web sites, like <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com">www.shutterstock.com</a> - they offer excellent value for your money.</p>

<p>On the other hand, feel free to browse <a href="http://www.photoprospect.com">www.photoprospect.com</a> - you might be interested in the Landscapes album. I'm sure you'll find there something that you like - please let me know what you chose (for my information).</p>

<p>To the above posters - sorry, but it makes me happy to see my photos put to use. And the hassle of selling them isn't worth the effort in my current situation (don't get me wrong, I would love to work on assignment, but it's very hard to get into this business especially w/o leaving your day job).</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Jean</p>

<div></div>

<p>In addition to Ben's and Steve's comments:<br>

I'd like to add that ISO 600 doesn't seem to be very good on your camera - especially if the resulting image is underexposed. Try to stick to the lowest ISO, e.g. 100 to 200 - at least until you learn what your camera is capable of doing in this regard. You also say that you used a tripod - but tripod needs to be of good quality (cheap ones tend not to do so well - after replacing 5 tripods I should know) and if there's strong a wind the image may still not be optimally sharp (heavy tripo is a blessing in this case).</p>

<p>In general this seems to be a very much beginner's shot (absolutely no offence meant), so try to look up recommendations on composition, exposure etc. - there's plenty of such stuff on the net for free. You might also consider taking a photography course to improve your basics to get the same, but in a more school-like fashion.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Jean</p>

<p>This issue (choosing a "budget" telephoto for Nikon) was discussed thousands of times and you'll definitely be able to find more info by searching the site (or two).<br>

I guess you know the basic pros/cons of your options:<br>

Compared to 80-400, 70-200 has faster optics, faster A/F and doesn't suck up dirt, but with x2.0 TC (required to reach 400mm) the A/F and optical performance will suffer significantly and will probably be worse than the alternative.<br>

You have other options:<br>

Nikkor 300mm f/4, which works fine with x1.4 and x1.7 TCs and is the best of the bunch optically, but doesn't have VR.<br>

You could also consider the Bigma (Sigma 50-500mm) and other alternatives.<br>

I'd probably recommnd you to look at 170(200)-500mm options, but if you don't own something that covers the 70-200 focal lenghts you might miss imprtat shots.</p>

<p>Good luck, Jean</p>

<p>Definitely take the 12-24mm - it can give you some imges that differ from what everybody else brings from Galapagos. The animals are so close to you that you can easily use the wide angle to include their surroundings.Some landscapes on Galapagos also call for a wide angle, but keep in mind your options with the animals there.<br /> Here is an (admittedly not the highest quality) example of what can be done with 12-24:</p>

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

<p>I'd take 10-20/4, 300/2.8, backup body<br>

Definitely bring a tripod - for hummers you'll need to prefocus on a specific location and be ready with your remote. Otherwise your hands will fall off with your 300 ;-)<br>

If you had a way to support them, I'd recommend taking all the flashguns you can get hold of - putting them on lower power gives much better motion freezing capabity (while making you put the flashes closer to the subject). I know that's wishful thinking. Even if you have a single flashgun, place it off-body.<br>

A simple umbrella can be indispensable when it rains and you're using a tripod - at least bring a rain cover for the camera OR a couple of clear plastic bags with some rubber bands.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Jean</p>

<p>Cosider micro-stock sites, e.g. shutterstock.com<br>

Note that these are not exactly 'art'-oriented sites - but then neither is anything you'd do as 'bargain chips'<br>

If you're good these will easily net you $500 a month without you investing a lot of time - just be persistent and keep updating the site(s) every 2-3 weeks with even a small number of images. $6000 a year is a nice budget for traveling ;-)</p>

<p>I was very pleasantly surprised by the results from the 70-300 VR - it was bought for the VR capability, but its results are way better than those from the non-VR 70-300's from Nikon and Sigma. On a scale between 70-200VR and different flavors of non-VR 70-300from Nikon and Sigma I'd place the lens closer to the 70-200.<br>

It also offers VR and versatility that your other lenses don't have.<br>

Still the 70-300 VR is not a prime, doesn't go to 50mm and won't give you the background separation of the faster lenses.<br>

As a travel companion my wife used to use it for a while and the lens seems very comfortable (huge zoom ring), has a very efficient VR - IMO better than that of the 70-200 - and solid enough to withstand the occasional bumps inevitable during travels.<br>

Whatever you decide - enjoy your travels!<br>

Jean</p>

<p>Definitely take you 70-200 - it was my most used lens there. I'd say Galapagos are 80% wildlife, 15% landscapes and 5% other.</p>

<p>I'd suggest getting something wider than your 24mm - more towards 18mm for those wide vistats (unless you're planning on stitching)</p>

<p>You won't be walking a whole lot - you longest track will probably be 700m, definitely less than 1km and the terrain isn't rough at all as you're not allowed to leave the trails. For eaxmple, my wife did most of the hiking in her Crocks sandals if you know what I mean - all the while carrying her Nikon D70.</p>

<p>I'd highly recommend getting both your DSLRs up to the boat and leaving your 40D in the cabin unless you need your backup. Once a guy stood up on the wrong side on our dinghy and it's almost tipped over, so you might want to get a waterproof bag, like DryZone.</p>

<p>I was carrying a light tripod at all times, but only used it at the Pinnacle Rock.</p>

<p>I was there in Sep 2007, so I guess nothing's changed since ;-)</p>

<p>You can check out some of my photos at<br>

<a href="http://www.photoprospect.com/SelectAnimalsImages">www.photoprospect.com - Animals</a> (scroll to the bottom)<br>

and <a href="http://www.photoprospect.com/SelectAnimalsImage"></a><br>

<a href="http://www.photoprospect.com/SelectLandscapesImages">www.photoprospect.com - Landscapes</a></p>

<p>Enjoy your trip,<br>

Jean</p>