jim_franck

If you're serious about wildlife photos, you may want to consider

a couple of rolls of something faster than 100. Assuming you'll

be using med to long telephotos to "reach" the animals, 100

speed film could seriously limit the shutter speeds you'll have

available for moving wildlife - especially since most animals are

most visible at dawn and dusk. Some 200 or even 400 for those

situations would be advised.

 

Jim Franck

Check out Sauk City/Prairie du Sac, Wisconsin. These "twin cities" are on the Wisconsin River about 30 minutes northwest of Madison. Depending on where you live in (or around) Chicago, that will push you to three hours, but....! Prairie du Sac just had its annual eagle watching days appropriately as the town is adjacent to the Prairie du Sac dam on the river. Because the water is kept ice-free by the force of the dam flow, the heavily oxygenated water attracts fish which, in turn, attract eagles for easy pickin's. Last time I was there I counted about 70 eagles sitting in trees lining the river and taking their turns scooping up the fish. It's a great sport, the birds are terrific, and a 500mm will get you close. I've used a 300 with moderate success but I'd recommend a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter just in case. Depending on where you're standing, the birds are generally about 500-600 yards away. About a Tiger Woods tee shot.

 

Jim Franck

Admittedly, I just skimmed your list Alexandre but there are two excellent books I'm surprised to not see listed. Both are less nuts & bolts and more devoted to the creative design aspects of nature work. They are both inspirational.

 

"Photographing the World Around You" by Freeman Patterson

"Photographing the Patterns of Nature" by Gary Braasch

 

One of the most inspiring things about both authors is that they make you realize that you don't have to live in Yellowstone to capture beautiful images of nature.

 

Jim Franck

I just purchased a used Nikon SB-17 flash but it doesn't have a manual. I've checked the net for Magic Lantern Guides for this unit. Can't find any. Is there a site that contains manuals or tech sheets for Nikon products or similar? Thanks in advance!

Just to play devil's advocate, I'd suggest considering the following (which is what I did when faced with a similar situation). The cheaper 80-200 zoom, the ED, sells new for about $900. and weighs 45.9 oz. If you purchased a good quality used low end zoom, the 28-70 f/3.5-4.5, for example, you'd spend less than $300 and it weighs 12.5 oz. A good quality used higher end zoom, the 70-300 f/4-5.6, for example, can be also be purchased for less than $300 and weighs 18.2 oz. Both these lenses are excellent for landscape and nature purposes. You can throw in a 5T supplementary for another $35 for close-ups if needed.

 

So, for about 2/3 the cost of the 80-200 you've got two great lenses for your purposes, they cover virtually the entire landscape lens spectrum, and your total weight combined is still less than the 80-200.

 

With the money you save you can by a Bogen 3001 tripod and passable head and really be in business.

 

Just fodder for the imagination.

 

Jim Franck

For an excellent description of nature uses for this lens, you might check John Shaw's "The Nature Photographer's Complete Guide..." (pgs. 62/63) and his "Close Ups in Nature" (pgs. 66/67). Like him, I use it with Nikon's PN-11 extension tube for closeups of flowers, bugs, etc. and it's terrific. It's also an excellent all round lens for other nature subjects, as Shaw points out.

 

Jim Franck

Richard: I confess I take the coward's way out. I refuse to chance my really good gear to possible mishaps while kayaking. Similar to some other posts though, I am willing to take either my Pentax WR 90 or Olympus Stylus 115 DLX, both P&S, along. I keep either in a small dry bag rolled up between my legs. It's a simple matter to retrieve and replace the camera in a moment's notice and both have easily survived some mild soakings. I attended a slide presentation recently given by 2 guys who kayaked the circumference of St. George Island near Antartica. Their slides were gorgeous. I complemented them later and asked how they had managed it and what gear they used, suspecting a Nikonos, etc. They laughed and said they had begun with one but it had malfunctioned immediately so they shot the whole trip using a backup Olympus 115 DLX tucked into a dry bag between their legs! Can be done!

Don's correct. My original question was not as clear as it should have been. Apologies for the confusion. I'm simply looking for a negative emulsion for winter scenics that has the same characteristics as the slide films: K200 or Velvia. Do appreciate the posts on K64 which reminded me of that for slide use this winter.

 

Jim

Joyfully, the upper midwest is once again about to turn into a

giant 18% grey card for five months. Rather than use my cameras for

rear wheel chocks behind the pickup on the ice covered driveway, I

thought I'd take a shot (?) at creating some nature/landscape note

cards using prints. Question is: which emulsion(s)? (I generally shoot

K25 & Velvia). It would seem, for my purposes, print film for large

print quantities might be better than reversal, cost being a concern.

Mr. Shaw recommends K200 for slides because its sharpness and grain

give punch and texture to a flatly lit, lo/no contrast landscapes.

Others recommend Velvia. My reading on print emulsions leads me

towards the negative counterparts Fuji Superia 100 (not Reala) or

Kodak Portra 160VC, both having high contrast along with high

resolution and sharpness. Am I heading in the right direction or are

rear wheel chocks the best bet? Thanks in advance for your wise advice

and suggestions!

 

Jim Franck (jfranck@msn.fullfeed.com)