george_rhodes

This may be a bit late to help you on this trip, but maybe you can use the information on future visits to the south Florida area.

 

The campus of Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton is locally famous for its population of Burrowing Owls. I believe the Burrowing Owl is the schools's mascot. Images of the little critter appear on all kinds of Florida Atlantic things. Their burrows can be found in the fields all around the perimeter of the campus.

Minolta is thinking clearly and wisely. Their 9 is a superb camera that will be a fine compliment to their excellent line of higher end optics. Contrary to the beliefs of some out there, Minolta's AF lens line-up is not inferior to their Nikon or Canon counterparts, unless you happen to need a perspective control lens or an AF 400mm f2.8. Of course, if you happen to need a superb AF 400mm f4.5 lens, then you're out of luck if you own Nikon or Canon.

I recommend that you get in touch with the folks at The Society of Photographic Art in Fort Lauderdale. Wade Caldwell is the person who will probably be able to help you the most. Many people in the group are involved in nature and wildlife photography and they occasionally have field trips or workshops to various outdoor locations in the south Florida area. I believe you would find friendship and helpful advice at the meetings. If you get in touch with them, please tell Wade I said hello. I don't know the phone number off hand. You could probably get it from information or from the Fort Lauderdale Chamber of Commerce. If not, look up the phone number of Wade Caldwell. Blame it on me.

Hi Andrei,

 

<p>

 

I have been using the relatively new Minolta AF400mm f4.5 HIGH SPEED APO since it hit the U.S. about two years ago. It is almost a full stop faster than the 400mm f5.6 lenses, is almost as light and therefore handholdable when necessary and is optically superb - rated higher than any of it's 5.6 counterparts. I have been using it on the Maxxum 9xi, but Minolta will be coming out with a superb new Pro model, the Maxxum 9, in the very near future. The 9 will compete directly with the highest end Canon and Nikon pro models. Minolta is making a head-long jump into the pro arena. Their 400mm f4.5 maintains AF when coupled with the Minolta AF 1.4X APO TC. I have achieved superb results using this lens on the 9xi. If you're not familiar with this lens and the upcoming Minolta Maxxum 9, you might want to do yourself a favor and take a look. You might be surprised.

Hi Benny,

 

<p>

 

I agree with Jim that the Nikkor 300mm f4 ED would be a good choice. The older 300mm f4.5 ED IF isn't much cheaper than a used 300mm f4 and it is not quite as good or as sharp as the newer lens either. I speak from personal experience. Also, you will get sharper results and a faster shutter speed with a 1.4X TC than with the 2X.

I would not recommend the Nikkor 400mm f5.6 ED IF. It is obsolete by today's standards and is overpriced in my opinion for what you get.

The Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO macro is probably just as sharp (if not sharper - it has 2 low dispersion elements in its optical design) and is supposed to be quite well built. It is also about 1/3 the price of the Nikkor, if you're considering buying a new lens. The Sigma supposedly couples quite well with the new 1.4X Sigma APO TC. That might be your best choice for bird photography and it won't break the bank.

Hi John,

 

<p>

 

The option of signing or not signing art work (in this case photographs) rests with the creator of the work. If you are planning to sell the work, most of your potential buyers will want to see a signature. I personally don't like to see a signature directly on the print itself, particularly with one of those tacky pneumatic gold paint pens. If you sign on the mat, the signature is removed if the purchaser decides to remove the mat. I make a living primarily selling limited edition fine art color photographs. This is the method I have come to use. I dry mount the print onto a white acid-free museum rag board. I sign in pencil on the board directly beneath the print. Signature goes on the right, edition number on the left and title in the middle. I cut a mat out of the same board, leaving 1/2 inch gap between the mat and the print on the top and sides and about an inch gap on the bottom, to leave room for the signature, etc. Mats and frames should be simple and clean and rather neutral in color so as not to detract the viewers attention from the image.

For insects and lizards, the 105mm would definately be of more use to you than the 50mm range. You will need the extra working distance. The 105mm would even be better for flower work, in my opinion. I had an old 100mm Minolta, which I used extensively. I found it to be an very nice focal length for insects, flowers, portraits of both people and animals. I later acquired a Nikkor 60mm and the old style 200mm Nikkor Macro. The 200mm gave me added working distance for lizards and such, which was very helpful. However, I still personally preferred the 100mm range for insects. I rarely used the 60mm at all, except for scenics and general shooting. It does not provide a very useful working distance for most macro nature work.

 

<p>

 

Most macro work is done in the f11-f16 range for the added depth of field. One or more flash units are extremely useful for macro work. It enables you to shoot hand held at f16 without having to worry about motion. Without flash, I highly recommend use of a tripod. If you have a Nikon camera, I would recommend going with a Nikkor macro lens. All Nikkor macro (micro) lenses have excellent reputations.

I've used a lot of different equipment over the years. For a while, I used only 35mm Nikkor prime lenses on manual focus bodies, supplemented with a twin lens Mamiya with interchangeable lenses for some scenics. I've always been an ocean-oriented guy, so I've had a variety of underwater cameras. I now carry a pair of Nikonos 5s with 20mm and 28mm lenses for most of my underwater work, which is mostly marine mammals. I've recently switched to a Pentax 67 for my medium format scenics. On a typical day trip to Ding Darling, Corkscrew Swamp, or Everglades national Park, etc. I now carry my Minolta 9xi with AF 400mm f4.5 APO and 1.4X and 2X matched APO TCs, Tamron AF 70-210 f2.8 LD SP, Tamron AF 90mm f2.8 macro and a Minolta AF 28-85mm zoom. I use a Bogen 3221 tripod with 3047 head. I personally prefer this head, as I frequently like to pan from side to side on a single plane. I use the Kirk equivalent of the Bogen Magic Arm and occasionally a bean bag for added support and stability. I prefer to carry my 400mm, slung over my shoulder on its strap and the rest of my gear in a Lowpro Orion AW large fanny pack. In the Orion I also carry assorted filters, a powerful flash unit and a LumiQuest Soft Box that attaches to the flash, extra batteries, a Swiss Army Knife and film. This gives me excellent mobility. I carry a plastic bag for the 400mm, in case of rain. I also use my Leonard Rue vest occasionally, but except for a few winter months, it is usually too hot for the vest here in Florida. If I'm traveling in a boat, plane or vehicle, I carry everything to the site in a King Pelican Case.

For you Minolta users out there, I have just come across more information on the new Minolta 9. It is an extremely rugged pro-level camera with a stainless steel shell and incorporates just about every good idea that Minolts has ever put into any of their cameras. Also announced is a 200mm APO G Macro lens that Minolya states will be of interest to nature photographers. Minolta is apparently making a major thrust into the pro arena and hopes to seduce more nature shooters.

 

<p>

 

Info on the Minolta ( and new 200mm macro can be found at

http://www.minolta.de/europe.html

Minolta has just announced a new pro body, the Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 9, to be available in May of 99. It has some very nice features, such as mid-roll film change and a MIRROR LOCKUP provision. Specs and a photograph of it are available at http://www.photodo.com/news/

Hi Erik,

 

<p>

 

Personally, I would opt for the Minolta AF 300mm f4 High Speed APO over the 300mm f2.8. It is easier to carry around, probably just as sharp and costs considerably less than the 2.8. You would loose 1 stop, which may or may not be significant. The 100-300 APO zoom is slower than either fixed focal length lens. Also, you could use teleconverters to good effect with either fixed focal length lens. No zoom would produce results of comparable quality with a TC in that focal length range.

 

<p>

 

A quick statement regarding mirror lock-up and Minolta. I am a full-time pro who uses both Minolta and Nikon equipment. I used Nikon exclusively, until much of the Nikon equipment was stolen. I decided to replace my equipment with autofocus equipment. The Minolta 9xi had just hit the market. With 4 AF sensors and the best AF system at the time, the 9xi was the finest AF camera on the market when it was introduced. I compared it with the Nikon AF cameras of the time and with the EOS-1. I found the 9xi to be superior to all other cameras. The 9xi does not have a mirror lock-up function, but neither did the EOS-1. However, the EOS-1N does. In any case, I bought a 9xi and have not been disappointed. Due to its 1/12000 second shutter speed, the 9xi has the best dampened mirror box of any 35mm SLR I have ever used, making mirror slap less of an issue. I have produced tack sharp 20" X 30" prints with Velvia, using my Minolta AF 400mm f4.5 High Speed APO on my 9xi when shooting in the 1/15 second range. I use a sturdy tripod and the Kirk equivalent of the Bogen Magic Arm to stabilize the camera body. The results are at least as good as the results I used to achieve, using my old Nikkor 300mm f4.5 IF ED on an FE-2 with the mirror lock-up provision of the timer delay lever. I do occasionally have a slight problem with camera shake with the above Minolta equipment when the camera body is rotated into a vertical orientation, however. With proper technique, I can get around it. I have never used any other Minolta AF body and cannot comment on their performance. I do hope for a mirror lock-up feature or possibly revolutionary pellicle mirror type of solution on the hopefully-up-coming next Minolta pro body. I don't really feel that I absolutely need that feature, but I do feel that it's advantageous at times. By the way, the Nikon N90s that so many pros use and love, also does not have a mirror lock-up provision .

 

<p>

 

I hope this helps.

 

<p>

 

george

You mentioned that you are considering both manual focus and autofocus lenses. As long as you are going into a long telephoto, why not go with AF from the beginning, particularly if you're considering shooting wildlife. You can always turn it off and focus manually, but you will have it when you need it. You mentioned the Nikon 400mm f5.6 ED manual focus lens. In my opinion, that lens is outdated by todays standards. The Canon 400mm f5.6 AF L lens is well thought of and is less expensive than its Nikon counterpart. I use the new Minolta 400mm f4.5 AF APO. It is outstanding optically and focuses closer than any other 400mm on the market, except the 400MM Sigma f5.6 APO Macro. However, I seem to be in the minority with my high regard for the high end Minolta equipment. I also shoot Nikon, but most of my friends are now using Canon. I am familiar with the Canon, Nikon and Minolta systems, but not with the Olympus. A great solution would be to get either the Nikon or Canon 500 and supplement it with a 300mm f4 of the same brand. Add a 1.4X TC and you'd have a 300mm, 420mm, 500mm and 700mm. Both Nikon and Canon telephoto lenses are outstanding optiocally. One caution here - the Canon 500mm f4.5 will not autofocus with the 1.4X TC attached. For what it's worth, the Minolta 400mm f4.5 does autofocus with the Minolta 1.4X APO TC attached. One downside of all Minolta cameras is that no Minolta camera has a mirror lock-up provision. This may or may not be a problem for you. It is irrelevant for action work of any kind. Personally, If I was planning to get ONLY one long telephoto, I'd opt for a 400mm, but the two lens solution would give you more options.

Arthur Morris has achieved a great deal of success in his field of expertise. Whenever anyone becomes one of the best in their field, there will be those who are interested in finding out how that person achieved his/her success. Arthur Morris explains how he got where he is today. Part of that success story is the equipment that he used in producing the images. I want to know how he produced his bird images and what equipment he used to do it. We can read how Arthur Morris went about his photography and adopt what parts of it we think may apply to us and reject the parts of it that we perhaps might not agree with.

 

<p>

 

I found the book to be very interesting reading and quite informative. I have never owned a single piece of Canon equipment, yet I can

easily relate what he says about his Canon equipment to my own equipment.

I find this subject very interesting. Just another thought here. Throughout time, wildlife and nature have been considered valid subject matter from which to create art. Many drawings, paintings, sculptures, etc. have been done, depicting these subjects. The earliest known art, cave paintings, were a depiction of animals. The early artist used the primitive tools that were available to him/her at the time. Photography is a very new art medium. Because anyone can buy a cheap camera, click the shutter and end up with an image, there is a misconception among many today as to what it takes to produce a truly good, professional calliber photographic image. The points I'm trying to make are these:

 

<p>

 

#1. Photography is definately an important, accepted art medium.

 

<p>

 

#2. Wildlife and nature are definately acceptable subject matter from

which to create art.

 

<p>

 

#3. I believe it stands to reason, therefore, that wildlife and nature photography can be considered as art. It is the quality of the image, both in execution and content, that will determine its status.

Photography is definately accepted as one of the important fine art mediums of this century.

 

<p>

 

There is an ongoing debate among people in fine art circles (particularly between painters and photographers) as to what constitutes fine art in photography and where to draw the line. You will find many differing opinions among the people involved in these debates. This is definately a good time to be a fine art photographer.

 

<p>

 

In my own personal opinion, I would consider a photographer who sells his/her work primarily through fine art venues, such as fine art shows and galleries, etc. to definately be considered an artist. His/her art medium is photography. If the work is sold primarily to publications as part of documentary information, I'm not sure you would have as easy a time classifying yourself as an artist. That's not to say you ar not an artist. The definition of art in the dictionary is rather vague. The word that comes up is "creativity". Do you show creativity in producing your imagery? I would assume you could argue that you do and that you are classified, therefore, as an artist.

If you have a 35mm transparency that you consider exceptional and you have no in-camera duplicates of that image, when submitting to publications, always send 35mm duplicates. If the image is accepted and the publisher doesn't consider the 35mm dup. adequate, have a 70mm or 4X5 reproduction grade transparency made and send that. Send the original only as a last resort, if you consider it worth the risk. While many publishers handle submitted work with great care, you would not believe the condition of some of my original 35mm transparencies when they were returned to me after publication. Shooting in-camera duplicate transparencies, when possible, is a good way to solve the above problem.

 

<p>

 

Unless you specify a time limit, you might be surprised at the length of time some publishers will hold your work, particularly if they have it "under consideration".

 

<p>

 

Sumbitting work for possible publication is a long learning process. Be prepared for rejection, at least at the beginning, until you learn your market.

For me, turning photography into a full-time profession evolved very slowly, over a 15 year period. I now make a decent full-time living from photography - almost exclusively wildlife and scenics. I started out by entering one fine art print at a time in local art guild competitions. Eventually, I started to exhibit in local outdoor art shows. While I was doing this, I began submitting to photography competitions. I won several awards and began submitting work to regular publications, etc. Winning an award in the International Wildlife Photographer of the Year Competition was a big help. It seemed that from that time on, I had no trouble getting published. I began exhibiting fine art photographs in better art shows and galleries throughout my home state of Florida. I gradually developed wholesale accounts with my matted photographs. I ran my first poster and first 2 notecards in 1990. I added 8 new notecards to my line every year, until I could fill a floor stand spinner rack and then began to market whole spinner rack systems of notecards. Suddenly, I was getting calls from people who saw my images on notecards and either wanted to carry the line in their store or nature center or wanted to use certain images in brochures. etc. Interior designers began to order large framed photographs they had seen at shows. While this whole thing was evolving, I worked full time, first as an art teacher and later in a medical-technical field. I eventually went to part-time status for a few years and then finally went full time with the photography. Now that I do this for a living, I would estimate that about 95% of my time in photography is spent marketing, printing, cutting mats, packing and shipping notecards. etc. I probably had more time to actually shoot in the field when photography was just a hobby and I worked in a hospital.

 

<p>

 

My closest friends who are also full time professionals in this field have similar stories. One was a pharmacist and developed his career about the same time I was developing mine and took about the same amount of time to do so.

 

<p>

 

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that to become successful in this field is a very difficult, long-term process. It will be a long time before you will be able to earn a full time income from your photography. Unless you are extremely fortunate, you will have to have another means of earning a living, while you work at the photography in your spare time. If you start to become successful, there will probably be a point where you will be working about 80-100 hours a week at your regular job and the photography combined, in order to earn enough money and still keep up with the photography.

 

One common thread that I have found among all of my friends in this field (besides the obvious love of nature and an ability to produce exceptional images and to know they are exceptional) is a dogged determination and a willingness to struggle for many years in order to eventually achieve the goal of making a living doing something they love and believe in. I'm sure there are those full-time pros out there whose roads to success were very different than mine. I just thought I'd tell one person's story.

Your decision will have a lot to do with personal preference, regarding what you intend to shoot, etc. One thing here to consider. If you intend to shoot birds or need a lens that is longer than a 300mm, you would probably get better results with a prime 300mm and a 1.4X teleconverter than you would with the 1.4X TC on a zoom. I have personally opted for a 70-210 f2.8 and a 400mm f4.5 with 1.4X & 2X TCs. That combination gives me anything I usually need in the telephoto range.

 

<p>

 

A very nice combination might be the 100-300mm f4 and later a 400mm f5.6. You could also get a 1.4X TC to extend your 400mm to a 560mm f8. A bit on the slow side, but often workable, especially with the newer 200 ASA films that can be pushed to 400 ASA with very good results.

The Minolta AF High Speed 400mm f4.5 APO lens has been mentioned. The price out of B&H is just under $2,000. I have been using this lens since it was introduced into the U.S. It is an extremely sturdy, optically superb lens. AF continues to function when the 1.4X APO teleconverter is added. I have been using this lens on the pro model Minolta Maxxum 9xi body. This combination has been helping me to make a living since its purchase and I highly recommend the lens.

If you will be traveling in the southern part of England, I highly recommend Stonehenge, located on the southern part of the Salisbury Plain, about 8 miles north of Salisbury and 2 miles west of Amesbury. In nearby Salisbury, you will find the spectacular Salisbury Cathedral. The quaint little village of Castle Combe is not far from Salisbury. It is one of the most picturesque villages in England. You will feel as though you have gone back in time.

Hi Jeff,

 

<p>

 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge is worth a try. It is located at Cape Canaveral, at the Kennedy Space Center. I haven't been there in many years, but Black Point Wildlife Trail was quite good at the time. It is a 5 mile automobile drive. There was a nice variety of birds, including a resident flock of Roseate Spoonbills. You will generally need a long lens for the spoonbills. Other common birds are Osprey, various herons and egrets and Black-necked Stilts. There are also some Bald Eagles in the area. The Spoonbills are usually easier to find around dusk. I recommend that you get in touch with the people at the refuge, in order to get an idea of how things are at this time. Good luck!

 

<p>

 

George

Hi Shun Cheung,

 

<p>

 

I live in Plantation, Florida, just west of Fort lauderdale. You are right about our unusually bad weather this winter season. Two days ago an unusual storm hit the area with winds clocked at 104mph! The damage estimate for the region is in the hundreds of millions. I'm a native Floridian and have never seen anything like this before, except hurricanes, of course. The weather forecast for tonight (Wednesday) is for temperatures in the high 40's, with wind that that cuases it to feel like it's in the 30's. The forecast for this coming Saturday is gale-force winds, accompanied by lots of rain. Two weeks ago, my wife and I were canoing in the Flamingo area of Everglades N.P. , near Snake Beight, where a flock of about 40 Flamingoes have been hanging out for many months. The Flamingoes come in from the Caribbean. We could not find any Flamingoes, but did see many hundreds of White Pelicans, huge flocks of Skimmers, White Ibis and many Roseate Spoonbills, along with the usual varied egrets, etc. Thousnads of birds, mostly in the back areas that are easily accessed by rental canoes at Flamingo. We paddled back to the marina in the rain. If you decide to come to Florida now, bring your rain gear.

The friendly people at the Flamingo Marina can tell you all about the canoe and kayak rentals and the bird situatrion, including the Flamingoes. There seemed to be the usual huge flocks of White Ibis at Eco Pond. Becaues of all the rain, some of the other areas have unusually high water and fewer birds. I have been hearing concerns about flooding, when the (wet) season arrives in a few months.

 

<p>

 

We spent a few days on Sanibel just before going to Flamingo. There are more White Pelicans in Ding Darling than usual. The bird situation in Ding Darling is very good now - absolutely packed. More Spoonbills than I usually see there at this time of year. At low tide the birds tend to congregate on the two huge sand bars that have formed as a result of the currents passing through a huge drain pipe that runs beneath the wildlife drive, making for interesting shots. It was overcast the whole time I was there, but that can actually help with the contrast situation when photographing white birds.

 

<p>

 

Although we are having an unusually cold and wet winter season, we have also had some very nice days - just fewer of them than usual. I recommend that you continue to watch the weather reports, to determine if you feel the weather is up to your expectations for a trip to Florida at this time.

Hi Eric,

 

<p>

 

It never hurts to have AF, as you can always focus manually. You would have it for those times when it would help. I use AF for birds in flight, fast action and when I am followg a bird or animal on the move. With AF I can concentrate on tracking with the lens, without having to concern myself also with focusing. I use a Minolta 9xi, which has a 4-sensor array, so it locks on pretty well most of the time. With the newer AF cameras that have multiple AF sensors or wide-area sensors, you won't have to recompose all that much.

 

<p>

 

Concerning your question on AF lenses and AF TCs, If the lens/TC combination gives you an f stop of 5.6 or wider, the combination should autofocus. When you add a 1.4X AF TC to a 400mm AF 5.6 lens, your wide open f stop will be f8. That combination will not autofocus, because it is not f5.6 or wider. The combination is stopped down too far and doesn't let in enough light for AF function.

Hi Anthony,

 

<p>

 

The Nikkor 80-200 is a superb lens. The Tamron 200-400 is not all that great at the long end and the results that you get from it will not be on par with the results from your Nikkor. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the Nikkor has a 77mm filter threading. I don't believe there is a good close-up lens that is threaded that large. I think that's what you mean. Instead, you should use an extension tube. That will get you close, without the loss of resolution of a cheap close-up lens.

Anthony,

 

<p>

 

How about a National Wildlife Refuge with a big housing development running all through it and roadways crisscrossing it, so that about 1/5 of the ENDANGERED SPECIES living in the refuge is road-killed annually? You probably think I'm not serious? WRONG! I'm speaking of the KEY DEER refuge on Big Pine Key. I live in Florida, just north of the Keys, so I know what I'm talking about. Luckily, the Key Deer are able to reproduce at about the same rate that they are being slaughtered by automobiles - roughly about 60 fawns per year. You see, in Florida there are those people who become very nervous if a tract of land larger than about an acre is left unpaved. They worry that in the event that a person would want to set foot on the land in the summer months, there would be no concrete structure there in which to have an air conditioner. That person might overheat. There is a huge elderly population down here from up there who worry about this sort of thing, even more than they worry that the 0ne acre tract of land isn't producing the amount of tax revenue that it could if a few apartment buildings were sitting on it. I do love my home state, but I wonder what the future holds.