anthonty_debase

People interested in agressive bear behavior may wish to read the book: "Bear Attacks, Their cause and avoidance". Sorry I don't have the author's name.

Danny makes a good point. Obviously the motor drive in the N90s would effect vibrations. But the FM2 uses a manual advance lever and I did not touch it while waiting for things to settle down.

 

<p>

 

I suppose we could get bogged down in all sorts of technical minutia concerning this subject. What it really comes down to for me, is that mirror lockup of some sort is nice to have in the 1/4 - 1/30 second range, and my next camera body will have true mirror lockup. Nothing new here. It would have been easier to take Dr. A's advice to begin with! :)

 

<p>

 

May the Light be with You.

Since I posted the information on 6-8 seconds for the vibrations to stop please let me respond to Eric's question. First, these are observations made by me in the field. They are not scientific tests done in a lab under controlled conditions with precision instruments. Second, I made them using a 500mm lens with 1.4 TC. In other workds I was hanging out there with a 700mm lens. A long lens is much more sensitive to any vibration than a 50mm, 100mm or 200mm lens. I was using an ARCA B1 ball head on a Bogen 3221 tripod. The tripod stood on a flat, grass lawn. No breezes that I noticed. Th Bogen/Arca combination is adequate to handle the 500 mm f/4, but just barely so in my opinion. Had I purchased a 600mm lens or even the heavier autofocus version of the 500mm lens I probably would be currently shopping for a meatier ball head. I have tried this lens on a friend's Wimberly head. That beefy head might serve to dampen the vibrations faster. I don't know for certain.

 

<p>

 

Let me also add that my observations of vibration were made after the mirror came down. Perhaps SLR mirrors are not as well damped for the trip down after the exposure is made. Finally, my personal technique may not be as good as it should be.

I have just finished making some tests on mirror damping using my N90s and FM2n, and a 500mm f/4 with 1.4X TC. For what it is worth here are my observations:

 

<p>

 

The N90s mirror is better damped than the FM2n. After the mirrors flip back down the FM2n images shakes much more than the N90s image. The N90s will settle down about 6 seconds after the exposure is taken. The FM2n takes 8 seconds to settle down. But, when used with the FM2n's mirror prefire (something that is present in this Nikon) the FM2n has a small, but noticable edge in sharpness especially at the "killer" 1/15 second shutter speed. (The FM2n prefire is on a 10 second timer thus giving the camer/lens assembly more than enough time to stop vibrating.) Above 1/30th second I see no difference. Also, below 1/4 second I did not see any differnce. There is nothing here that should shock anybody who has followed this issue on photo.net.

 

<p>

 

For non-action photography where it is probable that I will be shooting in the critical range of 1/2-1/40 second I will use the FM2n with its mirror prefire if at all possible. (This range has a bit of a buffer in it to allow for my observations being off.) However, if the FM2n is not available, I would not hesitate to use the N90s. The N90s was good, just not as good as the FM2n with pre-fire.

 

<p>

 

Since different cameras have different qualties of damping I would not extrapolate these observations to any other makes or models.

 

<p>

 

Finally, all of this requires great technique. Technique is first, mirror lockup or prefire is second in determining image quality.

Kevin O'Neil's Easter Light site has a primer on reversal film exposure that covers this question and more. It might be of interest to those who want to understand exposure.

 

<p>

 

http://members.aol.com/kevinoneil/exp.html

I have been reading Lepp's book "Beyond the Basics II". On page 66 he addresses the problem of animals that are very sensitive to the human form. He recommends altering one's appearence to look more like the animal. In particular he states that "Caribou may pay no attention to you if you have antlers". He recommends you raise your arms with hands spread, or hold your tripod on your head as you approach. (Pg. 66, look it up for yourself. He is thoughtful enough to include a photo of his guide "Tundra Tom" who is demonstrating how to give the antler appearance.

 

<p>

 

Unfortunately, Lepp does not go on to explain what happens next. After a successfull approach with fake antlers, how does one take the picture? Will the caribou discover the deception when the intreped photographer takes the tripod of his head or lowers his arms to aim and shoot? Or should the camera be left attached to tripod on the head with a cable release to fire it? Perhaps a right angle finder would help to aim the camera?

 

<p>

 

Are there any other similar tricks that don't require expensive, additional equipment that nature photographers can use when approaching animals?

Due to warmer than normal weather the tulip harvesting has already begun. I am not sure that tulip photo fans should wait until the festival.

After sending the previous message I realized that I did not mention that it is the AA Lithium batteries that Nikon has OK'd for the N90s. The MB-10 grip uses a smaller "oddball" lithium battery. But it is much nicer to be able to put 4 AA's in the N90s instead of alkaline batteries.

I have used my N90s for 3-4 hours out in cold weather (16-24 degrees Farenheit, probably not as cold as Yellowstone) and have had no problems using Lithium batteries. Nikon has OK'd Lithium batteries for the N90s. I don't think that OK extends back to the N90. Check with Nikon before using them in that older model.

 

<p>

 

My experience with alkaline batteries is that Everready alkalines lasted longer and produce fewer low-battery problems than the bulk alkalines I purchase at Costco. So if you must use alkalines get a quality name brand. But Lithium batteries are the best way to go by far.

This site might prove useful.

 

<p>

 

http://www.phototravel.com/wildflower/wildflower.htm

As one who has only recently started shooting at a local zoo let me add a few comments. First, some modern zoos have fairly realistic habitats that could meet the criteria for not showing the "hand of man". Still, I agree with those who believe that all zoo images should be labeled as being captive animals. It is the ethical thing to do.

 

<p>

 

Second, zoos are great places to practice animal photography so one is ready for those times when one is out in a natural environment. Most of us who live in the big city don't have enough opportunities to photograph wild animals and when we get them we want to know what we are doing. I know from my own experience that getting good images of zoo animals requires quite a bit of skill, patience and effort. This makes me admire the good nature photographers even more.

The 500mm f/4 P Nikkor telephoto lens in very good to excellent condition can be purchased in the $3,000 range. As Don points out in his website (correct me if you have changed this recommendation, Don) the "affordable" way to get into the Big Glass is via Nikon's new or used manual focus telephotos. Unfortunately, the wonderful USM/SilentWave glass by Canon and Nikon is too expensive for many of us. :(

 

<p>

 

Incendentally, I have run into several bird photographers who use the 400mm f/2.8 with a 2X convertor. They claim to have sold shots to various magazines taken with that combo. Of course, I am in no position to verify any of this information.

I recently surfed LensWork's site. http://www.lenswork.com/best0.htm

They had some wonderful images of the American Camp in my home state. Between their images and Dan's lovely work I have decided to take a few rolls of black and white up to Alaska this summer. So now I have the very pleasurable task of shooting several rolls of different black and white films to get myself ready for another pleasurable experience. No wonder I like this hobby.

If we had no zoos then only those rich enought to travel over the entire world could see and appreciate these animals. That would greatly reduce the political will to preserve them. While I cannot and will not condone abuse of a captive animal in a zoo, I think we must be aware of how we build a consensus to preserve these animals.

 

<p>

 

As the National Park Service in the USA knows, they must provide access and enjoyment for all of those 'auto tourists' so they can get the support necessary to support the wildnerness areas. I think the same is true for zoos and preserving wildlife worldwide.

 

<p>

 

Let's also define abuse. Some folks believe any captivity is abuse, eating animals is abuse, wearing leather is abuse and so forth. Others would limit abuse only to intentional and purposeless cruelty.

Dan, my family is too smart to give up a trip to Alaska for a few days at Fantasyland in smoggy Anaheim. They appreciate seeing the real thing like Alaskan bears instead of little animated bears, historical fortresses instead of fake log forts selling tacky souveniors, and glaciated mountains instead of a plastic Matterhorne. I guess I must have done something right. Expensive, but right. :)

 

<p>

 

Of course, we are planning a trip to Utah sometime before the millenium (2001 AD, the real millenium). See you then.

Things have firmed up quite a bit so I have a few more questions. We will be taking the Alaska Marine Ferry up to Skagway from Bellingham.

 

How is the vibration situation when using a tripod on deck? Did you find any places on the ship that were better or worse when it came to vibrations?

 

<p>

 

What particularly photogenic sights (yes, I know that most of the trip is photogenic)impressed you on this route and what where they? I want to be prepared.

 

<p>

 

Will my Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 zoom with TC14B teleconvertor be good enough for those distant animals, waterfalls, glaciers, etc. seen from the ship, or should I bring along the 400mm Sigma?

 

<p>

 

Any other nature photo tips or hints for the AMHS Ferry portion of this trip are welcome.

I will be in the area between Camarillo and Oxnard. I know that I can drive to the beaches in a little less than 1 hour. Are there any places in that area that are official or unofficial "preserves" for shorebirds and other sea mammals?

 

<p>

 

Is there a decent zoo or animal park in that area?

I may be making a 3 day trip to Ventura County, CA next month to visit a sick relative and help out with a few things. While there I will have about 1/2 day for doing a little nature photography. My N90s, 400mm Sigma and 80-200 Nikkor will accompany me. I would appreciate suggestions for where to go in Ventura County for wildlife photos. Thanks.

Various issues relating to the ethics of nature photography have been debated in this forum and others over the past years.

 

<p>

 

The current issue of Audubon magazine (Jan/Feb 1998) has an article that makes a great primer for those of us who are still unsure what this great debate is about and how past events have brought us to this point. The article is entitled: Reality Check and is written by Edwin Dobb.

 

<p>

 

Mr. Dobb covers some early controversies such as Art Wolfe's Migrations: Wildlife in Motion book, National Geographic's moving pyramids, Marty Stouffer's wildlife documentaries and the recent Doubletake magazine article. In my opinion the article covers these issues in a fair way.

 

<p>

 

One point that hit home with me was a comment by an editor of National Geographic that digital manipulation unlike earlier advances in photographic technology "is not taking us closer to reality, but farther from it". He is refering to the destruction of the trust that the public places in photographic images and how thay may effect the messages we try to send. For example, they show the Frans Lanting photograph of elephants and a bird that many people assumed was digitally altered to include the bird, elephants, or sky. Lanting actually made the image after repeatedly going back and standing in the muck for hours.

 

<p>

 

The article also discusses the difference between digitally enhancing an image and digitally altering it, and using captured and baited animals instead of truly wild animals.

This is an interesting question.

 

<p>

 

A few weeks ago the Seattle times published an absolutely awful photo that some fellow took of a Blue Jay on his fence. Why? Well, blue jays (not Steller's Jays) are almost unknown west of the Rockies.

 

<p>

 

There is a Japanese term for the process by which a product is slowly improved over time. I use this same philosphy when sorting the my imagest. I keep some poor images because they are the only ones I have of the subject. They serve as a reminder to get a better image. When I do get the better image (not as often as I would like) the old one is replaced with the new one. This is a very satisfying experience.

The ability of the Sigma 400 to focus to about 4 feet is a real plus. I often use it to photograph flowers and other small objects. The working distance is great and the angle of view cuts out a lot of clutter. Even when I get my 500mm or 600mm lens, I will keep the Sigma. With more and more parks and natural areas restricting people to marked trails, the ability to get "up close" from a distance is becoming more important.

I have compressed the black birds about 90%. I hope that helps. Being new to this business I still have a bit to learn.

 

<p>

 

One point I want to make with these images is the fact that 400mm is not a lot of magnification when dealing with small birds. I know that many have stated that numerous times on photo.net, but I hope that by actually seeing how much of a frame a small bird takes up at 10 or 25 feet interested photographers will see what they have to deal with first hand. As Bob says, bird photographers always want a longer lens.

 

<p>

 

Still one can get some very satisfying and intersting images.

More comments later.

Bye the way all three of these images are flatbed scans of 3.5x5 inch prints. Needless to say some detail is lost this way. For example, the eye of the flying bird does not show up on my monitor but it does show on the print.

The Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO Macro has often been mentioned as a good inexpensive telephoto lens. Over the last year I have recieved many e-mail requests concerning its suitability for nature photos and bird photos in particular. I thought I would show a few examples of some bird photos I have taken with this lens along with explanitory comments. I DO NOT submit these photos as worthy of any artistic merit. Most of my best stuff is not digitized yet since I don't have a scanner. :(

 

<p>

 

<img src="http://www.eskimo.com/~paulkrik/birds_html/klldeer1.jpg">

 

<p>

 

The nesting kill deer was taken at a distance of 25 feet. The aperture was probably f/5.6 or f/8. Shutter speed about 1/100. Bogen 3221 tripod. Kodacolor Gold 400.

 

<p>

 

<img src="http://www.eskimo.com/~paulkrik/birds_html/bbirdsit.jpg">

 

<p>

 

<img src="http://www.eskimo.com/~paulkrik/birds_html/bbirdfly.jpg">

 

<p>

 

The two images of the red winged black bird were taken at a distance of 8-10 feet. I had switched to manual focus and prefocused on the bird since I knew that it would not be centered when it took flight. The top image was taken with the bird at rest. Then I waited with the lens prefocused and the N90s motor drive set to high speed (4 fps) for the bird to fly. As soon as it did I depressed the cable release and took 4 images in one second. Two images had the bird in them. This one and the next one which only showed the tail feathers on the left edge.

Kodacolor Gold 400. F/5.6 at 1/1000. Bogen 3221 tripod.

Marcos, bye all means, post some of your flying bird images on this site. I would love to see them.

 

<p>

 

Don raised the question of how fast the Sigma 400mm f/5.6 focuses using a camera with the focus motor in the body. Since I use that lens with the N90s let me share my experience. I find that the biggest problem is not the speed of the N90s/Sigma combo, but the speed and accuracy of my own reflexes. When I follow flying birds my biggest problem is keeping them in the finder, ANYWHERE in the finder. I just need more practice. However, during those times when I do manage to coordinate my movement with that of the bird, I find that the N90s tracks them pretty reliably. I set the lens so as to limit focusing from 10 feet to infinity. At the farther end the camera can quickly tweak the lens to keep it in focus. No doubt the Silent Wave lenses work faster and someday I will have one, maybe even two! But for now the Sigma 400 is very affordable and works well with the N90s.

 

<p>

 

I think Nikon takes some bad raps from those who want Silent Wave motors in every lens. They don't realize that the modern cameras suchs as the N90s and F5 have very fast and accurate focusing systems even if they depend on motors in the camera body. And I am not sure that Silent Wave lens motors offer much of an advantage from 200mm down.