gary_jean1

Someone above mentioned that he didn't think tilt was very useful for landscapes with a wide angle lens that already has great DOF. Au contraire! If you are shooting with a wide angle, most likely you are looking for strong fore, middle, and background to give great depth. If it is windy, there is a good chance that the foreground will be moving around a lot. Tilt will get you a few stops more shutter speed to freeze that moving foreground and maintain sharpness front to back.

 

I have a Canon 24 TS-E, and I use tilt for nature and shift for architecture, and sometimes a combination of tilt and shift. This lens gets a lot of use.

 

I can't comment on your options, but if you are only concerned about leaning trees, then all you need is shift. But if you are looking for huge DOF at a large aperture and fast shutter speed, then you want tilt. Tilt is also wonderful for selective focus. The combination of tilt and shift really opens up enormous creative possibilities. Or you can do it in Photoshop.

I have both. The 70-200 f/2.8 +2x provides very good quality, but slow AF. For static subjects, the slow AF is not an issue. For wildlife the slow AF is a disadvantage.

 

The 300 f/4 IS + 1.4x provides excellent quality and very good AF performance. Certainly good enough for wildlife. The IS makes it easily used without a tripod. The 300 +2x is also usable, but with the same slow AF (or no AF if you don't have EOS 3 or 1V) as the 70-200 +2x. Also, with a max aperture of f/8, too much DOF can become a problem.

 

Frankly, I think the lenses complement each other. I wouldn't want to be without either one. Both lenses are superb.

I use this combo a lot with Provia 100F pushed a stop, but not handheld. If you can do it, you're a better man than me.

Your eye should be relaxed. Don't try to focus on the focusing screen. Don't "stare at the square." Just look naturally 'through' the screen at the subject. Keep calibrating in different lighting situations, so the camera gets to know your eye.

 

I don't know what body you have, but with the EOS 3 there is no difference in AF speed between ECF and non-ECF.

 

Any AF system will struggle with very low contrast situations, so don't blame it on ECF. AF of any kind needs some edges to grab for optimum performance.

This is only tangentially related to your question, but since you just got your Elan II (and you already got a direct answer to your question) you may not be familiar with "DEP Mode." Apologies if you know this already, but it's surprising to me how many Canon shooters don't use this great feature. Instead of guessing what aperture you need to ensure adequate depth of field (i.e., zone of apparent sharpness), you simply focus on the near and far points that you want sharp, and the camera selects the aperture you need. Often you will be surprised that a fairly large aperture gets the job done. This is particularly useful if you are shooting without a tripod, as it allows you to use a faster shutter speed.

There are good photo ops at the entrance to the Narrows. There are limited opportunites to explore the entire canyon. The water level must be low, and you don't want to be anywhere down in there during thunderstorm/flash flood season. It seems to me that autumn is the best time, but it's best to inquire locally.

 

An alternative fabulous photo op in Zion is the Subway. You can do it in a day hike, but an overnight camp out has a better chance of getting great light. Even without great light, it is a fantastic place. It's a bush-whacking, stream-crossing, boulder-hopping hike of about 3 1/2 miles each way when you approach from downstream. The approach from upstream requires rappelling and a swim. Check out some of Fatali's shots on his web gallery.

I usually don't worry about rain unless it is of the torrential downpour type. I did some shots at the base of Yosemite Falls during maximum snowmelt. The blowing mist was enough to get me soaked in a matter of minutes. I cut a hole the diameter of my lens in the bottom of a gallon-sized zip-loc baggie. I secured the baggie bottom to the lens with a rubber band. The baggie completely covered the lens and camera body, and left me room to reach inside the baggie and operate the controls. Zip the baggie shut when you move around. Of course, this only works if your lens does not rotate when you focus. Use a cheap filter on the lens, because you'll be continually wiping it and you don't want to have to worry about scratching it. Very low tech. Very effective.

Don't you hate it when people answer questions that you didn't ask? Well, that's what I'm going to do, since I don't know specifics on Mull.

 

However, if you get a chance, you should go to Easdale and take the high-speed boat tour (operated by Sea.fari Adventures) to the Gulf of Corryvreckan. The entire tour is in the Firth of Lorn, which has been nominated as a "European Special Area for Conservation." From the boat, you will likely see seals, red and fallow deer, eagles, and porpoises. If you are lucky and time the tides and phase of the moon, you will experience the Corryvreckan whirlpools, and another area of incredible rip tides called the "Gray Dogs." You have to see this to believe it. It's like somebody pulled a big drain plug on the bottom of the ocean. Anyway, you can get good close-ups of seals, but the deer will be a good distance away. You also get up close to a picturesque lighthouse and an abandoned slate quarry. All in all, a great two hour tour.

I'd say spend your money on something else if you really don't need the f/2.8 max aperture. One (or two) of the great things about the 28-70 is the DOF control and the sharpness wide-open. And the great AF performance and bright viewfinder. I guess that's four great things.

I have a Hoya ultra thin polarizer, which is indeed only about half the thickness of a standard polarizer. It has no threads on the front. Still, it is only good to about 20mm on my Canon 17-35 f/2.8. The slight vignetting that is noticeable wide open tends to diminish if I stop down a bit.

 

I don't find a polarizer very useful at ultra-wide angles. Not because it vignettes, but rather because of the uneven polarizing effect, especially noticable if sky in in the comp.

"Thou shalt know thy metering system." If not a commandment, it is surely a key to success. Evaluative metering is pretty durn good, but it isn't perfect. What Artie has done in his pocket guide, and which many of us have done by shooting a lot of film and taking notes, is essentially reverse engineer the evaluative metering algorithm.

 

You can spot meter and adjust, you can read the palm of your hand, you can pull out the incident meter and then calculate in your head the compensation for the polarizer and the 81A....whatever works for you. The point is that once you understand how the evaluative metering system works, a little turn of the quick control dial will get you a perfectly predictable exposure. If your subject tends to not sit still for long, this ability to get the exposure set quickly is no small thing. You'll also notice that many of the needed compensations are in the 1/3 - 1/2 stop range, which is a testament to how well the evaluative meter does on its own. And many of those fractional stop compensations are to preserve fine detail in subjects that are almost pure white or pure black.

 

Artie's guide is dirt cheap at $20 for all the testing and research that went into it. Plus, although oriented toward bird photography, the concepts are perfectly adaptable to landscape photography. Evaluate and understand the relative size and tone of the subject and background, and you will know what the evaluative meter will do.

Probably because your entire image has a magenta color cast. Was this scan made from a print? That's my guess. Looks like you need to take your prints back and complain if the prints look like your scan.

 

You really can't judge color by looking at prints produced by automated labs. And you also can't judge what detail you may have on your negative based on a lab print. They have a hibit of blowing out highlights.

Velvia is still #1 for sharpness. Provia 100F has finer grain, but is not as sharp as Velvia. As others have noted, Velvia is contrasty, which makes it harder to scan. It is easy to add contrast and saturation to a scan. It is harder to reduce contrast.

 

You need to decide whether you like the color palette. You can't judge by web images, so go shoot some slides and have fun.

The effect of a UV filter won't be noticed until you start shooting at high altitudes....say 7,000 - 8,000 feet and up. Most UV is already filtered out at low elevations. Up high, it will cut down on bluish cast. But then, you most likely would want an 81A anyway. Skylight filters are a very tiny bit pink.

 

Either one serves as a lens protector. Flare shouldn't be an issue with a good multi-coated filter, but I'd take it off when shooting backlit subjects anyway. A better lens protector is a hard lens hood.

Shooting with my other half is just one more way we share our lives. There are no problems. There are only the joys of shared experience. Don't think you're going to save on gear though. It's amazing how often we are independently reaching for the same lens at the same time.

Here: www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/Canon_400_4_DO/Canon_400DO_review.html is another review. The small size and light weight have great appeal, but there is no getting around the sticker shock for us amateurs.

I get a lot of throw aways regardless. With the 300 f/4 IS, I turn IS off if shutter speed is 1/500 or faster. I use IS mode 2 for artsy fartsy slow shutter speed panning shots, with varying degrees of success. When it works, you get fantastic blurred background with IS in mode 2. Nice smooth horizontal blur with no vertical jiggle. Of course, you get blurred birds too, but that's the idea. IS and AF acquire quite fast with this lens, with pretty good response even with a 1.4x extender.

 

I just noticed you asked specifically about approach shots. Typically IS off and AI Servo on, center FP selected.

 

Then I throw most slides away. Of course, before I got AF I threw them all away.

I don't photograph test charts. I also don't typically photograph architecture with a 2x extender. So questions of slight softness at the edges are of no practical value to me, as long as the critter is sharp. And the critters are sharp with the old 2x, at least when used with the shorter focal lengths that I have...70-200 f/2.8 and 300 f/4 IS.

 

You asked if there was a "substantial advantage." I'd say no. Is there a marginal incremental advantage? Probably.

Yes, I'm seeing lots of D1s, 1Ds, and D30s being used by nature photographers. Recurring theme being the immediacy of digital capture. They seem to be good enough for Moose Petersen and George Lepp, among other pros. I don't see anyone doing long exposure night photography with them though, so I wonder how much of an issue dark noise still is. Wide angle is still somewhat of an issue too. Other than that, digital is getting there.

 

Think about not having to buy a $1,600 film scanner too, and all the time spent digitizing film.

So...the allegations are just that? Unsubstantiated allegations? And the rest of the rhetoric is just emotion?

Are there any verified facts to go along with the Lanting allegations? I'm not sure how a guide can be put in danger without the guide's own complicity.

I'll concur with the Lanting and Doubilet nominations and add Art Wolfe. Not all Art Wolfe, but specifically "The Living Wild," for its portrayal of wildlife in environmental/habitat context. Yes, Art drags out the 600 f/4 on occasion, but most of the images are wide angle. Many would be stunning landscape images even without the up close and personal shots of the critters. For what it's worth, of many books on my shelves and coffee table, I keep reaching for "The Living Wild" and it keeps inspiring me.

Finding a middle tone only solves part of the problem. Then you have to decide if you want to put the middle tone in the middle. Which means you have to understand the full range of exposure values. Suppose the full range is 6 stops? You're going to have to decide if you want to expose for the highlights, the shadows, or the middle tones (thereby letting the shadows block up and the highlights blow out). You can read all the books (and it's a good idea to do that), but you need to just go outside and meter. Meter everything in all kinds of light. Take notes. An incident meter is nice to have too. Compare incident reading with reflected readings. My camera has evaluative, partial, center-weighted, spot, and multi-spot metering, but I still pull out the incident meter from time to time for a basic sanity check in unusual conditions that can fool you (like fog).

 

Since you are interested in landscapes, I'd also recommend John Shaw's books (e.g., Nature Photography Field Guide). He offers a simple but very workable exposure method that doesn't rely on zone system.

You've already got your basic question answered, but here's some more on flash compensation.

 

I have the same set up as Kurt (except EOS 3 instead of 1V), including Better Beamer and pushed Fujichromes, and under true fill flash conditions (sufficient ambient light for good non-flashed exposure) I use less minus flash compensation than Kurt does. Not sure about your Elan IIe, but the 3 and 1V default software already reduces flash output considerably under fill flash conditions. You can turn off the fill flash reduction by custom function, and I wonder if Kurt has done that with his 1V. With the default setting for fill flash, and using FEL when the subjects are being very cooperative, I usually reduce the fill flash by 1/3 to 1 stop (depending on subject reflectance, distance, etc). Then when I'm absolutely sure of my exposure (ha!), I bracket flash compensation anyway. I think the point is that there are so many variables, there is no text book answer. You need to experiment a bit and take notes.

I'd be concentrating more on fieldcraft and bird knowledge to get closer, rather than exploring photographic techniques that are marginal at best. Lots of folks get great bird shots from their kitchen window by setting up a feeder with some carefully positioned perches nearby.

 

I have a Meade ETX 90 that I've tried to use for photography. You get a 1250mm focal length with an aperture of about f/14. Talk about dark! Combine a very dim viewfinder with difficulty in achieving critical focus, an image that jitters with the slightest touch even with the scope snugged down tight, and LBBs that constantly flit and you'll be reaching for the Prozac before too long.

 

There's no substitute for big glass, but that is hard for anyone to justify on a hobby basis. You might consider the 300 f/4 IS. Works well with a 2x TC. It will even AF at 600 f/8 with EOS 3 or 1V. Not ideal, but 1/4 to 1/6 the cost of super teles. With fine grained film, you'll be able to crop and enlarge. With the money you'll save over a 500 or 600 f/4, you can fly to Florida several times and rent a lens.