peter_sanders2

<p>While birds are a common subject (the most, probably) of mine, I also photograph dolphins and butterflies. I find most commonly that the 4/5 times that I get the shot, I am still usually disappointed with the reach of even the 500mm/8. I am fairly certain that I meant for that to be a question, but since I've told you so, you get the gist of the interrogative format.<br /> Also, your bird tips are sound, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no Audubon group here. We are too small and the nearest place with an Audubon group is too urban for the same to apply (if I am correct in thinking that a Bald Eagle will treat a 5 story building differently than a tree and a Great Horned Owl will treat a lost hat differently from a squirrel.)</p>

<p>Nice Tamron. What is the maximum aperture at 350mm?</p>

<p>I mean as cheap as possible maintaining image quality. You can get a lens on KEH for 39 dollars. Is $225 a good deal for a 300mm/4, assuming that or similar are there after I have followed the suggestions to improve my technique?</p>

<p>And if any question remains, this is, given my mode working distances and wanted magnifications, to be used essentially as my long general purpose lens. (I also have a regular general purpose lens. I use both regularly.)</p>

<p>I took my biggest lens, my tripod, some ISO 400 color print film, and walked up to 20 feet from the tree that a Great horned Owl was sitting 50 feet up in, and pointed my lens at the owl, and clicked away, bracketing exposures (The sun was behind it, and I don't trust the internal meter.) and changing angle and framing until a crow landed next to it and squawked it away, but I had already run out of film. I guess it was just friendly. If you want, see Flickr in a week and a half.</p>

<p>If that means anything more than walking silently, do you have any tips? If not, I can already walk silently, and I am already aware that animals tend to be more tolerant if<br>

A: you are already there, or<br>

B: you approach in a vehicle or such that you curve past them (or am I missing something in that<br>

as<br>

well?)</p>

<p>Also, a $1000+ lens is out of my range, because one of my closer relatives literally gagged the first time I spent $50 on a lens.</p>

<p>Question: how can I get out of the rut of a bad technique that I have developed, and start taking better photos? Practice only makes perfect when you know what to practice.</p>

<p>P.S.<br>

My best photos of each category that I take pictures in (macro being by far the worst) are available for view at<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pgsfv/<br>

and critique is requested.<br>

Flickr didn't pass the "Real Name Safety Research," so I used my initials followed by two random characters. I know that it is bad practice for photographic endeavors, but I am paranoid.</p>

<p>I can see how you would think that I took it with intention of marketing it. I captioned it with the marketing reference referring to when they [the auction director that wanted a copy of it] wanted to see it cropped so that the bird was bigger in the frame. They didn't think it would sell for much if I cropped it.</p>

<p>P.S. I have seen images easily of (in my strong opinion) marketable quality taken with 300/4 lenses. Granted, by far better photographers than I, and with lenses that probably cost them more than most people's cars.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"People apparently don't have very high standards."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here</p>

<p>PS: My 500/8 is a refractor lens.</p>

<p>People apparently don't have very high standards. Someone saw that picture I posted above and asked me if I could donate a copy of it to the silent auction that supports local schools. It sold for $42. That's more than I thought it would go for. $20 at the very most (i.e., a really extravagant blind person) most was what I thought. I have never fancied myself a $40/good photo photographer, but tourists here apparently do. Primarily I shoot for myself. If someone approaches me with an offer, I take it. In this case they paid for the prints to be made and the matting. I know of all the issues there. That is why I thought that it was unlikely to break even at 10.39 for matting and 8x10 print.<br /> I never have intended to sell anything unless someone else (the eventual retailer/customer) proposes it to me. Then I sell it to them for the first offer that breaks even. Once again, I think myself practically an insult to photography.</p>

<p>That shot was taken when I was strolling along and just barely even saw the bird. I had little time for composure, let alone attaching a color correction filter. That is the copy I made later and applied noise reduction and color correction to in Helicon Filter.</p>

<p>@M.E. Humming birds are far from my main intention. It is really a general purpose lens for things of relative distance. For instance, the 80-200/4 @ 200/4, with 1/500 of a second put the bird too far away, but the 500mm wouldn't focus close enough and wasn't fast enough.<br>

See image below.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>"[...] soonish-to-be-mine 300mm/4."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or is that [lens/purchase] even a good idea?</p>

<p>What does Non-MFG mean? I always thought it meant non manual focus grip (i.e., AF only), but they keep showing up in the <acronym title="Manual Focus (not medium format)">MF section</acronym></p>

<p>I would like to take pictures of humming birds. Would I be able to take good pictures of them (assuming my lowish level of photographic capacity allows me to do so) using nothing but the soonish-to-be-mine 300mm/4 and a few extension tubes?</p>

<p>Oh yeah: I do have a "plastic camera." My Vivitar V3800n is plastic-y and doesn't advertise any metal body, and the worst problem I've had with it and my 80-200/4 is not being able to turn it sideways. From my experience, when they are flying (or hovering) it is always at a horizontal format.</p>

<p>Thank you for your help. I found what I'm looking for.<br>

Question:<br>

24 <em>million</em>. That's the number of lenses usable with Pentax digital cameras. Couldn't they stop turning out $200 lenses with image quality worth about $20, and start taking $1000+ lenses and figuring out how to get ± the same effect for a price that will appeal to a larger group of people?<br>

Why don't they?<br>

(yes, I am aware that the design itself couldn't be changed, per se, but the process could)</p>

<p>@J.S. When I plan on cropping, enlarging to a great degree, et cetera, I do what you said. I mean for action, like that of a bird taking off or in flight, in which I would be touching the camera anyway.</p>

<p>@AG "[...]only one Ka lens[...]" I own several lenses, so for these purposes (though definitely not in practice) one Ka lens is negligible.</p>

<p>I would prefer to stay away from DA and DA* lenses because I own a film camera as well.</p>

<p>Does anyone here think I could have my hands on a lens for cheapish (i.e., what has been described here) by the eclipse this June? I used the 500mm/8 this past December and this is the best I have to show for it, bracketing 8 stops per image, with a cable release and MLU</p><div></div>

<p>I have read a book, The 35MM Handbook, and it goes into detail about everything and every aspect thereof. Including how to make a tripod mount for use with tandem tripods. Also, my hand will always be supporting the other end of the lens because I do almost nothing but manual focus (when given the option), and I will need my hand on the focusing ring. Last, the shots that require a tripod can, once again, use the slower lens nine times out of ten. I can for the most part accept the one time out of ten, but anyone who says that that could be the one good shot would have a point.<br>

In my year and a half of photography with anything better than a 2.1MP point & shoot, however, I have never <em>barely</em> missed a shot by a margin that would be determined by that.</p>

<p>Thank you for responding quickly, but where are you seeing this? I have yet to find any of the items even for sale. I've checked google shopping, ebay, and lightly KEH. I assumed that Adorama and B&H results would show up in google. Am I wrong?</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>No tripod mount is a non-issue. If I need a tripod, I'll just use my 500mm/8.<br>

What do you mean "remove the R. pin?"</p>

<p>If a Pentaxian wanted a 300mm prime lens, faster than f/5.6 (at is semi-acceptable, and even more so as the price goes down), that would work for anything within, up to and/or including 35mm, for as cheap as possible, where would he/she(/in this case I) go? Off-brand is perfectly acceptable, as is any mount designed for a longer lens-film distance than Pentax (so that the adapter doesn't require an infinity focus optic). Any and all variations of stopped down metering are accepted.</p>

<p>Thank you very much.</p>

<p>P.S. the holder of the best idea deserves a cookie.</p>

<p>That does explain it, but I read in The Best Book of Useless Information that an average human has 200 degrees on the horizontal axis. that would require a lens that actually bubbles around where the focusing ring should be.</p>

<p>Hello. I know this sounds stupid, but what in the world do they mean "without coupling for aperture ring" mean?<br>

I have a camera that is completely manual, and therefore only one Ka mount lens. I prefer to use the aperture ring in the automatic cameras I used. Will this be a problem? How (if so) can it be fixed (or can you fix it)?<br>

Thank you for your help.<br>

P.S.:<br>

How does one get used to remembering to turn the camera on? I have been forgetting thus far (but luckily I had time to turn it on and get the shot.)</p>

<p>Hello. I am now the owner of a Pentax K20d, and I am the photographer of several Hour-and-a-half film exposures. I know that this is reduced on digital by the absence of reciprocity failure, but what is a safe time to use (given the overheating risk of digital image sensors)? Live View shuts off after 3 minutes. Is that a good indicator? Also, am I going to be able to take star-field pictures where the ends of the star trails are off the frame? Given a 28mm, 50mm, or 80mm, what would be a good time to achieve that effect?</p>

<p>Thank you for your help.</p>

<p>Thank you. It arrived today, and I tried on the 50mm lens, with both eyes open. It was indistinguishable. The 28mm was almost indistinguishable, but there was a definite wide-angle effect. Either could be used as a normal in a pinch, but I prefer the 50mm/1.7, because I've attached so much (useful) junk to it, and it is the only lens with a 52mm filter diameter.<br>

I would like AF <em>and </em>an aperture ring. What lens should I use?</p>