jordan2240

<p>Tired of carrying around heavy equipment, I decided to sell off some of my gear, including my 'wildlife' lens, and purchase the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000. Took it to one of my favorite spots, and the experience was very pleasurable not only due to the ease with which I could simply stand and enjoy the surroundings, but because the camera itself seems to perform nicely.</p><div></div>

<p>KEH certainly has tons of used equipment, but I've found you can get better deals from B&H and Adorama used departments when the same items are available, at least for the few used items I've purchased.</p> <p>As for the new website, it has improved since its introduction, but I found the old website easier to use even though more primitive.</p>

<p>Won't need any photo equipment for a while, but have looked to B and H first for 15 years or so. Hate to see news like this. Unfortunately, we don't normally know much about any company we typically do business with, so who know what kinds of practices we're supporting I understand the head of Jimmy-Johns is involved in those 'canned' hunts that most find despicable, for example). </p> <p>If these allocations prove to be true, I'm afraid I'll be sadly removing B and H from my list of resources. If such info comes out about Amazon, I'm screwed.</p>

<p>Excellent photos Michael, all of them 'snapshots.' I never understood why that word has such a negative connotation for some involved in photography.</p>

<p>As Jos noted, check out the sling bags. They have a strap that goes over one shoulder but rest on your back, and are easily 'slung' around to the front for quick access to equipment. I have a large one from ruggard that holds both of my DSLRs with several lenses (including my Sigma 150-500) and accessories, and have walked for hours with it. A smaller strap can be attached around your chest to help with support. I also use a smaller sling from Vivitar when I carry less equipment.</p>

<p>Thanks Wolf. Appreciate the input. Hate to take the loss, but the weather resistance and extra range are pretty inviting.</p>

<p>Just a point re what BeBu said above. On the FZ200, the aperture is constant, starting at 2.8, so shutter speed will remain the same as you zoom. That's one of the major selling points of that model.</p>

<p>Thanks Jeff. I've also looked at the 18-135, but like having the bit wider angle and am somewhat hung up on the idea that less zoom range makes for a slightly better lens, though I used to use a Sigma 17-250 pretty heavily until I gave it to my son. A main reason for wanting to replace the 17-70 is the weather resistance of the Pentax lens, which will likely come in handy in Ireland.</p> <p>Appreciate the thoughts.</p>

<p>I purchased an FZ200 a couple of years ago as my 'walkaround' camera because the zoom range and low constant aperture were important to me. It has certainly served its purpose, and it's the camera I prefer when on a trip where photography isn't the focus. I have a flickr album with shots from it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/107794064@N02/albums/72157644216394417</p> <p>However, I find I'm using it less than my original enthusiasm dictated because of the amount of noise from the smaller sensor, so now I usually take my Pentax DSLRs and a 17-70 and 55-300 lens when I'm out and want to put some emphasis on photography, usually getting the most use out of the 17-70. If I were to make the choice for an 'all-purpose model again, I'd probably consider something with a smaller zoom range and larger sensor, though I have no idea what's out there now. The zoom range on the Canon you list would not be enough for me for an 'all-purpose' device. I'd personally want something that at least reached into the 200mm range. The sony is an interchangeable lens camera, so not in the same category as the Canon and Panasonic.</p> <p>In spite of my reservations with the FZ200, it is still a great all-purpose tool, and you might even want to look at the newer FZ300. I believe Panasonic also make some models with larger sensors that have decent zoom but not the 2.8 constant aperture, so you might want to examine those as well. Both low light ability and high zoom might be a tough combo to come by, but I'd personally put the high zoom at a higher priority. Of course, I might have a different opinion about that tomorrow.</p>

<p>Ruby,</p> <p>Thanks for the info and the examples. Certainly looks like a great lens for my purposes, and the WR should be very useful in Ireland.</p> <p>Bill</p>

<p>I currently have the sigma lens as my 'walkaround,' but am planning a trip to Ireland this fall, and was wondering if anyone had experience with the newish Pentax 16-85. I like the fact that it's weather resistant and also gives a bit more range, but wanted to get some thoughts from anyone who has used it or both lenses mentioned.</p> <p>Thanks,<br> Bill</p>

<p>Laura, I don't have that particular book. Agree about the middle one being a wood duck. I didn't notice the eye myself until you pointed it out.</p> <p>Kerry, thanks for the additional insight. Never occurred to me that this could be a 'Wood Duck' as well. Given Laura's observation re the female, it's certainly possible.</p>

<p>Thanks all for the responses. "Hybrid" was also one of my thoughts as well as blue-winged in some stage of development. </p> <p>Laura, the Peterson guide is what I was actually using to identify it, and you could be right about the molting stage.</p> <p>Kerry, the shot was taken at Wildwood Lake in Harrisburg, PA on 9/19/15.</p> <p>I've attached a larger extended version in the event that helps. Sorry about the focus, but this had to be heavily cropped as they weren't that close.</p> <div></div>

<p>Can someone identify what duck this is? I thought it was a blue-winged teal, but the face isn't right based on the pics I've seen. Picture taken in Harrisburg PA in mid September.</p> <p>Thanks.</p><div></div>

<p>Jenny,</p> <p>The club of photographers who just have to have a new lens every so often is a large one, of which I am also a member. But I think I finally have all I would ever need, so am now content to work on my technique and learn more about the capabilities of the cameras themselves (but I shoot Pentax). I can say this by way of experience though - on a recent leisurely drive from Pennsylvania to Florida and back, I took two lenses, a Sigma 17-70 (with macro capability) and a Pentax 55-300, and while I love shooting close-ups, I found I used the 17-70 waaaaaay more often than the other. I did enjoy having the 55-300 available on a few occasions though, and actually carried two cameras in a small sling bag so I didn't have to change lenses. Now if shooting wildlife is an interest, then something with a reach of at least 500 will serve you best, in my opinion, and if you really enjoy macro, then I'd look for a dedicated macro lens in the 85 to 105 range, which will likely be a prime vice zoom.</p>

<p>Try the Panasonic Lumix FZ200. There is an FZ300/330 out now, so the 200 might come down in price. It has macro capability, but you can also purchase a close-up diopter that can be attached to the lens for even better macro capability. Yes, the camera has a small sensor, but it is fine for anything you'd put on the web (though it works great for general application as well). I have a folder on flickr with pics from it if you'd be interested in seeing some shots from it.</p>

<p>I hate backbacks, so have taken to using sling bags instead. They go over one shoulder and can be rotated around to your front easily for quick access to your gear. No need to take them off and lay them down. I have a smaller one from Vivitar that can hold both of my pentax DSLRs with smaller lenses attached (i.e. 17-70 and 55-300), and one from Ruggard that can hold both cameras, 4 lenses (including my Sigma 150-500) and accessories, and also has a small tripod attached. Not the lightest thing in the world, but I've carried it for a couple hours at a time with no issues. If interested, I can look up the specific models I own.</p>

<p>I have a Benbo that I've owned for about 15 years or so, and I don't know if it will meet your weight requirement, but it can get into pretty much any position you'd want. All three legs operate independently though, so it may not be as easy to set up as some others. It's very sturdy, and I never felt uncomfortable using it even with my biggest lenses. Not even sure it's still being made, but you might find it on the used market if you decide it's something to pursue after 'googling' it.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I've always been more of an instinct and intuitive photographer (and with most things) seeing - does the image look great? Does it show what I want to capture? Does it focus correctly? Is the lighting right?</p> </blockquote> <p>I think that really sums it up pretty well. Most any camera can get an acceptable picture of most subjects, but what you capture is uniquely you.</p>

<p>Lauren,</p> <p>To put it very simply, if you shoot Nikon, you won't find a lens from Pentax, Canon, Sony, etc. that will work for Nikon. As others have noted, there are '3rd party' lens companies that do make lenses for Nikon (typically Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina), which are generally less expensive than Nikon lenses. </p> <p>However, other than Pentax cameras, which has had the same lens mount virtually forever, both Nikon and Canon have changed their mounts over the years, so depending on which camera you have, not all lenses from Nikon and Canon (or made for them by a 3rd party) will work on all of their cameras, so you do need to be sure your camera mount and lens mount match. Any quality seller (like B & H and Adorama already mentioned) will be able to tell you if a lens will work for your camera. </p> <p>In short, if you shoot Nikon, look for lenses from Nikon or Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina, making sure the lens mount specifically indicates it's for the same mount that your specific camera uses.</p>

<p>I bought an FZ200 earlier this year for the same reason you sight. I was so pleased with it initially I was ready to sell my DSLR gear and use it exclusively. Here is a link to my FZ200 folder on flickr:<br> https://www.flickr.com/photos/107794064@N02/albums/72157644216394417</p> <p>On a trip to Colorado last year, it is the only camera I took, and it was quite a pleasure to carry around. However, recently I've taken more to carrying both of my Pentax cameras in a sling bag, one with a 17-70 attached and one with a 55-300 (as I did on a 10-day trip down to Florida and back from PA earlier this month), just in case I get a shot I want to potentially have large prints of. It's definitely a lot more weight, but after doing closer examination of the FZ200 shots, I found them to have significantly more noise than the pics taken with the larger Pentax sensor, and the Panasonic does tend to miss focus more often than the DSLR gear. That said, if I were going anywhere where I just wanted to document the trip and get some decent shots, the FZ200 would still be the way to go, though the FZ1000 that was noted above does have a larger sensor so potentially less noise, though the trade-off is the loss of the constant aperture. Also, I've printed up to 13x19 from the FZ200, and thought the pics looked great.</p> <p>In short, I think the Panasonic models are good choices for the intent you mention, though you might find the initial excitement wanes a bit after extensive use.</p>

<p>Sometimes it is difficult to find something you feel is unique, but then again, it doesn't really matter, as every photographer has a unique perspective and every moment occurs only once in time (as far as we know). Very few photos are identical, as there are usually little variations in light, subject positioning, perspective, etc. And for me, one of the greatest joys of photography is just getting out and searching for a shot, and in the case of nature photography (which often produces some unique scene), 'communing with nature.'</p>