stephen_vaughan1

I tried to use the trap focus function for birds landing on perches and found that it was too slow. I ended up with portraits after they had landed instead of images of them landing. I don't think it is a worth while tool for flight shots. You would have to prefocus at a distance and wait for the bird to come to that point. It is easier to do that manually than with the trap focus feature.

Wing tip blur is a matter of magnification. How much the wing tip moves in relations to the film. The closer you are to the bird (ie more magnification) the more wing tip blur you will get with the same shutter speed. With Sanhill Cranes and Great Blue Herons at 1/2 to full frame, 1/125 works well but requires smooth panning. With smaller birds such as geese 1/250 works pretty well since their wing beats are much faster. This kind of photography has a reduced sucess ratio but when you get a good one it makes it all worth the effort.

I have the EOS-3 and the 500f4.5 and EF1.4x. When I use this combination the only AF sensor that works is the center sensor. It is still fast and accurate, faster than manually focusing. Although slightly slower that without the 1.4. Bottom line is that it works well.

I have subscribed to the Guilfoyle Report for a number of years. It is

expensive ($275) now, but where else can you get that kind of

information? You do need to have a fair amount of stock to make it pay

for itself. But it only takes 1 to 2 sale per year to do that. I have

more than payed for it each year. It has given me access to markets

that I may not have found otherwise. It does have a number of specific

requests but if you have what they are looking for your chances for a

sale are quite good. It has also helped me learn what the markets are

looking for. I would definately recommend it.

I have used the Canon 500 for years and have tried to use the 600 but

find it much too heavy for all but roadside shooting. The new Canon

EOS3 will autofocus at with f8 lenses, hence the 500f4.5 with a 1.4TC.

That ends the debat for me.

I think the use of digital imaging is a question in all of our minds. What is a nature photograph? If we use the digital process as a darkroom tool, as opposed to creating an image that was never there, are 2 completely different probems. How will the final image be used? If it is used as art, do what ever you want. If it is to be used as an editorial image then any manipulation should be revealed in a release. There is a wonderful article in the January/February issue of Audubon magazine discussing the issue. Check it out.

I just lead a workshop and had the opportunity to do some side by side

lens tests. I shot the Canon EF70-200f2.8 with the EF2x against the

Canon EF400f5.6. Yhe results I could not see a difference with a 8x loupe. Is there a difference? Probably, can you see it? Probably not. I shot both on a tripod with Velvia. I also shot the Tamron 200-400 at 300mm against the Nikkor 300f4AF and the Tamron at 400mm against the Nikkor 300 with the Nikkor 1.4x in in both cases the Nikon stuff looked better. I could see a difference. I could not see a difference between the Nikon stuff at 400 vs the 2 Canon set up at 400. The Canon 2x is the only one on the market that I feel is of good enough quality for the serious nature photographer. Don't consider the big lenses until you are sure this is what you want to do!