Nicely captured.
A lot of nectar has disappeared from my feeders this week, but I managed
only two quick glimpses of the shy critters.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 10:33 PM Dale H. Cook
wrote:
> I finally took an afternoon to have
Very cool. We don't get hummers here. Sunbirds are the closest.
Alan C
On 16-Sep-19 04:32 AM, Dale H. Cook wrote:
I finally took an afternoon to have another try at hummingbird
photography with the Rokinon 650-1300mm. I swung the shepherd's crook
pole around, and that let me put the camera in
Much better. Where are you? My Michigan hummers are gone.
Paul
> On Sep 15, 2019, at 10:32 PM, Dale H. Cook
> wrote:
>
> I finally took an afternoon to have another try at hummingbird photography
> with the Rokinon 650-1300mm. I swung the shepherd's crook pole around, and
> that let me put
I finally took an afternoon to have another try at hummingbird
photography with the Rokinon 650-1300mm. I swung the shepherd's crook
pole around, and that let me put the camera in the hall outside the
kitchen and change the zoom from 1100mm to 900mm. That gave me a
slightly wider field of view
So what did the 600 set you back?
On September 10, 2019 8:21:46 AM PDT, John wrote:
>On 9/8/2019 20:42:09, Dale H. Cook wrote:
>> I have stolen only a little time to work with my long glass for
>shooting
>> hummingbirds. During the first try my old Focal tripod (don't laugh!
>- I have to
>> do
On 9/8/2019 20:42:09, Dale H. Cook wrote:
I have stolen only a little time to work with my long glass for shooting
hummingbirds. During the first try my old Focal tripod (don't laugh! - I have to
do this on the cheap) proved woefully inadequate to handle the load of so much
lens. Results from
That is a type of paper wasp
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 7:42 PM Dale H. Cook
wrote:
>
> I have stolen only a little time to work with my long glass for shooting
> hummingbirds. During the first try my old Focal tripod (don't laugh! - I
> have to do this on the cheap) proved woefully inadequate to
Larry -
Thanks for all of those suggestions - I don't mind DIY projects. Your
suggestions on getting a good tripod and head for a reasonable price
will inspire me to do additional tripod research.
--
Dale H. Cook, decades as 35mm SLR photographer, now
Pentax K-70 w/ Pentax-DA 18-270mm
> On Sep 8, 2019, at 5:42 PM, Dale H. Cook wrote:
>
>
> Focus on that long lens is touchy, and it has little depth of field due to
> its focal-length-related fixed aperture. For the next try I will move some of
> the kitchen furniture to allow a shorter zoom and a wider field of view.
>
I'd expect that the 70-200IS is one of Canon's best lenses. That focal
length range is very heavily used by many sorts of pros, and Nikon and
Canon have been knocking themselves out to make a great 70-200 in order
to win sales from pros. Pentax has made fewer versions of a 70-200/2.8
kind of
well, all know is that after using Cotty's lens, I am seriously considering
switching to Canon, and I don't take that decision lightly...
tan.
OTOH, tv loved the EOSK 50mm 1.2
I'll ask the company who did the adapter ring if they would do another.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
||
That would be cool...
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 6:17 AM
To: pentax list
Subject: RE: long glass
well, all know is that after using Cotty's lens, I am seriously
considering switching to Canon, and I don't take
Subject: RE: long glass
well, all know is that after using Cotty's lens, I am seriously
considering switching to Canon, and I don't take that
decision lightly...
tan.
OTOH, tv loved the EOSK 50mm 1.2
I'll ask the company who did the adapter ring if they would
do
800/6.7 for 6x7? Holy frijole.
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 4:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: long glass
Hey Tom and all,
I modified a 67-K adapter to 67EF and have used the
800ED/6.7, 200 and 55
Yup, it's more fun on the digital slr though.
-Ryan
tom wrote:
800/6.7 for 6x7? Holy frijole.
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 4:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: long glass
Hey Tom and all,
I modified a 67-K
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/6/04, GRAYWOLF, discombobulated, offered:
I wonder if the folks who think IS is so wonderful have
actually used it?
Today
at GFM Cotty was showing off his new Canon 70-200 IS. I
noticed that it
took something
tom wrote
snip
Anyway, IS helps so mush I use it for about 90% of the ceremony, and it's a
mush? Freudian slip?
-
focal length I love now.
tv
ha
-Original Message-
From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 10:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: long glass
tom wrote
snip
Anyway, IS helps so mush I use it for about 90% of the ceremony, and
it's
Ok so it wasn't Real funny.
tom wrote:
ha
-Original Message-
From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 10:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: long glass
tom wrote
snip
Anyway, IS helps so mush I use it for about 90% of the ceremony
Well, using the 70-200/2.8IS, and just looking through it may be entirely
different things. AND, I can see it helping with the barn owl. GRIN
OTOH, I was using 100 speed film Friday around PDML (M100/2.8, 1/15sec at 2.8).
Only about 3 (out of 10-12) of the shots came out sharp enough in 4x6
I wonder if the folks who think IS is so wonderful have
actually used it?
Today
at GFM Cotty was showing off his new Canon 70-200 IS. I
noticed that it
took something like a second for it to kick in. I think it would
occasionally
be a
life saver and 99% of the time drive me crazy.
well, all know is that after using Cotty's lens, I am seriously considering
switching to Canon, and I don't take that decision lightly...
tan.
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 10 June 2004 8:32 AM
To: pentax list
Subject: RE: long glass
I
On 9 Jun 2004 at 18:52, Alan Chan wrote:
I think the IS alone for telephotos is a good enough reason to switch, if one
needs it. Nothing else matter if the images were blurred due to slow shutter
speed. I often found myself struggling with 1/60s even with ISO400 film when
using 200/2.8
I generally have far more problems with subject movement than I do with
camera
shake, I don't need IS I need ISO 128000 with no noise.
You will get it if you have hang around long enough... g
Regards,
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
What ever happened to that film breakthrough I read about a few years
ago, 384,000 ISO. Supposedly AGFA was working
on it, and Kodak had some kind of me too announcement. Guess Digital
killed it.
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 9 Jun 2004 at 18:52, Alan Chan wrote:
I think the IS alone for
ISO 128000 with no noise eh . . . let's see about the math behind that
*ist D has 3008x2008 pixels on a 23.5mm x 15.7mm sensor - that's a pixel
pitch (d) of about 7.8 microns
*istD has acceptable noise at ISO 1600
*Signal to noise ratio (S/N) must remain constant for equal quality.
*Signal
On 9 Jun 2004 at 21:33, Scott Nelson wrote:
There are remarkably few places to gain ground. A higher percentage of
the sensor area can be used for photosites. Quantum efficiency of
sensors can be improved to boost S. A different semiconductor with a
larger band gap could be used to reduce
before competent AF, everyone was the same and had about the same hit rate
if they were decent. now, with good AF, the average hit rate has gone way up
for those using it. the ones not, are not in the running because to make a
living, or even to get a start towards it, you have to provide their
I think that many of us who spent ten or twenty years focusing long
glass manually can achieve a hit rate at lest 2/3s of that which can be
achieved with AF. It's a skill you acquire through practice.
Paul
On Jun 5, 2004, at 6:42 PM, Herb Chong wrote:
before competent AF, everyone was the same
I wonder if the folks who think IS is so wonderful have actually used it? Today
at GFM Cotty was showing off his new Canon 70-200 IS. I noticed that it took
something like a second for it to kick in. I think it would occasionally be a
life saver and 99% of the time drive me crazy. But then I
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: long glass
I think that many of us who spent ten or twenty years focusing long
glass manually can achieve a hit rate at lest 2/3s of that which can be
achieved with AF. It's a skill you acquire through practice.
31 matches
Mail list logo
