Best lens for wildlife photography?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Guest, May 9, 2013.

  1. Guest

    M-M Guest

    In article <2013052008260428635-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > > When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes the entire frame into
    > > account. If you crop out a portion, it would not be the same exposure as
    > > if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed for it.
    > >
    > > At least _I_ understand what I'm saying. :)

    >
    > That depends on the camera you are using and the metering you have
    > available and have selected. With my D300S, and usually all DSLR & many
    > fuller featured compact cameras, will give you the option of full
    > matrix metering, spot metering, & center weighted metering with the
    > ability to adjust the center weight spot size.
    >
    > ...and even if you have the problem you proposed, it is easily fixed in
    > post processing.



    I guess if you know the exact part you want to crop out, you can weight
    or spot meter for it, but it is still largely a guess. It is not the
    same as matrix metering the entire frame.

    And post-processing a poor exposure is not "easily fixed", in my
    experience. Overexposed areas can not be compensated for, and
    underexposed areas are often grainy.

    --
    m-m
    Photo Gallery:
    http://www.mhmyers.com
    M-M, May 20, 2013
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    M-M <> wrote:

    > > > When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes the entire frame into
    > > > account. If you crop out a portion, it would not be the same exposure as
    > > > if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed for it.
    > > >
    > > > At least _I_ understand what I'm saying. :)

    > >
    > > That depends on the camera you are using and the metering you have
    > > available and have selected. With my D300S, and usually all DSLR & many
    > > fuller featured compact cameras, will give you the option of full
    > > matrix metering, spot metering, & center weighted metering with the
    > > ability to adjust the center weight spot size.
    > >
    > > ...and even if you have the problem you proposed, it is easily fixed in
    > > post processing.

    >
    > I guess if you know the exact part you want to crop out, you can weight
    > or spot meter for it, but it is still largely a guess. It is not the
    > same as matrix metering the entire frame.


    matrix metering will favour the subject, which is generally somewhere
    towards the center. cropping won't make much of a difference, if any.

    > And post-processing a poor exposure is not "easily fixed", in my
    > experience. Overexposed areas can not be compensated for, and
    > underexposed areas are often grainy.


    the difference is not going to be all that much, probably no more than
    1 stop, if that much, and likely less than 1/2 stop. that's trivial to
    fix, with no noticeably effect.
    nospam, May 20, 2013
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    Wally Guest

    On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:58:45 -0400, M-M <> wrote:

    >In article <2013052008260428635-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> > When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes the entire frame into
    >> > account. If you crop out a portion, it would not be the same exposure as
    >> > if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed for it.
    >> >
    >> > At least _I_ understand what I'm saying. :)

    >>
    >> That depends on the camera you are using and the metering you have
    >> available and have selected. With my D300S, and usually all DSLR & many
    >> fuller featured compact cameras, will give you the option of full
    >> matrix metering, spot metering, & center weighted metering with the
    >> ability to adjust the center weight spot size.
    >>
    >> ...and even if you have the problem you proposed, it is easily fixed in
    >> post processing.

    >
    >
    >I guess if you know the exact part you want to crop out, you can weight
    >or spot meter for it, but it is still largely a guess. It is not the
    >same as matrix metering the entire frame.
    >
    >And post-processing a poor exposure is not "easily fixed", in my
    >experience. Overexposed areas can not be compensated for, and
    >underexposed areas are often grainy.


    Old-fashioned exposure thinking, IMHO.

    In the old days you guessed or calculated the exposure as best you
    could, and perhaps bracketed, because you wouldn't find out whether
    you were close enough until the processed film came back.

    Now you just look at the LCD and if there are blinkies, adjust and
    shoot again.

    W
    Wally, May 20, 2013
    #23
  4. Guest

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/20/2013 1:08 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2013.05.20 11:58 , M-M wrote:
    >
    >> And post-processing a poor exposure is not "easily fixed", in my
    >> experience. Overexposed areas can not be compensated for, and
    >> underexposed areas are often grainy.

    >
    > Within a stop over or a couple under you can save a digital photo
    > however. Slide film? Faggetaboutit.
    >

    the word is pronounced furgedaboudit



    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 21, 2013
    #24
  5. Guest

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/20/2013 11:38 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > M-M <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame. When you crop out a
    >>>> portion, the exposure is likely to be off.
    >>>
    >>> You're not talking sense in either sentence.

    >>
    >> I'll try to rephrase it.
    >>
    >> When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes the entire frame into
    >> account.

    >
    > not necessarily, depending on metering mode, and it may not matter at
    > all, depending on the scene.
    >
    >> If you crop out a portion, it would not be the same exposure as
    >> if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed for it.

    >
    > it *might* not be the same, and if it is different it probably won't be
    > different enough to matter. it depends on a lot of things.
    >
    > what matters is if the subject is exposed properly.
    >


    WARNING: CHECK YOUR CARDIOLOGY BEFORE READING THIS:

    I agree completely with nospam, with this and another post in this thread.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 21, 2013
    #25
  6. Guest

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/20/2013 12:27 PM, Wally wrote:
    > On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:58:45 -0400, M-M <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <2013052008260428635-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes the entire frame into
    >>>> account. If you crop out a portion, it would not be the same exposure as
    >>>> if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed for it.
    >>>>
    >>>> At least _I_ understand what I'm saying. :)
    >>>
    >>> That depends on the camera you are using and the metering you have
    >>> available and have selected. With my D300S, and usually all DSLR & many
    >>> fuller featured compact cameras, will give you the option of full
    >>> matrix metering, spot metering, & center weighted metering with the
    >>> ability to adjust the center weight spot size.
    >>>
    >>> ...and even if you have the problem you proposed, it is easily fixed in
    >>> post processing.

    >>
    >>
    >> I guess if you know the exact part you want to crop out, you can weight
    >> or spot meter for it, but it is still largely a guess. It is not the
    >> same as matrix metering the entire frame.
    >>
    >> And post-processing a poor exposure is not "easily fixed", in my
    >> experience. Overexposed areas can not be compensated for, and
    >> underexposed areas are often grainy.

    >
    > Old-fashioned exposure thinking, IMHO.
    >
    > In the old days you guessed or calculated the exposure as best you
    > could, and perhaps bracketed, because you wouldn't find out whether
    > you were close enough until the processed film came back.
    >
    > Now you just look at the LCD and if there are blinkies, adjust and
    > shoot again.
    >

    Does that apply if you use upgrade pricing?


    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 21, 2013
    #26
  7. Guest

    Paul J Gans Guest

    PeterN <> wrote:
    >On 5/20/2013 1:08 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    >> On 2013.05.20 11:58 , M-M wrote:
    >>
    >>> And post-processing a poor exposure is not "easily fixed", in my
    >>> experience. Overexposed areas can not be compensated for, and
    >>> underexposed areas are often grainy.

    >>
    >> Within a stop over or a couple under you can save a digital photo
    >> however. Slide film? Faggetaboutit.
    >>

    >the word is pronounced furgedaboudit


    Fuhgedaboudit.

    --
    --- Paul J. Gans, posting from Brooklyn
    Paul J Gans, May 21, 2013
    #27
  8. Guest

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/20/2013 8:30 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >> On 5/20/2013 1:08 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    >>> On 2013.05.20 11:58 , M-M wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> And post-processing a poor exposure is not "easily fixed", in my
    >>>> experience. Overexposed areas can not be compensated for, and
    >>>> underexposed areas are often grainy.
    >>>
    >>> Within a stop over or a couple under you can save a digital photo
    >>> however. Slide film? Faggetaboutit.
    >>>

    >> the word is pronounced furgedaboudit

    >
    > Fuhgedaboudit.
    >


    You must be from either Bensonhoist, or Greenpernt. I loined it in
    Flatbush.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 21, 2013
    #28
  9. Guest

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    Wally <> wrote:

    > Now you just look at the LCD and if there are blinkies, adjust and
    > shoot again.



    Yea, just tell that animal or bird to go back to what he was doing.

    --
    m-m
    Photo Gallery:
    http://www.mhmyers.com
    M-M, May 21, 2013
    #29
  10. Paul J Gans <> wrote:
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >>On 5/20/2013 1:08 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    >>> On 2013.05.20 11:58 , M-M wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> And post-processing a poor exposure is not "easily fixed", in my
    >>>> experience. Overexposed areas can not be compensated for, and
    >>>> underexposed areas are often grainy.
    >>>
    >>> Within a stop over or a couple under you can save a digital photo
    >>> however. Slide film? Faggetaboutit.
    >>>

    >>the word is pronounced furgedaboudit


    > Fuhgedaboudit.


    Fagottaboutit.

    -Wolfgang

    --
    see http://tinyurl.com/Fagottaboutit
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 21, 2013
    #30
  11. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 19 May 2013 01:07:51 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>And another one:
    >> http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/telekonverter/interpol1.jpg


    > Some very fast lens changes going on there if the watch time is to be
    > believed.


    Either that, or they shoot only once per month or the clock
    isn't advancing at all.
    Do you have Ockham's razor ready?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 21, 2013
    #31
  12. M-M <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:


    >> > An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame. When you crop out a
    >> > portion, the exposure is likely to be off.


    >> You're not talking sense in either sentence.


    > I'll try to rephrase it.


    That won't help.

    > When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes the entire frame into
    > account. If you crop out a portion, it would not be the same exposure as
    > if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed for it.


    What you're saying sounds reasonable, but is wrong.


    > At least _I_ understand what I'm saying. :)


    I didn't say I didn't understand you ...

    Let's start with "An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame."
    This is obviously easily wrong if one uses the M(aster) mode
    (including manual ISO) --- maybe with test shots, maybe with
    guessing, maybe with a handheld meter.

    This can also be argued wrong if you use a significant amount
    of light from flash --- there you underexpose (the ambient
    light) and set the flash (in conjunction with the aperture
    and flash-object distance) to the right value. ETTL (version
    I) was tied too tightly to the focus point(s) used --- it
    basically ignored much of the rest of the frame. With direct
    flash and a lens reporting the distance ETTL I and II would
    set the flash power according to the distance and aperture and
    mostly ignore the returning light of the measuring flash ---
    basically, ignoring most of the frame again.


    Let's go on to "When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes
    the entire frame into account". Please look up partial and
    spot metering. Only the centre is being used (smaller if
    spot, larger if partial, at least with Canon), the rest of
    the frame doesn't even count.

    Further, even with centre weighted average mode the border
    counts for very little, so framing the image such that
    it's border is reduced often causes very little change ---
    not enough to be relevant and often not enough to choose
    a different amount of light to fall on the sensor (i.e. an
    equivalent ISO/exposure/aperture triple).


    Worse, with matrix the camera decides where to use and where
    to ignore the frame's brightness, and in fact can detect
    "it's sunshine outside" from a comparatively small part of
    the frame and then may use a "sunny 16" or "sunny 8" rule, no
    matter what the rest of the frame is. (Of course it can also
    detect backlit subjects and then make them be exposed right,
    not the larger backlit area. So a change in framing may or
    may not have the same amount of light on the sensor.


    So: no, the camera does *not* take the entire frame into
    account in most cases.


    Let's look at "If you crop out a portion, it would not be the
    same exposure as if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed
    for it." Now, the obvious counter example is the evenly lit
    brick wall filling the frame. Zoom in and the exposure stays
    the same. OK, you said "the exposure is likely to be off",
    not "always off".

    Now, see above: with M(aster) mode, assuming you know what
    you do, and with spot and partial mode (again assuming you know
    what you do) the exposure on the main subjects will be right
    --- even if you crop severely and let only those subjects in.
    With center weighted average mode, cutting off the borders
    doesn't make an appreciable different --- you'd have to
    cut much and that much needs to be either very dark or very
    bright compared to the rest of the image to make a difference.
    With matrix it only matters if the camera thinks the zoomed
    in frame means a different subject or switches from/to backlit
    subject mode or does/does not switch to "full sunlight" mode.

    In short: if you don't crop lots, even with full auto exposure
    settings the esposure is likely to be right for the cropped
    image. If you intend to crop much and don't trust the matrix
    mode, M or spot or partial mode will see you through.


    In fact, some cameras have/had other metering moded: average
    (not centre weighted), in which case the whole frame would be
    important, or multi-spot, or they replace the 'centre
    weighted average' with a 'active focus point weighted average',
    on the general idea you probably want that what you focus on
    to be important in the image.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 21, 2013
    #32
  13. Guest

    Paul J Gans Guest

    PeterN <> wrote:
    >On 5/20/2013 8:30 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
    >> PeterN <> wrote:
    >>> On 5/20/2013 1:08 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>> On 2013.05.20 11:58 , M-M wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> And post-processing a poor exposure is not "easily fixed", in my
    >>>>> experience. Overexposed areas can not be compensated for, and
    >>>>> underexposed areas are often grainy.
    >>>>
    >>>> Within a stop over or a couple under you can save a digital photo
    >>>> however. Slide film? Faggetaboutit.
    >>>>
    >>> the word is pronounced furgedaboudit

    >>
    >> Fuhgedaboudit.
    >>


    >You must be from either Bensonhoist, or Greenpernt. I loined it in
    >Flatbush.


    Actually I was born in Cheekago, but I've lived in Noo Yawk
    for the last 51 years, currently in Fort Greene.

    What that means is that I shop at B&H and Adorama in poysen.

    --
    --- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, May 21, 2013
    #33
  14. Guest

    M-M Guest

    That was a great detailed reply- I appreciate it and I hope others can
    also.

    But getting back to the OP, we were discussing wildlife photography
    (where a flash would be useless), and the best (long) lens to use. Wally
    said to use a tele-extender or just crop it. My point was that these can
    not take the place of glass and aperture.

    Sure, if the subject is in the center of the frame and you have a good
    enough sensor, you can crop with little consequence as you suggest, and
    I agree.

    I once read that there is but one use for digital zoom, and that is to
    get a better exposure than by cropping. I have tried it and it is true.
    Take a photo and enlarge it 2X. Then take the same photo at 2X digital
    zoom. The result is the same except the one taken with digital zoom is
    very likely to be better exposed.

    (Incidentally, I have found one more use for digital zoom and that is to
    aid in manual focus. It comes in handy for astrophotography. But that is
    another subject.)

    Also, to the poster who suggested that the difference might be only one
    or maybe 2 stops- I believe todays cameras work in fractions of f-stops.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but it is no longer just 1/125, 1/60, 1/30,
    1/15... but there are many stops in between and the same with the
    aperture.


    --
    m-m
    Photo Gallery:
    http://www.mhmyers.com




    In article <>,
    Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:

    > M-M <> wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:

    >
    > >> > An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame. When you crop out a
    > >> > portion, the exposure is likely to be off.

    >
    > >> You're not talking sense in either sentence.

    >
    > > I'll try to rephrase it.

    >
    > That won't help.
    >
    > > When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes the entire frame into
    > > account. If you crop out a portion, it would not be the same exposure as
    > > if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed for it.

    >
    > What you're saying sounds reasonable, but is wrong.
    >
    >
    > > At least _I_ understand what I'm saying. :)

    >
    > I didn't say I didn't understand you ...
    >
    > Let's start with "An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame."
    > This is obviously easily wrong if one uses the M(aster) mode
    > (including manual ISO) --- maybe with test shots, maybe with
    > guessing, maybe with a handheld meter.
    >
    > This can also be argued wrong if you use a significant amount
    > of light from flash --- there you underexpose (the ambient
    > light) and set the flash (in conjunction with the aperture
    > and flash-object distance) to the right value. ETTL (version
    > I) was tied too tightly to the focus point(s) used --- it
    > basically ignored much of the rest of the frame. With direct
    > flash and a lens reporting the distance ETTL I and II would
    > set the flash power according to the distance and aperture and
    > mostly ignore the returning light of the measuring flash ---
    > basically, ignoring most of the frame again.
    >
    >
    > Let's go on to "When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes
    > the entire frame into account". Please look up partial and
    > spot metering. Only the centre is being used (smaller if
    > spot, larger if partial, at least with Canon), the rest of
    > the frame doesn't even count.
    >
    > Further, even with centre weighted average mode the border
    > counts for very little, so framing the image such that
    > it's border is reduced often causes very little change ---
    > not enough to be relevant and often not enough to choose
    > a different amount of light to fall on the sensor (i.e. an
    > equivalent ISO/exposure/aperture triple).
    >
    >
    > Worse, with matrix the camera decides where to use and where
    > to ignore the frame's brightness, and in fact can detect
    > "it's sunshine outside" from a comparatively small part of
    > the frame and then may use a "sunny 16" or "sunny 8" rule, no
    > matter what the rest of the frame is. (Of course it can also
    > detect backlit subjects and then make them be exposed right,
    > not the larger backlit area. So a change in framing may or
    > may not have the same amount of light on the sensor.
    >
    >
    > So: no, the camera does *not* take the entire frame into
    > account in most cases.
    >
    >
    > Let's look at "If you crop out a portion, it would not be the
    > same exposure as if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed
    > for it." Now, the obvious counter example is the evenly lit
    > brick wall filling the frame. Zoom in and the exposure stays
    > the same. OK, you said "the exposure is likely to be off",
    > not "always off".
    >
    > Now, see above: with M(aster) mode, assuming you know what
    > you do, and with spot and partial mode (again assuming you know
    > what you do) the exposure on the main subjects will be right
    > --- even if you crop severely and let only those subjects in.
    > With center weighted average mode, cutting off the borders
    > doesn't make an appreciable different --- you'd have to
    > cut much and that much needs to be either very dark or very
    > bright compared to the rest of the image to make a difference.
    > With matrix it only matters if the camera thinks the zoomed
    > in frame means a different subject or switches from/to backlit
    > subject mode or does/does not switch to "full sunlight" mode.
    >
    > In short: if you don't crop lots, even with full auto exposure
    > settings the esposure is likely to be right for the cropped
    > image. If you intend to crop much and don't trust the matrix
    > mode, M or spot or partial mode will see you through.
    >
    >
    > In fact, some cameras have/had other metering moded: average
    > (not centre weighted), in which case the whole frame would be
    > important, or multi-spot, or they replace the 'centre
    > weighted average' with a 'active focus point weighted average',
    > on the general idea you probably want that what you focus on
    > to be important in the image.
    >
    > -Wolfgang
    M-M, May 23, 2013
    #34
  15. Guest

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    M-M <> wrote:

    > I once read that there is but one use for digital zoom, and that is to
    > get a better exposure than by cropping. I have tried it and it is true.
    > Take a photo and enlarge it 2X. Then take the same photo at 2X digital
    > zoom. The result is the same except the one taken with digital zoom is
    > very likely to be better exposed.


    it's very likely that any difference will be completely insignificant,
    if there's any difference at all.

    > (Incidentally, I have found one more use for digital zoom and that is to
    > aid in manual focus. It comes in handy for astrophotography. But that is
    > another subject.)
    >
    > Also, to the poster who suggested that the difference might be only one
    > or maybe 2 stops- I believe todays cameras work in fractions of f-stops.
    > Correct me if I am wrong, but it is no longer just 1/125, 1/60, 1/30,
    > 1/15... but there are many stops in between and the same with the
    > aperture.


    the difference is likely to be under 1 stop, probably under 1/2 stop.

    and yes, cameras can shoot at any shutter speed, f/stop and iso
    combination you want. that's been the case for *years*.
    nospam, May 23, 2013
    #35
  16. M-M <> wrote:
    > That was a great detailed reply- I appreciate it and I hope others can
    > also.


    Please don't top post and add the full quote to the bottom.
    Intersperse your comments with the original text, shortening
    where appropriate and possibly indicating it by '[...]' or
    '[... describes his holiday ...]' instead of quoting big chunks
    (in this example a detailed report about his holiday yadda
    yadda yadda) you're not answering to.


    > But getting back to the OP, we were discussing wildlife photography
    > (where a flash would be useless),


    Again wrong.

    The only way you can freeze or half-freeze a humming bird's
    wings in flight is using flash. Normal compact flash on low
    power settings (higher power settings mean a longer flash
    duration!) or you could use special high speed flashes.

    You could also google for "better beamer". It's a tool
    sometimes used for wildlife, even if the flash only lifts
    the shadows.

    > and the best (long) lens to use. Wally
    > said to use a tele-extender or just crop it. My point was that these can
    > not take the place of glass and aperture.


    Of course, I'd say "buy the 1200mm f/5.6 if you need the
    range", but they're really rare and you can expect prices
    above 100,000 USD. Since selling one's children into slavery
    is illegal *and* doesn't fetch that much money ...

    .... you might either rob a couple banks and spend 25 years in
    prison or make do with a somewhat shorter lens. Looking at
    http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup
    the cheapest long lens would be the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
    (which needs a high end body to focus with a 1.4x TC at an
    effective f/8) or the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM + an 1.4x TC.

    Anything faster or longer gets really expensive really fast.
    (And remember you have to carry the weight with you, which
    may be a pretty hard limtation.) So a TC, especially if you
    do have fast glass that can take it, can be a good compromise.

    > Sure, if the subject is in the center of the frame and you have a good
    > enough sensor, you can crop with little consequence as you suggest, and
    > I agree.


    ? I suggested that you prefer a TC over cropping.


    > I once read that there is but one use for digital zoom, and that is to
    > get a better exposure than by cropping. I have tried it and it is true.


    See previous post why this is wrong, at least when the
    photographer knows what he is doing.

    Additionally, there is a 41 MPix mobile phone --- here "digital
    zoom" actually means "do not scale down as much, crop more
    of the border instead", as they don't output 41 MPix photos.
    Other cameras act similarly when using reduced pixel count
    output at the tele end.

    > Take a photo and enlarge it 2X. Then take the same photo at 2X digital
    > zoom. The result is the same except the one taken with digital zoom is
    > very likely to be better exposed.


    See previous post why s/likely/rarely/, unless you're
    shooting edge cases and don't know how to properly use your
    camera.

    > (Incidentally, I have found one more use for digital zoom and that is to
    > aid in manual focus. It comes in handy for astrophotography. But that is
    > another subject.)


    Incidentally, for that you use lifeview and the focussing
    loupe button.


    > Also, to the poster who suggested that the difference might be only one
    > or maybe 2 stops- I believe todays cameras work in fractions of f-stops.
    > Correct me if I am wrong, but it is no longer just 1/125, 1/60, 1/30,
    > 1/15... but there are many stops in between and the same with the
    > aperture.


    You can switch many cameras to full, 1/2 or 1/3rd stops.
    That's zero, 1 or 2 settings between 1/125 and 1/60.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 23, 2013
    #36
  17. Guest

    Ron Guest

    "Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
    news:...

    M-M <> wrote:
    > That was a great detailed reply- I appreciate it and I hope others can
    > also.


    <snip>

    Of course, I'd say "buy the 1200mm f/5.6 if you need the
    range", but they're really rare and you can expect prices
    above 100,000 USD. Since selling one's children into slavery
    is illegal *and* doesn't fetch that much money ...

    ++++++
    And then there is the cost of a tripod and head capable of holding the lens.
    Also the cost of hiring two men and a strong boy to carry it all around for
    you! ;-)
    Ron
    ++++++

    <snip>
    Ron, May 24, 2013
    #37
  18. Ron <> wrote:
    > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message


    > Of course, I'd say "buy the 1200mm f/5.6 if you need the
    > range", but they're really rare and you can expect prices
    > above 100,000 USD. Since selling one's children into slavery
    > is illegal *and* doesn't fetch that much money ...


    > ++++++
    > And then there is the cost of a tripod and head capable of holding the lens.
    > Also the cost of hiring two men and a strong boy to carry it all around for
    > you! ;-)
    > ++++++


    That's like saying "I buy a learjet and then the cost of
    supplying the on-board bar with a bottle of cheap champagne
    or two for all the cross-atlantic flights is something one
    must not forget to factor in."

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 25, 2013
    #38
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ray Muensch

    Best digital for wildlife shots?

    Ray Muensch, Dec 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    448
    Bill Tuthill
    Dec 27, 2004
  2. Canon lens for wildlife

    , Nov 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    521
    Bill Hilton
    Nov 29, 2005
  3. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    742
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  4. Bruce
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    264
    Attila Jozsef
    Aug 28, 2010
  5. HocusPocus
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    274
    Peter
    Aug 27, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page