I need a better camera!!

[beecee]

Up in Star Lake we have what are known as floating decks.... basically a 12 x 16 deck with Dow floatation billets boxed in underneath. Typically 9-15 hp outboards. Top speed??? Oh about 4 mph.

I was following two loons who can easily outrun one of these so they tend to let you get pretty close.

All the shot I took really stunk....but heading back to shore about twenty minutes later I heard a Loon call.

Four!!!! You rarely see that many adults together.

So here are my cruddy shots..as close as I could get due to jet skiers.

 

[RBSinTo]

beecee,
I always ask other photographers who want gear recommendations, "What equipment do you currently own, and what is it that you want to achieve with a new camera or lens(es) that you can't with the gear that you already have?".
RBSinTo

 

[Guildedagain]

My now very outdated Lumix LX5 is all the cam I need, although small Canons have much more zoom, optical that is.

 

[chazmo]

That's cool about the motorized dock, beecee. That makes a ton of sense! What do you do with it in the winter?

 

[GAD]

If it's any consolation, my assumptions based on the perceived distance in your photos make me think that without a 400mm lens (assuming full frame) you'd have trouble resolving any significant detail, and most consumer-grade long lenses are less than great.

There's a reason that birding photographers have big expensive lenses that are so heavy that the support goes under the lens instead of the camera. Photographing relatively small things at distance is generally not something that can be done inexpensively.

 

[beecee]

That's cool about the motorized dock, beecee. That makes a ton of sense! What do you do with it in the winter?

We just bring them to the waters edge, jam the poles into the sand and they sit in the ice all winter. Only issue is the water level drops a bit in the fall and rises in the spring. Makes for a nice cool few steps to get to it!

They really are handy especially since my camp is an island. I can haul anything over or off, (dozens of loads of junk removed when we first bought it.

One year I got delayed closing up for the season. My outboard was in 3' of ice. I'll send pix when i get home

 

[chazmo]

Cool, beecee!

 

[RBSinTo]

If it's any consolation, my assumptions based on the perceived distance in your photos make me think that without a 400mm lens (assuming full frame) you'd have trouble resolving any significant detail, and most consumer-grade long lenses are less than great.

There's a reason that birding photographers have big expensive lenses that are so heavy that the support goes under the lens instead of the camera. Photographing relatively small things at distance is generally not something that can be done inexpensively.

GAD,
My nature photographer buds who do serious bird work are using 500 or 600 f4 lenses for much of their shooting.
Even among the consumer grade extreme range zooms, the long ends top out about 300 mm, are no faster than about 5.6 with so-so resolution.
RBSinTo

 

[GAD]

GAD,
My nature photographer buds who do serious bird work are using 500 or 600 f4 lenses for much of their shooting.
Even among the consumer grade extreme range zooms, the long ends top out about 300 mm, are no faster than about 5.6 with so-so resolution.
RBSinTo

Yeah, serious birders are not to be messed with when it comes to long glass. About the only other regular use where I see the monster lenses is professional sports. Oh, and paparazzi.

For those unaware, this is a Canon 600mm f/4L lens:



The last section on the left is a lens hood so it's not quite as big as it seems in the pic, but note the tripod which is mounted at the center of gravity. The current version of this lens has a street price of $13,000 and weighs in at 6.7 pounds (3kg).

Why spend that much when you can get a *used* Canon 500mm f/4L for $7,000? It still weighs 7 lbs, though.



Luckily you can get a much tamer 400mm f/5.6L (sadly, only used these days) for under $1,000. This is the lens I used when I took my Solar Eclipse photos (with a 1.4x tele-converter for 560mm f/8):

 

[RBSinTo]

GAD,
While I have no interest in photographing celebrities, my photographic passion is candid street shooting. While I have a ton of manual focus Nikkor and third-party glass from 17 up to 300 2.8 that I shot with for years on manual focus Nikon bodies, as well as a Nikon rangefinder kit with lenses from 21 to 135mm, today (sadly) I use a couple of D3 bodies and three auto-focus lenses
(12-24, 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 2.8) for street-shooting.
Of those three lenses, the one I find most useful for candid street is the 24-70.
But if I had my druthers, the rangefinder kit is the one I'd prefer use for shooting on the street.
RBSinTo

 

[GAD]

GAD,
While I have no interest in photographing celebrities, my photogrsphic passion is candid street shooting. While I have a ton of manual focus Nikkor and third-party glass from 17 up to 300 2.8 that I shot with for years on manual focus Nikon bodies, as well as a Nikon rangefinder kit with lenses from 21 to 135mm, today (sadly) I use a couple of D3 bodies and three auto-focus lenses
(12-24, 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 2.8) for street-shooting.
Of those three lenses, the one I find most useful for candid street is the 24-70.
But if I had my druthers, the rangefinder kit is the one I'd prefer use for shooting on the street.
RBSinTo

Very cool. The rangefinder thing never bit me, which is probably for the best. I’ve also never been much of a street photographer which probably contributes to the lack of rangefinders in my collection. I absolutely LOVE the mechanics of a nice old Leica but that holds true for any nice old camera because tiny intricate machines fascinate me.

I have a lot of lenses and the one I use the most by far used to be my 24-70 f2.8L. Then I got the 24-105 f/4L because I’m almost always using strobes in the studio and need the increased length more than the speed. Plus it’s got IS if I need it.

Almost every photo on my website was taken with one of those two lenses with exceptions including the odd iPhone or borescope shots for internals and my 100mm macro for extreme closeups.

I love my primes but I use them when I’m going through an artsy photography phase which hasn’t happened in a while, but some of my all time favorite photos were taken with my 135 f/2L or 85mm f/1.2L lenses. I used to walk through the woods with my 70-200 f/2.8L but man that gets heavy quickly, and the older I get the heavier it seems.

 

[RBSinTo]

GAD,
I used a Tamron 28-105 2.8 with an Adaptall AIS mount for many years, but traded it with a ton of other gear when I got the D3 bodies. Not the sharpest lens I ever owned, but fast and handy on the street.
And among my forgotten gems is a Vivitar Series 1, 135 2.3 that I had the mount AI converted for use on my manual focus and now Digital bodies. Sharp. Fast (2.3). And great for the street.
My Nikkor AF 70-200 2.8 is an oldie but a goodie, but is indeed a heavy lens to schlepp around.
I miss my old Tokina 80-200 2.8 ATX manual focus zoom. Used it for years and loved it. Also gone in the big swap.
Truthfully, I enjoyed photography much more when I shot 100 ISO colour slide with my manual focus cameras.
RBSinTo

 

[GAD]

GAD,
I used a Tamron 28-105 2.8 with an Adaptall AIS mount for many years, but traded it with a ton of other gear when I got the D3 bodies. Not the sharpest lens I ever owned, but fast and handy on the street.
And among my forgotten gems is a Vivitar Series 1, 135 2.3 that I had the mount AI converted for use on my manual focus and now Digital bodies. Sharp. Fast (2.3). And great for the street.
My Nikkor AF 70-200 2.8 is an oldie but a goodie, but is indeed a heavy lens to schlepp around.
I miss my old Tokina 80-200 2.8 manual focus zoom. Used it for years and loved it. Also gone in the big swap.
Truthfully, I enjoyed photography much more when I shot 100 ISO colour slide with my manual focus cameras.
RBSinTo

I still have my dad's Minolta SRT102 that he had when I was a kid. One of his favorite lenses was a Vivitar 135mm but I don't recall the speed and I'm too lazy to get up and look.



I learned photography from him on that camera. I was thrilled to find it in a closet after my mother died because I had no idea that she still had it. I used a Pentax K1000 for many years because I loved the manual simplicity of it all and it was a great camera for astrophotography. I've actually toyed with getting another one because as much as I love my digital stuff there's just something more pure about an old manual camera.

He also used to have a nice Rolliflex but that's long gone. He did all of his portrait work with twin-lens medium format cameras.

 

[bobouz]

I've been shooting birds since the '80s with the same basic low-cost system setup (using Pentax K-mount). Today with an APS-sensor body, the APS sensor size adds 1.5x magnification to your lens vs full-frame, so with a 70-300mm lens plus a high quality 1.4x teleconverter, you have a reach of 630mm. Even though you're starting out at about F-8, today’s camera bodies have very good high ISO-setting performance & can achieve fairly fast shutter speeds. This set-up will still autofocus in good light, remains reasonably light weight, and can be hand-held with good results if you've got a steady hand. These days I keep a camera at the ready more for identification than anything else, and sometimes when the stars are aligned, a very satisfying result will come along. Here’s an example of the setup size & results:

 

[RBSinTo]

Bobouz,
Despite the reach of your set-up, there is no getting around the f8 aperture that results from it.
The nature and bird work that my photobuds produce with their 400 2.8, 500 f4 and 600 f4 primes usually have amorphous, softly blurred backgrounds when required that don't distract from the subjects because of the shallow depth of field that these lenses can produce.
RBSinTo

 

[Brad Little]

Around 1990, I spent a large part of the summer on a phot project of a restricted island, I got access through the Environmental Science Department at my university. One of the perks was the use of the Departments camera and accessories. Included was a 1000mm mirror lens that I only tried a few times as it wasn't really suited for my project. I do remember that it was lighter than a normal long lens and, IIRC, had no aperture adjustments. Don't remember much about the quality of the prints, may not have even bothered to print after developing.

 

[RBSinTo]

Around 1990, I spent a large part of the summer on a phot project of a restricted island, I got access through the Environmental Science Department at my university. One of the perks was the use of the Departments camera and accessories. Included was a 1000mm mirror lens that I only tried a few times as it wasn't really suited for my project. I do remember that it was lighter than a normal long lens and, IIRC, had no aperture adjustments. Don't remember much about the quality of the prints, may not have even bothered to print after developing.

Brad,
Catadioptric lenses were fixed aperture optics, usually no faster than about 5.6. I never owned one, because they were too slow to suit my needs.
My rule of thumb when buying glass was always look for speed.
RBSinTo

 

[bobouz]

Bobouz,
Despite the reach of your set-up, there is no getting around the f8 aperture that results from it.
The nature and bird work that my photobuds produce with their 400 2.8, 500 f4 and 600 f4 primes usually have amorphous, softly blurred backgrounds when required that don't distract from the subjects because of the shallow depth of field that these lenses can produce.
RBSinTo

Bird photography is chock full of photographic compromises. As a hobbyist, there are a number of factors to be considered if you want to gain an additional f-stop or two of light. Besides the obvious one of cost (which can be very high in this neck of the woods), are the issues of weight, portability, and your primary photographic goals.

 

[bobouz]

Around 1990, I spent a large part of the summer on a phot project of a restricted island, I got access through the Environmental Science Department at my university. One of the perks was the use of the Departments camera and accessories. Included was a 1000mm mirror lens that I only tried a few times as it wasn't really suited for my project. I do remember that it was lighter than a normal long lens and, IIRC, had no aperture adjustments. Don't remember much about the quality of the prints, may not have even bothered to print after developing.

Early on with manual focus bodies, I owned & used a 500mm F-8 mirror lens for a relatively brief period of time. They are very light & compact, but out of focus areas typically have numerous small donut-like rings. The effect can sometimes be fun, but generally It’s more distracting than pleasing. Also at high magnification, it can be difficult to quickly locate your subject, which is where zoom lenses come in very handy.