Lens advice, please

"Kate" <@*slamaspam*.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:d2pch4$4k5$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk:


 > I have mostly been using shutter speed mode (Canon call it Tv mode)
 > and trying to get f.8 by using a higher ISO, but even at 400 ISO I
 > notice a considerable increase in noise, so I do try to use 200 ISO or
 > lower most of the time. Unfortunately, with photographing odonata,
 > the option to set up flash units is impossible. However, this is
 > compensated for somewhat by their preference for warm, sunny
 > conditions. They do move very quickly and change direction in an
 > instant, so I have to wait until they have perched, but I still like
 > to use a high shutter speed if possible.

  You're highly unlikely to get anything even remotely decent, if
you're not after perched shots, unless you go for a really elaborate setup
or get extremely lucky. They're the most unpredictable flyers. And trying
might just drive you nuts

  One of the better traits, however, is their preference for returning
to the same perch. Patience and slow stalking can get you a lot closer.
Also, early morning helps a tremendous amount, especially if the night was
cool. Odonata need their flight muscles to be warm to work properly (which
is why they perch and sun themselves), so chasing them before they get warm
enough means they either don't move, or perch frequently.
 

 > As I mentioned earlier, they
 > tend to use awkward places to land (for a photographer), say, reeds in
 > the middle of ponds, or outer branches high up in trees. Hence my need
 > for a zoom lens : you never know how near or far they will be when
 > they come to rest.

  Don't accept any one locale, but always seek out new places to find
them. Some may provide ideal conditions, such as reeds close to shore and
at a good height. This is where I've gotten most of my insect shots.


 > With the bird photography, I did consider getting
 > some remote flash units, but as I understand that they are triggered
 > by the flash unit on the camera and I am in a hide with just the lens
 > sticking out, I didn`t think it would work. Regarding choosing less
 > demanding subjects, I _like_ photographing dragonflies and birds!

  Not less demanding subjects, but less demanding conditions. Even
traveling to an area where your subjects are allowing closer approaches can
do wonders.

  As for flashes, some are triggered by the camera flash, and these are
typically called "optical slaves". Others can be triggered by radio - see
the Canon 550EX for example, or check out instruments by Quantum and Pocket
Wizard.

  Then there's a simple trick with optical slaves - cover the flash
unit on the camera with a piece of unexposed, developed slide film (in
other words, black). This blocks nearly all of the visible light, but not
the infra-red, which will trigger the slaves. If you get creative, you can
use multiple flashes and slave triggers (from Wein, for instance), maybe a
few PC cords, to create an entire outdoor "studio" flash setup.


 > Perhaps a teleconverter would be a possibility, and certainly cheaper
 > than a longer zoom lens, although I have read that with the lens I
 > have already, they do not give quite such good results as with lenses
 > with better optics.

  A teleconverter is always a possibility, but they come with a price.
The first is, you're going to lose at least some image quality, though with
the better converters this is minimal. Second, you lose some light, giving
you an effective f-stop even lower than before - one stop (f8 to f11) with
a 1.4X converter, two stops (f8 to f16) with a 2X.

  Better lenses always help, but perhaps not as much as you would like,
especially for the price. Be careful about getting trapped in the process
of chasing equipment - no matter what you buy, you'll still need good
technique.

  Think of it in these terms: Purchasing a 600mm f4, to the tune of
several thousand dollars, still only doubles the subject's size on the
film, and this is in overall area, not body length (only 1.4 times body
length). The quality will indeed increase, and you may be delighted at the
sharpness. But will it be enough? Because if it isn't, you're now out a
bucket of money and still have to find alternate ways to get closer.

  And sometimes, all this takes is throwing some bird food out. Or even
using a small fine net and catching the odonata before they're fully alert,
and shooting them in a makeshift studio *in your house*


 > Al : I am going to try your suggestion of converting to Lab and
 > sharpening in the Brightness channel, although it does seem that
 > shadows and darker areas generally give the most problems, regardless
 > of colour, so sharpening in the Brightness channel might make it
 > worse? I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
 > reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to get
 > _closer_ to the subject?

  Yes. And I think we're at a slight misunderstanding as to some of
your difficulties, but you did mention not being able to focus close
enough. This is something I've seen many times, where the photographer can
get close enough to the subject with a longer zoom, but it won't focus
within the short distance. Doesn't sound like this is your problem though.


 > What I was hoping to achieve was to almost
 > fill the picture with the sharply-focussed subject (a bird or a
 > dragonfly, for example) whilst still remaining, say, 5.5 metres away.
 > Am I asking for too much on a limited budget?

  Bluntly, yes. Every nature photog wants the image to be a lot bigger,
but getting that kind of performance tends to be expensive - shortcuts
always leave something lacking.

  So, you cheat whenever possible . Set up a feeding station. Shoot
within an aviary or butterfly house. Travel to a place that sees a lot of
people so the birds and insects are far more accustomed to close
approaches. Use a long remote for the camera and put the camera right smack
in the reeds, prefocused on a favorite perch, and shoot "blind". Hatch the
little beggars yourself in an aquarium

  Some subjects are just damn tricky, and you have your work cut out
for you. But don't try to conquer it all at once. Experiment and learn, and
do some research too. Some of the best insect photos are obtained by
elaborate setups such as multiple infra-red trigger beams and large forced-
air tubes that guide a flying insect to right where the camera's pointing.
And that's because those photographers found out the same thing you have,
and got frustrated enough to find alternate methods

  Good luck!


  - Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.wading-in.net" target="_blank">www.wading-in.net</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->

John Lee wrote:
   >>> However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly
   >>> fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I
   >>> need to stand 18ft away from it?
 >
 >
 >
 > I have posted a few images using the 100-400 with both
 > 1.4x and 2x converter that might help you decide. Ease of use and loss
 > of autofocus is another matter!!
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.virtually-unlimited.co.uk/test/test.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.virtually-unlimited.co.uk/test/test.html</font</a>>
 >
 > John

Some very nice shots and clearly not just a fast click and go, you
worked for a few of those.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->