Native Animal pictures / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Native Animal pictures

first previous 2 3 4 5 next last

Move Thread

LAN_403

HV Enthusiast

Tue Apr 25 2006, 03:00AM

Registered Member #15 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 01:11PM
Location:
Posts: 3068

Yeah, i just might touch any spider with my fingers. Yikes!

I sure wouldn't be going outside with spiders like that crawlin' around!!!

Tesladownunder

Tue Apr 25 2006, 03:37AM

Registered Member #10 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 09:45AM
Location: Bunbury, Australia
Posts: 1424

The butterfly weight was 0.41g.

Spider weight was actually 4g but he (she?) was unhappy sitting on the scales for very long. Had to be dangled on it rather unelegantly by its web

Third shot is the spider back on the wisteria wide web (www). (Wisteria is the flowering bush)

Last is a passing cockroach shot. We don't have the really big ones down here.

Peter

1145936239 10 FT8052 Spidergolden Orbweight

1145936239 10 FT8052 Spidergolden Orbreturned

stop4stuff

Tue Apr 25 2006, 03:04PM

Registered Member #64 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:25AM
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 68

a couple of shots of a bullfinch in the trees taken with a nikon coolpix 2000

Extreme Electronics

Tue Apr 25 2006, 10:42PM

Registered Member #74 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 09:17AM
Location: Nottingham UK
Posts: 99

A Picture of a swan, on its nest, taken this evening..

Dr. Drone

Wed Apr 26 2006, 04:19PM

Registered Member #290 Joined: Mon Mar 06 2006, 08:24PM
Location:
Posts: 1673

The Wumpus

Thu Apr 27 2006, 08:24PM

Registered Member #325 Joined: Fri Mar 17 2006, 12:42AM
Location: Turku, Finland
Posts: 55

Christopher Robin wrote ...

The clarity and quality of these pictures are driving me to a digital SLR. Joe put a bug in my ear and I keep looking at these picture postings and getting very envious indeed! Dang it, guess I better research cost vs reviews. It is all Joeâ€™s fault, he he!

The camera does not a picture make. The advantage of a digital SLR is that you can use good lenses (e.g. primes) instead of being stuck with the compromises of an all-purpose zoom lens. And of course the usable ISO 800, 1000, even 1600.

A shot from today which I am quite proud of, frog with eggs:

Also taken with the Sigma 180 macro.

Dr. Drone

Thu Apr 27 2006, 10:44PM

Registered Member #290 Joined: Mon Mar 06 2006, 08:24PM
Location:
Posts: 1673

Dr. Shark

Mon May 01 2006, 10:10AM

Registered Member #75 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 09:30AM
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 711

I was away for a week, and now looking at all those pictures... Wow!

Wumpus, your shot of the Waxwing (whatever that is) is really great, what lens did you use on that? Beatiful bokeh!

Chris, the big advantage of SLRs is that you can use long telephoto lenses, so for animals you cant really get around it. To save you all the research, I suggest the Nikon D50, which is the cheapest of them all at only $600 but still gives you all the spectacular results you get from $1000+ lenses on other camera bodys too

The Wumpus

Mon May 01 2006, 12:26PM

Registered Member #325 Joined: Fri Mar 17 2006, 12:42AM
Location: Turku, Finland
Posts: 55

joe wrote ...

I was away for a week, and now looking at all those pictures... Wow!

Wumpus, your shot of the Waxwing (whatever that is) is really great, what lens did you use on that? Beatiful bokeh!

Thanks, the waxwing shot was taken with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 zoom (

) using a 2x teleconverer, resulting in 140-400 5.6. On a 1.5 FOV crop DSLR this is equivalent to a 210-600 zoom in 35mm terms. I have to say that the Sigma is an excellent lens for the price: fast and quiet focusing, very sharp and beautiful bokeh. Nikon's AF-S 80-200 VR version might be a bit faster focusing and has VR (vibration reduction) but the Sigma is optically on par with it at less than half the price

joe wrote ...

Chris, the big advantage of SLRs is that you can use long telephoto lenses, so for animals you cant really get around it. To save you all the research, I suggest the Nikon D50, which is the cheapest of them all at only $600 but still gives you all the spectacular results you get from $1000+ lenses on other camera bodys too

You can actually get long telephoto reach without going into DSLRs, and at faster apertures too, for an affordable price. E.g., cameras such as the Panasonic FZ30 digicam (

provides 35-420 (35mm equiv) at a constant 2.8 aperture. You won't be buying a 400 2.8 lens for a DSLR (well you could

, but at over $7000 I think it's out of reach for amateur photographers, and it weighs a ton, too).

However, when looking at image quality the DSLR with more expensive lenses will win hands down because of all the compromises that has been made in such a long zoom. Also the few stops less at the telephoto end (e.g. 5.6 for most cheap telezooms) you can take back by bumping up the ISO, something that's not possible on compacts without horrendous amounts of noise.

Another option to get really long reach is to photograph through the ocular of spotting scopes, "digiscoping".

Bjørn

Tue May 09 2006, 01:41AM

Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058

I just got this picture of a killer whale.

first previous 2 3 4 5 next last

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob