Moose, to my eyes ( mine are not as sharp as yours, of course), your
images are fine. I agree with you, carry what you are comfortable with,
and use it for targets of opportunity. Your post work is icing on the cake.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 7/10/2015 6:14 PM, Moose wrote:
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Travel/NorthEast_2012/Maine/Coastal_Maine_Botanic_Garden&image=_9150911croof30.jpg
On 7/8/2015 7:21 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
The official 4th of July count (on the 3rd) is below though I saw a
very tattered Painted Lady on the way back to the car that didn't
make it in the official version.
Here is one image.
http://tinyurl.com/p4bj4zg
On 7/10/2015 6:46 AM, Dean Hansen wrote:
...
This summer I'm trying to use a Sony NEX-7 with 55-210mm lens and
two Vello extensions for my butterfly shots. It certainly is light,
but I may well go back to my OM4T, 65-116 auto extension tube, and
Tammy 60-300 outfit, heavy and unwieldy as it is. I can't get
consistent focus with the Sony, try as I may. The 4T with the clear
macro focusing screen was simply unbeatable for butterfly photography.
While the Sony's pixel count is impressive, I got far more keepers
with the OM set-up.
Coincidentally, I was just thinking of writing in response to Mike's
recent Flutterby images. Are you guys sure you have the right kits? I
know that shooting with Big Foot and it's brothers gives Mike a kick,
I know the NEX-7 is supposed to be a good camera, I know people have
been using fill flash for this purpose forever - but what about the
finished pudding?
I don't go out with the specific intent of finding and photographing
flutterbys, but I do find them on occasion and try shootin them. When
we went to the The Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Garden in Maine last fall,
there were flutterbys hanging around, especially on some flowering
verbena.
I took 23 shots. Five to seven or so were not sharp enough for my
taste. Some others were poor poses, partially blocked, etc. Of the
rest, some just weren't as appealing as others.
Here are five of them. All but one have a full frame version and a
crop, so you can see what the full lens coverage was. One has a 100%
sample; not perhaps ready for prime time, but an idea of the detail
that's there. <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=17808>
All were taken with Panny GX7 and M.Zuiko 75-300 @ 300 mm. I believed
at the time, perhaps erroneously, that the GX7 IBIS was better at 300
mm than the E-M5. I have yet to take any flutterby shots with the E-M5
II, but, based on other results, I believe they will be even better in
fine detail. The improved IBIS is like getting a new lens at the long
end.
Anyway, the point is that I'm out and about, run into flutterbys,
shoot them with the camera and lens around my neck, and I'm getting
better focus/DoF and better fine detail than you guys. Often, even
recently, we talk about how it's the photographer, not the camera. But
I'm not convinced I'm a better photographer.
Might an Oly E-M5 II, 75-300, single center spot AF and f11 or so be a
better flutterby kit than what you've been using/trying?
You might look at the bird images I just posted, the Wilson's Warbler,
in particular - just in case you think it can't deal with things not
in full sun. :-)
If I were specifically looking for flutterbys, I might put an
extension tube on. The 75-300 works well with one.
Curiously Clear Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
