On 8/28/2017 6:10 PM, Dean Hansen wrote:
Hi Moose,
In your next life, Moose, perhaps you should consider being an
entomologist.
My dad was a semi entomologist. His PhD in Agricultural Chemistry included a sort of minor in entomology. When I was
maybe four, he took me to the room at UC where all the dead insects on pins were kept. Big, tall room (to little me, at
least), with domed roof with skylights. Walls full of showy things like flutterbys; cabinets full of what seemed more
bugs than I imagined existed. I was, of course, totally fascinated. He later brought me a display box with cork bottom
and pins. I still have the lovely wood box, but insect collection never took hold.
Over 18 years of running up to 640 colonies of honey
bees, I can say that I've, well, seen a few bees. But that's the
nicest photo I've ever seen of one. Amazing.
Why thank you!
You are the antidote to the (OK, minor) flaws I see that look huge to me -
where I think I can/could do better. :-)
And I know damn well that it not just the equipment used.
Sure, I've got a steady hand and sharp eye. But you can't run the race without a good car. The E-M5 II and PLeica
100-400 are a "good car" Truth is, the original capture was quite easy. I was walking around a botanic garden, saw the
bee working a Coreopsis flower. I used single, small point AF, what I almost always do, and took half a dozen shots, in
32 seconds. All were decent; a couple a bit below par, one other was just as good technically as this one, but I decided
I liked this pose better. Remember, these were shot at 800 mm -eq., with a lens that can focus fairly close, with
excellent IBIS. IBIS didn't exist, 800 mm lenses weren't hand holdable and didn't focus close.
By close focus, I mean 1.3m / 51.18 in, so most bugs have no clue I am there. Close focus of Canon's $13,000, 10# 800 mm
lens is 6 m, yes 20 feet. The bee will be very small in the image. :-) Gear isn't all, but it does make a difference in
what a skilled user can do.
I recently read a review panning the Pleica 100-400, based on automated MTF
tests. They LOVED the Oly 300/4.
Well, you saw this bee and have seen others. Would you agree? Create and treat the images right and they are wonderful.
OTOH, what do the reviewers know about actual picture taking?*
I will take credit for knowing what to do with the image out of the camera. As with other long zooms I've used that seem
a little soft at the long end, skillful application of things like LCE and deconvolution, and selective masking of
adjustments, can make visible details the lens delivered but that got obscured in the capture process.
I would also suggest that the large, complex gear traditionally used for field insect photography seems to me to get in
the way of the simple shots. I understand that slow and cumbersome was necessary in the film era, but now the trade-offs
are different.
Bee Close Moose
* I'm fascinated by reviewers of long lenses who obviously don't really use them. The finest 300 mm ever made is useless
if it's too tight for the subject and one can't move back. For a subject that doesn't fill either frame, a 400 mm shot
with PLeica will be better for the same display size than an Oly 300 mm. (Situational MTF?)
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|