Just Had To Share

bfjr

1st let me say, I like Ken Rockwell and read his site always.
It's full of good, useful info but........................sometimes :scratch

Read This:

Big, long, telephoto lenses are not great, even though they impress beginners.

Every camera maker: Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Zeiss, Leica, the Russians and more, all make big telephotos. So what? Photography is about getting close. Long lenses are for photographers who lack the skills to get close.

Great animal photographers know how to get right up to wild animals; they don't need 400mm lenses. Great sports photographers get themselves invited to the athlete's home or out onto the field; they don't get stuck in a press box a mile away.

I think a good Ha Ha Ha is nice on Christmas Eve :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

Harryb

bfjr wrote:

1st let me say, I like Ken Rockwell and read his site always.
It's full of good, useful info but........................sometimes

Read This:


I think a good Ha Ha Ha is nice on Christmas Eve

Maybe Ken came down to the MI VI shoot and show us how to get close enough to the birds to get full frame captures with a 14-24 lens.

KMCC

Harryb wrote:

Maybe Ken came down to the MI VI shoot and show us how to get close enough to the birds to get full frame captures with a 14-24 lens.

He's also welcome to come on down to the sideline and try to get a tight shot of a quarterback being sacked from halfway across the field without a 400mm.

IraRunyan

bfjr wrote:

1st let me say, I like Ken Rockwell and read his site always.
It's full of good, useful info but........................sometimes

Read This:


I think a good Ha Ha Ha is nice on Christmas Eve

Actually, to a certain extent, what he says is true. Many great wildlife and bird shots have been taken with a 300mm lens on a digital camera, even with a 300mm lens attached to a 35mm film camera.

Even with a 400mm to 600mm lens, the closer you can get, the better and more detailed your photographs will be.

On the otherhand, shooting wildlife with a 100mm lens would for the most part be unsuccessful...............

leaforte

Seems a might harsh...but who knows, but an expert.

NorthernFocus

That CA surfer dude turned bear guy used short lenses to take his bear photos. I think the AK Fish/Game guys only used a 50mm to take the photos of the scat containing his remains

Maestro

What a bunch of bovine excrement. So after scouting out the appropriate place where the green jays were really congregating, setting up a feeder, waiting a few days, then setting up a portable blind with my 500mm lens makes me a noob? Or how about watching the hummingbirds passing through during migration in my yard? I'd watch them. Study them. Find which tree they liked to rest in as well as specific branches. I then set up my 500mm to catch them flying in and out of the tree and/or perching. This makes me a noob?

I am no Ken Rockwell, but I totally disagree!

JohnDC

I'm not trying to incur the wrath of you others, but I think Ken Rockwell has a point. As Ira points out, there is a benefit to careful stalking. I have been using a 300mm, sometimes with a 1.4x teleconverter. I put it on a Bushhawk, and it's much more portable than a 500 or 600.

But I also have to admit that 300mm won't get me close to raptors in trees, or to those small birds that will not let you get close enough to fill the frame....

Also, the big lenses benefit the birds that are less disturbed by the proximity of the photographer. Life is hard enough for the birds already....

MikeMcA²

Ken earns money based on traffic volume to his site. More and more, he relies on outrageous comments like these to drive traffic to his blog.

Corehead

I agree. You should ask HarryB, our one moderator down in Florida, to show ya his "close enough?" shot of a gator's open maw!
:jawdrop

bfjr wrote:

1st let me say, I like Ken Rockwell and read his site always.
It's full of good, useful info but........................sometimes

Read This:


I think a good Ha Ha Ha is nice on Christmas Eve

Maestro

JohnDC wrote:

I'm not trying to incur the wrath of you others, but I think Ken Rockwell has a point. As Ira points out, there is a benefit to careful stalking. I have been using a 300mm, sometimes with a 1.4x teleconverter. I put it on a Bushhawk, and it's much more portable than a 500 or 600.

But I also have to admit that 300mm won't get me close to raptors in trees, or to those small birds that will not let you get close enough to fill the frame....

Also, the big lenses benefit the birds that are less disturbed by the proximity of the photographer. Life is hard enough for the birds already....

There is no doubt that careful stalking is part of being a good wildlife photographer. Heck most of my images come from stalking, but just because at times, I like to use a big lens and a blind does not mean I am any less a photographer than anyone else. I might be reading Ken's quote incorrectly, but it looks like he is putting down people who use long lenses.

bhowdy

Hmmmmm .... I wonder if his "Gear List" would show that it included a 400mm or larger lens? I would bet that it does! Oh well to each his own.

bfjr

MikeMcA² wrote:

Ken earns money based on traffic volume to his site. More and more, he relies on outrageous comments like these to drive traffic to his blog.

I think you have a good point so .............

I double Dog Dare Ya Ken to get close enough with one of them there Ultra Wides to this Bad Boy :wow


Of course this was shot with a lousy 300 f2.8 AFS VERII in frot of an Ancient Body in front of a far more ancient operator :cry :cry

Besides a WildLife Post outa have some kinda wildlife :ivar

NorthernFocus

Maestro wrote:

...So after scouting out the appropriate place where the green jays were really congregating, setting up a feeder, waiting a few days, then setting up a portable blind with my 500mm lens makes me a noob?...

Maybe more like a super noob? I can't believe I spent all that time and effort researching lenses and then shelled out all that money just to join the ranks of noobdome too .

Joking aside, I can't believe we've given Ken's comments this much "press". I've read a few things on his site and gotten some good information there but he's not exactly known as a wildlife photographer.

bfjr

bhowdy wrote:

Hmmmmm .... I wonder if his "Gear List" would show that it included a 400mm or larger lens? I would bet that it does! Oh well to each his own.

Actually up until very recently Ken's home page had a shot of him leaning on a Monopod mounted 400mm 2.8, I do believe

And Folks it's all far fun...........don't go to deep with it

Osprey Whisperer

Even for the 1st time newb birder.....a point and shoot can be too much lens for the situation.

Cygnus Studios

Maestro wrote:

There is no doubt that careful stalking is part of being a good wildlife photographer. Heck most of my images come from stalking, but just because at times, I like to use a big lens and a blind does not mean I am any less a photographer than anyone else. I might be reading Ken's quote incorrectly, but it looks like he is putting down people who use long lenses.

I have seen quite a few photos taken of wildlife with a short lens, and many more taken with long lenses. I am sure that some people are lucky enough to have the ability to sit for days, weeks or even months to get "the shot".
I can take pics of the Hummers visiting my feeder with a 17-35mm lens all day as they are not that worried about me standing within 3 feet of them.
The hawks don't get that close. Yes getting close is nice. I was within 12 feet of a fawn a few months back, and all but got stomped by the doe who thought that I had gotten too close.
While a short lens might be a better choice, a long lens can be a smarter choice.

erisian pope

I really don't understand his pomposity. I think an image should stand on its own and be enjoyed (or not) based solely on the content of the picture. Sometimes it's interesting from an academic point of view to know the photographer devised a method to hook their camera up to a microscope or whatnot, but in the end is the photograph beautiful? Is it moving? Do we enjoy viewing it? If the answers are 'yes' then to critique the artist's choice is equipment is snobbery and useless.

Ken Rockwell has taken plenty of photos that I really enjoy, but I greatly dislike his blog because of his inane and inflammatory statements like this one. I think he should spend more time taking pictures and less time telling us how lucky we are that he exists.


(ok, I'll go back to lurking again)

Corehead

That's SOOOOOOO right-on, maaaaaaannnnnnnn! That goon should really stop layin' his power trips on us.

Oh, and for fellow D-grinner "Maestro", :bs doesn't stand for "bovine excrement", it stands for "Bovine Skatology".

Glad to help any way I can!:heh

erisian pope wrote:

I really don't understand his pomposity. I think an image should stand on its own and be enjoyed (or not) based solely on the content of the picture. Sometimes it's interesting from an academic point of view to know the photographer devised a method to hook their camera up to a microscope or whatnot, but in the end is the photograph beautiful? Is it moving? Do we enjoy viewing it? If the answers are 'yes' then to critique the artist's choice is equipment is snobbery and useless.

Ken Rockwell has taken plenty of photos that I really enjoy, but I greatly dislike his blog because of his inane and inflammatory statements like this one. I think he should spend more time taking pictures and less time telling us how lucky we are that he exists.


(ok, I'll go back to lurking again)

Maestro

Corehead wrote:

Oh, and for fellow D-grinner "Maestro", :bs doesn't stand for "bovine excrement", it stands for "Bovine Skatology".

Thanks for the correction. I will be using it from now on.

bfjr

Bird Man Photographer wrote:

Even for the 1st time newb birder.....a point and shoot can be too much lens for the situation.

good choice on contrasting clothing for your model

Osprey Whisperer

bfjr wrote:

good choice on contrasting clothing for your model

The way the airlines have been charging for extra luggage...the color coordinated ensambless were limited. The poor kid had spent the night at Uncle Mike's and had to borrow a sweatshirt as our friends to the North had sent some cold weather down to us for Christmas.. Sorry it wasn't such a good color match for the rest of his outfit....... at least the camera matched.