flying fox entering harem

gtc

flying fox colonies are divided into harems,each run by a dominant alpha male-here is ,what i think is,a younger bachelor flying in to see what females he can snag whilst the big fella is away trying to scare off other interlopers.

kdog

Whoa. It's like a scene from a creepy movie! :yikes



Really fantastic picture. Surreal.

-joel

gtc

glad you like it
thanks-glad you like it-the sleeping bats remind me of pod people-the flying ones are great to watch -powerful flyers

kdog wrote:

Whoa. It's like a scene from a creepy movie! :yikes



Really fantastic picture. Surreal.

-joel

David_S85

OK, bat pictures. Not creepy, but cool. And in flight no less!

I have to ask.... just how does one accurately focus on a small fast and twitchy thing like a bat in flight?

gus

David_S85 wrote:

I have to ask.... just how does one accurately focus on a small fast and twitchy thing like a bat in flight?

Greg has a 400 f 5.6

Good shots again greg.

David_S85

Humungus wrote:

Greg has a 400 f 5.6

Good shots again greg.

Good lens, but that doesn't answer the question. A 400 has a DOF of about 6 inches, which makes it even more difficult to bag a bat.

gtc

manual focus
its hard-i generally pick something that the bat is going to fly past,like the trees,focus on the trees and then back focus a smidgin and shoot as the bat enters the field.

for ones in the air with out reference points I prefocus and wait for the moment that the bat clears up and fire away

it dosen't always work though

i am tempted to hire a 300/2.8L and use autofocus but am enjoying developing my manual focus skills-manual focus,i think,helps to improve my photography skills.

i havent yet achieved perfect focus so have to usm a smidgin

they arent as twitchy as normal bats though-because they are so large and heavy they are ,reasonably slow and direct-like a heavyweight boxer vs a flyweight-they can turn quickly though and internal focussing would be nice for a quicker lock,but i do like my takumars-any trouble with a bat and they have to answer to a swinging takumar..

David_S85 wrote:

Good lens, but that doesn't answer the question. A 400 has a DOF of about 6 inches, which makes it even more difficult to bag a bat.

David_S85

Thanks, Greg. Appreciate the explanation. As a soon-to-fully-abuse my credit card prospect of the 400, I'm trying to gleam from other's experience first.

Now on that 300 / 2.8, I would think the DOF would be less than 6 inches at full open, even if the focal length is shorter than the 400 @ 5.6. Perhaps f/16 and a Better Beamer might get a couple feet of DOF to work with. (a guess - I don't have a B.B.) As you've discovered, the dumb luck virtues of manual prefocus on a certain spot and waiting for the action to wander through also has its merits - as your result proves it. Good catch.

gus

David_S85 wrote:

Good lens, but that doesn't answer the question. A 400 has a DOF of about 6 inches, which makes it even more difficult to bag a bat.

That DOF depends on how far away the subject is. Still not an answer but i feel like an argument

Maybe 6" at 11 feet but not at the moon.

David_S85

I looked these up here. Interesting figures. Not much wiggle room at all.

20D, 400mm, f/5.6, 20ft., DOF = 4 inches.
20D, 400mm + 1.4tc, f/5.6, 20ft., DOF = <1 inch
20D, 400mm, f/16, 20ft., DOF = 8 inches
20D, 400mm, f/5.6, 100ft., DOF = 4 feet, 1 inch.
20D, 400mm, f/5.6, 1000ft., DOF = 427 feet

20D, 300mm, 2.8, 20ft., DOF = 4 inches

gus

David_S85 wrote:

I looked these up here. Interesting figures. Not much wiggle room at all.

20D, 400mm, f/5.6, 20ft. DOF = 4 inches.
20D, 400mm + 1.4tc, f/5.6, 20ft. DOF = <1 inch
20D, 400mm, f/16, 20ft, DOF = 8 inches
20D, 400mm, f/5.6, 100ft, DOF = 4 feet, 1 inch.
20D, 400mm, f/5.6, 1000ft, DOF = 427 feet

20D, 300, 2.8, 20ft. DOF = 4 inches

At min focus. Things change dramatically at distance.

gtc

just saw this discussion-actually i think that shot was taken with the 300/4

it was at about 250 feet so the DOF was probably pretty good

for close shots i have been using the s-m-c takumar 200/4 which is a favourite,and easier to swing around for overhead shots

oi! dumb luck! no!(i know its just an expression) i sometimes track them through the trees and as they turn towards me focus on a tree that they are going to head past and back focus a bit ,get the bat in frame and then adjust focus a smidgin

i have also been ,if i have time to do it,also stopping down to get more dof and improve focus.you can be pretty busy in those few seconds.

re the 300/2.8L- i dont think dof is too much of an issue when one would have the luxury of autofocus

a flash and better beamer would also be useful for smaller aperture dof and also even exposure -black,red,shiny and partially in shadow=hard to expose-the problem is attention-i am shooting from a golf course and they have already sent security down to find out what i am doing-i may have to put my gear in a golf bag and play a few holes until i get to my location.

not as hard as waiting for tide to change and wading into mangroves,hey gus?

Rohirrim

Another neat bat capture. Nice job.

CookieS

as always love your bats, but Im looking for what a "better beamer" is and WHY the beamer part is always in red??? I need a nother cup of coffee.

Seefutlung

Good job.

Dick on Aruba

Great capture Greg.

Dick.

bfjr

David_S85 wrote:

I looked these up here. Interesting figures. Not much wiggle room at all.

20D, 400mm, f/5.6, 20ft., DOF = 4 inches.
20D, 400mm + 1.4tc, f/5.6, 20ft., DOF = <1 inch
20D, 400mm, f/16, 20ft., DOF = 8 inches
20D, 400mm, f/5.6, 100ft., DOF = 4 feet, 1 inch.
20D, 400mm, f/5.6, 1000ft., DOF = 427 feet

20D, 300mm, 2.8, 20ft., DOF = 4 inches

To much time wasted on Math :wow Just go shot em up.
interesting shot and not one you see everyday <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

everytime I view it, I remember:

Good Evening, My name is Count, Count Dracula :lol <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > :lol