Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Tarzan
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Aug 22, 2013 16:54:34   #
8-) Yours, if you say so. Most SZ 50 owners, including myself, are quite happy with it's sharpness. Maybe you got a defective issue?
Go to
May 17, 2013 17:41:00   #
myts10 wrote:
Tarzan, thanks for your input. I have read good things about the 45-200mm. and thought that would be enough for me. The deer I want to get are in or right next to a wooded area. I can usually get within 50 yards or so (half an American football field).
How close do you get to fill the frame with an owl with the 100-300mm?


The 45-200 is a versatile lens, no doubt, and a deer is much larger than an owl, so, a 200mm may fulfill your needs quite well. as for filling the frame with a medium sized owl with the 300, I must get as close as 15-20 yds. Hard, but can be done. I don't stalk the owls, nor crouch as I approach them, it is sort of silly to try this with animals with an eyesight like theirs. I go straight, in plain sight, and bet in their curiosity. One step, stop. As long as they keep looking at me, another step is possible. A monopod is good help.
As for image quality, I can not detect differences between the 3 lenses.
Best regards.
Go to
May 16, 2013 18:02:49   #
I have a G3, with a 14-42mm, a 45-200mm and a 100-300mm, and the most of the time use the 14-42 for portraits and general urban pictures. For wildlife - I love owls! - the 100-300 is way to go. Hope this helps.
Go to
May 3, 2013 18:09:46   #
I will translate to english an odd name and an equally odd situation in Brazil.
The citizen's name was "Brazilian Army", and he was a Colonel... of the Brazilian Air Force.
Go to
Feb 13, 2013 05:44:17   #
I used to hunt big game years ago. (There are hunters and there are animal killers, the difference is abyssal.) To a true hunter, precise shot placement is of paramount importance, and I use some rifle shooting stances for photos these days.

Keep at least on elbow in contact with your chest.

Breath deeply 2 or 3 times, exhale half of your lungs contents, hold breath, fine focus and squeeze the trigger, err...button.

Lean to something solid, or sit on one of your heels. (it makes a tripod - one foot, one foot tip and one knee, elbow in touch of the other knee), or just squat.
Go to
Feb 3, 2013 09:45:44   #
This joke has been here before. The first reactions to it seem different this time.
Go to
Jan 24, 2013 05:03:38   #
COI Jack wrote:
Just found out I died last week!


A quote from an old client:

"If, after fifty, you wake up without any pain anywhere, there's a very high probability that you died while asleep."
Go to
Jan 23, 2013 04:33:34   #
I had a Pana FZ 200, and while I was satisfied with it's general performance, I felt it's zoom not enough for wildlife pics. Then came SX50, and I see it as an upgrade, not only in zoom terms. To my pleasant surprise, the stabilizing device of SX50 is just amazing. I've taken pics in full zoom (1200 mm equiv.) at 1/250sec, hand held, with a high percentage of keepers. Image quality is just a little better than FZ200's in low light. If your cup of tea is bokeh or indoor pics, FZ200 may be the way to go.
About Fujis, I hear comments about quality coltrol issues.
Go to
Jan 20, 2013 09:59:43   #
sarge69 wrote:
I was going good until it wanted my email address.

No way Jose. I get enough mail.

Sarge69


X2.
Go to
Jan 9, 2013 05:34:12   #
For someone who already has a DSLR, the Canon would be a perfect companion/sidekick.[/quote]


Well said. In my camera garage, aside the SX50, is parked a Panasonic G3 + 3 lenses from 14 to 300mm. The possession of this camera sort of equals owing a FZ200, with some pluses and lesses.
Go to
Jan 7, 2013 05:57:07   #
caknutsen wrote:
Tarzan wrote:
My cent - my opinion probably is not 2 cents worth .
I have an SX50, a close friend has an FX200. We often compare our pictures. He is not an outdoors man, and used FZ's max zoom a few times just to see what it coud do.
I am a wildlife and street picture man. The slight diference of image quality goes to Canon, mainly in higher ISO, but is clearly visible only when cropping is applied.
Canon's image stabilizing is very effective. For stationary pictures in maximum zoom (1200mm eq.) I use monopod fewer and fewer times.
FZ is faster in focus and burst.
Can't say a thing about video - never use it.
Best regards.
My cent - my opinion probably is not 2 cents worth... (show quote)


So if your friend said, " do you want to trade cameras?" Would you?
quote=Tarzan My cent - my opinion probably is not... (show quote)


No, I would not. But as I see, there is not the "good x bad camera" issue here. SX50 just fits better for my personal needs. You see, burst shooting of moving animals does not ask for very short intervals of time between shots. A long reaching zoom is much more important for me than a fraction of second faster focusing. When (why so few...) a great shot is taken, I like large prints of some of them. Here Canon wins - (I'm talking about 30"x20" prints) - less noise, sharper.
No doubt, for a museum or general indoor photogtapher, FZ200 is the most suitable camera. Both are great in macro, and if this means something in practical terms, macro focus minimal distance is 1cm for FZ200 and 0 cm for SX50 - you actually can touch the subject with the lens.

Best regards.
Go to
Jan 6, 2013 15:21:10   #
My cent - my opinion probably is not 2 cents worth .
I have an SX50, a close friend has an FX200. We often compare our pictures. He is not an outdoors man, and used FZ's max zoom a few times just to see what it coud do.
I am a wildlife and street picture man. The slight diference of image quality goes to Canon, mainly in higher ISO, but is clearly visible only when cropping is applied.
Canon's image stabilizing is very effective. For stationary pictures in maximum zoom (1200mm eq.) I use monopod fewer and fewer times.
FZ is faster in focus and burst.
Can't say a thing about video - never use it.
Best regards.
Go to
Jan 2, 2013 06:43:24   #
I live in a country where law-abiding no criminal record people are not allowed to carry guns of any kind. Even state police agents need a permit from federal police to carry a defensive firearm. To own and keep a gun at home is nearly impossible in practical terms. Among other things, the citizen must have a "reasonable reason" for owing a gun. ('reasonable reason' does not include home and family defense from sociopaths)
This did not reduce the incidence of deaths by guns, it indeed is growing, and fast.
When I was a boy, at the 50s of the past century, at least 50% of law-abiding citizens carried personal firearms
as naturally as ties (necklaces?) It was a very polite society, and I donĀ“t remind any shooting until I was 14. (the one shooting I mention was justified self-defense from a passing-by would-be raper. Even a .32S&W 3" barrel in the hands of a lady can be effective.)
Go to
Jan 1, 2013 09:35:14   #
To reach 2014.
Go to
Jan 1, 2013 04:55:12   #
Is it possible that the sugar alcohol in 3 fingers of Scotch or Cognac would help settle some of the hypoglycemic tremors?[/quote]


Maybe not possible, but delightful for sure.
BTW, "Getting old - what to do?"
My sugestion - Let's get older! Elderness is not bad, taking the alternative in consideration.
Happy New Years!
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.