What's the plane? Radial engine, smaller than a Beaver.
Isn't there a good chance that a runaway road runner will eventually come back to the same place? So you might consider hunkering down where you were when you first saw it and being patient.
wilderness wrote:
Just returned from my annual spring backpacking trip to Canyon Country. Part 1 was an eleven day backpack trip south of Navajo Mountain. Saw not a single other person besides my party of four friends in the eleven days. In fact in five weeks of hiking we never encountered another person. Here's the first set- please download for higher quality viewing.
How big is the rock in the second image?
Once, on a salmon river on the North Shore, I saw that a fellow angler upriver had hooked a big salmon. I grabbed my camera, noting it had mounted a 28-70. I quickly changed to an 80-400, and when I brought it up to my eye the viewfinder was almost black-nothing except a bright fringe at the upper left corner. I figured something was toast, so I put the camera and lens back in the bag without taking any pictures. For about another hour I ruminated about the problem, and decided to look inside the camera chamber. Off with the lens; there was, lying inside, a small aspen (?) leaf. I always change lenses with the camera pointed down and did so in this case. Somehow, when I had taken off the 28-70, the leaf had blown inside the chamber, and I installed the longer lens without looking inside. In my view, this doesn't qualify for hard use, nor were there any extreme conditions.
Bill P wrote:
If the spot is truly on the glass on the sensor, I would be suspiciois that the camera has had exceptionally hard use under bad conditions.
I don't why the position of the spot (on bottom side of the low pass filter) would tend to indicate anything other than that at some point when the lens was off the camera some detritus got inside the chamber. There's no telling where the junk originally landed; it probably migrated to the underside of the low pass filter because of some sort of electrical charge.
hassighedgehog wrote:
Even in the west there are Civil War reenactments. Riley's Farm in Oak Glen, CA do them.
You know, I've never considered California to be part of "the West." This isn't meant to be pejorative, it's just a feeling that California (which I have always considered the Promised Land) really isn't in the same category as Utah. Or Montana. Or Idaho. Or Wyoming. Or even Arizona (remember Clyde the freeloader?). Or New Mexico. Certainly not the same as Nevada. I think Oregon qualifies, but not Washington state.
Michael1079 wrote:
Interesting comment. We most certainly do Civil War re-enactments here in the north! In addition, there are many revolutionary war re-enactments - including one each Memorial Day weekend in Vincennes Indiana. Last, our city is home to a WWII LST, and they do D-Day re-enactments for July 4th. These are living history events, and they are certainly compelling!
Best wishes
Betcha one that re-created the Battle of the Bulge would be impressive, expensive and destructive. About two million soldiers, maybe 600 main battle tanks, artillery up the wazoo and a staggering number of combat airplanes. Cecil B. DeMille stuff.
What 1200mm lens? Or lens and teleconverter?
PJinOH wrote:
I've got one photo that I took between 35 and 40 years ago that I look back on and can honestly say it is the shot that started my hobby.
My mother had given me a Kodak Disc camera back in the 70's and we went to a Civil War re-enactment somewhere and I took this shot. I remember getting the shots back (probably from Fotomat) and looking at this one and thinking, "Hey, that's not too bad". After this I started paying more attention to what I was looking at and really enjoyed it.
Can anyone else remember their first "real" shot?
I've got one photo that I took between 35 and 40 y... (
show quote)
What is it that seems to compel some people to re-enact battles of the Civil War? So far as I know, nobody re-enacts the Battle of the Bulge, the retreat from the Chosin Reservoir, the battle of the Ah Shau (sp?) Valley, the Battle on the Marne or the Rough Riders's charge up San Juan Hill. And does anybody in the north U.S. do Civil War re-enactments; it seems to me they're mostly (or only) in the South.
I think it will affect the image. You need either to find out how properly to remove and replace the low pass filter (the underside of which has the junk) or find somebody who already knows. I think.
billnikon wrote:
VR is changing rapidly, you should read the manual the lens came with.
But, I would assume (and you know what that means) that a gun stock would NOT hold the camera as steady as a monopod or tripod so, I would also assume that there would be enough movement inherent in your arms to cause enough movement that would make VR a valuable asset.
All of that said, the 80-400 does have a hunt problem, always has had that issue. I use GROUP AUTO FOCUS that may help alleviate that issue, or if your subject is stationary, single spot focus. Also, if your shooting at a distance, on your lens settings also go from full to infinity-8m (or something similar) this should limit the range and speed up your auto focusing system.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
Newer lenses however are much better, like the 200-500.
VR is changing rapidly, you should read the manual... (
show quote)
The original 80-400 was not an AF-S lens; it was AF, and man, is it slow focusing. I think I bought mine in 2000, and the next lens I bought was Nikon's AF-S 80-200 ED-IF f2.8-an almost instantly focusing miracle that I've still got, even though it's without VR. It's interesting that you advocate using VR only with the gunstock; an earlier post put the cutoff line between monopod and tripod.
joehel2 wrote:
Please don’t use a gunstock mounted long lens mounted camera in a public place unless you are prepared to drop it on the ground when the police respond to the man with a gun call.
Smart post. That's something I never thought about. My dad used this gunstock in the woods in Montana for decades, and the only use I'd ever make of it would be in the woods. I'm an old guy (75), and these days if people saw a child riding a bicycle without helmet, padding, supervision (the way I rode bicycles) the lines into Family Sevices or whatever would be overloaded.
I bought the first Nikon lens with VR, the 80-400mm f4.5-5.6. The lens is very sharp but hunts for focus, frequently for almost 2 seconds. I know that when this lens is mounted on a tripod the VR should be turned off, and I assume the same is true for use on a monopod. I inherited from my dad a gunstock mount; am I correct that the VR on this lens should be turned off when it and the camera are mounted on the gunstock?
will47 wrote:
I am considering starting to print. The research I have done so far leads me to believe I will use either Epsom or Canon. Specific models would be helpful, but I have another question about these printers. If I use either of these, and if I only use that manufacturers printing paper do I need to be concerned about printing profiles? I use PC CC and only shoot in RAW. Some black and white conversion photo's and all Canon equipment.
Epson P800, but beware that each of the nine carts costs $55.00.
Wallen wrote:
Sometimes i would see something to which i say to myself "wow that's really beautiful". I would then take pictures and for reasons i could not fathom, it would not look anything like what i see.
After several takes where all the images would be crap I just end up frustrated and bewildered.
On such moments I ask myself what is there that i could not capture? What beauty is there that only the mind can see?
...With one last look, i'd then step back and walk away.
Robert Capa had what proves to be the single most prevalent problem: "If your pictures are not good, you're not close enough."