The tufa column had to be at least 6 feet tall. It didn't fill the frame. I
was surely using the Olympus OM 1.4xTC on my old Tamron SP 400/4
manual focus lens giving an effective lens of
560mm f5.6. I almost always stop down 1 or 2 stops to insure against
focusing errors so I was probably shooting at f8 possibly f11 (100 ISO film,
using a tripod). Mono Lake is in a high altitude desert. The air is normally
quite clear. There were some large fluffy clouds that added to the beauty of
the scenery but didn't impact the light available. Most likely it was early
afternoon in the spring. I vaguely remember snow on the
Sierras in the background and the sun being towards the south. (Thinking
about it makes me want to drive the 300 miles to get there again this
weekend). The birds were far enough away that no one could see anything
worthwhile without using the ranger's spotting scope or binoculars. The
spotting scope gave greater magnification and a brighter view than my lens +
OM.
I don't see how you are going to get AF with an E500 connected to a spotting
scope. For me an OM is easier to focus than either an E1 or E300. Part of
the issue with the aperture is that most OM focusing screens are designed to
be used with f5.6 or faster lenses. The plain matte screens used in the
digital cameras don't black out like a microprism but they aren't optimal
for manual focusing either. Walt has put a KatzEyeOptics Plus screen in his
E1 had found it very usable with his Zuiko 500/8. The screens aren't cheap
but if you are going to use non-back-
breaking long reach optics, then they are going to be slow and the
screen could make a big difference.
-jeff
On 5/10/07, khen lim <castanet.xiosnetworks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, that bit I'm aware of. You know how 'better halves are....' they have
> minds of their own!!! But then again, she has her points. Spotting scopes
> would be less arm and bank breaking compared to a good camera lens...
>
> I have a good variety of catadioptric lenses. Personally I wouldn't count
> on
> > any of them that are slower than f6 to deliver a picture of a bird. I
> have
> > a
> > Celestron 750mm f6 and a Tamron 350/5.6 which I seem to be able to
> > reliably
> > focus. The f8 lenses are just too slow to accurately focus.
>
> The problem with CAT lenses is that there is no AF and she's hell-bent on
> that. You're right about optical speed. She uses an E-500 and I think that
> even if she dispenses with AF, an f8 CAT lens under thicker foliage might
> be
> asking for trouble.
>
> > If I want to get photos of birds rather than just enjoy walking around
> > trying to take pictures, I take my Tamron 400/4 with a 1.4xteleconverter.
>
> Is this the MF version?
>
> > On the other hand I was at Mono Lake trying to take a picture of an
> Osprey
> > nesting on a tufa column in the lake. It was quite far away and the
> photos
> > were only okay.
>
>
> How far is 'far away,' Jeff? Can you recall your camera settings? I
> presume
> you're talking about using the Tamron 400/4 here with or without the
> 1.4Xteleconverter...? What was the lighting condition? What time of
> the day was
> it?
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|