daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Zoo
Jul 9, 2011 22:54:31 GMT -5
Post by daveh on Jul 9, 2011 22:54:31 GMT -5
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Zoo
Jul 10, 2011 14:12:53 GMT -5
Post by mickeyobe on Jul 10, 2011 14:12:53 GMT -5
Beautiful pictures of beautiful animals.
Especially striking is the last one of Kaiser Wilhem.
Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Zoo
Jul 11, 2011 1:28:52 GMT -5
Post by daveh on Jul 11, 2011 1:28:52 GMT -5
Mickey, thanks. The kaiser was taken through glass, and there is a reflection visible form the top right corner, which I might try to remove with Photoshop sometime. The condor was photographed though the same netting as you can see behind it. I used the lens wide open (f4) and, with focussing on the bird, the netting has effectively disappeared.
|
|
|
Zoo
Jul 16, 2011 22:33:45 GMT -5
Post by Michael Fraley on Jul 16, 2011 22:33:45 GMT -5
Great series, Dave. Big zoom lens? The close-ups are striking.
|
|
|
Zoo
Jul 16, 2011 23:44:54 GMT -5
Post by colray on Jul 16, 2011 23:44:54 GMT -5
Very nice series Dave
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Zoo
Jul 17, 2011 3:05:58 GMT -5
Post by daveh on Jul 17, 2011 3:05:58 GMT -5
Thanks both. Michael, I think they were all done with the Canon 70-200 f4L (without the 1.4 extender attached). Mind you the 7D has a 1.6 crop factor so the lens is in effect a 110-320 mm lens. In today's climate even 300mm only qualifies it as a medium telephoto (q.v. the thread on "what is a fast lens".) Most of the photos aren't overly cropped. The blackbird and the glove & talons are the only two which are. The photo I put in the "competition" as Z for Zoo and then removed, is below (mickey look away). Perhaps I caught him/her at a bad moment, but certainly the poor thing doesn't look too happy. This photo is near enough full frame.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Zoo
Jul 17, 2011 4:49:43 GMT -5
Post by mickeyobe on Jul 17, 2011 4:49:43 GMT -5
Poor, forlorn little guy.
Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Zoo
Jul 17, 2011 5:33:01 GMT -5
Post by daveh on Jul 17, 2011 5:33:01 GMT -5
Zoos can keep the numbers of animals in endangered species up, and so keep the species alive. They are also better these days. I remember the days when the cages were far too small, and the animal would just pace up and down with boredom. Some animals are quite happy in their own little world. Many fish, for example, hardly move from their base on a coral reef, and wouldn't know they were in a tank. Others have migrations of thousands of miles, and need to be allowed that movement.
Several years ago I went to Chester zoo. At the time they had polar bears. Subsequently there was some appreciation by the zoo that being kept in an enclosure wasn't good for polar bears. Chester is a big zoo. It now concentrates on endangered species. Of course, if global warming is a persistent thing, polar bears could come into that category. I just don't know how you keep them mentally happy in a zoo.
In many ways I feel the condor looks the most forlorn of the animals. It, unlike the monkeys, hardly has an expressive face, but it should be up there in the clouds soaring to its heart's delight.
What is true is that most animals live longer in a zoo than they do in the wild. Perhaps for some the quality of life is better too. Maybe zoos are a good thing, even if the animal is denied its freedom.
|
|
|
Zoo
Jul 17, 2011 8:11:11 GMT -5
Post by nikonbob on Jul 17, 2011 8:11:11 GMT -5
Dave
Your photos illustrate well you point that zoos are a mixed blessing, possibly a necessary evil even. Who says animals don't have personalities, take Kaiser Willy for example. That Canon 70-200/4L lens is missing in the Nikon line up.
Bob
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Zoo
Jul 17, 2011 9:31:58 GMT -5
Post by daveh on Jul 17, 2011 9:31:58 GMT -5
Bob, you have, as Canon do, the 70-200 f2.8. I would certainly like the 2.8 for its extra stop in speed, but it is twice the weight of the f4 and twice the price too. The f4 lens is altogether more portable.
Mine is the non-IS version. Having the IS almost doubles the purchase price. I have also have an older 70-300 IS f4-5.6 EF Canon. Optically the70-200 L lens, even with the 1.4 extender in place, outperforms it by some margin. I also found that I occasionally got ghosted images, which seemed to come from the IS mechanism.
|
|
|
Zoo
Jul 17, 2011 10:23:13 GMT -5
Post by nikonbob on Jul 17, 2011 10:23:13 GMT -5
Dave
Exactly why Nikon should have a 70-200/4 vr II in their line up. It would be lighter and cheaper than the 2.8 but I guess that is where the 70-300 4-56 VR II comes in and negates the need. I can't say I have noticed ghosted images with either VR II lenses that I own but that is Nikon's second generation VR. I hate tripods and find some form of image stabilization a real help and worth the bit extra for a lens with it.
Bob
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Zoo
Jul 17, 2011 15:19:18 GMT -5
Post by daveh on Jul 17, 2011 15:19:18 GMT -5
Bob,
The L series are 'fixed length' with internal focussing, whereas the 70-300 EF isn't. Weight wise the 70-200L f4 is at 705 grams a little heavier that the 70-300EF (630 grams). Canon also to a 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS. At 1050 grams it is a fair bit heavier - and a fair bit more expensive.
The latest series of L lenses has seen quite an increase in price, but also (or so everyone says) a further increase in quality.
I shall have to look at the Nikon lenses to see how they compare to each other and to the Canons. My nephew has quite an array of Nikon Lenses, but mainly at the wide angle end of things I think.
Dave.
|
|
|
Zoo
Jul 17, 2011 19:29:09 GMT -5
Post by nikonbob on Jul 17, 2011 19:29:09 GMT -5
Dave
The newer Nikon glass has also seen a huge jump in price also with a supposed further increase in quality. Everyone sings the same tune. I would bet you would not find a substantial difference in lenses across the major makes for a lens of the same era and level. There is the odd exception but in the main probably not despite what various makers fanboys may crow.
Bob
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Zoo
Jul 18, 2011 3:13:47 GMT -5
Post by daveh on Jul 18, 2011 3:13:47 GMT -5
I always wonder if the big increase in price is just trying to cash in on those who must have the latest model when it first comes out. I'm not sure if it applies across the board but most things seem to drop in price after they have been out awhile. There is a good website here for comparing prices - www.camerapricebuster.co.uk. It gives a graph of the recent price fluctuations (the last two years if the item has been out that long) , and also lists the historic high and low. The graph for the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II, shows how the price dropped steadily, but as then gone up a bit recently (presumably as exchange worsened a little and VAT increased from 17.5% t0 20%): www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod1249.htmlHowever the Nikon lens shows less variation: www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod1221.html
|
|
|
Zoo
Jul 18, 2011 6:23:50 GMT -5
Post by nikonbob on Jul 18, 2011 6:23:50 GMT -5
Sorry, I was thinking more along the lines of big price jumps over the model the current one replaces. Even if prices trend down a bit after the initial introduction it usually never reaches the replaced model's price point. The price trending in your examples is I think more pronounced in bodies than lenses. Could it be because bodies have a shorter shelf life than the glass? I am sure having to have the latest and greatest does have the effect of initially keep the price high.
Bob
|
|