[John Bennett]

I’m sure the 12 ga.’s didn’t have anything to do with it though.  hehe.

Lol yeah I’m sure they didn’t help 🙂

Eric I shot an assignment for the mag last Nov, which ran this Aug. They were doing a feature destination article on a particular bay. The AD gave me his wish list with regards to what he wanted to see. The first priority was images of the writer calling, followed by documentary type shots (clubhouse where they hold a blind lottery at 4:30am, location type shots, parling lots etc), he wasn’t interested duck shots at all. In the end they used two images, one of te wrtier calling for the cover, another of him starting the hike out at the end of hunt.
Small selection from that here
http://jben.zenfolio.com/p584283980

images two and five were the end product
http://jben.zenfolio.com/p441091910

Note that the duck shot (image 4) was used in Sept’s hunting annual. However that was taken on my own time and dime. Meaning when I go out hunting, I concentrate on documentng the hunt and hunters as you’ve done here……When Im solo and a morning to kill I mount the long lens and concentrate on the targets. It maximises your time.

[John Bennett]

Very nice essay Eric.

J

[John Bennett]

I was talking to a friend recently, who told me of a family relation who *was* a very successful event photographer. Not quite the same as celebrity paparazzi but along the same lines. He’s had to drastically re invent himself due to the simple fact everyone, everyone has a camera on them now, be it a digicam or cellphone. His “buyers” are being fed a steady diet of images by the public, who probably only see their name in print (if that). His business and compensation hasn’t wilted, its gone.

A couple of the papers I read daily now have ads on their sites stating  something to the effect of “Share your news” whereby the public can upload images and the papers get free liscence to use them how they want. I wonder how many front page images come free by way of cell phones/digicams. Now thats a rights grab, atleast time still paid a token amount.

 
So its not just how dslrs have made it considerably easier for people who are interested in photography to take it up, and from there be happy with snappy snaps, or attempt to take it further a little or alot by investing the time and effort to learn. For some they might wantto learn about the basics, others still will delve into DoF, where the human eye is drawn naturally and hoe to hold it, and others still will then want to learn about the qualities and characterstics of light.

I’m sure though that if we tried hard enough we could paralels in many “professions”. Writing? True you would need to understand some basic principles ( ISO, SS, aperture), any decent word program can take it from there. Experience what you write about? Anything and everything you might need to know about a place or subject is readily available.
The net.

My point is that all have survived in some form. Im sure photography will to. It may not be as lucrative, it may not be as mysterious (welcome to the information age) and the landscape will almost certainly change. Those who work at it (treat it as a profession) will continue those who dont…

[John Bennett]

Ben and Zach summed it up.

The “Pros” will always distinguish themselves from the rest (regardless of Genre) and thus command better compensation. The difference between a Pro, somewho who one day wants to be there, and a weekend warrior?

Look at Toshs work, then look at my work. Theres a world of difference and you would have be blind not to see it. What sets me apart from people who are at some other levels. I’m working my ass off at it, at all levels and that extends far beyond bettering my craft (the end product).

Its a job, a “profession”. For others its a hobby with occasional gravy.
The difference between those two is night and day, much like the difference between my end product and Tosh’s.

I’ve managed some things this past year, that have exceeded my short term goals with repsect to my business plan. Perhaps the largest is moving from getting credits on published photos only, to being listed as a contributing photographer on page two every month right under the “editors”. That won’t happen for anyone unless your professional about every facet.

I may never be as “good” as the likes of Tosh, but I know so long as I continue to work my ass off at it…I’ll continue to get steady work and sales.

/shrug

Have I ever given a photo away in hopes of getting paid in the future? Yes, but it’s been a long time, and I’ll never do it again because what I learned from that incident is free work leads to more free work.

And that for anyone whos trying to break in a bit is the single largest trap.

Well said Tosh

[John Bennett]

Pound for pound one of the most popular macro lenses for serious bug shooters is the Sigma 150mm f2.5.

A near perfect mix of focal length for the price.

Your DoF is near irrevelant. Whether you are using 60mm 1:1 or a 180mm 1:1. Your at a 1:1 ratio. The *only* real differnce is the “working” distance. The longer your focal length, the further back you are (more working distance) an yet still at 1:1.

I myself have Tamrons 180mm f3.5. Its widely regarded as the sharpest macro lens. Pointless debate imo…ALL macro lenses have stupidly great optics.

*they have to*

Any flaw in the optics when dealing with macro lenses would become deal breakers.
*****************

Set your budget and if its bugs you want to shoot get as much working distance as you can.

[John Bennett]

Great stuff Brett.

Jay why would you say anything?
I’m not going to list the differences (air time) or ask questons about range because 1) I dont want to get into it and 2) I dont want to take away from a great shot.

But look closely at the Tarpon and then look closely at the Eye in the shot below or the guys big toe above and tell me its tack sharp. Even at this reduced rez I can tell you its not. then ask yourself..ok where the focus point? Ws it cener point focus? If so, if not for all the water droplets would it have jumped to the background becaue the fish is off center??? With lightning fast focusing that would an should have occured.
Or is focus held mostly in place due to all the water…and hence keepin the tarpon mostly in focus.

Brett its still a great dynamic

[John Bennett]

I have the padded dividers in my Pelican cases so they can be used for different gear depending on what I’m doing.

I thik they cost a bit more, but are worth it because they wont wear out and your gear might change.

One of my Pelicans has been with me from the start, and is still working fine.

Me to.
Alot of Pelicans can be bought with either the foam or the standard camera dividers

[John Bennett]

lol, gret stuff Will.

[John Bennett]

yeah Im hearng those whispers from the same friend. The new 100 mm macro may be an indicator

[John Bennett]

The 7D does look good (on paper) and its very nice to see Canon trying to fill their line up gap.  I doubt I’ll get one though….but who knows, never say never. My cause for concern is as others have noted…Noise and the AF.

The aspects they’ve incorporated from the 1D series while great, isnt the meat and bones. They’ve brought in some of the custom functions etc.

RG, who in my opinion is one of the very few “reviewers” I pay any attention to (most seem to be shills too afriad to anything bad about anything at all) already said dont expect a huge leap…….where it matters.

Let other people be the guinea pigs imo.
***************

The bad news for me is the trade-in on my DsIII’s just took a beating..

David a little birdy who has never and I mean never been wrong tells me Feb for the 1DMKfour. If so the 1Dsfour wont be far behind.

[John Bennett]

With Tripods you get what you pay for.

The Gitzo traveller Davids linked will be my pack pod in due time. As its not a priority for me right now I went with a Manfrotto Pro (255 i think). Its sturdy enough to hold the weight of my Body and 500mm (see the shot of the Yote at 700mm and 1/8th in the telephoto thread) but not as heavy as many of the non carbon beast out there. Sort of a good compromise between functionality and price.

You next choice is what head. Again budget will determine alot I would recomend thinking about getting the best head you can afford.

RRS
Wimberly
Markins

I went Markins, its got the highest capacity/weight ratio and for all intents and purposes cost about the same as any of the three.
http://www.markinsamerica.com/MA5/M20.php

[John Bennett]

I could write a book on this topic.

I’ve owned the 100-400 L. Its a fantastic lens…..that has drawbacks. I may/will one day own it again. Why did I give it up?

Focus Speed. I’m not saying it’s “slow”, it is however slower than any prime. For me and what I like to do/shoot, those thousands of a second spell missed shots.

The 70-200 f2.8 is another fantastic lens.

So what do you do when you have two equally fantastic lenses?
Wrack your brain weighing the trade-offs. What are you willing to sacrifice in order to get what you really want?

For most of you who seriously shoot wildlife, what mm range do you find yourself using most on average?

You can never have too much reach. Ever.
***********************************

On TCs.
My advice is that they are always worth to have on hand. However, understand that they always reduce light, always reduce IQ and always reduce focus speed.

The next peice of advice is that if you want to use a TC and not occasionally swear at yourself for having it mounted, only use them with Primes.

500mm F4 L and 1.4 TC ( or 700mm)

500mm F4 L + 1.4 TC + Tripod + Prayer (taken at 1/8th of a second)

If your budget is limiting you but you really want something for wildlife have a look at the Tamron 200-500. You’ll have nice reach (500mm) with no TC, zoom options incase your too close (its rare but happens) and for the focal length its dirt cheap and is sharp.

Its downside is its slow to focus. Birds in flight will be hit and miss but most else it will be up to the task.

Any questions dont hesitate to ask.

J

[John Bennett]

Thanks everyone, sincerely.

Those who know me, know that this year has been both the best and absolute worst for me. The stuff that typically only happens in Hollywood :). I havent been around lately well because some of the “worst” things are coming to a head, gut check time.

The Can Geo thing might represent one of my brightest highlights. A lot of Pros work a lifetime and never get published in a Geo, let alone interviewed.

Jay, love ya man and sorry.

J

Can Geo Fall Travel Issue

[John Bennett]

OK my bad Jay and as I said earlier I hate the net, theres no tone or inflecton and would much rather over beer 🙂 And I agree on the other things neither of us said different. Bu after questioning it and then seeing shots I know are easy with a 40/50D what am I supoosed to say :)??

If I were starting from scratch, no coin invested in glass (switching makers) and wanted something more than a “pro sumer” but didnt have the budget for a 1D or D3 Id look hard at Nikon, very hard. Its a failing of Canons (imo) although with the 7D above i looks like theyre addressing it.

With regards to the 50D/D700 I dont know Jay.
If Im invested in Canon glass and want a body for wildlife (per Erics comment) from what ive seen from the D700 there isnt much difference and the 50D is 2g cheaper, nor would I have to switch systems and take a bath doing that.

No brainer if you ask me.
Especially when youlook at Nikons long lens lineup and the compartive cost.

That was my point.
Far as I know the only 400mm Nikon lens is the 200-400 VR …care to mention what that puppy cost? Thats a failing with Nikon, their lens line up is thin and expensive when you look at long lenses
*************

so were good, no harm/foul meant or taken

[John Bennett]

Jay no idea what your bird and 70-200 comment is about.

,A the end of the day comparisons were made to Canons 1DMK AF<<<periodand thats including the problems they had which realy only manifested with fast lenses (f2.8 and faster, under certain conditions) on the MKIII ( A body by the way I wouldnt hesitate to buy and would gve a noogie for),.

Do you think Pros at World cup and olympics this year are going to be  usinge using MKIIIs/ MKIVs (if its released by then) or D700s. So ya call me skeptical and the bottom line is what if someone switchs to Nikon based on that kind of commentary.

Again I didnt knock the D700 but the reality is the shots shown are can be shot at will with a 40 or 50D and are not the kinds of shots that test AF systems. Or have you forgotten that Ive shot with all of them ad know what kinds of images are tough to almost impossible. So i all Im seeing are images I can getwith a 40/50d with my eyes closed………Nor am I saying the D700 isnt capable of more (tougher shots)….but I havent seen them.e that I have seen were taken with D3s.

Take a care, people do in part make decisions based on what people say.

Note what Canon says about incorporating 1D af systems
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10042-10239-10240

It still wont have all that a 1DMKII, MKIII or MKIV does.
In fact hes says is not always “all that”

[John Bennett]

Great find Will

Photo traps have been around for a long time. Some of their earliest applications were for bats, owls, and some other nocturnal animals/birds etc.

[John Bennett]

Hey guys, I feel obliged to post once more on this. I feel bad I may have left the impression I was knocking either your bodies or your images…I’m simply not. They are good/great images taken with a good/great body.

But for my own conscious I need you to understand where I coming from. Have a look at these images. Some are cropped, some aren’t.

Also want to point out that the reason I originally posted this first image was to illustrate the DoF. Which is almost always a good way to determine if an image has been cropped or not.. Another indication is the precense or lack of feather detail..Im talking the fine “feathers”. Brett in your swallow image theres little feather detail, compare it to the Blue Jay shot where you can count individual feathers. The further away your subject the less fine detail gets resolved

Anyways have a look at these

Heres another Bufflehead ( Trust me on this they are extremely tough to get good images of in flight. This has been cropped about 30%

Ok, I think that should be enough to illustrate/make my point.

On the whole I don’t think the images I just posted are any, any better, worse or different than the images you’ve posted. Every single one of them yours and mine are good/great images.

Every single image I just posted were taken with a Canon 30 or 40D. And there isn’t a shooter in the world who will claim that a 30/40/50D AF is on par with a pro grade 1D.

Trust me theres a world of difference and the images you’ve posted do not tax a bodies AF…See above. I can get those images at will with a 50D

Eric said.

The 50 makes alot of sense budget wise, but the 5D opens up alot of doors with super wides, fisheyes, and also would be beneficial for me getting into more paid architectural photography with the tilt/shift lenses on the full frame… ughhh.  I hate these decisions.

Again.. goes back to m2 is great for things that stand still i guess, and 50d is great for things that move.  I sure wish canon would have dropped the 1d type focusing system into 5d, like nikon did with the d700.

So I read those statements as Eric saying…..1) Budget is a concern and 2) He wants good AF and 3) He’s interested in some wildlife/action

Personally for his style of shooting I think he made the right choice. But by raving about the D700s AF ( and compare it, and almost insinuate its as good or better than a 1Ds) when in fact all you’ve done is post pictures a 40/50 D is capable of…..If he was more interested in shooting fast action/wildlife maybe you jutst cost him 3 grand.

Again I’m not saying the D700 isn’t a good body…Far from it or that your images aren’t good…far from it. But they aren’t taxing a bodies AF

But theres a reason why people pay 5 grand and more for pro bodies. I know sometimes we like to think our bodies are just as good… I did for a long time…well maybe not as good but good enough for sure…..until I learned better and than made the decision to make getting a 1D a certaintity. . Todays Pro-sumer bodies are very good, very very good but they don’t have Pro AF….I doubt they ever will.

And it’s someone else’s 2, 3 or 5 grand on the line

[John Bennett]

Brett have those been cropped?
The DoF on the swallow is fairly deep which if your using a long lens and its filling that much of he frame even at f8 gettin almost the entire bird within the DoF is not easy. That coupled ith the noise in the sky leads my think they have been. If Im wrong my apologies.

Heres a chickadee  a little smaller than a swallow(full frame/uncropped) at F9 and you can see just howe little DoF there is

Again, range to subject. The further/closer the easier/harder it is. I can shoot birds in flight tha are “relatively” far away and then crop them so they fill more of te frame and look good all day long.

And even at these reduced res’s the swallow looks a hair soft. That can be sharpening though but it does look just a hair soft.

The avocet (no offense) even at reduced res looks a bit soft.

I dont have an avocet but heres another small speed demon that would be close in size to an avocet. The difference if you will is night and day

Getting a steelhead rocketing out of the water doesnt tax a bodies af speed? Please…if it were easy you’d see hundreds of those kinds of shots.

I have no interest in starting a war guys, but i your going to make some claims back it up. I know atleast a dozen people who do use the best of best (inlcuding Nikon and Canon) and if its AF that rocks your boat. They prefer Canon.

Is the Nikon D3, D3x on par?
I cant see why not.

The D700?
Im not saying its not good, Ive yet to see images from them that make me go…holy crap you dontsee that very ofen (with regards to af)

/edit add
Look theres two thins going on here.

One is the Nikon/Canon debate..I personally don’t undertsand them. Maybe Doug summed it up best when he said for a long time Nikon users were……. And now that Nikon has addressed some long overdue “defiencies” have woodies…..Great for Nikon devotees but put things in pespective.

Two.
Please understand I’m not knocking/attacking anyones images, but.
When you get down to brass tacks your talking about and risking *other* peoples hard earned money. I understand we all think our bodies/lenses are the cats meow. Im guilty of it (predisposed biasm)myself at times….thats one reason why I actually rarely try to sway on their decisions.

I dont want to make a claim orlead someone to beleive that XXX is hte cats meow. If they go out and drop 3 grand or 5 grand expecting the D700 to be on par with a D3 or a Canon 1DmkIII in part because of soem things Ive said/claimed/thought to be true and then discover for themselves that maybe it isnt???? Its not a subject to screw around with, to me its extremely serious and I dont want even the slightest misrepresentation, intentional or not (im not saying its intentional)

i dont want that on my shoulders

[John Bennett]

No worries Eric.

Re getting shot. (the duck or you)
I hit area’s upto to the weekend before the season opens and then for a short period after it closes, no matter the species, be it waterfowl, Deer or Turkey.

In season I *only* goto Conservation Areas and I tend to favor Conservation Areas that get alot of foot traffic.

[John Bennett]

Might say your right Eric,  it is sort of apples to oranges but you need to consider the context. A comment was made that questioned the AF of Canons 1D and in the same breath raved about the D700s.

On price comparison the D700 is as comparable to a 1DMKIII, as to the  5DMKii is to the D700 and vice versa. So if anything I might argue that it’s as relative or just as unfair.

5DMKII: $2,300
D700 : $3200 (+40%)
IDMKII: 5,200 (+38%)

The D700 is 40% more expensives than the 5D, yet 38% less expensive than the 1D to which it was compared.

John I was never knocking you for what you sport.  I was mearily stating the reasons why I think the MKII is inferior to the 700 and why I did not go with the MKII.

And that reason was the AF.

Jay no worries I didn’t take it personal but Im goin to call a spade a spade. I hope you haven’t taken anythin personal either, I still love ya. The net doesnt allow for inflection, tone etc….All things that truly differentiate commentary from discussion to challenges etc.

That said, I should have been more specific.
Tracking large birds in flight like eagles, Harriers, particularily larger birds that arent speed demons isn’t exactly taxing a bodies AF system. I’ve got all kinds of those shots with a rebel XT

Nor is a Mallard lifting off a test of bodies AF system, Nor is a fish sitting stationary in the water.
************

If you want to impress me ( said with a friendly smile on my face) show me a speed demon that taxes the bodies AF to the Max.
Like a Steelhead exploding out of the water where you have about 1 half a second to acquire it and the camera to nail it. Not track a slow flier in flight.

A bluy Jay is about 1/3 the size of a Mallard and moves a hell of alot faster. Even though its smaller, if you look at the frames it fills more of the frame…Meaning its fricking close where as the Mallard isn’t “relatively”. Im sure you know what I mean..Nailing a bird…any bird…thats 75 feet away and flying laterally is a hell of alot easier, then nailing that same bird, at the same rate of motion and on the same plane from 20f eet. The larger/slower, smaller/faster it is the harder it is on the Bodies AF system.

The ultimate test of any bodies AF system is getting keepers of fast moving targets that are flying right at you. Why? Because aside from needing to be fast and accurate for initial acquisition, the “tracking’ element is a misnomer…The systems are actually “predictive”.

range to subject
Subject rate of motion
Size of subject
Subject heading

Whats easier/harder.
Shooting a 747 out of the sky at moderate range or and f16 thats sreaming by at extreme close range? Getting images of a F150 thats cruising by at 75 feet vs a Ducati sreaming by at 20 feet?

AF systems (aside from initial aquisition speed and accuracy), are “computed”, not unlike any targetting system. Its a hell of alot easier to comput that when its a slower moving target, thats going latterally. First thing any new camera owner should do who might want to test their bodies AF is to rip off an extended burst of a dog running at them not overly taxing, but a legit test. How many are keepers?

[Author]

Posts