Author: gerold daniels
Date: 11:26:52 10/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2005 at 11:59:28, Martin Slowik wrote: >Hi Gerold, > >actually for most tasks there is usually more than just one solution. It depends >on your taste and, not to forget, on your wallet. ;) Now this gets probably a >little OT... but anyway... > >I'm a big fan of Nikon SLR equipment with interchangeable lenses and the D2X >would be the most desirable item on my list besides the R40 and Elite A/G v10... >However the D50 > >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/ > >actually offers everything an amateur like me will need. More important than the >casing are the lenses: while for photographers the casing is their "body", they >refer to the lenses of their cameras as their "babies"... > >Well, my fav lens for portraits and normal shooting situations is the Nikkor >(that's how Nikon calls their lenses) 85mm/1.4 > >http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1933 > >while for close ups the probably best lens is the 60mm/2.8 macro > >http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1987 > >For your task probably the vibration reduced 24-120mm/3.5 > >http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2145 > >perhaps together with a teleconverter (I own a Kenko teleplus pro 300 I'm very >satisfied with) would be best still affordable choice. Of course, as with most >things in life, there's a little snag in it yet: although you'd make your >salesman very happy with your visit, buying all of those items you'd leave more >on the counter than you'd need for a mint R30 or a Renaissance Sparc (if you'd >find one). > >So perhaps there's a better solution for you (assumed that you don't already own >any of those lenses above). The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 > >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz5/ > >would probably be the camera I'd buy, if I hadn't a soft spot for Nikon >equipment (and hadn't invested a large four digit sum already...). This camera >has a non-interchangeable lense by Leica which should be absolutely excellent >and works in a range up to 432mm (analog equivalent) which should be enough to >catch even the most distant wildlife. The camera as a whole (not only the lens) >has vibration reduction technology which is important if you shoot at tele >distance. Some people prefer Minoltas, i.e. the A2: > >http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/konica-minolta-a2.shtml > >(a very good internet site I visit often) but the drawback is that its >technology is already more than one year old (and I'd trust the Leica lenses >more, to be honest). > >Anyway, what ever you decide, shooting wild animals is a difficult task. One >needs lots of patience and ... sheer luck, I guess. :) Wish you the best, > >Nikon Regards, >Martin > Thanks Martin. Your advice and links are greatly apprecated. Gerold. > > > > > >On October 27, 2005 at 09:01:04, gerold daniels wrote: > >>Good morning martin. Is there a C on any of those pictures. >>I know some of these neat little mobile camera's pictures don't turn out so >>good. What is the best camera for shooting close-ups. Also what is best for >>shooting pictures at 1200ft. I have a lot of wild life here i would like to >>shoot but getting the right long range camera is a problem. Thanks for any >>help on this. >> >>camera bug,Gerold. >> >>P.s. I plan on mounting a camera in a jungle like field to get pictures of >>wildlife crossing trails. Could i use elec.sensor to trigger a shot at passing >>wildlife.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.