AQUAHOLIC
|
2012-08-20 10:23 AM |
|
Wow, nice captures!.... what kind of lens you got there?
|
| |
COMMENT 310344P
|
2012-08-20 10:27 AM |
|
Beautiful pictures. Thanks for sharing. Even makes a gopher look cute :-).
|
| |
COMMENT 310346P
|
2012-08-20 10:31 AM |
|
Amazing photos. You have excellent skill and a very sharp telephoto lens.
|
| |
COMMENT 310347P
|
2012-08-20 10:31 AM |
|
Great shots, especially of the WTK with that lens. Must have been quite close.
|
| |
COMMENT 310363P
|
2012-08-20 11:08 AM |
|
Lovely!! Thanks for the photos!
|
| |
STACE
|
2012-08-20 11:22 AM |
|
Wonderful! Thank you for sharing your amazing photos.
|
| |
COMMENT 310378
|
2012-08-20 11:41 AM |
|
Lens envy! Enough said. Thanks for sharing.
|
| |
CEES
|
2012-08-20 12:08 PM |
|
@344 - agree that this gopher looks adorable with his teeth showing!
Love that these images show so much detail!
|
| |
COMMENT 310509
|
2012-08-20 03:49 PM |
|
I love seeing photos of birds. These are fine examples of the White tail kite.
|
| |
COMMENT 310534
|
2012-08-20 04:28 PM |
|
Love the eyes on the WTK! Nice photography.
Pic Of Day !
|
| |
MTNDRIVER
|
2012-08-20 05:45 PM |
|
Excellent shots, thanks! Look at the eyes on that kite! Hard to choose a picture of the day.
|
| |
COMMENT 310564
|
2012-08-20 06:51 PM |
|
Gopher is awesome! So cute!
|
| |
COMMENT 310625P
|
2012-08-21 06:44 AM |
|
may I forward the kite in flight picture to a friend?
|
| |
SEEDLADY
|
2012-08-21 06:45 AM |
|
great photos--so sharp!
|
| |
COMMENT 310648
|
2012-08-21 07:37 AM |
|
Cool post with beautiful photos. Thank you.
|
| |
RDH
|
2012-08-21 07:59 AM |
|
OP : Actually, AQUAHOLIC and others who asked about the lens, it is a rather hum-drum Nikon 70-300mm telephoto, certainly not a "pro" lens. But I find it quite good and a fine travel lens--relatively light and not too bulky. Thanks to all for the nice comments.
RdH
|
| |
RDH
|
2012-08-21 08:16 AM |
|
OP: In response to ...625P: Since all images on edhat can be forwarded as "postcards" I gather they are in the public domain and thus can be used as long, I assume, it is not for commercial purposes. Curiously, I discovered an image I had submitted to edhat some time ago on someone's web-site---I am not sure that that is within the guidelines.
|
| |
COMMENT 310363P
|
2012-08-21 08:17 AM |
|
@RDH: Thanks! and the camera? I have a D7000 and have been wondering about that particular lens, especially for bird photography --- and can not afford the Nikon D800 of others.
|
| |
COMMENT 310363P
|
2012-08-21 08:24 AM |
|
RDH: interesting. It's my understanding also that anything that is posted on edhat is available to others but that credit should be given to edhat. (And, to be nice, to the photographer.) I have not seen (but haven't dug around) any copyright notice here. I also assumed when I sent in pictures, something I rarely do now, that anyone can and would use them. I once used a photo from a newspaper on my website, thinking it was public domain, and did hear from the photographer. I willingly gave credit and would have done so initially if I had thought more about it.
|
| |
RDH
|
2012-08-21 08:38 AM |
|
The camera, 363P, is, again, a now rather hum-drum Nikon D300S. My son has the D7000 and that lens, they make a fine combination, in my opinion. I too dream of the D800 some day but then one needs high quality FX lenses, etc., etc. For now I find by far the biggest limitation is my eye and creativity--a better camera won't fix that.
|
| |
COMMENT 310692
|
2012-08-21 08:49 AM |
|
Great shots. We watch with amazement as the plucky White Tails here in Carp take on the much bigger Red Tails and Red Shoulders who dare to get too close to their nesting tree behind our house.
|
| |
AQUAHOLIC
|
2012-08-21 08:54 AM |
|
RDH is right, you can own the best camera in the world and take lousy photos. It's a process, and I'm learning more about it every day. I started 'collecting' FX lenses right away with the thought of one day getting a full frame camera, so whew, that was a good idea, as lenses are really pricey.
As to the D7000, it's great for bird photography and is faster, 6fps, vs only 4fps for the more expensive D800. D800 is a much slower camera all around because of the massive amount of mp, 36!
|
| |
COMMENT 310363P
|
2012-08-21 12:09 PM |
|
I don't think that having more MP creates a slower camera and I am surprised to read that the $3K NIkon D800 is slower than the 16.2 MP $1K D7000. The new Nokia cell has 41 MP; the new Sony point and shoot that I long for has 20.2 MP and is not slower than others of 16 MP or 12 MP. Perhaps a pro will weigh in? But as for creativity, I agree, 'though I do not see it lacking in yours here! I've been taking pictures for as long as I can remember (and that's a long time!) with a variety of cameras, Rolleis, Leicas, NIkons, Canons and more, but now only digital. It seems to me that it's repetition, clicking, clicking, clicking and luck, too, in being there to see what the eye is trained to see. ...and editing, having the courage to trash. (310363P)
|
| |
AQUAHOLIC
|
2012-08-21 04:09 PM |
|
I'm no pro, obviously, but I own both the D7000 and the D800 and I can tell you for a fact that the D800 is slower. 4fps vs 6fps, if you don't believe me, look it up for yourself! The D800 is not recommended for serious sports photographers, and the D7000 is certainly not the fastest Nikon, but I have taken some very good images of sporting events with it.
|
| |
COMMENT 310363P
|
2012-08-21 08:28 PM |
|
I was not saying you were wrong about the speed - of course, not, you have both cameras! - I was just wondering about the reason and finding it strange that number of MPs would be the reason and hoped a pro who knows the physics of such things would explain! Some cameras with high MPs, the Nokai 818, can adjust the number of MPs; I wonder if the D800 can shoot at a lower number of MPs and, if so, if it is faster?
|
| |
COMMENT 312107
|
2012-08-24 10:04 AM |
|
You should post these on the Facebook Page for Lake Los Carneros. They are great shots! The page is:
I Love Lake Los Carneros
|
| |
