Fancy tackle not necessary

[Blackbrook Eye]

O.K. so it wasn't the greatest day for action here, the Red deer rut seems to have slowed down to a trot over the last few days, however with a little patience, it was still possible to make a visit worth while and pictures where still there for the taking even if they were not earth shattering.
A few of my efforts for the day.

[PMG]

Originally Posted by Blackbrook Eye

I think this goes to illustrate the point being made, I have blurred out the guys face as this is meant as an illustration not a condemnation, we all have the right to do things in our own way. My intention is to point out that high end kit is not really necessary for this location.



Keith

It may not be neccessary but you might be interested to know that even a 500 lens has to be quite close to its subject to get really crisp clear professional looking shots (and why would anyone want to settle for less than a perfect shot?) .......... and needing to move back or forwards to get the subject in focus is no funnier than someone with a smaller telephoto needing to constantly creep and stalk - its simply what is needed to get a shot.

I don't get it - I don't see why there is a need to comment - about the size of anyones lens or their clothing - after all if they were dressed in a red jacket and a white bobblecap you'd think they were daft - but why does camo draw such sarcasm - if these folk are behaving quietly, sitting and creeping about and avoiding talking loudly to others then why so much comment?

I wear a combination of camo and dark olive clothing these days cos I've realised that jeans in particular show up like a sore thumb and I'm now the proud owner of a 500 lens - I'm in my mid fifties so I don't feel guilty about owning one - its taken a long time to get it and I wish I'd done it sooner - anyone who is serious about their photography will eventually need certain tools. My bird photography has only begun since getting the 100-400 and 500 prime, before that I was limited to wildlife subjects that can't fly off! The reason to carry various lenses including the 'biggies' is that when you go out you're looking for all opportunities - these guys might have been after deer but if a stoat had appeared or a fox I'm sure they would have swivvled round to try and get it - how many times do you wish you had a bigger lens - and this still happens with a 500!

I'd be more than happy to let people have a look thro the big lens to let them see for themselves that its not the Hubble Telescope........ I'm not having a go Keith and I know you are of the 'live and let live' kind but everytime I read others comments about camo and big lenses I get irritated (you don't say!) ...........

Pauline

[Blackbrook Eye]

Sorry if I've upset you Pauline but If you read my posts on this thread, you will see that I am not condemning the use of long lenses at all, I am stating that for Bradgate, they are not necessary to get close to the action. I use a bigma for the majority of my photos and would not be without it. As for cammo gear, at public parks such as this where the 'wildlife' is so used to people it is unnecessary also, so the lack of such equipment should not put folks off trying.

Keith

[PMG]

Originally Posted by Blackbrook Eye

Sorry if I've upset you Pauline but If you read my posts on this thread, you will see that I am not condemning the use of long lenses at all, I am stating that for Bradgate, they are not necessary to get close to the action. I use a bigma for the majority of my photos and would not be without it. As for cammo gear, at public parks such as this where the 'wildlife' is so used to people it is unnecessary also, so the lack of such equipment should not put folks off trying.

Keith

You've not upset me Keith and as I said you're a 'live and let live' kind of chap. Its some of the other daft comments that made the bile rise

And yes camo may not be neccessary in that park with those deer - but if a stoat runs thro that park its more likely to not take quite so much notice of someone in camo with netting or scrim draped over them and those few seconds can make all the difference to getting that something else - as well as the deer - even poss green woodpeckers come a bit close when your disguised and sitting still. A lot of camo stuff is also waterproof so you can sit or lie down without bothering and if you lie accidentally in deer or cow poo it doesn't matter so much - same with grass stains - won't show - doesn't matter Wearing camo doesn't mean we're frustrated army rejects Having said that - no-one should be put off from trying no matter what equipment or clothing - but at the other end of the scale folks in bright clothes chasing deer with a mobile phone camera would be laughable? Dangerous? Annoying??

Pauline

[Lancashire Lad]

Whilst it is true that expensive kit is not necessary to take good photographs, (I have often said so myself), there will undoubtedly be occasions where having that long prime lens, or whatever, will be the only way of getting the best results.

I think it is also true to say, regardless of what people on either side of the debate might reply, is that, given the opportunity, (i.e. money), most if not all "enthusiasts" would purchase such kit - because it would give them the edge, in a wider range of photographic opportunities.

I will probably never be able to afford a 500mm prime lens, much in the same way that I'll probably never be able to afford an Aston Martin.

But to those who have such things, good luck to them, why shouldn't they use them in public parks. Are they expected to leave such kit at home, and bring lesser lenses to these venues?

Yes the animals might be that much closer, and yes they might be that much tamer, but what when something unexpected unfolds further away in the park? Who is going to get the better shot? Will it be me with my 70-300 f4/5.6, who would have to up sticks and get closer, or will be the person with the 500 prime, who just presses the shutter button?

I accept that there are times I would have got better shots, given better equipment, but I have other priorities in life above buying camera kit. And as long as I make the best use of what kit I have, I'm happy.

If you've got it flaunt it - If you havent - work within the constraints of what you do have.

Regards
Mike.

[PMG]

Yes the animals might be that much closer, and yes they might be that much tamer, but what when something unexpected unfolds further away in the park? Who is going to get the better shot? Will it be me with my 70-300 f4/5.6, who would have to up sticks and get closer, or will be the person with the 500 prime, who just presses the shutter button?

Mike if you have a 1.4 on that 70-300 and its on a monopod and the subject is a green woodpecker flying past then you would get it and I probably wouldn't Its horses for courses as they say!

And thank you - yes of course no-one is going to leave kit at home - if you've got something you use it. One of these days I will put some photos up to show just what a 500 will and won't do and from what range......... for instance a couple of days ago we were on the moors looking for fungi when a couple of wrens made a fuss and a show round a delapidated building - we closed in - husband had 500 I was using 100-400 pump - I was 7 or 8 foot away at most and the bird didn't fill half the frame.......... it didn't pose nicely either and we didn't get the shot but no matter one of these times a wren will slow up and I will be ready!!!

Pauline

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by PMG

[i]....if you've got something you use it....

You nail the crux of my point exactly PMG.

Blackbrook Eye says he has a "Bigma", but I'm sure that he wouldn't dream of leaving that at home when he goes to Bradgate Park, even though he himself says it's not necessary at that venue.

If you have something, you will use it, and you shouldn't be made to feel like some sort of equipment "geek" for having it.

Just as you shouldn't be looked down upon if you have more basic kit.

Regards
Mike.