Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/19

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] suitability of M for wildlife photography
From: "Jeffery Smith" <>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:57:13 -0600

Wildlife photography can be fun and exciting, like hunting but without
anything dying. But just like hunting, getting close to the animal is not as
easy as it might seem. I had the best luck getting camouflaged, setting up a
tripod, and then sitting motionless (alone) for 30 minutes or so. If you
think one can go out with a 135mm lens and get an image that looks anything
other than forest, I would suggest the zoo. And even then, you'll be doing a
lot of cropping!

Jeffery Smith
New Orleans, LA

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 6:27 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Leica] suitability of M for wildlife photography
> In a message dated 12/19/01 6:40:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> writes:
> > So why wildlife photography? All sense of intimacy
> >  and involvement is lost.
> Depends on the wildlife. One might not wish to get too intimate
> with a couple
> of large wild felines or an ill-tempered water buffalo or a pack
> of wild dogs
> in the African veldt. I've been there, on foot, downwind, unarmed
> (although
> accompanied by an African game warden and his 375 magnum scoped rifle or
> whatever), and you don't want anything less than a 200mm lens on
> your camera.
> Seth    LaK 9
> --
> To unsubscribe, see

- --
To unsubscribe, see