Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jayanand, You seemed to have missed Doug's main point: ergonomics in the fields as related to manner of working. While we can discuss optical performance and print comparisons; Ergonomics and working methodology remain purely personal. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Oct 23, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Jayanand Govindaraj wrote: > Doug, > Actually I have made the comparision - between your prints, which I > have a few and John Shaw (Nikon and 200-400, 500) and Art Wolfe (Canon > and 400, 600), and for the life of me I cannot make out ANY difference > in prints upto 13"x19" or thereabouts. I made these observations after > looking at prints which I have purchased from all of you and own and > not off the top of my head. That is a tremendous feather in Leica's > cap - but it also means that the others have caught up. > > Anyway I have said what I have to, as I am sure you have, so let us > drop the matter. > > Cheers > Jayanand > > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Doug Herr > <wildlightphoto at earthlink.net> wrote: >> Jayanand Govindaraj wrote: >> >>> No complaint from me either - he is welcome to us what he wants - it >>> just amuses me to see how other points of view get rubbished, with >>> incorrect data! >> >> What is your data, Jayanand? You think that at the sizes I print >> nobody would be able to distinguish between a photo made with the >> 200-400 and a photo and with the 280 f/4 APO? Have you actually >> made this comparison? >> >> Regardless of the optical mechanical and ergonomic differences >> between the lenses, my field data suggests that they would be >> different photos. The much larger size and weight of the 200-400 >> would require different technique and a different approach to the >> subjects. I cannot get nearly as close to the animals with a big >> lens as I can with a smaller one; the 200-400 would not allow many >> of the photos I've posted for this reason. Many of my wildlife >> photos were made at distances under 3 meters (Jackrabbit, for >> example) or 2 meters (some of the Mountain Bluebirds, Ring-necked >> Pheasant, Sooty Grouse, Common Merganser) or one meter (turkey >> poults, ground squirrel) and I'm often following there animals for >> hours in rough terrain before I make even one exposure. >> >> My experience with heavier lenses is that I cannot frequently go >> from a crouched position to standing without excessive fatigue >> (I'm also a triathlete, it's not like I'm flabby). The dense >> vegetation I frequently work in also prevents me from using a >> longer lens at a longer distance. >> >> For these reasons I compare the 280mm f/4 APO with comparable >> Nikon lenses, and I find that the APO-Telyt is more suited to my >> needs. I've tried about 2 or 3 dozen lenses from at least 5 >> makers in the focal lengths between 200mm and 400mm. I find that >> the 280mm f/4 APO is best suited to my needs. >> >> In the future please refrain from telling me that I should use >> some other equipment unless you can demonstrate a measurable >> difference in side-by-side comparisons in the conditions I work in >> with my subjects and technique. >> >> Doug Herr >> Birdman of Sacramento >> http://www.wildlightphoto.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information