alaska pics
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,087
Likes: 0
From: Cary, NC
Originally Posted by Costas,May 24 2005, 06:25 PM
i don't mean to sound like an ass or anything, but the 70-300mm lens you used is trash =X
that is why your telephoto pics didn't come out too great looking.
that is why your telephoto pics didn't come out too great looking.
The two blurry pics aren't completely the lens' fault. The eagle in the "bald eagle on small iceberg" pic is blurry because I was on a jet boat at high speed, shaking and bouncing all over the place (and I was standing in the strong wind, I think), so holding the camera steady was impossible.
Also, that eagle was a long way off. The posted image is actually a crop and slight upsize of a small part of the original. Here's a screen-res version of the original for comparison.
The orca pic's blurriness is partly due to sloppy hand holding on my part. I was trying to follow the action and moved the camera too much. You're partially right to blame the lens here, though, because its auto-focus times are often slooooow and so it's not that great for trying to capture fast-moving action.
However, for relatively static scenes, the lens does quite well (when I can manage to hold the camera steady
). The ice calving, the Kenai Fjords tour boat, the sea lions on a buoy, and the eagle close-up were all taken at max zoom (300 mm), and the color and detail are pretty good. The eagle picture is noisy, but that's not the lens' fault. That's ISO 400 noise made worse by some sloppy photoshopping. Anyway, the lens did what I wanted it to for Alaska, which was to give me a relatively long lens without breaking the bank. I looked on eBay for the lens you recommended before buying the 70-300mm. The prices were too high (driven by Ken's rave review that you linked to), and I was concerned that 210 mm wouldn't be long enough.
$305 shipped is a good deal for that lens, BTW. Congrats.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,838
Likes: 0
From: somewhere
Taking pictures in Alaska from a boat or with some of the winds is tough. I took four of almost every shot and sometimes still didn't get a great pic. Good photos UNCO4. Those Nikons are awesome cameras. You wouldn't believe it by my photos but those are with a sony cybershot.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 913
Likes: 1
From: Houston TX
Originally Posted by UNC04SuzukaBlue,May 25 2005, 05:56 AM
Actually, 8 of the 11 posted pics were taken with the 70-300mm lens, and while I'm not blown away with the results of this lens, I'm more or less satisfied.
The two blurry pics aren't completely the lens' fault. The eagle in the "bald eagle on small iceberg" pic is blurry because I was on a jet boat at high speed, shaking and bouncing all over the place (and I was standing in the strong wind, I think), so holding the camera steady was impossible.
Also, that eagle was a long way off. The posted image is actually a crop and slight upsize of a small part of the original. Here's a screen-res version of the original for comparison.
The orca pic's blurriness is partly due to sloppy hand holding on my part. I was trying to follow the action and moved the camera too much. You're partially right to blame the lens here, though, because its auto-focus times are often slooooow and so it's not that great for trying to capture fast-moving action.
However, for relatively static scenes, the lens does quite well (when I can manage to hold the camera steady ). The ice calving, the Kenai Fjords tour boat, the sea lions on a buoy, and the eagle close-up were all taken at max zoom (300 mm), and the color and detail are pretty good. The eagle picture is noisy, but that's not the lens' fault. That's ISO 400 noise made worse by some sloppy photoshopping.
Anyway, the lens did what I wanted it to for Alaska, which was to give me a relatively long lens without breaking the bank. I looked on eBay for the lens you recommended before buying the 70-300mm. The prices were too high (driven by Ken's rave review that you linked to), and I was concerned that 210 mm wouldn't be long enough.
$305 shipped is a good deal for that lens, BTW. Congrats.
The two blurry pics aren't completely the lens' fault. The eagle in the "bald eagle on small iceberg" pic is blurry because I was on a jet boat at high speed, shaking and bouncing all over the place (and I was standing in the strong wind, I think), so holding the camera steady was impossible.
Also, that eagle was a long way off. The posted image is actually a crop and slight upsize of a small part of the original. Here's a screen-res version of the original for comparison.
The orca pic's blurriness is partly due to sloppy hand holding on my part. I was trying to follow the action and moved the camera too much. You're partially right to blame the lens here, though, because its auto-focus times are often slooooow and so it's not that great for trying to capture fast-moving action.
However, for relatively static scenes, the lens does quite well (when I can manage to hold the camera steady
). The ice calving, the Kenai Fjords tour boat, the sea lions on a buoy, and the eagle close-up were all taken at max zoom (300 mm), and the color and detail are pretty good. The eagle picture is noisy, but that's not the lens' fault. That's ISO 400 noise made worse by some sloppy photoshopping. Anyway, the lens did what I wanted it to for Alaska, which was to give me a relatively long lens without breaking the bank. I looked on eBay for the lens you recommended before buying the 70-300mm. The prices were too high (driven by Ken's rave review that you linked to), and I was concerned that 210 mm wouldn't be long enough.
$305 shipped is a good deal for that lens, BTW. Congrats.
Well, as long as you had fun with your camera, that's all that matters
