Have you ever seen a dragonfly pant?

[Loupey]

Only from this angle did I see what looked like a panting dragonfly. The area between the 2nd to last ring to the 5th to last ring was heaving. Perhaps it was only having a BM

I realized I haven't shot any bees in a long time so I gave it a go. Couldn't get enough DOF as it was really breezy and I had to use 1/500s at ISO 320. Resulting in f/6.7 which is shallow even by my standards Both with a 36mm tube on the 300mm. I like the pose of the first but the background of the 2nd.

[julsoph]

Lol Loupey...that reminds me of The Rescuers and the little dragonfly named Evinrude...he was always panting...hehe.

Nice bees!

Emily

[Yarrow]

I love the dragonfly.

[mn shutterbug]

Myself, I'll take the bee. You can really see his wings working, in the 2nd photo. Nice shots and I agree about the background.

[nps474]

Nice pics Loupey. My goal is to be able to get some nice macro captures of the neon tiger stripe patterns these blue guys (this species in particular) seem to have behind the head/eyes. Very cool indeed!

[WsW-WYATT-EARP]

some excellent shots "again" Loupey ! I like the detail in the dragonfly - excellent DOF there - not that we come to expect anything less from you

[Loupey]

Hey, thanks for all the feedback! I wish I can find some more exotics but lately the summer has been a bit bland this year.

Ben - you are too kind. You're going to make me nervous to post anything

[WsW-WYATT-EARP]

Ben - you are too kind. You're going to make me nervous to post anything

Come on Loupey ! You have been pretty much setting the standard in the N&W for quite some time. When I ran into Michael (mjs1973) in the woods we talked about you and the images you post.

I do have 2 questions for ya - if you don't care to answer #1 thats fine -

#1 - how many "bad" shots do you take vs the ones we see ?

#2 - I have a 70-200 2.8 VR lens on the way - and looking to add some converters to it, does brand matter ? The local shop carries the Tamron 2x and 1.4x converters. Besides losing 2 stops with the 2x and 1 stop with the 1.4 will there be much if any quality loss?

Thanks !!!

[Loupey]

Ben, to answer your questions;

1) Yes, plenty! But perhaps not in the way you are imagining. I shoot by "scenes" instead of shots. Having done this enough, when I go out (even if it's without a specific plan/subject in mind) I can spot scenes which I can work and those which are "almost" there. With the latter, I simply don't shoot it unless it's something new (ID, rare subject, etc). So if a scene has all the elements, I work it from all possible angles, settings, etc. and so, subject willing, I may end up with two to five dozen shots of the same subject. I can usually fit 3 to 5 such different scenes on one 2 GB memory card and that would be a successful day. When I get back home (I never review my images in the field), I can immediately delete about 30% to 50% for technical reasons (DOF off a hair, background not complimentary, wind motion, eyes blinking, etc). The remaining I review (still in-camera) for near duplicates which I delete as well. I'm looking for the slightest turn of the head, the slightest sharpness advantage, the best alignment of the blowing leaves. In the end, from 1 scene I usually end up with 2 to 3 that I'll process. It is when I have multiples such as this when you see me post a series of photographs.

So out of a full memory card of roughly 200 RAW images (3 to 5 scenes), I may have less than 10 that I'll save (and most of those I try to post here). So by percentages, I'm a dismal failure Of course there are those times when I may get only one shot at something before it flies away. Those blow my averages.

2-a) I would try to match a Nikon lens with a Nikon teleconverter. Because the combo will be no better than its weakest link, you don't want to negate your Nikon quality main lens with a non-Nikon TC (just speaking in generalities - I don't know how Tamron TC's rate)

2-b) All else being equal, the image quality from a 2x will always be "worse" than those from a 1.4x. But keep in mind that if you're always having to crop a 1.4x image because you don't have the reach that the 2x would provide, the slight difference in image degradation may not be a factor. If the 80-200 f/2.8 VR Nikon is similar to my 70-200 f/2.8 IS Canon, I would highly recommend the 2x as the 1.4x simply won't give you the telephoto range that you need for wildlife on a 200mm lens. The 1.4x would be my choice for use with longer primes like the 400mm, 500mm, and 600mm.

I like the 2x on my 70-200 for shooting sports - still fast enough at f/5.6 and long enough at 400mm.

[WsW-WYATT-EARP]

Loupey - thanks for the info !! With the way you shoot you make sure that you get "the shot." So I wouldn't consider that being a "failure". I have done that a very few times, 1 being the dragonfly in my more recent thread, still should of spent more time on it to get better angles.

Thanks for the insight on the converter too! Really appreciate it !

[Loupey]

Ben, going back to your question and using the original post (bee), here's a shot that didn't make the 3rd cut - didn't like the color of the background, the shape of the lighter area in the background, the placement of the bee, the shallow DOF. I shot 84 frames within 14 minutes as the wind was blowing and the bees were feeding. I figured a low success rate as the bees were hardly even landing.

Anyway, from 84 shots, 8 files made it to my laptop. Only 2 made it to processing (the original two). All three for sharing purposes. None will make it past this forum. My wife and family don't even see most of what I post here.

So I guess what I'm saying is shoot for quality and play the numbers game. Find something worthwhile (it usually is something common in a different "light") and don't worry about how many frames it takes to get "it" Oh, and it helps to have the fundamentals already firmly under your belt so you don't have to fidget with the equipment when it counts.


thanks for the interest.

[Lava Lamp]

Well, of course they pant. They look like puppy-dogs up close!