Turtle and a dragonfly. C&C please

This was a little out of reach for my 70-200 but I could not resist.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Great pose. If I had a nickel for every shot that developed where I couldn't get close enough or the setting changed before I could set up, I'd be able top afford a pair of waders.

As you probably know, you needed to be 90 degrees to the left and closer to make this a National Geographic class composition.

Did the turtle try to eat the dragonfly?

joedlh wrote in post #5817125
Great pose. If I had a nickel for every shot that developed where I couldn't get close enough or the setting changed before I could set up, I'd be able top afford a pair of waders.

As you probably know, you needed to be 90 degrees to the left and closer to make this a National Geographic class composition.

Did the turtle try to eat the dragonfly?

No it flew away unscathed. I would have loved to have been able to get a better angle but they were in the middle of the lake. This was shot from about 250 yards away and what you see is about a 200% crop.

Sounds a lot like my sad story while on a small boat with about 10 other photographers to try to get some humpback whale pictures offshore at
Skagway, Alaska. I had my trusty 70-200, but the weather was a rather dark hazy overcast -- we did see some whales, but they were so far away that you could count the image pixels that were part of a whale on one hand. At least we were able to count on the sea lions for a few good shots. There just is not any good substitute for getting really close. On nature shots, a lot depends on the good fortune of being at the right place at the right time ... which is enhanced by spending as much time as you can chasing that elusive shot.

A friend of mine related this experience: sitting on a fishing boat with his camera to his side, he was conversing with the boat owner when a great white shark breached right behind him. It was one of those situations where you just stare in awe, only realizing afterward that you came "this close". We all have a list in our minds of the ones that got away.

Good shot but it is very blurry. If it was sharp a tight crop would work nicely.

Neat. You never know how short a 200mm is until you start shooting wildlife with it.

slimninj4 wrote in post #5836705
Good shot but it is very blurry. If it was sharp a tight crop would work nicely.

This is already a 200% crop. But a tripod would have helped.

Titus213 wrote in post #5837349
Neat. You never know how short a 200mm is until you start shooting wildlife with it.

No kidding I am saving up for a 400mm Prime now.

I suppose that I could hook my 8 inch Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope (FL is approx. 2100 mm so aperture is around f/10) to my camera. Aiming it would drive me crazy with everything upside down though. At this FL, even things like ground vibrations begin to interfere with a steady image.

Seriously, long reach telephoto lenses while optically good leave you with a host of other problems such as haze, atmospheric diffraction, and a flat looking field. In all likelihood, the range of useful shutter speed for a particular subject leaves you somewhat limited in aperture selection which translates to limited control over depth of field.