p.58 #1 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Christian H wrote:
I think you'd find no shortage of wildlife biologists and ethologists who'd agree with my views on animals' mindful subjectivity. Marc Bekoff, of course, is probably single-handedly responsible for changing minds about animal subjectivity. If you'd like to learn more about wildlife biologists and ethologists who take seriously animals as subjects-in-the-world, the various researchers profiled in Carl Safina's Beyond Words: What Animals Think and Feel is an accessible place to start.
As for "man" - why the sexism BTW? - all I can tell you is that wild animals aren't afraid of me, unless I startle them or go out of my way to scare them. Which, as I have already said, I avoid doing in my wildlife photography. If you were right my portfolio ought to be a horror show of terrified animals from beginning to end.
A dualist nature/humanity ontology doesn't square with my experience. In most of the places I have lived - Northwest Europe/mid-Atlantic US - there is no such thing as "human habitat" and "animal habitat." They're nearly always both. Human and animal geographies overlap in all sorts of interesting and complex ways, everywhere. Outside of some nature museums like preserves and refuges, the landscape is intentionally altered for human use, and has been for centuries if not millennia (cities; agriculture; roads; etc). The refuges themselves are usually carefully engineered to balance animal and human needs, including people's expectations of what "nature" should look like. Even our woods are basically deer farms managed by some wildlife agency or other! Human habitat "over here" and animal habitat "out there" is a comforting fiction people seem to want to cling to for some reason. But it's not real. Maybe it's all those TV wildlife "documentaries" that never show people in them. I don't know. I for one rarely if ever find myself in a place where there are animals but no people.
Really? Going to have a "cow" over the term "man" as in "mankind"? Ok, whatever, peoplekind then if being that PC makes you feel better. You talk a good game with your scientific babble and telling me I need to "learn" about wildlife biologists. Well I'll tell you only this. I come from a family steeped in natural tradition and respect for the land and the animals who inhabit it. So no, you won't convince me that our intrusion is a good or natural thing. Co-existence is a given considering the alternative, however why would you want to shoot or observe any animal except in it's natural state? Do you shoot birds at feeders too? Do you think baiting for pictures is a good idea? And when I say shoot I am referring to a camera not a gun. Hunting is a great and noble tradition for putting food on ones plate and is not even considered in my discussion. From this "man" leaving animals alone and enjoying them from afar are much preferable to building houses right up to the point of many species extinction and then having the nerve to boast about the animals being "used" to you. Of course they are, what choice have you given?
Oh and BTW, no disrespect intended. I am very passionate about this issue and I do respect your point of view even though I thoroughly disagree with it. Isn't having a opinion wonderful?
p.58 #2 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Jon, that is a real variety! What a great way to break in a new long lens!!
Looks like you had a blast first day out!!
Christian, you wrote "As for "man" - why the sexism BTW?"
It is very obvious that the definition being referred to here for "man" was the human race. I don't understand why you would possibly want to turn this discussion about how we approach animals into a sexism issue. My perception of that is it is a weak and feeble maneuver into a place this should not even begin to go. I am sorry that I did not just move past your position on wildlife photography. I certainly did not intend to draw you into such an ugly statement. I will move past any other post you make on any FM board.
Happy shooting!
Greg
p.58 #3 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
bs kite wrote:
I was born a naturalist, raised by a woods-loving family, later became a professionally educated and experienced Wildlife Biologist and then a self-taught Ecologist. Animal behavior and our effect on animal behavior has been center to my wildlife observations throughout my entire 67 years of life.
Christian's thinking is right.
All wildlife would tolerate us in close proximity, if over a long enough period of time......we did not kill them. It is that simple.
Wildlife communicates between individuals and between species. Nobody can convince me that fear of man is innate. Largely, overwhelmingly, it is learned. Further, it can be unlearned. One can see evidence of this all the time in our National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges.
Hmmmm....wildlife biologist? Who does not believe that animals fears are instinctual but rather learned behavior? Animals, ourselves included have survived for a very long time with one thought in mind "eat or be eaten". I have many forms of wildlife who inhabit my land. Yes they have a learned behavior of trusting me from a distance. I do not encourage very close proximity because I do not want them to think all humans are ok, because they are not. Nothing irritates me more when I am shooting a hawks nest or a owl and some idiot stops his/her car and runs up to the creature hoping to get a close shot. Stealth and camouflage will get you the shot you really want. Just have to agree to disagree here. It's not the fear of man that is innate in animals, but rather a fear of ANYTHING that might hurt/eat them of which "man" is tops!
Like rxgolf this will be the last I have to say about the matter and ya'll can do as you please but I'll happily co-exist with the animals around me and pay them respect, not make them my buddies.
p.58 #4 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I went to the local zoo to "break-in" my new lens. And I was not the only visitor there. Unedited SOOC using in-camera Standard profile. Sorry for dust on sensor, just back from Kalahari :-)) !
D610, 200-500mm f/5.6 @ 500 mm, f/5.6, 1/250s, ISO 720, VR On, hand held
p.58 #6 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Had some fun with 200-500 today at a free style kite surf competition that a friend of mine organized. Never really did any real sport photography before though. All shots were handheld standing on the beach. Some are with TC-14e iii. I have to say that AF speed was never an issue and I would say the majority of the pictures were at least in reasonable focus. There were only a few that AF missed the shot completely. All were shot with D810. Wish I have D500 for this.
p.58 #8 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
rxgolf wrote:
Jon, that is a real variety! What a great way to break in a new long lens!!
Looks like you had a blast first day out!!
You are right, I had a blast! I can't wait for more time to go out and shoot. This is the best long lens I have ever used. I knew that I could never afford one of the exotics. The cost of them is way out of my budget. I'm glad that Nikon came out with this lens!
p.58 #9 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Dear Mr. RedwingFan,
I had to wonder why you felt the need to make an attempt at an insult?......."Hmmmm....wildlife biologist?"
And I wonder what have you done in your life's work that qualifies you to criticize my observations made over a lifetime?
And we do agree that wildlife should not trust humans, with some exceptions of course.
I would encourage you to go one of the National Parks that has a very large wildlife component and also a high number of human visitors in a year. Watch the interactions.
Does Iowa have any National Parks ? Have you been outside Iowa to see wildlife interacting with humans in National Parks ? If not, I sure hope you get the chance to go. It is a blast!
What comes to my mind are areas such as the ones along the Ingraham Highway, inside Everglades National Park. The wildlife is largely resident and so is conditioned to people. The wildlife comes very close to people (including the gators) and it really is a lot of fun. Do you have such areas out there? What about Yellowstone?
Imprinting:
I think that "Imprinting" is a good example showing that the fear that wildlife has of humans is not innate. I think that imprinting can be shown to cross taxonomic lines; i.e. not exclusive to birds. But I am not going to try to convince you of anything further.
This is a 200-500 thread so I must end the diversion too. Have nice day Mr. RedwingFan.
p.58 #10 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
And yes folks, I have followed this entire 200-500 thread and this is one sharp lens. The images are sharper than what I get from my 80-400 with the D610....if maybe slightly slower on the AF. I will have to try one out. Right now I am looking forward to the D500; i.e. one thing at a time
p.58 #15 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
bs kite wrote:
Dear Mr. RedwingFan,
I had to wonder why you felt the need to make an attempt at an insult?......."Hmmmm....wildlife biologist?"
And I wonder what have you done in your life's work that qualifies you to criticize my observations made over a lifetime?
And we do agree that wildlife should not trust humans, with some exceptions of course.
I would encourage you to go one of the National Parks that has a very large wildlife component and also a high number of human visitors in a year. Watch the interactions.
Does Iowa have any National Parks ? Have you been outside Iowa to see wildlife interacting with humans in National Parks ? If not, I sure hope you get the chance to go. It is a blast!
What comes to my mind are areas such as the ones along the Ingraham Highway, inside Everglades National Park. The wildlife is largely resident and so is conditioned to people. The wildlife comes very close to people (including the gators) and it really is a lot of fun. Do you have such areas out there? What about Yellowstone?
Imprinting:
I think that "Imprinting" is a good example showing that the fear that wildlife has of humans is not innate. I think that imprinting can be shown to cross taxonomic lines; i.e. not exclusive to birds. But I am not going to try to convince you of anything further.
This is a 200-500 thread so I must end the diversion too. Have nice day Mr. RedwingFan. ...Show more →
I was going to let this pass but I cannot You make a lot of assumptions and somehow manage to insult, me, my home, and my opinion albeit very subtlety.
1. Need to make a insult? You have seen fit to boast of your credentials therefore implying that your opinion is fact and including your age as further proof of your position. I am of nearly the same vintage and my observations are the opposite. It was not really meant as a insult, but I'll give it up and say how it could have been implied as one. So therefore I apologize.
2. Not criticizing your observation, merely disagreeing with it.
3.What makes your life observation fact?
4. These next points really kill me Guess what? I have been to many National parks in my lifetime. Spent 8 years in the Navy and have visited some very exotic areas. Have observed many interactions and my opinion is still the same.
5. Nope, Iowa has no national parks...so what? Do you think we are devoid of wildlife? And we have a VERY beautiful state with areas that stand up well to any area of the country.
6. Yes I have been outside of Iowa see #4 LoL
7. Yes it's a blast
8. Nope, no gators in Iowa. A huge snapping turtle once in awhile. Also Yellowstone is in Wyoming, so no Yellowstone in Iowa. We do however have a area called Redrock, does that qualify?
9. Imprinting is very real so on this I will agree. Were I will completely disagree is the notion that animals do not have a natural fear of ANYTHING that might be dangerous for them. Not learned, but instinctual. Imprinting is very dangerous for many.
10. Yes it does cross taxonomic lines, my Beagle and Dachshund prove that LoL
11. Finally not trying to convince you of anything or stating my position is fact. You on the other hand seem to think your position is gospel. So we shall agree to disagree.
12. You also have a wonderful day.
And finally, yes the 200-500 has been a wonderful lens, especially considering it's price. Makes for taking photos of cows, pigs and corn stalks almost a no brainer!
p.58 #16 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
shekarn64 wrote:
Few from this weekend
Dang that combo is sharp! I am very afraid I am going to miss having it in my bag. I was thrilled with mine but I was not thrilled with the d810 above ISO 800 so I decided to give the D4s a go. I have worried about that being a mistake and your shots do nothing to alleviate my worries :-)
Beautiful color and detail!
Greg
p.58 #17 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Was inspired by birdied "bees in flight" post from a few weeks ago. Couldn't get any in flight though...
I'm in no way a macro guy but this is a heavy crop @350mm 1/400 f6.3 ISO 900
You make a lot of assumptions and somehow manage to insult, me, my home, and my opinion albeit very subtlety.
Guess what? I have been to many National parks in my lifetime. Spent 8 years in the Navy and have visited some very exotic areas. Have observed many interactions and my opinion is still the same.
