Oddly, the vast majority of the Ospreys we see here have great big propellers on them.
When I saw "Osprey", I thought it was the new Marine tiltroter plane. This is much better. Great job!
nice pics
Ospreys are very common here in N central FL too (all the lakes no doubt).
When I lived in coastal NC near Moorehead City, I used to frequently drive along the main drag in Atlantic Beach. There was a crappy amusement park (JungleLand, now extinct) which had a mini-water park in it loaded with bright, big goldfish. It wasn't uncommon to see an osprey swoop in and get an easy meal.
Janiebelle,
Hmmm. Sounds like Lejune or Cherry Point.
How do you deal with the lag between pressing the "exposure" button and the taking of the digital image.
I'm working with a new Canon A650 IS and the "shutter lag" pisses me off. Is there some trick?
If not, it's back to my Nikons - and, if I get really wealthy - a Leica M7 with an F1 Noctilux.
I still don't understand why Nikon hasn't created a "digital back" for the F-class camera bodies. That would be a sweet deal....
Honestly George, the Point and shoots do seem to have an issue with it but I have none of that with my DSLR.
How wonderful - I'd love to have them hang out at my place for awhile. Maybe one day.
I'm peeved. It shouldn't be that difficult to resolve the issue (and my Canon is quite a bit more than a point and shoot).
I used to have a great little Olympus clamshell rangefinder with an electromagnetic shutter release. Slick, sharp and almost as quiet as a Leica. Shame that I dropped it one too many times (however, my Nikons laugh at adversity).
All I want is a decent mid-level digital with a responsive shutter. Apparently that's too much to ask for.
Great shots, BTW. What did you use for the moon a 200-300mm (35mm) class lens?
Same AF ED 300mm f 1:4 lens. The larger shot is just a crop of a similar shot to the one below it.
Check out the Nikon D40. It's a fantastic camera. I'm sure Cannon has one in the same range.
I'd go with the Nikon - always did for serious work.
Re: "For some reason the way blogger renders the pics is a little pixilated."
Your tags are set with a style of "width: 400px", but your images are 500px, 333px, etc. wide. Your browser has to upscale or downscale the images from their native resolutions so that it can display them in a 400 pixel wide box on your screen. Image resampling algorithms generally trade off between runtime cost (how long it takes to do the resampling), and the quality of the final image. Photo retouching programs (Photoshop, GIMP, etc.) generally fall on the side of high quality, slow runtime; browsers, almost invariably, use the "quick and dirty" approach. If you want them to look nice on the screen you can either tell the browser to show them in their native resolution (and break your blog's layout if they're too wide), or use an external program to resize them (with high quality settings) to your blog's desired width.
Thank Terrence. I didn't know the size params in blogger (but honestly didn't look to hard). I'll resize them in photoshop.
Thanks for the info!
Commenting by HaloScan
