90-250 at the zoo, other notes (Olympus PR trip)

peripheralfocus

Veteran Member
Messages
5,146
Solutions
3
Reaction score
3,917
Location
WA, US
Olympus America invited a bunch of journalists to join them for a day of shooting at the Bronx Zoo last week, and it ended up being a very pleasant day of playing around with their gear. They brought pro photographer John Isaac -- very, very nice guy with a book on Kashmir coming out this fall that looks excellent from the sampling of images he showed us. They also had lots of big lenses -- 300/2.8s and 90-250/2.8s -- for us to use.

I'm not a big fan of zoos, or wildlife images shot at the zoo, but here's a handful of pictures just for grins. All were shot RAW and converted with Adobe Camera Raw.

First is an examination of the 90-250/2.8. Normally, I would never shoot with the equivalent of 500mm without a heavy tripod, but I didn't have one. So this was shot with an E-500 on a monopod at 1/1000th of a second, the lens racked out to 250mm, and wide open (i.e. f/2.8). Be guided accordingly. But I'm definitely in the camp that thinks this is a pretty terrific wildlife lens (the zoo's chief photographer, who tagged along with us, loved it.)



Here's a cropped, downsized, tweaked version of the same shot.



Here's the big male gorilla. He was amazing, at one point standing up at the glass that separates him from the people and beating his chest to make sure we all knew who was boss. (We knew.) This was shot through plexiglass (reflections ruined many other shots) with an E-500, a 50-200mm at 200mm and f/3.5, 1/125th of a second, ISO 400.



Here's a monkey (a spider monkey maybe?) shot through plexiglass again with an E-500, the 50-200mm at 108mm and f/2.9 (wide open), 1/200th of a second, ISO 160.



And lastly, a peacock, not a great shot, but included because it was also done with the 90-250/2.8 wide open, in this case at 158mm, 1/200th of a second, ISO 100. The original is not perfectly sharp at full size (the monopod is the culprit there).

 
Tis a shame, for I would be passing curious.
 
I can see them.

You lucky bugger! Nice shots - thanks for the headshot crops of the flamingo - looks as though the 50~250 is a pretty good lens.

Have to say - can't see why Oly would be promoting these lenses if a new pro body was not on the way. A poster a few weeks ago pessimistically forecast the discontinuation of the pro lenes - well I can't see Oly promoting the lenses if they were about to discontinue them.
--
http://www.pbase.com/eyespy

If it moves shoot it ;-)
eyespy.
 
Thanks for the photos. Those 90-250mm shots really show us what that lens can do. I was particularly interested in your various sharpening techniques on photo #1. That provided me a real education about the value of knowledgeable post processing.

--
Cheers,

Jim Pilcher
Colorado, USA

I don't make stupid mistakes. My mistakes are always very clever.
 
photography. Not all of us can go in safari, and if we are going to photograph non-indiginoous animals then it has to be the zoo. Those are quite good and I enjoyed them. That lens is one I'm gonna have to have, providing Oly finally gives us a camera to equal it.

Thanks for sharing those.
--
BJM
 
Thanks for posting! Sure renders the OOF background nicely, one thing my 50-200 is slightly lacking on at the long end. But (there's always a but), I don't think I'd like to hump that 90-250 around hill & dale on a daily basis as I do the 50-200!

Did you get to play with the 150? Wide open, It'd be nice to see a comparison between the 150 wide open and the big zoom at the long end (wide open).

I'd love to shoot a few portraits (beasts or not) on the 150. 150mm is so sweet on medium format kit for portraits, F2 would be something else, even though you'd be physically farther away, interesting non the less!

Cheers,
Chris
 
As much as you may not like zoo shots, you sure did a fine job. :-)

I see you used ACR for the conversion, could you share with us any calibration settings (color hue / saturation) on the ACR panel, and any other tips to convert with it? I love the workflow and speed, especially on the +-EV, just usually can't get the colors as spectacular as Master does, and, apparently, as you have.

I'm sure we'd love to hear any other stories you may have from the day.
--

 
The crop seem soft to me. Sharpening makes it better, as it will with any soft image, but it's still soft IMO. Perhaps misfocused. The Smart Sharpened sample is well oversharpened IMO, with artifacts and noise.
 
Bobby J wrote:

Would you feel the same way PGing an animal prison? As that's what they are, in effect. They may have big compounds with plenty of 'toys' but a compound is a compound.

I once watched a 10 min video from the 'Born Free' foundation and it changed my outlook on what I'd previously seen as normal, beneficial, healthy.. even fun establishments.

But in effect, we're having 'informative fun' at the expense of the imprisoned animals who suffer in unnatural surroundings for the rest of their lives to entertain us.

While we know them as 'zoos', animal prisons is a more accurate term.
--

 
The crop seem soft to me. Sharpening makes it better, as it will
with any soft image, but it's still soft IMO. Perhaps misfocused.
More likely the monopod, as I said. But I'm not sure how much sharper it might be if it had been attached to a sturdy tripod. All RAW images from cameras with anti-aliasing filters (all brands, all models) are initially soft, to varying degrees, if no sharpening is applied on conversion.
The Smart Sharpened sample is well oversharpened IMO, with
artifacts and noise.
I don't pefer it either, although on my CRT monitor it only looks a little bit oversharpened (sharpening appears more severe on good LCDs.) In fact, so far I'm relatively unimpressed with Smart Sharpen. It produces unwelcome artifacts on a lot of pictures that I've tried it with, unless you back off so far on the settings that it isn't as effective as I want.
 
As much as you may not like zoo shots, you sure did a fine job. :-)

I see you used ACR for the conversion, could you share with us any
calibration settings (color hue / saturation) on the ACR panel, and
any other tips to convert with it? I love the workflow and speed,
especially on the +-EV, just usually can't get the colors as
spectacular as Master does, and, apparently, as you have.
I don't have any calibration tips for ACR with the E-500. These shots are more or less ACR's default color profile, but I tweaked the saturation slightly by converting them to LAB color space, and then pulling in the ends of the curves on the A and B channels. There's a tutorial on how to do this somewhere on the web, which I'll post a link to here, if I can find it later today.
I'm sure we'd love to hear any other stories you may have from the
day.
Nothing much to report, other than that John Isaac is a delightful guy, and I'll be looking for his book when it comes out. Here's his web site, BTW:

http://www.johnisaac.com

The Olympus reps -- there were half a dozen of them, including the product manager for digital SLRs in the U.S. -- were fairly freely telling the same story that Olympus reps all over the world seem to be authorized to say (so I don't think I'm violating a confidence by repeating it here), which is that they'll be announcing new (by implication high-end) SLR product(s) this fall. But no details, and I didn't expect any.
 
I do not think that animals in a proper zoo are necessairly unhappy or for that matter unfortunate. It's quite possible that sometime in the not too distant future the only animals any of us will see are mostly in zoos.

Don't sell the zoo short. It is a good place to educate people about animals, and it is a place to breed them in order to prevent exticntion. Modern zooilogical endeavors have made significant strides in making them humane and they make an important contribution of our understanding and appreciation of animals. Rather than curse them, I feel we should support them and encourage better habitat and natural living conditions to the greatest degree possible.

If you got a dog, or cat, then I guess you could say it lives in a "people zoo."
--
BJM
 
1/1000th of a second on a monopod should be able to give you a sharp image.

I can't make up my mind about the 90-250 I think it's too near to the 50-200, I'd go with the 300 f2.8 if I was still into wildlife photography and back it up with the 50-200.
david
 
I once watched a 10 min video from the 'Born Free' foundation and
it changed my outlook on what I'd previously seen as normal,
beneficial, healthy.. even fun establishments.
Yeah, know what you mean - I had a girlfreind from high school who watched a 10 min video from a religious foundation once and she too changed her outlook for life and started selling trinkets at the airport for them and producing babies for the self proclaimed leader...

Damn those 10 min videos - they're all the same... 8-)

Cheers...

 
1/1000th of a second on a monopod should be able to give you a
sharp image.
It's certainly possible, but not with really reliable consistency, from shot to shot, in my experience. So I'm not reaching any conclusions, good or bad, on the 90-250 based on the way I used it this once.
I can't make up my mind about the 90-250 I think it's too near to
the 50-200, I'd go with the 300 f2.8 if I was still into wildlife
photography and back it up with the 50-200.
Yeah, I'm not much interested in long lenses any more either, so I didn't pick up one of the 300s they had. But I think the flexibility of the 90-250 makes it worth a serious look for wildlife, even if it's only 50mm longer and 2/3rds of a stop faster than the 50-200. But certainly, it only makes sense as a one lens alternative to the combo of the 50-200 and the 300.
 
Some things don't need 1 day seminars to get the message thru!

a 10 sec clip of an elephant head-butting the wall of it's compound.. the Lion rocking to and throw in 'stir crazy'. Y'know.. behavior you see in the police cells/mental institutions every week.

The species is different but the behavior is the same.
Yeah, know what you mean - I had a girlfreind from high school who
watched a 10 min video from a religious foundation once and she too
changed her outlook for life and started selling trinkets at the
airport for them and producing babies for the self proclaimed
leader...
Yeah.. like anything invented by 'man' is gonna be something 'beneficial'!
Damn those 10 min videos - they're all the same... 8-)
Well if they didn't work we wouldn't have 1 min tv advertisments, would we?

I sugges you look into it. As I say, I never used to give 'zoos' a 2nd thought: I too thought they was 'god' things in society. It just goes to show that you can't take things you where brought up to believe where 'good' as true.
--

 
I do not think that animals in a proper zoo are necessairly unhappy
or for that matter unfortunate.
Is there such a thing as a happy zoo? Know any happy 'prisons'? I suggest if we could listen to animals 'speak' we'd have a different view of how we cultivate (and kill) our meat, that we'd hear about the boredom & maltreatment in zoos, that we wouldn't abide vivisection.
It's quite possible that sometime
in the not too distant future the only animals any of us will see
are mostly in zoos.
I'll bet you're an american. I haven't looke dbut I'll bet you are.
Don't sell the zoo short. It is a good place to educate people
about animals, and it is a place to breed them in order to prevent
exticntion. Modern zooilogical endeavors have made significant
strides in making them humane and they make an important
contribution of our understanding and appreciation of animals.
Rather than curse them, I feel we should support them and encourage
better habitat and natural living conditions to the greatest degree
possible.
No, why not just let them 'free' and take any people who want to see wild animals to where they live in their natural habitat?

The things they do with 'endangered animals is good, yes.. but 99.9% of the other animals in the zoo will the the un-endangered kind. We have to keep them 'imprisoned' so the pandas of this world can flourish? No, lets close down 'zoos' and create endangered animal sanctuarys. Then anyone who wants to see an EA can visit the sanctuary and there's no other wild animals fluffing out the visiting roster.
If you got a dog, or cat, then I guess you could say it lives in a
"people zoo."
I just don't get that analogy: your 'pet' lives with you as part of your family... or normals 'pets' do. Unless you chain an Alsation up on a long chain in the backyard?

--

 
Is there such a thing as a happy zoo? Know any happy 'prisons'? I
suggest if we could listen to animals 'speak' we'd have a different
view of how we cultivate (and kill) our meat, that we'd hear about
the boredom & maltreatment in zoos, that we wouldn't abide
vivisection.
Now, I'm an animal lover, vegetarian, and budding Zoology student. I really care about animals, and nature in general. I have mixed feelings about zoos, but my general opinion is that good ones are worth preserving.

I've been to some horrible zoos, where the animals pace around small cages rattled by stupid children. About these, I completely agree with you. I've also been to zoos that are largely excellent. A couple of decades ago, few animal lovers would have said that. But good zoos have become important centres of education and preservation. We wouldn't have Prezwalski's horse without zoos and captive breeding programmes. Captive breeding allowed the Red Kite to survive in England and Wales. Captive breeding is propping up populations of black rhinos, lynx, etc., etc., all around the world, and zoos play a crucial role in many of these programmes.
It's quite possible that sometime
in the not too distant future the only animals any of us will see
are mostly in zoos.
I'll bet you're an american. I haven't looke dbut I'll bet you are.
I really don't understand this. He's making a valid point - many species are seriously threatened by deforestation, climate change, hunting, and so forth. While 'the only animals' is putting it a bit strongly, it is likely that many beautiful species of animals will become extinct in the wild, and will only be found in zoos. Some of the populations may be successfully regenerated from zoo stocks (like Prezwalski's horse), and if that's not worthwhile I don't know what is.
Don't sell the zoo short. It is a good place to educate people
about animals, and it is a place to breed them in order to prevent
exticntion. Modern zooilogical endeavors have made significant
strides in making them humane and they make an important
contribution of our understanding and appreciation of animals.
Rather than curse them, I feel we should support them and encourage
better habitat and natural living conditions to the greatest degree
possible.
No, why not just let them 'free' and take any people who want to
see wild animals to where they live in their natural habitat?
a) because many animals are so rare and endangered in their natural habitat that a zoo population is necessary to preserve the species

b) because some animals do take well to being in zoos. Some animals (such as bears, lynx, wolves - hunting animals that roam naturally) don't, and certainly there are strong arguments against keeping them in zoos (many that are in zoos now have lived there all their lives, and the zoos have no intention of acquiring more when those individuals die). But many others take well to living in a zoo - many (probably most) animals, given a sufficient supply of food, company, shelter, etc., will be perfectly happy, and don't yearn to run free - whatever people may think. This is obviously true of small animals such as insects, small reptiles, fish, but can also apply to mammals, birds and others - you'd probably be surprised how many.
The things they do with 'endangered animals is good, yes.. but
99.9% of the other animals in the zoo will the the un-endangered
kind. We have to keep them 'imprisoned' so the pandas of this world
can flourish? No, lets close down 'zoos' and create endangered
animal sanctuarys. Then anyone who wants to see an EA can visit the
sanctuary and there's no other wild animals fluffing out the
visiting roster.
This depends on the quality of the zoo, for sure. But at my local zoo (Chester zoo), there are few animals that aren't either endangered, or take very well to being in zoos.
If you got a dog, or cat, then I guess you could say it lives in a
"people zoo."
I just don't get that analogy: your 'pet' lives with you as part of
your family... or normals 'pets' do. Unless you chain an Alsation
up on a long chain in the backyard?
Many people do. I too would view that as cruel, because dogs are a subspecies that do tend to enjoy exercise and freedom of movement, to an extent at least.

Anyway, back on topic :) - these shots are really nice, and make me lust greatly after a 90-250 (which I may be able to buy by the time I'm...say...50?)
--

God won't save you when the waves are lapping at your feet. Climate change is happening, and it's going to kill millions of us this century unless we do something now.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top