Finally got my Hawk in flight

With my D700 and 18-200 VR DX ( yes, I was trying out the DX mode as my walk around lens ) disovered this guy high above looking at the pidgeons flying below him.

Had it on burst, Jpeg Fine. Each image is about only 30% of original frame.

Not perfect but I think I captured the moment:



First please slide all the way to the right for the begining of his flight.

I always wanted a shot like this, thank you Nikon.

Hy Nikonworks:

Liked your captures of the Hawk….
Some people say that all Hawks look alike...

It must be déjà vu?

Is the Hawk, one of a pair that hunts northern Queens in New York City?

If it is… Been trying for several years now… Just this last week, I have spotted them on Queens College, Pomonok and Electchester … most times I am naked…(no Camera)

--
PJB

Just an Old Dog

Can't see a 18-200 on D700. May I ask why the humongous copyright, I don't think you have to worry about someone posting your picture as their work. Sorry for the harsh statement. That (C) is rude.

--
(i)lmtfa added to amino acid for molecular biological studies

Good series, nikonworks, congrats.
--
http://www.pbase.com/peter55/galleries

A very good job of tracking. Too bad you happened to be experimenting with the lens. A better/longer lens would have been nice.
--
Tom
http://taja.smugmug.com/

Agree with lmtfa, the big C is really silly. Only shows that you don't know anything about what is a good photo nor about copyright.

cary

lmtfa said:

Can't see a 18-200 on D700. May I ask why the humongous copyright, I
don't think you have to worry about someone posting your picture as
their work. Sorry for the harsh statement. That (C) is rude.

--
(i)lmtfa added to amino acid for molecular biological studies

Click to expand...

If you go to a camera shop and ask them to mount a 18-200 on a D700 you can see it.

On the (C); yes it is a bit big but I'm sure the OP would appreciate a less rude reply.

cary smith said:

Agree with lmtfa, the big C is really silly. Only shows that you
don't know anything about what is a good photo nor about copyright.

cary

Click to expand...

Silly or not, stating that a person knows nothing about what a good photo is tells me more about the person saying such things than the one being declared lacking knowledge...

Yeah, so?

cary

Thanks all, glasd you liked the image.

I wanted to capture and print such an image all my photographic life.

Now the D700 and the 18-200 VR, enabled me to do so.

With my 70-200 2.8 I would not have caught the shot as we were walking on the sidewalk when we spotted this guy up on the building.

I pulled my D700 and already was on burst mode and caught this hawk's flight.

I never walk round with my 70-2-- 2.8 on my camera.

For the two above critical of my copyright and lens, both of you not to mention one word about the revealed form and elegance of the hawk, indicates you are missing a vital element in photography: appreciating the wonder of the world around us.

A real pity.

Thank goodness, it is never too late to re-kindle the joy of wonder of one's childhood.

Good reply nikonworks, keep on shooting and enjoy nature, photography is just a tool, the real thing is what you shoot.
--
http://www.pbase.com/peter55/galleries

NikonWorks wrote,

"For the two above critical of my copyright and lens, both of you not to mention one word about the revealed form and elegance of the hawk, indicates you are missing a vital element in photography: appreciating the wonder of the world around us.
A real pity"

Being one of the two I pointed out the fact that the (C) is distracting and pretentious. No these are not photo's showing any of the things you claim, it's form and elegance. Why? I can bearly make out the features, it's detail and there is nothing to say about the sequence of shots. You took a picture of a bird that was far away and for me not pleasing to look at. If you posted them at 100% more than likely they would be a mess. You get credit for taking photo's of a bird in flight with the wrong lens imo on the D700. The 70-200 you have may worked better, I don't know.

You posted photo's got some negative critiques and your whining. Don't be presumptive on what you think I feel about the "world around us". Next time post those in the beginners forum and you won't get you feelings hurt.

--
(i)lmtfa added to amino acid for molecular biological studies

--
please explain how the 70-200mm 2.8 would not have worked. im confused.

jeff thigpen said:

--
please explain how the 70-200mm 2.8 would not have worked. im confused.

Click to expand...

--
Indeed, you are.

Please re-read my post. No where do I say the 70-200 2.8 would not have worked.

I did say that I never 'walk around' with my 70-200 2.8 on my camera.

Hope this clarifies it for you.

I really like this as a series.

You've captured the bird in a very fluid way.

I could not have been so steady.

Good hand work.

Wish I could see the detail better, but life presents itself and rarely stands still.

As for copyrights:

I agree that the copyright is really distracting (probably unnecessarily so -- how anyone could profit from this small an image?). I suggest remaking the copyrights in a grey or white at a weak opacity -- keep them a set distance from the bird (dont get closer or further -- stay equidistant from frame to frame -- and preferably use fewer of them). Combined with the small image size, no one will be stealing it. And you can present it you photos while still protecting them, without distracting too much.

One of the reasons people mention the copyrights so much is because you use a hard black color on a very pale and earthy set of photographs. Its a clash -- in the artistic sense.

I believe in this case its very fair to say that as presented, you have shown a series of photos of copyright marks.

Mind you, I'm not your critic. I love the shots and wish I could have made them.

That being said, I offer a critique, which does understand at least where those other comments come from. Take it or leave it.
--

Sincerely,

GlobalGuyUSA

--

quote " With my 70-200 2.8 I would not have caught the shot as we were walking on the sidewalk when we spotted this guy up on the building."

thats what you said that confused me. sounded to me like you did not think it would have captured the shot. i was wondering why.

Why are some of you so damn critical and insulting ???

are you so bloody perfect at everything?

we are all different- thank heavens

shots that are pleasing to some , may not be pleasing to others

personally I like the shots

I am sure they have given pleasure to many.

lets leave it at that