[ncsc-moths] Re: Fw: Sallow question
- From: Doug Allen <dougk4ly@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: ncsc-moths@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:25:25 -0500
Thanks Kyle,
I enjoyed your Flicker album and camera comments and checked out some of
the reviews.
For 2+ years I have been using a Nikon P90, a bridge camera, which does
everything pretty well, but I find my moth pictures in low light are often
grainy and/or out of focus. My butterfly and other nature pics are
generally very good. I haven't done any digiscoping recently. In November,
I bought a used Panasonic DMC-ZR3 for moth pictures and macro. It does a
much better job of macro focusing in low light conditions, and I use it 90%
of the time for moths- the best $80 I ever spent. From about 4 feet to
infinity, the D90 is better. I also got to use a friend's Panasonic SLR
with a Sigma 105 macro lens. It was excellent for butterfly photography,
but seemed very slow and clumsy for moth photography, with my little
Panasonic far better.
When the Canon SX-50 came out late fall, I bought a discounted Canon
SX-40 which I haven't used yet except to learn its features, but an
upcoming trip (mostly nature photography) to Mexico will give it a
workout. I spend many hours reading camera reviews, but I suspect it's
the photographer more than the camera, most of the time. What are others
using for moth photography?
Doug Allen Windmill Hill, SC
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Kyle Kittelberger
<kkturtledude@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> Thanks for the email. I really enjoy the S95 and D90. I use the S95 when I
> digiscope, and I am able to take some great photos and pics. When I can, I
> use my S95. But, when I need to take photos quickly, am walking in the
> woods, am mothing, etc. I use the D90. It is a great camera, and I have
> been using it for 2 or so years now. Not very heavy, easy to carry around
> when in the woods looking for wildlife- an ideal camera for wildlife
> watching. And when I put my macro lens on, the pics I take are
> breath-taking.
>
> Cheers,
> Kyle
>
> *From:* Doug Allen <dougk4ly@xxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* ncsc-moths@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* Monday, December 31, 2012 9:30 PM
>
> *Subject:* [ncsc-moths] Re: Fw: Sallow question
>
> Hi Kyle,
>
> Nothing I find on MPG, BG, or in my Peterson shows the beautiful violet
> sheen of your picture although Peterson mentions it. The October 9 date
> seems right for Unsated.
> Maybe some one familiar with the species will have some comments.
> How do you like the Canon PS S95 and the Nikon P90?
> Happy New Year everyone!
>
> Doug Allen Windmill Hill, SC
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Kyle Kittelberger <kkturtledude@xxxxxxxxx
> > wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> I sent out this email several weeks ago but never heard any response. Any
> ideas on this species?
>
> Thanks, and happy new year!
> Kyle
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> *From:* Kyle Kittelberger <kkturtledude@xxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* Moth List <ncsc-moths@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:42 PM
> *Subject:* [ncsc-moths] Sallow question
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> I forgot I took this picture in the northeast. I know it is a sallow, and
> I believe it might be Unsated Sallow (*Metaxaglaea inulta), *but wanted
> some input. This was taken in a bog in Vermont.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/hawk-eagle/8267986786/in/photostream
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
