[LRflex] Re: Elks and third cams...
- From: David Young <telyt@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 07:38:16 -0700
Keith Longmore wrote:
Hi David
I like the shot of the elk; if it was mine, I would crop some off
the right side, but it's a good stance, isn't it?
I agree ... the current cropping keeps the "classic" 2:3
format. However, I could keep the same height, while reducing the
width, by using the 4:5 ratio (8x10" print instead of an 8x12"
one). I'll give it a try. Thanks fro the idea.
BTW: 'elk' over here means something a bit different - you call them
moose! So I was a little surprised. Is yours what we know as a caribou..?
I believe what we call Caribou is what you call a Reindeer. To us, a
Moose has a broad, flat-ish, almost solid "hat rack". Our Caribou
are smaller than the Wapiti (Elk) and their "hat racks" sweep much
further back. Especially so with the Woodland Caribou.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk for Elk.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reindeer for Caribou (Reindeer).
See: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose for Moose.
Although a better idea of the solid nature of the Moose antlers
can be seen in the drawings and photos at
http://www.saskschools.ca/~gregory/animals/moose.html
We saw a giant shape by the side of the road in Sweden some years
ago, screeched to a stop, and I found myself filming a moose. I
wouldn't want to meet one on a dark night!! Quite a lot of
collisions with moose in Sweden; at night, your headlights go under
the body, so you tend not to see the moose until it's too
late. The car knocks its legs from under it, and half a ton of
body comes through the windscreen.....
Happens a lot here, too. Moose collisions are almost 70% fatal for
the occupants of the car and 100% fatal for the Moose. We have good
friends who survived a collision with a moose (our moose) but 7 years
later, Grant is still in constant pain and there is nothing more the
medics can do for him. One reason that these collisions occur is
that, unlike deer, the eyes of the moose are non-reflecting, so you
don't see them whilst driving at night, even if they look at you!
Third cams
I now have a full complement of properly working lenses! I made a
third cam for the 80-200 - the one that the Leica guy told me
couldn't be done - and, since I hadn't received the bits at that
point, made another for the 250. Both worked fine. The bits came
from Leica next day, so I left the camera and 80-200 to be tested,
fitted the Leica bits, and took the 250 back next day. Guess
what? It no longer worked! :-( There was a gap between the
third and second cams (even though the third cam was fitted
correctly) so I borrowed some tools, took it to bits in the shop,
bent the third cam a bit, reassembled it, and it then worked.
Both lenses proved to meter to within 0.2 of a stop. So I'm well
pleased. Just wish I hadn't bothered buying the (expensive) Leica
parts. Not only that, but the bits they provided for the 250/4 were
labelled 80-200 Vario Elmar! So the story that it couldn't be done
was rubbished by Leica themselves!! :-! Can't say I'm very impressed.....
Which 80~200 do you have? The f4 was only made in 3 cam for a very
short while (about 4 months, I'm told) and then production was
converted to the ROM + 3rd cam format. Leica maintain that this lens
cannot be converted from ROM + 3rd Cam to 3-Cam, but Doug Herr has
done it - saying it's relatively straight forward.
Anyway, thankful that you have them all properly running!
Cheers!
---
David Young,
Logan Lake, CANADA
Wildlife Photographs: http://www.telyt.com/
Personal Web-pages: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt
Stock Photography at: http://tinyurl.com/2amll4
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
