Nobody Wrangles an Echidna

[mark greenhill]

These gentle creatures just want to be left alone to go about their business,
which is digging into ants nests and lapping them up on their sticky tongues!

 

[sbowler579]

Nice images, love the second one.

 

[chris321]

Ahhhh, "Echidna", I read that as "Echinacea" and expected to see a plant having a fight! Nice shots, the first has a bit of blur in it, but the second is sharp in the right places and is very nice indeed!

Chris

 

[chris321]

Increasing Flexibility – yoga therapyhas positions that act upon the various joints of the body including those joints that are never really on the ‘radar screen’ let alone exercised. etc etc

Fascinating, but utterly pointless, as you're going to be banned and your posts deleted very, very soon. Byeee

Chris

 

[dod]

Fascinating, but utterly pointless, as you're going to be banned and your posts deleted very, very soon. Byeee

he's right you know

 

[mark greenhill]

Nice images, love the second one.

Ahhhh, "Echidna", I read that as "Echinacea" and expected to see a plant having a fight! Nice shots, the first has a bit of blur in it, but the second is sharp in the right places and is very nice indeed! Chris

sbowler and Chris, thanks to you both for commenting. And Chris, as you observe the first does have a blur in it - it was shot with at an equiv. F/L of 450mm at f/5/6. A better setting would perhaps have been f/8.

 

[mark greenhill]

Fascinating, but utterly pointless, as you're going to be banned and your posts deleted very, very soon. Byeee Chris

he's right you know

I have no idea as to what this is about - these threads appear to belong on some other post.

 

[chris321]

I have no idea as to what this is about - these threads appear to belong on some other post.

A lovely new member joined up to spam your thread with a huge post about how wonderful their new yoga website is! Luckily the mods had it covered, and the offending post has since disappeared! Anyway, back on track.....

What shutter speed were these shot at? Having a quick look I would have said it looked more like motion blur than a depth of field issue? The more I look at it, the more I like the 2nd one as well, it's so cute and cuddly

Chris

 

[mark greenhill]

A lovely new member joined up to spam your thread with a huge post about how wonderful their new yoga website is! Luckily the mods had it covered, and the offending post has since disappeared! Anyway, back on track.....
Thanks for filling me in on that - wasn't online so luckily I missed it.

What shutter speed were these shot at? Having a quick look I would have said it looked more like motion blur than a depth of field issue? The more I look at it, the more I like the 2nd one as well, it's so cute and cuddly Chris

Ok Chris, I've just consulted the Exif of the two consecutive originals below shot less than a second apart in Aperture Priority.
There was only 1/25s exposure difference between them, apparently just enough to freeze the motion..

Exif: 1/100 @ f/5.6 @ iso 400 @ 263mm (526mm equiv.)

Don't ask me how I came to choose the one above for posting! :bonk:
Exif: 1/125 @ f/5.6 @ iso 400 @ 263mm (526mm equiv.)

From these full frame, unprocessed, uncropped, out of the camera images I think we can conclude that you are right about it being motion blur.​

 

[alfa]

They are so cute. Thanks for sharing these lovely photos.

 

[chris321]

Ah right, and I can see why! The 'rule of thumb' is that you should try to use a shutter speed that is 1/the focal length to eliminate motion blur and camera shake etc. So something like 1/500 would have been a better speed. Of course that would have required an f-number of 2.8, (hmm, 500mm f/2.8, shouldn't be too pricey, eh?! ), or increasing the iso. Obviously that figure changes if you're resting on something or supported, but you get the idea!

When using my 70-300 at the long end, if I ever see the shutter speed going below 1/200, I adjust something because I know the result will be blurry! And i'd prefer a noisy photo to a blurry one!

Sorry for rambling a bit, i'm on my phone so can't really review what I've written

Chris

 

[HappySnapper]

Lovely shots, love the expression in no 2

 

[mark greenhill]

They are so cute. Thanks for sharing these lovely photos.

Lovely shots, love the expression in no 2

Alpha and HappySnapper, Thanks for commenting.

What shutter speed were these shot at? Having a quick look I would have said it looked more like motion blur than a depth of field issue? The more I look at it, the more I like the 2nd one as well, it's so cute and cuddly Chris

Ah right, and I can see why! The 'rule of thumb' is that you should try to use a shutter speed that is 1/the focal length to eliminate motion blur and camera shake etc. So something like 1/500 would have been a better speed. Of course that would have required an f-number of 2.8, (hmm, 500mm f/2.8, shouldn't be too pricey, eh?! ), or increasing the iso. Obviously that figure changes if you're resting on something or supported, but you get the idea!

When using my 70-300 at the long end, if I ever see the shutter speed going below 1/200, I adjust something because I know the result will be blurry! And i'd prefer a noisy photo to a blurry one!

Sorry for rambling a bit, i'm on my phone so can't really review what I've written Chris

Thanks Chris, I take all that good advice onboard. They were shot not with an Olympus premium SWD series lens but the 70-300mm F4-5.6 standard zoom, good - but pretty slow glass. As you see from those settings the EV was very low. Oly E-series bodies have an effective 5EV in-body IS system. Ramping the sensitivity to iso800 would have ramped the shutter to 1/200-1/250 with an image quality trade off. Under better light f/8 would have been real nice, a tad sharper and a little more dof. Ah well, dems da breaks! :shake:

 

[cj1969]

cute!!

 

[parkmoy]

You could always claim the motion blur was intentional and necessary to properly illustrate the fight or flight reflexes of the beast. (or some such tosh):shrug:
Cute pics, blur or not

 

[mark greenhill]

You could always claim the motion blur was intentional and necessary to properly illustrate the fight or flight reflexes of the beast. (or some such tosh):shrug: ...

I could do that but, "Would I lie to You?"