Jump to content


Life Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


waltonksm last won the day on 5 April

waltonksm had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

210 of my posts have been liked

About waltonksm

  • Rank
  • Birthday 1 January

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Presently in an Eskimo village about 500 miles due west of Anchorage, AK
  • Photographic Interests
    Wildlife, photography, my environment. I love taking photos of birds. And when I can afford to travel (less frequently the past many years) I love taking photos of what I am seeing as I travel. I love the four corners area of the US, and also the area along the Pacific Coast Highway.

  • Edit my pics?
    Ask Me
  • Fav. Camera
    Nikon D500
  • Fav. Lens
    500mm F4 P lens
  1. Thanks for the comparison. I had no idea that the 12-100 compared so favorably with the 12-40. Yes, I know you said the 12-40 is superior, but you still give me good reason to travel with the 12-100 and leave the 12-40 behind. As my shoulders and knees continue to talk to me, the weight saving becomes more and more important.
  2. waltonksm

    Lions - Night

    These are stunning. What lighting did you use? I assume some sort of flash.
  3. I bought it. I already LOVE it! It focuses as close as 10cm to the front glass. Images to follow
  4. I just bought this lens (August, 2019.) I had started my MFT adventure with a Panasonic body, and had purchased a 100-300 Lumix lens that I thought was horrible. I read reviews that it was a little soft at 300mm. That was being charitable, at least with my copy of the lens. I sold it some time ago. For more than 2 years I debated buying the 75-300 Olympus version. I finally did so last week. I quickly shot short and long, near and far. I LIKE IT. Maybe my Lumix was a bad sample.... and maybe this Olympus is a particularly good copy. Whichever it might be, I am pleased with this lens. Reviews indicate it is very sharp from center to corners at wide setting. I am doing more with longer settings. I will post some photos a bit later to illustrate some of the lens characteristics. It focuses down to about 3' (90 cm.) I suspect I will be doing some "macro" shots with it.
  5. Berries were a bit sparse on this hillside. This is a rocky outcrop with rocks only a few inches down, so not very good for berry picking. The Yukon River is in the background. The photographer likes taking photos as much as she likes berry picking. She frequently does both on her trips across the tundra.
  6. These are very nice. They are in a class far above what I am doing with my closeups.
  7. A few more Mountain Harebell (Alaska Harebell) images with a bumblebee thrown in.... or maybe some bumblebee photos with an Alaska Harebell background.... These are less colorful than the last ones I posted. These will be dead in a few more days. They are less open, too.
  8. Thank you Thor. I occasionally muddle through and get the right result..... But better consistency would be nice. I just was going through a huge number of images taken today, and I cannot believe how badly I continue to handle some situations. I seem to have a slow learning curve, and make the same mistakes, repeatedly.
  9. Dallas: I have to admit that EVERY long lens I have ever purchased (especially the zooms) has been a disappointment to me. This one is no exception. I also have learned by now that it seems you have to study and "learn" each new lens. Years ago i owned the 80-400 Nikkor (version 1). I hated the results. I was convinced I would sell it; but I finally decided to read more reviews and see where I might have gone wrong. And I kept the lens until I started using other lenses much more than the 80-400. Frankly, it was a SUPERB lens. This one is still a work in progress. I do not like very much of what I have gotten so far. I think I need more stability (maybe even a tripod?!) for many of my shots. I have gone to higher ISO's, and faster shutter speeds. This seems to help quite a bit. I think this is a tough lens to use, but the lens is a lot more capable than I at this point. I am not quite ready to put it on the market.
  10. Here are some tufted fleabanes taken with my 100-400 Leica/Panasonic lens. I was researching the name, and found an explanation that claims to have the right word etymology: A "bane" is a poison, so this flower (or the plant?) is toxic to fleas. I have no fleas on me, so maybe it works☺️ I also included a macro shots. I find the shadows cast on the petals a nice plus. This is a fairly common tundra plant in our area.
  11. I am posting a few more tundra shots. Many of these are done with a different "macro" lens. I have been making more use of the Leica/Panasonic 100-400 lens. I am getting further back, stopping down a bit, and taking advantage of the depth of field I cannot get with my macro lenses. Alaska Harebell Alpine Bistorts p
  12. waltonksm

    Pileated Woodpecker

    I just saw this. I read your description before I scrolled down to the photo. So I was expecting " Overcast and flat light." Instead I saw a very nice shot. There is certainly nothing wrong with this shot. I like it. Walton
  13. OK, will do. Remember, I am still mostly under two feet of snow (quite a bit less than last week.) I only shot it enough to see if it was an OK lens, since the eBay seller sort of left a few things out of his description. So far, most of my shots have been of broken down equipment filmed from my porch facing the dock that is loaded with old heavy equipment. Unfortunately, there will be NO MORE Eskimo dancing until next fall. I have to admit, I honestly do not know what my major use for this lens will be. I purchased it to see what you guys were raving about when discussing this lens. Bytesmiths: I did see your event photos. IF you have some guidance for the other uses you have, I would love to hear them. The last "event" we will have is our highschool graduation in about a month. I do not know how you got those beautiful berry photos, since it does not close focus. Was that a crop of a much larger photo? So I will be working on what to use it on. Actually, there are some shots of birds that I think I can use it for that will be fantastic. I should be able to really separate the bird from the background. In fact, now I have several ideas for getting other bird shots.
  14. Bytesmiths Thank you. I was not aware that diffraction was a problem at a bigger stop on MFT... I wil see what I get at f8 or more open
  15. Bytesmiths: Really? You think I will get diffraction even at that setting? Then it must be pretty phenomenal at a larger stop. I look forward to trying it tomorrow afternoon. I did not have time to do more today after spending the time fighting with that cheap filter. Dallas: I have to admit, someone gave me a bit of crap about 5 years ago about buying wonderful Nikkor optics, with color corrected, special coating on lenses, using the lenses with a D700, and then muck it all up by adding cheap pieces of glass onto the front of the lens. I do keep hoods on them for protection of the glass. I read years earlier a short piece in some forum or another, where the guy systematically tested tiffen, hoya, and something else (B&W maybe?), same lens, same tripod shot, and then showed a huge enlargement of the center results. This was in the film days, as I recall. He was not at all snide or snotty about it, but he simply said "here is what I did, here is what I got, and you decide for yourself if the filter makes a difference." I think he said he still used filters, but never cheap filters. I do not think he had even a single rejoinder. In fact, not much comment from anyone. I am not sure that many people wanted to hear what he said. I am not sure how available this stuff is to you through eBay, or other outlets. I bought a ton of step-up rings, and get every small opening stepped up to 52mm, then use cheap lens caps, also from eBay. I think I had to use two rings on a 37mm, or some such tiny lens. I also use another company here that is superb for service, but a little more expensive than most eBay vendors. I have had a few problems with some super cheap rings. They just do not thread on very easily....cheap quality control, and cheap manufacture. I got what I paid for. I will PM a link to you. I have no idea about international prices.... the price should be the same, but they really do a decent job on shipping. I do not think they use shipping as another means of gouging you. I also have some lenses that I stepped up to 72mm (the 12-40, maybe?) I do not remember if I have a 77mm yet. But I can do that if I need to use my 77mm B&W polarizer or other filters. My brother in law sent me some Galen Rowell writings and his extensive use of graduated nuetral density filters. He also used lense that many purists thought wer mediocre. And he made a lot of money off of his mdiocre lenses. His site sells some unbelievable filters..... They make the Cokin filters seem like dime-store items. They claim they are made by Singh Ray, or some such exotic (EXPENSIVE) company.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.