Lake Parker Bird Photos

Lake Parker, in east Lakeland, FL, is the largest lake in the area and there is plenty of houses that line the lake on the east and west side. The north side has the Lakeland Power Plant on its shores and the south side runs by US92.

There are plenty of opportunities for wading bird photos but I had never spent much time on the west side since you have to park on a nearby side-street and try to walk the bike path until you have to move your car again.

But on this particular day I found a few shots that seemed to work well. And here they are:

Anhingas on the lookout

GBH on an old wooden pier

Limpkin by the cat-tails

GBH in late afternoon

Dont forget to visit my Facebook page to see my most recent work. "Likes" are always appreciated too! Click here for Cherokee Sun on Facebook

---

See my latest nature and wildlife images at:
www.duanelipham.com
Cherokee Sun on Facebook

Some Favorites From 2015

2015 was the year that I reconnected with photography in a serious way. Like so many others, my fascination with photography began in my teens. But it was the film age then, and I didn't have a lot of money to spend on either equipment or processing. So eventually, after not getting the results I was hoping for in my own images, my interest just faded. But it never went completely away.

So many changes have taken place in photography since then, most of them for the better. The digital age allows the photographer to have nearly total control over the images they produce. So now, if you can visualize a scene in your mind, you can most likely produce it digitally. What fun!

So 2015 was spent acquiring the equipment that would form the core of the photo gear I needed to produce the nature and landscape images that I love. I have explained my thought processes on choosing the camera system and lenses that I currently own in this blog and you can find those posts here and here.

I'm happy to say that I can see progress in the quality of the images I am producing and it's my hope that 2016 will see much further personal advancement in this art form that I so enjoy.

In the meantime, here are a few of my favorite images from last year:

I'll lead off with my favorite shot off the year
taken at Indian Rocks Beach

Water lilies are a favorite subject of mine
 and this one was unusually beautiful

Bald eagles are fascinating and this one
provided me with several good poses

This image was not well received online
but it's still one of my personal favorites, so here it is!

Great Blue Herons are nature photographer's gold
and I found this one at Circle B Bar Reserve

Black-Crested Night Herons are beautiful birds anyway.
But just look at those red eyes!

This Malchite Butterfly was found at
the butterfly garden at MOSI in Tampa

This little fellow was darting in and
out of the waves at Fort Desoto

The Long Pier at Redington Beach at sunset

Monarch butterflies are incredibly beautiful
and this is my favorite of the many I shot this year

Roseate Spoonbills have the most gorgeous colors!

---

See my latest nature and wildlife images at:
www.duanelipham.com
Cherokee Sun on Facebook

Cherokee Sun On Facebook

I'm not much into social media but I created my first Facebook page today for Cherokee Sun Photography. You can find it at https://www.facebook.com/cherokeesunphotography/

If you visit me there please like the page and leave me a comment.

I'll try to keep my latest activities up-to-date on Facebook, while I continue posting about what I'm learning about nature photography here on my blog.

Why not also visit my online portfolio at http://www.duanelipham.com to see my full body of work?

I hope you enjoy my work as much as I enjoy creating it.

Downsample Photos For Better Image Quality

I was recently reading some posts on the photographylife.com blog about downsampling photos to help make noise less visible and even sharpen the overall image. I had never heard of this before but when I started looking into the subject a little closer I found that the whole topic of downsampling for improving image quality is a pretty hotly contested subject across the web.

You can read the post that tries to explain the science behind downsampling to reduce photo noise at this link - https://photographylife.com/why-downsampling-an-image-reduces-noise Warning! - this post is pretty technical and your eyes may glaze over before you finish it, but for those who claim to understand that kind of stuff ... enjoy!

So what is meant by downsampling anyway? Really it is just simply downsizing the image in either Photoshop or Lightroom or some other post-processing software. So why downsize images? Well, these days many of the newer DSLRs feature high resolution sensors. I often shoot with a Sony A65 or A77 and they both have a 24 megapixel sensor. Other cameras can have much higher pixel density such as the Nikon D800 with 36 megapixel images. While this kind of detail in images is great for printing, it is totally lost on the internet where such large file sizes are not in frequent use for viewing on a monitor. So images created with high resolution sensors are often downsampled or downsized to make them more convenient for viewing over the internet.

However, when downsampling images, a happy side-effect is that noise appears to become less visible. I tried it myself and sure enough I found it to be true as well. Of course, there is a whole group of folks on the web forums who seem to want to explain why this isn't really so and will go on and on using the most technical terms imaginable to try to support their position that downsampling is basically useless for contributing to image quality.

But I know what I see in my photos when they are downsampled correctly and I see improvement when viewed on an average monitor, not to mention the added benefit of working with a smaller file size in the first place. Why not try it yourself and see what results you get?

Here is the link to an explanation on how to use downsampling properly in Photoshop - https://photographylife.com/how-to-properly-resize-images-in-photoshop and here is a link to an explanation on how to downsample in Lightroom - https://photographylife.com/how-to-properly-resize-images-in-lightroom

White Pelicans At Lake Morton

In the last couple of months we have had an influx of white pelicans coming into the area and they have chosen Lake Morton in Lakeland, FL as a favorite hangout.

This week I made a visit to the lake and was able to get a few shots of our winter visitors even though the weather was pretty cold, blustery and rainy. The pelicans are not year-round residents so they don't have the same feeling of ease around people that the swans and ducks have that live here all year. They are pretty skittish and stand-offish so you have to have a long lens to get any kind of decent shot. They are NOT going to let you get very close.

They can look pretty clumsy on land but in flight they are surprisingly graceful. Unfortunately, the weather conditions was not conducive to much flying, so I had to restrict my shots to pelican portraits instead.

Here are a few samples of my visit to Lake Morton this week:

Enjoying the sun while it made it's brief presence felt

Stuffing that huge beak under feathers seems to help them stay warm

White pelicans have a rather odd appearance but they are beautiful too

Here is a group of pelicans trying to stay warm by huddling together 

while they keep a close eye on what I'm doing

Gear Acquisition Syndrome

No doubt one of the most alluring features of digital photography for techies and electronics buffs is the seemingly endless choices of features and upgrades that can be found in the equipment that we use to practice our art form. And if we aren't careful, we can easily get side-tracked from the pursuit of photography itself to the pursuit of photographic gear instead. This is called Gear Acquisition Syndrome, and few of us are impervious to it's influence. I know that I struggle with it all the time.

So what kind of gear do you really need to turn out high quality images that both you and others will appreciate and enjoy?

Truthfully, it often depends on what kind of photography you want to pursue. For wedding and portrait photography, you will need a reliable workhorse of a camera, but not one that has too many unusual features. Your choice of lenses will not be very wide in most cases as anything above 100mm - 150mm is probably not going to be used very often. You will definitely need solid, quality lighting equipment though, either studio lights or auxiliary flash units, or maybe both. In general, this kind of setup doesn't have to be very expensive and incredible results can be produced without breaking the bank. And if you like working with people, this is a great way to enjoy photography.

The nature photographer on the other hand is wading into waters that can get very deeply expensive quickly if they aren't careful. It all depends on the kind of subjects that the nature photographer enjoys most. If it is flowers and close-up work, an average DSLR camera married to a good macro lens mounted on a solid tripod will do the trick. No big problem here.

But what if you like to shoot wildlife in the field? Now, things start heating up. You will most likely need telephoto lenses and good, sharp ones to record the detail in your wildlife subjects. These kind of lenses are typically more expensive as the focal length increases, and animals are often skittish, so longer focal lengths will certainly be helpful. And if you like to shoot at times of day when outdoor lighting is relatively lower, those lenses will need to be able to allow plenty of light in to the camera sensor to keep the shutter speed fast enough to make sharp images since wildlife has a nasty habit of moving around on you unpredictably, sometimes very quickly. Really fast telephoto lenses are incredibly expensive, so the cost and complexity is mounting.

What if you want to add bird photography to your arsenal? Well, now you can really get into some expensive and technical territory. Why? Birds are small in many cases, and they are incredibly fast, especially when they are flying. In fact, some of the most difficult photography skills that can be learned is how to make sharp and crisp photos of birds in flight. It even has it's own acronym, BIF (birds in flight). Now your camera is going to have to include an advanced auto focus capability and be able to shoot continuously at 5 - 10 frames per second or more, and your choice of lenses is going to be even more critical.

An example of BIF (birds in flight)

An osprey on the move makes high demands on photo gear

As you can see, it is easy to for a nature photographer with a wide range of interests to constantly be thinking about their equipment and how to get better images in the field. But this can be hazardous to the art form itself. If we allow ourselves to spend too much time thinking about the purchase of more and more photo gear to get an increasingly smaller improvement in the final image results, we are no longer focusing on the art that we are creating. We are focusing instead on the process, on the gear and its economics, and something very important can be lost in this kind of pursuit - the love of photography itself.

This is not to say that acquiring high quality photographic gear that will be truly useful in our work is not good or even needed. But it must be kept in balance if we want to grow as photographers and create better and better images that will inspire ourselves and others. This is so because ultimately, photography is not about the camera or the lens, it's about the vision of the photographer!

My Best Tip For Learning Photo Composition

One of the things that separates average snapshots that most people take with their camera from high quality images produced by enthusiasts and professional photographers is the composition of the elements of the photo itself.

I often see perfectly well exposed photographs with interesting subjects that are ultimately rendered boring or even objectionable because the composition just doesn't look right to the eye. As soon as I see one of these images, it almost saddens me because the image could have been so much better if the photographer had just been able to give as much attention to the overall design and makeup of the image as the subject itself and the exposure settings on their camera.

So how does a person acquire composition skills for photography? Well, there are plenty of tips to be found on how to improve in this area and many of them are very good and useful. But I am of the opinion that just learning a bunch of rules does not necessarily make a person a better photographer. If that were the case, we could simply send out a fleet of robot cameras armed with the rules of photography in their on-board software and they could capture the most stunning photographs you have ever seen without the need of humans at all.

But I don't believe that this is really possible as art is not something that necessarily conforms to a singular set of rules. Creating art stimulates something in the minds of the viewers that triggers interest, pleasure, enjoyment, or sometimes provocation. High quality art tells stories that we want and need to hear. As a result of all of this and more, art defies explanation and definition. It does not conform to a list of rules without deviation.

So how does an average person gain composition skills that raises their photographic artwork to a higher level? Here is my best tip on this subject that I know has worked well for me.

I suggest that a person who wants to improve their composition skills would do well to join a well-known photo sharing site like Flickr or 500px and within each site also join some groups of photographers that are interested in the kind of photography that also interests them. Of course, groups on these sites will run the full gamut of inexperienced and novice photographers to advanced enthusiasts and even pros. To learn good composition skills, I have found that the more images I see on a daily basis, the more I am helped to recognize and distinguish those that have truly good composition from those that do not. When I find an image that really grabs my attention, I often stare at it for a while and think to myself, what is it about this image that really interests me? I sort of reverse engineer the image to learn what is really pleasing and/or captivating about it. This is the secret sauce. Don't just look at an image and either like or dislike it. Take time to determine the reason WHY you are drawn to certain images and not to others.

I feel that this kind of effort expended over a long time does more than just provide a list of rules to help improve a person's photographic skills. I think it actually begins to adjust the way you see the world around you and makes the recognition of good composition almost instinctive. You begin to see patterns of good composition that were hidden to you before.

Of course, some seem to have a natural bend or talent in this area and they acquire good photographic skills easier and faster than others. But, I also believe that nothing replaces good old-fashioned hard work and effort whenever someone wants to become more skilled at almost any endeavor.

Right now, there are millions of photographs just waiting to be viewed that will teach you how to improve your photography skills. So what are you waiting for?

To Photoshop Or Not To Photoshop?

A digital photo post-processed in Lightroom

One of the great things about digital photography is that you have control over the final product from beginning to end. In the film era, once you filled up the roll with your photos you physically brought it to be developed and were almost completely at the mercy of the film lab as to how the final images were going to look. Well, no more!

Digital cameras allow the photographer to take the photo and immediately see the result on the rear screen right away. You don't like what you see? No problem, just make some adjustments and take the shot again. As long as your subject allows you the time to do this, it's a great system.

However, digital photography also allows you further control over the finished image even after the shots are all taken and you are now in front of your computer. In fact, for many, this is where the fun really begins. Now, they can take all of those digital files and open them in image processing software that will allow the average photographer to make any number of adjustments to their images and turn out a finished product that rivals anything that only the pros turned out in the film era.

But do you really have to take this additional step? Can't you just get great shots straight out of the camera?

Well, it all depends on what kind of final image you want to produce. If you are a nature photographer and you want to turn out the highest quality images with the most detail possible, then yes, you need to take this extra step to get that kind of results. Digitally post-processed photos have that extra pop that simply makes them more visually appealing. But if you are happy with average looking photos in most cases, then just accept what your camera gives you.

It's always amazing to me how many people will spend a fortune on their camera and lenses to get the best equipment possible and then not put the time and effort into learning how to post-process their camera files to make their photos really shine. But if they would just put in a little investment in this area of the digital process, they would get far better results than the incremental difference that a better piece of equipment would bring.

But, isn't it expensive to get this kind of software? Not anymore! As of this writing, you can buy a monthly subscription to Photoshop and Lightroom, the most commonly used post-processing software combo in use today by far, for only $10/month. If you are a serious photo enthusiast, this is a pittance to pay each month for substantial control over the final appearance of your photos. In addition to the great price, you will automatically be upgraded to the latest version of each program for no extra cost. What's not to like?

So, if you want to substantially improve your photography, invest a little time to learn how to use one of the most important pieces of digital equipment available at a price that is nothing short of a bargain in my opinion.

Nature Photography At Circle B Bar Reserve

One of the advantages of living in Central Florida is that the weather makes year round nature photography not only possible but even pretty easy.

If you are a bird photographer, there are scads of birds available for great photos almost any time of year. You can have your pick of small songbirds that can be found anywhere, lake and pond birds like herons and egrets, plenty of birds of prey such as eagles and ospreys, and of course, birds found all along the coastline and beaches like pelicans and terns.

If you like to shoot flowers, there is something in bloom year-round in central Florida. You can find iris's, roses, hibiscus, foxgloves, birds of paradise, daisies, and a whole plethora of other flowers at various parts of the year. You just have to look for them.

If animals are your favorite photo subjects, you are all set there as well. Florida is home to alligators, turtles, manatees, squirrels, snakes, armadillos, bobcats, and plenty more.

But if you want to find a place that can provide a good sampling of birds, wild flowers, and animals in one place, you have to visit Circle B Bar Reserve in Lakeland, FL. I simply love this place. Every visit is an adventure. You never know what you will see there on any given day. Everything from great blue herons, white egrets and ospreys to otters, alligators and owls are easily found there pretty much any time you want to go and pay a visit to this amazing place.

Be sure to bring water with you, especially on the hot days of summer because the trails can be very long and there is no water available. You are truly out there in the wild. So be watchful as you go. Don't just run through the reserve. If you take your time and keep your eyes open, it's amazing what you may see.

Here is one of the many shots I have taken at Circle B Bar Reserve (CBBR)

How To Use Monopods and Tripods For Sharp Photos

If you want sharp, clear and detailed photos, you will need to invest in the gear that will help you get that kind of results. Over the past year I have accumulated three different kinds of mounted assistance for my camera that seems to work well for me. The first is a monopod. Of course, monopods are not as steady as a tripod will be because there is only one leg holding the camera steady, but they do allow for greater freedom of movement and setup when you take the shot. And if lighting conditions are decent, they are a nice compromise. A monopod is easily adjustable, easy to carry, and will help add stability to your camera and lens.

The second piece of equipment that has helped me get sharper photos is a light-weight tripod. Face it, there are times when you are going to be on a long trek somewhere outside that requires more than a monopod, but a big old gorilla tripod is just going to be way more than you want to have to lug around for that long a period of time. This is where a light-weight tripod can come in handy if lighting conditions allow. One of the main drawbacks to lightweight tripods is how much weight you can safely put on them in terms of your camera and lens combination. They are not meant to support heavy super-telephoto lenses, but for many 200mm - 300mm lenses they will still do fine.

Finally, the absolute best piece of mounted assistance for your camera/lens is the rock-solid, heavy-duty tripod. If you are working with macro shots, this is almost mandatory as the small tolerances that you have in depth of field pretty much require that your camera be as stationary as possible. They can also handle the extra weight that 400mm - 600mm lenses bring to the situation if that is necessary, and they make windy conditions much less of a problem for the nature photographer. You can't go wrong with one of these monsters, but they will wear you out if you aren't used to carrying them for long distances.

This three-pronged approach to camera stability is working pretty well for me now and I'm sure that your photo results will be able to benefit from this approach as well. So when do you use what? Well, nature photography is a constant exercise in compromises, and what works for one photographer does not necessarily fill the bill for another. Just experiment and see which piece of camera stabilization equipment works best for you under which circumstances.

The good news is that none of these pieces of equipment need to be very expensive. Of course, like anything else in photography, if you want to spend a lot of money you can do that very easily. But good quality monopods, light-weight tripods and heavy-duty tripods do not have to break the bank. You can get all three for under $200 if you know where to look on Amazon and read the reviews listed there. Happy hunting!

The photo at the top of this post is one taken using a monopod in good lighting conditions.

The Most Important Photo Gear For Sharp Photos

Celosia flower taken with 210mm lens mounted on a sturdy tripod

Photo enthusiasts spend a great deal of their time thinking about camera bodies, lenses, filters, etc. to try to bring the quality of the images they produce just a notch higher than where it is now. And I am as guilty of that as anyone.

But there is one simple piece of photo gear that will make more of a clear difference in the sharpness of the images you produce than almost anything else in your camera bag. It's not sexy and high-tech, it's the good old tripod!

If you are a nature photographer and you take the time to mount your camera and lens to a good sturdy tripod, you may be shocked at how much better work you produce. Why? Well, even the best of us aren't rock steady at all times when we hold the camera. And sometimes, if we are honest, we trust ourselves a little too much and start shooting hand-held under low lighting conditions just because we don't want to go to all the trouble of getting the tripod out and mounting the camera to it.

Over time, I have realized that this is not wise. At least, not if you want really sharp and detailed shots. It's true that image stabilization can help a great deal if you start to encounter lower light conditions and a tripod is not handy. But nothing actually replaces the clear advantage of having your camera and lens locked down tight and solid as a rock. And if your subject is stationary, you can go as slow as you want with your shutter speed and still get sharp and clear results.

It's true that you can spend thousands of dollars on very expensive lenses to get the sharper photographs that you want, but for a small fraction of that cost, you can buy a very good tripod and improve the results you get from almost any lens you have now.

You can take a look at the photo at the top of this post as an example of how a tripod can help keep your images sharp and clear.

In my next post, I'll explain the gear that I have settled upon to help me get as much mounted assistance for my camera as possible.

Image Stabilization - What It Is And How To Use It

Example of image stabilization in low light

In my last post I discussed the use of used high quality lenses on a more modern camera body to get the best bang for your buck in terms of image quality. This is because there is an incredible amount of perfectly good older lenses on sale on Amazon, Ebay, KEH, etc. that have plenty of life left in them and can produce images that are visually stunning and sharp. This is true of almost all of the major camera brands.

I also mentioned in my last post that after doing much research I chose to buy Sony A-mount camera bodies and use older Minolta A-mount lenses that still have auto-focus capabilities. There are several vintage Minolta A-mount lenses that are highly regarded such as the 50mm f1.4 and f1.7 versions, the 70-210mm f4 beer can lens, the 100-300mm f4.5 - 5.6 APO lens, as well as several others. Any of these can be bought for a small fraction of the cost of a similar new manufacturer's lens. This enables those with small photo equipment budgets to get a much better camera and lens combination for the money, and it lets those with more money to spend be able to afford better quality peripheral equipment like tripods, flashes, camera bags, etc.

So why did I choose the Sony/Minolta combination? One major reason held sway when all factors were considered - image stabilization. So what is image stabilization? Well, it can go by several names - vibration reduction, SteadyShot, O.I.S, VC, and so on. But all of these titles refer to a process that helps make up for camera shake in low-light situations. We all know that when we hand-hold a camera using slow shutter speeds, the possibility of blurred photos is very high since we introduce movement into the photo as we hold the camera less than absolutely still. And this problem becomes far more pronounced as the focal length of the lens increases to telephoto and super-telephoto.

To counteract this, the general rule of thumb has been that you don't want to use a shutter speed that is slower than the focal length of the lens on your camera. For instance, if you are shooting with a 300mm lens, use no slower than 1/300th second shutter speed if you plan on hand-holding the camera. Of course, if you have the camera on a tripod, go as slow as you wish and if the subject is still, the photo will still be sharp. But how to deal with low light situations that require slow shutter speeds but are inconvenient for using a tripod?

For this situation, the camera and lens manufacturers came up with technology that automatically adjusts for the movement caused by hand-holding a camera, at least to some extent. In fact, image stabilization technology can allow the average person to gain 3 - 4 extra stops of exposure through slower shutter speeds and still come up with reasonably sharp photos. This means that instead of using 1/300th second with that 300mm lens, you may be able to use 1/30th second instead and still get a sharp shot. Pretty good, huh?

Once the technology became available, most manufacturers began to make lenses that had this feature built into them since it allowed them to sell those lenses for a considerable amount more than lenses without image stabilization. When this feature is built into the lens, a floating lens element is electronically controlled and shifted in the opposite direction of any camera shake recorded by the camera. Since the manufacturers can sell a lot more lenses than they can camera bodies, this made excellent financial sense for them.

However, Sony was smart when they first started making camera bodies to compete with Canon and Nikon, but didn't really have much of a line of lenses to appeal to photo enthusiasts. They chose to put image stabilization into the bodies of their cameras instead of each lens. This works by physically shifting the image sensor in the camera body to compensate for the movements introduced by hand-holding the camera.

What this accomplished is that it immediately made all of those vintage Minolta lenses without image stabilization attractive to prospective enthusiast buyers because if you buy the Canon or Nikon brand of cameras the image stabilization has to be built into each lens and not the camera body. But because of building image stabilization into the camera body itself, Sony could sell modern camera bodies right away that could utilize all of those wonderful Minolta auto-focus lenses that were already floating around on the used market.

When I realized all of this from my research into older lenses, I chose to buy the Sony A-mount brand of camera bodies to get the most for my photo equipment dollar. None of this is to say that Canon and Nikon are inferior in any way to Sony cameras. In my case, this was strictly a cost/reward decision. Even if you do not agree with my choice, this is good information to know and understand.

Which Camera Brand Should I Choose?

If you are interested in nature photography as I am, your choice of camera will most likely be a DSLR if you want to produce high quality images. Of course, a bridge camera like those made by Lumix, Canon and Nikon can satisfy the needs of those who are not very picky about the level of detail found in their photos as mentioned in my last post. But in most cases, if you really want to capture fine detail that draws the eye of the viewer into the shot, a DSLR will be the way to go in my opinion because the lenses and sensors that can capture that kind of detail are found mainly in conjunction with DSLRs.

So which camera brand is best? Well, that is a little like asking who makes the best car, computer or furniture. There are several brands of camera makers that are just fine, and a lot depends on what you intend to do with your camera, what kind of photography you are most likely to pursue, as well as your overall budget.

If you are a nature photographer though, you will want to have a wide range of lenses to choose from including everything from wide-angle to super-telephoto. This automatically restricts the choice of which brand to use since some camera brands do not sport a wide array of lenses. If you want to stick with new manufacturer lenses, the best populated lines of lenses in the DSLR world is made by either Canon or Nikon. Each brand is a fine choice and you can't go wrong going either way. There are tons of nature photographers who swear by their Canons just as there are many more that claim they will never give up their Nikons. Wading into the debate about which of these two behemoth brands is best is pointless to me. They are both great for nature photography. Just make your choice and don't look back.

However, if your photography gear budget is a modest one, let me make a suggestion that I think has worked well for me so far. The largest expense that a nature photographer will have in buying their photo equipment is in the lenses they choose. Why? The truth is that camera bodies are necessary, but nothing will impact the quality of a photo like the choice of lens that actually focuses the image on the sensor. The sharpness of the lens, the amount of light that it lets in, the avoidance of chromatic aberration and other lens issues, will have a dramatic influence over the image that you produce with your camera body. In fact, give me an ordinary camera body with a great lens any day over the most advanced camera body with a so-so lens.

So now that we realize that the lenses that we choose are going to make up the lion's share of the equipment budget, what now? Well, it is also important to recognize that wonderful lenses have been sold for many years that will still fit many of the newer camera bodies in use today. They may be used but as long as they have not been abused, there is nothing wrong with using a camera lens that has been around for many years. In fact, sometimes the older lenses can still not only hold their own with modern lenses, in many cases they can even surpass them in the images they produce.

One lens maker in particular stood out to me after I had done my research and that is Minolta. They were one of the major camera and lens manufacturers in the world just a couple of decades ago. They made some of the highest regarded lenses for the SLR and DSLR market before the company went out of business and was eventually sold to Sony. After buying the technology that Minolta possessed, Sony made the decision to keep the same lens mount used by Minolta on their last generation of lenses, the A (or Alpha) mount. This means that all of those vintage high quality lenses made by Minolta are still usable on Sony camera bodies that many are still using today.

What this means for a nature photographer today who has a limited budget but wants a full range of high quality gear in the field is that when you buy a Sony camera that features the A mount (this is important since Sony has recently added cameras that use an E mount design) you get the benefit of outfitting the camera body with a full array of wonderful lenses at incredibly low prices that will more than meet the needs found in nature and produce stunningly sharp and colorful images that the Minolta lenses were famous for. The photo at the top of this post is an example of an image made with a Sony A65 camera body and a Minolta 100-300mm APO lens.

Of course, you can also buy used Canon and Nikon lenses that will still fit on more modern camera bodies. But there is one major reason that I chose the Sony body/ Minolta lens combination and that has to do with image stabilization. But I'll save that for my next post.