[tim60]

In litigation, I've had to go back through land records hundreds of years old. The thing I find amusing is how perplexed surveyors get when trying to figure out distances and area, trying to convert from ancient deeds to the "total station" approach. The problem is that the chains were laid on the ground, so every hill and dimple increased the distance measured, while laser based rangefinders are measuring a straight line through the air, point to point, resulting in a shorter measurement. The reason it confuses them is that there's no way to make the conversion mathematically, since every measurement in the old system conforms to the land surface being measured, and no two are alike. You have to actually to to the site and lay a measuring tape on the ground to figure out what the old deeds are saying. Assuming, of course, that the "sweet gum tree", "large hickory bush" or "stone" still exists, let along in the same location.

And whether anyone has done any kind of earthworks changing the profile.

[WPRESTO]

Thanks, guys!One need both... a long prime and a long zoom DFA 150-450

All of those are nice. If I had to pick one it would be the fourth with a blue back ground.

---------- Post added 02-15-19 at 08:11 AM ----------

In litigation, I've had to go back through land records hundreds of years old. The thing I find amusing is how perplexed surveyors get when trying to figure out distances and area, trying to convert from ancient deeds to the "total station" approach. The problem is that the chains were laid on the ground, so every hill and dimple increased the distance measured, while laser based rangefinders are measuring a straight line through the air, point to point, resulting in a shorter measurement. The reason it confuses them is that there's no way to make the conversion mathematically, since every measurement in the old system conforms to the land surface being measured, and no two are alike. You have to actually to to the site and lay a measuring tape on the ground to figure out what the old deeds are saying. Assuming, of course, that the "sweet gum tree", "large hickory bush" or "stone" still exists, let along in the same location.

Obviously you've worked in the eastern USA where the ancient system of metes and bounds was used. Much easier once surveyors got into the west and starting using township-range-section.

[str8talk83]

[garywakeling]

Hi, I have been playing with the F* 300mm f4.5 this month in the Single in challenge here is one from yesterday



I think it is one of those lenses where everything came together for a sweet little gem, sure it's not f2.8 but everything else works together for making photos.

[jacamar]

Str8talk83 I suspect you have been hanging out in Cape Coral as we did last year, but I didn't get Burrowing Owl shots as good as those.

Some Falklands wildfowl - mostly very tame and hard to keep all in focus in full-frame shots. K-3, DA* 300mm (I didn't get to use the TC very often on that trip)

Crested Duck



Female Kelp Goose (the male is all white - hard to get an interesting shot)



Ruddy-headed Geese



Speckled Teal



Young Steamer Ducks (there's a bit of confusion as to whether the flying and flightless ones are the same species)

[alfa75ts]

Well, some luck today. (K3, DA*30, Tamron-F 1.4 TC)

Wedge-tailed Eagle:




Australian Reed-warbler:


Golden-headed Cisticola (sis-tic-oh-la):

[Des]

Golden-headed Cisticola (sis-tic-oh-la)

Nice series Craig. There's another species called Zitting Cisticola which, as Sean Dooley says, sounds like something nasty and contagious.

Regarding the British units of measurement discussion, one that is permanently embedded (even in now-metric countries) is the chain (22 yards) as the length of a cricket pitch.

[monochrome]

Dig it. I often tell folks, "If I could do arithmetic, I wouldn't have had to have become an attorney."

I do math.

Well - these days I use tools that have the math built into them. I don’t actually do the math any more.

But I did math.

[zzeitg]

All of those are nice. If I had to pick one it would be the fourth with a blue back ground.

Thanks, WPRESTO.

DFA 150-450

[tduell]

Well, some luck today. (K3, DA*30, Tamron-F 1.4 TC)

Hello Craig,
I'm thinking the first is an Australian Reed Warbler, not a Cisticola.

Cheers,
Terry

[alfa75ts]

I'm thinking the first is an Australian Reed Warbler, not a Cisticola.

And you'd be right!

Same habitat, same behavior (different voice, but I didn't hear it) and never seen (or perhaps 'noticed' is a better word) one before.

I did 'notice' and hear one today. One of the other guys identified it as a Warbler.

[robtcorl]

The problem is that the chains were laid on the ground, so every hill and dimple increased the distance measured,

I'm not disputing that this was done, we used plumb bobs and hand levels to insure level measuring.
In our area we were often surprised at the accuracy of early surveys made with compass and chain.

[tduell]

Rainbow Lorikeet.
K-1, DFA 150-450, handheld. See exif for shot details.

Cheers,
Terry

I was out, testing the limits of the new pentax 560mm yesterday - this is the crest of the Blue Ridge Mts. w/snowy patches & rocks, miles away from where I was standing. Don't know how many miles, I'd estimate five or six, but from my location, individual trees could not be distinguished by eyeball. Decided I don't like the CP filter it comes with - rotation has almost no effect, and it's pretty dark. As the lens is also limited to an f/5.6 maximum aperture, and this having been a cloudy day, it was a pain to have to compensate. Also, I think it messes up the autofocus - it was consistently focusing a bit in front of the subject (appeared to be like a couple of feet, but everything I was photographing was so far away, I couldn't be sure - I just know it was wrong). Got a big UV filter on the objective (112 mm) mainly to protect the lens (I know, lots of folks don't like that method - but this one's a Chiaro 99% transmissibility factor) so I'm just not sticking any more filters in the holder gizmo in the back of the lens. Still getting used to the thing, but one thing I've observed - my practice has generally to use the widest aperture I could given the subject. That doesn't work well with a lens like this - too shallow a depth of field is a problem if you're trying to take a picture of a calve's eyes at a half-mile and the picture is only clear along the side of his body or two feet in front of his nose (example below). Wonder if there's an "idiot's guide to using long lenses" book out there?

[pentaxfall]

K1 + 150-450mm. Place is BR hills, India