PDA

View Full Version : Telephoto shots




-hh
Dec 11, 2005, 08:36 PM
Mucking around with the new toys...a red headed woodpecker in the neighbor's maple tree.

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/woodpecker-cr2.jpg


An 8% crop of the original frame, which was from a Canon 20D @ (200mm*1.4x)...pretty much just the "straight pixels" from the subject area of interest.


-hh



efoto
Dec 12, 2005, 09:12 AM
Care to share the EXIF data? I'd love to know some other settings on this cap like ISO and aperture/shutter.

Also, could you segment a 100% crop from near the bird's head/sky area? I'd love to see the noise close up.

Thanks.

iGary
Dec 12, 2005, 09:20 AM
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images/mr-bb2.jpg

If you have a flash, a Better Beamer might have helped.

efoto
Dec 12, 2005, 09:26 AM
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images/mr-bb2.jpg

If you have a flash, a Better Beamer might have helped.

Do you have a link where that could be purchased? That seems pretty sweet as far as outdoor flash accessories go.

iGary
Dec 12, 2005, 09:46 AM
http://www.naturescapes.net/store/product.php?productid=3&cat=0&bestseller

iGary
Dec 12, 2005, 09:48 AM
P.S. It's a red bellied woodpecker. ;)

-hh
Dec 12, 2005, 01:29 PM
Care to share the EXIF data? I'd love to know some other settings on this cap like ISO and aperture/shutter.

I'll see what I can do (eg, figure out where it resides).

From memory, I'm using the "P" mode (one click up from the green rectangle) and I believe that I have the ISO set to 400. It was also late afternoon, so I'd expect that it probably opened up all the way to f/4.0. No flassh.

Also, could you segment a 100% crop from near the bird's head/sky area? I'd love to see the noise close up.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here...is it that you're not able to view this 949 x 684 crop at 1:1, or that you want like a small 64x64 swatch that I can save in an absolutely non-lossy format?


-hh

-hh
Dec 12, 2005, 01:30 PM
P.S. It's a red bellied woodpecker. ;)

I'll notify the wife. I just take the pictures :)


-hh

BakedBeans
Dec 12, 2005, 01:59 PM
Really soft, and quite noisy to. You could make it a lot better with some time and talented processing but its not really a keeper in my opinion

dont mean to be harsh but its not the best.

You would have been better using the Av mode and setting it on about f5.6, here was plenty of light.

iGary
Dec 12, 2005, 02:07 PM
Really soft, and quite noisy to. You could make it a lot better with some time and talented processing but its not really a keeper in my opinion

dont mean to be harsh but its not the best.

You would have been better using the Av mode and setting it on about f5.6, here was plenty of light.

Easy....geebus.

BakedBeans
Dec 12, 2005, 02:33 PM
Easy....geebus.

I didnt mean it to be offensive, but it does the photographer no good to be given the 'nice shot' treatment. its just one click of the shutter that im 'insulting' not the person that took it.

-hh
Dec 12, 2005, 02:40 PM
Really soft, and quite noisy to. You could make it a lot better with some time and talented processing but its not really a keeper in my opinion

dont mean to be harsh but its not the best.

You would have been better using the Av mode and setting it on about f5.6, here was plenty of light.

It sounds like that since you mention both softness noise, stopping down to f/5.6 should have taken off some of the softness, and dropping from ISO 400 to 200 (or 100) should serve to reduce the noice....correct?

I'll have to check the EXIF data to see if there was 2-3 stops worth of shutter speed available or not. Since this was handheld, I suspect that there's another trade-off in the making...

FWIW, the image is un-retouched ... no autobalancing or sharpening. I've briefly looked at PShop's "Auto-Levels", and while it destroys the blue overcase, it unacceptably blows out all details in the white sunlit throat.

I also know that I'm having some challenges getting used to the logic of the 20D's autofocus system...the half dozen dots that choose themselves in mysterious ways :-). I'm sure that much of this is probably that I was quite accustomed to the Elan's eye sensor system for control point selection.


-hh

BakedBeans
Dec 12, 2005, 03:01 PM
It sounds like that since you mention both softness noise, stopping down to f/5.6 should have taken off some of the softness, and dropping from ISO 400 to 200 (or 100) should serve to reduce the noice....correct?

I wasnt there but i would say iso100 with f5.6 (Av mode) would have been hand holdable, 200 would be fine too, would have been tack sharp (what lens you using)


I'll have to check the EXIF data to see if there was 2-3 stops worth of shutter speed available or not.

file>info>advanced then search for the exif :)

I also know that I'm having some challenges getting used to the logic of the 20D's autofocus system...the half dozen dots that choose themselves in mysterious ways :-).

personally i scrap all of those and just use the center focus point.... nice and accurate.

I'm sure that much of this is probably that I was quite accustomed to the Elan's eye sensor system for control point selection.

its half the 'fun' :p

best of luck

efoto
Dec 12, 2005, 03:06 PM
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here...is it that you're not able to view this 949 x 684 crop at 1:1, or that you want like a small 64x64 swatch that I can save in an absolutely non-lossy format?

-hh

I can view your 949x684 crop fine, that's not an issue. You said it was an 8% crop of the overall image....I was getting at taking the image to 100% (taking out composition and 'feel') and posting a 100x100 crop taken from the 100% native image to show details of the noise. The reason I requested that is because I have the same camera but it's too bloody cold to venture outside for me right now :p, and I'm just curious what settings produced what amount of noise (basically wanting your image as a test ;) ).

I also know that I'm having some challenges getting used to the logic of the 20D's autofocus system...the half dozen dots that choose themselves in mysterious ways :-).

I also scrap the area-focus and just use the center point and shift the frame where I need to. If I want that bird in focus but not centered, just half-hold on the bird and shift it in the frame....that way the camera keeps its focus point at the depth of the bird but you can compose at will :), and it seems much more accurate in this method than trying to figure out what/how the camera is selecting points (as I have no idea and have since given up on letting it do anything on its own :p)

-hh
Dec 12, 2005, 03:09 PM
I didnt mean it to be offensive, but it does the photographer no good to be given the 'nice shot' treatment. its just one click of the shutter that im 'insulting' not the person that took it.

I know that I'm still learning on this gear - - both its limitations as well as my own. As an initial run, I'd say that I'm "pleased" with the results, primarily because my measuring stick is that it is better than prior similar attempts.

For example, here's another telephoto shot I've mentioned before (different gear):

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2004/peru/SV_cock-of-the-rock_c2_(24_0445).jpg

IMO, this shot is materially worse. Insofar as to specifically why, from a workflow perspective, it was a crop taken from a basic ("camera store quality") 6MP JPEG scan from the film original...and that happened to be on ISO 400 film, so there's a couple of loss opportunities. Next, it was an "under canopy" handheld available light shot with Canon's "old style" 75-300 IS lens, which is known to be soft at the long end even when strongly stopped down. Overall, it serves as an illustration of that systems' performance limitations.

For either, using a monopod or tripod probably would have helped, but sometimes, its just not in the cards to always be able to carry such accessories, or even if one has them, the opportunity window given to you by the subject may not be present either. For the most part, I'm trying to configure to get respectable shots while handheld and available light.


-hh

-hh
Dec 12, 2005, 03:18 PM
I wasnt there but i would say iso100 with f5.6 (Av mode) would have been hand holdable, 200 would be fine too, would have been tack sharp (what lens you using)

The equipment was a Canon 20D with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 1.4x teleconverter, which stacks to the 35mm equivalent of ~450mm.

Using the old 1/(lens length) rule of thumb, that would suggest a minimum shutter speed of 1/500sec before the IS is applied. Giving the IS two stops worth of credit would slow down the minimum acceptable to 1/125sec.

Hopefully, I'll post what the actual shutter speed was when I get home tonight and find the EXIF data.


(focusing)
personally i scrap all of those and just use the center focus point.... nice and accurate.

I've already found that control button.


-hh

BakedBeans
Dec 12, 2005, 03:31 PM
that rule of thumb doesnt apply when your talking about 1.6 crop factors (although gets even more complicated with IS)

you wanted a shallow DOF to single out the bird and a nice fast shutter to freeze any movement.

-hh
Dec 12, 2005, 03:33 PM
I can view your 949x684 crop fine, that's not an issue. You said it was an 8% crop of the overall image...

This is probably me being bad with nomenclature.

If I have an image and I halve each dimension (for example, an 800 x 600 is taken down to 400 x 300), I now have 25% of the original starting area. What "percentage" crop is this normally referred to as?

FWIW, my "8%" was based on 949*684 = 649,116 pixels, which is roughly 8% of the pixel area of the full frame image on a 20D (3504*2336 =8,185,344).

I was getting at taking the image to 100% (taking out composition and 'feel') and posting a 100x100 crop taken from the 100% native image to show details of the noise.

A crop to 100 x 100 pixels. Okay, can do.


I'm just curious what settings produced what amount of noise (basically wanting your image as a test ;) ).

Understood; it sounds like a desire for a quick controlled test of same subject, same crop, vary the ISO. I don't know if I'll get a chance soon to get to this, but its of interest to me too, so I'll give it a try.


-hh

efoto
Dec 12, 2005, 05:17 PM
This is probably me being bad with nomenclature.

If I have an image and I halve each dimension (for example, an 800 x 600 is taken down to 400 x 300), I now have 25% of the original starting area. What "percentage" crop is this normally referred to as?

FWIW, my "8%" was based on 949*684 = 649,116 pixels, which is roughly 8% of the pixel area of the full frame image on a 20D (3504*2336 =8,185,344).

A crop to 100 x 100 pixels. Okay, can do.

Understood; it sounds like a desire for a quick controlled test of same subject, same crop, vary the ISO. I don't know if I'll get a chance soon to get to this, but its of interest to me too, so I'll give it a try.

-hh

I think your "% crop" is an accurate amount based off of the calculation. In common speech I understand a 100% crop to be a given size crop (say 100x100 pixels, or 223x132 or whatever) of a given image starting at 100% magnification. The reason I said 100% is because if you crop the image at 50% it is already going to look loads better than at 100%, especially if the thing we are looking for is noise, as smaller images/prints show much fewer characteristics of noise.

I didn't actually mean take the same picture again at different ISO levels, just this image....small sized crop at 100% around the sky/bird's head to show the noise severity/grain. No hurries though ;) ;)

-hh
Dec 12, 2005, 09:01 PM
I didn't actually mean take the same picture again at different ISO levels, just this image....small sized crop at 100% around the sky/bird's head to show the noise severity/grain. No hurries though ;) ;)

Okay, understood.

Here's a 100x100 at 100%; its a TIFF, so no JPG issues here:

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/100x100(D0166).tif

Also for reference, here's a representation of the full frame that was all that the optics did...

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/ff-woodpecker(D0166).jpg


-hh

-hh
Dec 12, 2005, 09:05 PM
Forgot the EXIF data...

here it is:

Shutter: 1/640sec
Aperture: f/6.3
Focal Length: 280mm (ie, 200*1.4x)
ISO Speed: 400


Overall, a slightly faster shutter and smaller aperture than I was expecting it to have been. Looking at the timestamp, it was ~3:15pm, so it was around an hour before local sunset.


-hh

BakedBeans
Dec 13, 2005, 01:24 AM
Forgot the EXIF data...

here it is:

Shutter: 1/640sec
Aperture: f/6.3
Focal Length: 280mm (ie, 200*1.4x)
ISO Speed: 400


Overall, a slightly faster shutter and smaller aperture than I was expecting it to have been. Looking at the timestamp, it was ~3:15pm, so it was around an hour before local sunset.


-hh


its so much easier seeing the uncropped version and the exif... i didnt realise it was such a huge crop!

only thing you needed to change really was the focal length (even though i think y ou were zoomed straight out) - it wouldnt be so soft on the crop if you had used the center focus point and zoomed tighter to the bird, aimed the center point at the birds eye/beak area.

would have looked really good. the best thing about this images is that you can learn from it.

-hh
Dec 13, 2005, 06:33 AM
its so much easier seeing the uncropped version and the exif... i didnt realise it was such a huge crop!

Agreed. Instead of just saying "to 8%" (sic), a thumbnail would have been helpful.

only thing you needed to change really was the focal length (even though i think y ou were zoomed straight out) - it wouldnt be so soft on the crop if you had used the center focus point and zoomed tighter to the bird, aimed the center point at the birds eye/beak area.

I was already at maximum focal length (full zoom...the EXIF data confirms this), so no more room there to go in any further..but I really would like to have a Canon EF 400mm DO IS f/4 Think you can have it to me by Christmas? :)

I also had composed the bird in the middle to prevent any glass edge effects, since I knew that I'd later be cropping in and thus had room on all sides for composure.

The only thing not done here was to go to a single focus point, so as to maximize the odds of getting the focus distance plane exactly where desired (which I agree should be the subject's eye).




-hh

efoto
Dec 13, 2005, 09:22 AM
Okay, understood.

Here's a 100x100 at 100%; its a TIFF, so no JPG issues here:

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/100x100(D0166).tif

Also for reference, here's a representation of the full frame that was all that the optics did...

[img]http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/ff-woodpecker(D0166).jpg[img]

-hh

Excellent, the image looks much better now since it isn't so blown up. I realize why you cropped, but for that image it was apparently a bit too close which resulted in a little more noise than is optically pleasurable (what you can swing past the eye :p). Nice shoot though, that full-frame really brings into perspective where you were and what you were shooting. The first posted image is almost too close in my opinion, regardless of the noise issues.

efoto
Dec 13, 2005, 09:25 AM
its so much easier seeing the uncropped version and the exif... i didnt realise it was such a huge crop!

only thing you needed to change really was the focal length (even though i think y ou were zoomed straight out) - it wouldnt be so soft on the crop if you had used the center focus point and zoomed tighter to the bird, aimed the center point at the birds eye/beak area.

would have looked really good. the best thing about this images is that you can learn from it.

He was already all the way out at 200 w/ the 1.4xTC.....his only zoom remaining was by foot and based on a deck, or the snow, that may have been out of the question without startling the bird.

I agree on the center focus point, but other than that a crop that massive is bound to be a bit soft regardless of nailing the eye. That is a large crop, pulled way in and although nailing the focal point would have helped, I still think at that crop it would look a little soft. Having a tripod and stopping down the aperture may have helped, but then having to setup all that would have ruining the "impulse" of the shot and probably have forced him to miss the bird completely.

-hh
Dec 13, 2005, 10:02 AM
He was already all the way out at 200 w/ the 1.4xTC.....his only zoom remaining was by foot...

IIRC, I was already shooting up at something approaching a 45 degree angle, so walking in wouldn't have gained all that much. The alternative I prefer is for BakedBeans to buy me a 400mm DO IS f/4 for Christmas! :D I'll even fly over to UK to pick it up :p

Having a tripod and stopping down the aperture may have helped, but then having to setup all that would have ruining the "impulse" of the shot and probably have forced him to miss the bird completely.

It wouldn't have hurt, athough you're right about the "impulse" aspect to a degree: we've seen this particular bird in our neighbor's tree now a couple of times, so it looks like we could probably eventually coincide his visit with being ready with the gear on a tripod, ready to carry out into the sideyard and start shooting.

In looking over what the Pro's tend to do, they'll typically have a 400-500mm lens on a hefty tripod with a good ball, and be sitting in a blind for several hours. I did a 3-4 hour sit in a large floating blind with just my 75-300mm in the Amazon last year (Manu's Macaw Clay Lick (http://www.manuexpeditions.com/manu-wildlife-center-macaw-lick.htm)) and while its interesting the first time you do it, its several hours of quiet time keeping your eyes open watching for action, which most people will quickly find boring. Personally, I'd rather have a lighter system that allows me to enjoy myself dayhiking, but with enough reach to get a decent shot if we encounter anything particularly interesting that's worth a short stop & observe.


-hh

efoto
Dec 13, 2005, 10:35 AM
IIRC, I was already shooting up at something approaching a 45 degree angle, so walking in wouldn't have gained all that much. The alternative I prefer is for BakedBeans to buy me a 400mm DO IS f/4 for Christmas! :D I'll even fly over to UK to pick it up :p

You can keep dreaming, something tells me you won't be seeing that for Xmas though :p

It wouldn't have hurt, athough you're right about the "impulse" aspect to a degree: we've seen this particular bird in our neighbor's tree now a couple of times, so it looks like we could probably eventually coincide his visit with being ready with the gear on a tripod, ready to carry out into the sideyard and start shooting.

If you have a tripod and things already, just have the legs set and buy a cheap quick-release system if you haven't already. That way you can have the camera wherever and just lock it in to the pod when you see something you like ;)

In looking over what the Pro's tend to do, they'll typically have a 400-500mm lens on a hefty tripod with a good ball, and be sitting in a blind for several hours. I did a 3-4 hour sit in a large floating blind with just my 75-300mm in the Amazon last year (Manu's Macaw Clay Lick (http://www.manuexpeditions.com/manu-wildlife-center-macaw-lick.htm)) and while its interesting the first time you do it, its several hours of quiet time keeping your eyes open watching for action, which most people will quickly find boring. Personally, I'd rather have a lighter system that allows me to enjoy myself dayhiking, but with enough reach to get a decent shot if we encounter anything particularly interesting that's worth a short stop & observe.

Thanks for that link, interesting stuff. How was that trip? I think I would enjoy doing something like that sometime....having a 120-300 zoom with a 1.4x would be nice for that sort of thing I think.

-hh
Dec 13, 2005, 12:11 PM
You can keep dreaming, something tells me you won't be seeing that for Xmas though :p

...if you never ask... :)

If you have a tripod and things already, just have the legs set and buy a cheap quick-release system if you haven't already...

The hardware to do that is already available. What's lacking is the time during daylight hours.

Thanks for that link, interesting stuff. How was that trip? I think I would enjoy doing something like that sometime....having a 120-300 zoom with a 1.4x would be nice for that sort of thing I think.

Interestingly, it wasn't a "wow"...it took awhile for us to really appreciate it afterwords. The interesting thing about the Amazon jungle is that the reason for its biodiversity is because it is a resource-poor environment, so competition is intense: pragmatically, stuff has to specialize to within a niche to have enough food/browse survive. The net result of that is that the larger the critter is, the more square miles of browse he needs to survive/thrive, so it becomes very easy to wander for literally miles and miles and see nothing (because the "local" troop of XYZ monkees happen to be ~20 miles that way for this month). Overall, if one's perception of "jungle" is the 1950's Hollywood Tarzan movie where the bush has a large mammal every 25 feet, you will be very much disappointed.

Thus said, from a photographic perspective, my lessons learned were:

1) BUGS! They're the stuff that you'll find pretty frequently in your walks under the canopy. There's all sorts of wierd stuff, as well as various types of plant life (including a walking tree), colorful fungi, etc. Be prepared for shooting macro work; watch your lens's minimum focus distance.

2) Triple Canopy. Off the rivers, it is dang dark on the rainforest floor, even at high noon (and sunset makes it very dark very quick). Expect to be shooting natural light at ISO 400, and those bugs will need a strobe.

3) Rain protection. Its called a 'rain forest' for a reason. We were generally lucky, but we did have one ~3 hour night hike back from a blind in steady rain. Buy Gore-Tex quality raingear and plan on wearing it a lot. Make sure to sort out how your photo gear is going to be protected/covered, for at least 3-4 hours of walking/standing in non-trivial rain. Also think about & experiment with what you're going to do if you want to photo something while standing/sitting outside in the rain, too, and have a heavy-duty anti-dessicant insert in your camera bag. BTW, add a "ditto" here for having good footgear. You'll want to have a well-broken in pair of trusty Gore-Tex boots. Avoid those that have soles that are slippery over wet tree roots. Also take along one or two collapsable hiking poles too...they improve stability in wet conditions too.

4) Bigger critters: expect to get skunked, for reasons previously mentioned about habitat. Oh well...there's always the next trip.

5) Travel logistics: non-trivial. Expect your baggage allowance to be very limited. For example, we were allowed only one checked bag, and it was not to exceed 20lbs(!). They tolerated a "small" carry-on...figure something around 8"x12"x5" in size, which for me was a medium sized daypack that I used to hold all my camera gear, plus my rain gear. Unless you know how to make special prior arrangements, transporting "big glass" is a challenge. While we were in camp, another guest arrived with a heafty 500mm lens...I have no idea how he was able to transport it there.

6) Telephoto distances...its 150ft straight up to the tree tops, and the more colorful birds don't generally come much lower. The standoff distances will usually be equal to or greater than the distance that I had with this woodpecker, so 300mm worth of reach isn't really enough...a 300mm with a 1.4x and/or with the APS CMOS 1.6x magnifiation is better. Overall, I can very much understand why that other guest brought a 500mm lens...as well as younger family members to carry it around for him. I'd probably see what I could do about getting a 400mm and adding a 1.4x to it on top of the 20D's 1.6x.

7) Wildlife viewing Blinds. They come in three types: pontoon boat (covered or uncovered), treetop, and big raised platform.

Pontoon (covered): you'll get there via the typical powered "narrow 30ft canoe" river transportation (note: the rivers currents are generally wicked fast and deep; always wear your life jacket and don't have your gear tethered to you unless its only a couple of ounces), and then do a boat-to-boat transit. Once onboard, there's chairs next to a "desk" like tabletop to set up a tabletop tripod on, as well as room to get up, walk around, etc. The cover will keep you dry from rain. The covered pontoon probably won't move that much, if at all: some have cable systems that allow it to traverse the width of the river so as to creep up to the clay lick cliffs that will always be on the outer bank.

Pontoon (open): after a river ride, you'll disembark & walk back to an oxbow lake, then board the pontoon boat, where each person will get a 3" tall folding beach chair to sit in. Camera bag betwen the knees, or to your side works OK. Not really all that suitable for a tripod, although I'm sure that some people probably do so. You'll be exposed to the weather as the staff navigates the pontoon boat the length of the oxbow lake and back.

Treetop platforms - they're another 0.5-1 mile walk-in to a big tree with a semi-freestanding 100-130ft tall metal staircases next to it. The staircases come in three varieties: "tipsy", "not as bad as the last one", and "Worse than the last one". Expect a white-knuckle climb. Photo Gear that is free to swing at all will probably make this an even less pleasant experience. At the top, you'll be on a platform built onto the tree, so it will be signifiantly more stable than the staircase was. Topside is suitable for a tripod.

Big Raised Platform - we encountered this for a Taper clay lick. Ours was a 2-3 hour hike in, to a huge wooden structure built a big "T" formation, with the top of the "T" facing the lick, giving everyone a "front row" view from around 30ft above the ground. This viewing area is dry under a covered roof, so its dry, and it is set up for a long night watch: each viewer has their own viewing area with a mattress on the deck, that's covered with a mosquito net. You hike to the blind before sunset, eat dinner at the blind & then nap until (if!) the Tapers arrive. A tripod is a must, since your lighting is limited to just a red spotlight controlled by your guide - - no strobes allowed. Probably no more than a 200mm telephoto is required. Also note that the return hike to camp will always be in the dark, so bring a flashlight that has at least 3-4 hours of good burntime (LCD's).

8) More travel logistics. In general, when going to difficult-to-get-to destinations, the travel & transit costs can eat you alive, not only in cost, but also in time. As such, do seriously consider spending more days in the region so as to amortize your time/cost investment over more actual vacation (vs travel) days. For example, we took 17 days off for our Peru trip, and we spent at least 6 of that purely in-transit, so it really was only an "11 day" vacation, counting rest days between various segments.

For example, after the jungle, we had another week, with which we proceeded to Cuzco to altitude-accilimate and onto the "easy" (25 mile instead of 40 mile) 3.5 day/night hike along the Inca Trail to Machu Picchu. Again, the "checked" baggage weight limit here was 20lbs...everything else went on your own back; my pack consisted of camera gear, raingear/jacket, lunch, film and 2 liters of water weighed out at 20lbs, so while I had a tripod with us on the trip, it was too much additional weight, so didn't go along with us on the trail.


-hh

-hh
Dec 13, 2005, 12:15 PM
I wasn't clear on this, but the short answer to the "would you do it again?" question is: 'Yes, but not so soon'.

I've not been to Africa yet, so I'll want to do that and probably some other "firsts" before really considering going back to places to do derivatives. There's also some box canyons in Arizona calling, as well as Yosemite...


-hh

efoto
Dec 13, 2005, 01:41 PM
Post #28 ^^

Best




Answer




To a simple question




EVAR! :)

That is probably the single most informative post I've ever read, anywhere, on the entire Al Gore blessed internet! Thanks.

-hh
Dec 13, 2005, 02:36 PM
That is probably the single most informative post I've ever read, anywhere, on the entire Al Gore blessed internet! Thanks.

My pleasure. I have some free time (theoretically) soon, so perhaps I'll find the time to add this to my first draft day-by-day written journal of this trip.

And in re-reading through #28, a point of clarification: there weren't significant airline baggage restrictions on the jet flights from the USA to Peru, or within Peru (Lima to Cuzco). The restriction I was referring to was for the flight from Cuzco to the Amazon, which was on a Cessna Grand Caravan (http://www.aerocondor.com.pe/ing/flota/caravan.jpg), which is the biggest single-prop aircraft I've ever seen...it was like an 18 seater and had an unpressurized cabin.


-hh