Wildlife & some sports photography - long term lens decisions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djzuk

But I feel that it's quite infrequent where 10mp is not enough. Especially in the case of wildlife and maybe sports photography, which was my original theme of this thread.

---

Wrong. Especially in wildlife photography a goal is to get as many pixels per animal. It's a priority and 10mp cameras would be at a serious disadvantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Wrong. Especially in wildlife photography a goal is to get as many pixels per animal. It's a priority and 10mp cameras would be at a serious disadvantage.

---

I wouldn't say that's a main goal for wildlife photography. The goal is to photograph the animal with good composition that tells a story. I understand and honor your point of view, but I believe that, unless you are focal-length-limited and like to crop, 10mp is perfectly sufficient for a professional wildlife photographer. As I said before, Moose Peterson uses cameras with 12mp for everything he does. Instead of cropping later, he composes for the shot he wants in camera. Wildlife photography doesn't mean filling the frame completely with nothing but the animal.


Please forgive me if I took your statement in a way you didn't mean it.


Thanks,
Derrick

I'm sorry but "Wrong. Especially in wildlife photography a goal is to get as many pixels per animal." is not at all accurate. I have a 7D (as I believe you do bburns) and it is an 18MP camera. 18MP is great because you can make huge prints, but does one really need to? 90% of non-studio photographers probably don't make prints any larger than a very small poster. 10-12MP is fine for that. Above 12MP and you really need to start making HUGE posters, advertisements, murals, etc to take advantage of the MP size. Now sure, it offers you the ability to crop, which is always handy. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, more MP is always better. But usually with more MP, other things AREN'T always equal. For instance it puts more noise on the sensor, lower frames per sec etc... I love my 7D and I love taking 18MP landscapes, but really, a 10MP PRO all weather-sealed camera that can shoot 10 frames a sec and has amazing focus and metering really IS a good camera - plain and simple. The 7D has a great AF system too though, and this entire debate isn't simple, I agree it's tough to choose between them. I just want to point out that "more MP the better" isn't something that's a "priority" at all really.


Hope you don't think I'm a jerk but I really want to share my viewpoint and I think the viewpoint of many others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djzuk

But I feel that it's quite infrequent where 10mp is not enough. Especially in the case of wildlife and maybe sports photography, which was my original theme of this thread.

---

Brendan has a point. For wildlife, you often want to fill a substantial part of your frame with the subject. There are a several ways to achieve that:

1. Get physically close. Getting really close to the wildlife is possible in some circumstances (I've been literally 3 feet from mountain gorillas in Rwanda), but not many. Wildlife is wild!
2. Get optically close. Use a really long lens (Moose Peterson uses a 600mm f/4 VR lens - he calls it 'essential for wildlife photographers') - the Nikon version of that lens will run you >$10K, the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS is just over $8K. 12 megapixels are fine for Moose Peterson, since he has a 600mm lens.
3. Crop. Unless you're willing to shell out >$8K on the lens, using a shorter lens and cropping the resulting is the only 'real' option for most people who want to shoot wildlife.

Most times, images are cropped by at least 50%. If you must crop, you generally need more megapixels. Now, if you are only planning on viewing your images on your computer or printing them at 8x10" or smaller, the 4-6 megapixels you'll have left after cropping your 10 megapixel 1DIII image will be fine. But at the beginning of this thread on choosing a lens for wildlife, you didn't list a 600mm ("essential for wildlife") lens among your choices. So if you want to 'get close' without actually getting physically or optically close, you're likely going to be cropping them - which means you'll benefit from the additional pixels of a newer camera body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djzuk

As I said before, Moose Peterson uses cameras with 12mp for everything he does. Instead of cropping later, he composes for the shot he wants in camera.

---

Exactly. For wildlife, he can do this primarily because he has a 600mm lens.

Nice verdict John (neuroanatomist)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

That was meant only to be a joke as the smilley indicated. Resoution is important. You would be verystuck upabout a 1 series to trully believe that.


For me I do not print and it's is purely a hobby for me, and I had a XTi for a long time as was happy with the resolution. I would rather have reliability, weather sealing, a little faster frame rate and other extras the 1D III has.


John.

---

We know "other John" [:D] I just had to make you pay for such a statement [:P] Just messing around, that's what I do [;)]


While we're there, just out of curiosity: what is your idea of a true photographer? As English isn't my main-language my choice of lines isn't always good to say what I want to say, but here's my guess: a true photographer = someone who loves his hobby/work regardless of what he/she uses to get to his/her goals?


And to get back on topic Derrick [;)] for outdoorsports I would go with the reasonable priced 70-200 f4L, I shot a lot of sports with it and it does the job pretty good.


For wildlife I would consider more reach than a 300mm if in my case you already had the 70-200. A 100-400 is a very nice tool, I used it recently and it is a very nice, but also big lens. But I guess all long focal length lenses are big. Or you should consider a prime like 400mm or bigger.


To get 1 lens for both purposes I think you should get a 300mm f2.8 or f4 with extender. But I have to say that the versatility of a zoom is a real big advantage while shooting sports. And personally I think it is also a big advantage for wildlife.


Good luck!


Jan

I completely agree with you neuroanatomist.


Moose Peterson does have a 600mm lens, but I believe the only area of wildlife photography where he uses that lens frequently is bird photography. For just about everything else, he says he mostly uses the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR and the 200mm f/2 VR. Bird photography isn't top on my priorities.


However, since it is essential in some cases, the 600mm has gone into my list of future lens options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Most times, images are cropped by at least 50%. If you must crop, you generally need more megapixels. Now, if you are only planning on viewing your images on your computer or printing them at 8x10" or smaller, the 4-6 megapixels you'll have left after cropping your 10 megapixel 1DIII image will be fine. But at the beginning of this thread on choosing a lens for wildlife, you didn't list a 600mm ("essential for wildlife") lens among your choices. So if you want to 'get close' without actually getting physically or optically close, you're likely going to be cropping them - which means you'll benefit from the additional pixels of a newer camera body.

---

I believe that I will attempt to follow Moose Peterson's example by not cropping any wildlife photos. I think the challenge will teach me to become a better photographer. And if I do end up becoming a professional, I can justify the price of one of the super-telephoto lenses to help fill the frame. And probably a 1D Mark IV too, so I guess we're wasting our breath here. [;)]


Thanks for all of your input,
Derrick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

And to get back on topic Derrick [img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img] for outdoorsports I would go with the reasonable priced 70-200 f4L, I shot a lot of sports with it and it does the job pretty good.


For wildlife I would consider more reach than a 300mm if in my case you already had the 70-200. A 100-400 is a very nice tool, I used it recently and it is a very nice, but also big lens. But I guess all long focal length lenses are big. Or you should consider a prime like 400mm or bigger.


To get 1 lens for both purposes I think you should get a 300mm f2.8 or f4 with extender. But I have to say that the versatility of a zoom is a real big advantage while shooting sports. And personally I think it is also a big advantage for wildlife.


Good luck!


Jan

---

Thanks for your input (and for helping this get back on topic [;)]). I have used the 70-200 f4L for sports on a few occasions (borrowing it from my dad), and it did quite well. As it got further into evening it didn't do so hot, especially on my 20D (ISO 3200 is quite noisy [:)]). But a very good lens for daytime. I believe I've decided on this and the 400 prime for my starting kit.


So I'm unofficially closing the thread. You may continue to debate and add suggestions in here if you wish, but I'm not going to respond anymore. Thank you all so much for your input! It's been very helpful. Now it's time to save up some money. [;)]


Thanks,
Derrick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djzuk

70-200 f4L for sports ...a very good lens for daytime. I believe I've decided on this and the 400 prime for my starting kit.

---

Derrick, that combination sounds like a very versatile and useful kit! I think you'll be very happy with that setup. [:)]

+1[Y] Good luck mate!

My defintion of a true photographer is a person that does not have a car, house, and spends all his money on gear:) Actually a person that tryies to get the best possible shot for a given situation. While not compramising on IQ, as long as he can help it, and as long he can afford it.:)

John.

I *need* my house... to keep my lenses in.


I *need* my car... to get me to the stuff I want to photograph.


But then, I never claimed to be a real photographer...

Thanks John, I guess I can live with that [:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

I *need* my house... to keep my lenses in.


I *need* my car... to get me to the stuff I want to photograph.


But then, I never claimed to be a real photographer...

---

Thanks for saying it yourself [;)]I just read your bio and I quote:



<h4 class="CommonContentBoxHeader"]"My Bio</h4>
<div class="CommonContentBoxContent"]


I like to take pictures."


Haha superb!That's the best definition of a true photographer I can think of![:D]


Jon, you're probably a very humble pro photographer whose photos overrule mine by a mile and a half no matter what [8-|] but I like that [Y] Also just a a hint if you want to grow ^^: you could also live and store your lenses in a tent and ride a bicycle instead of a car to go to the spots you want and spend the remaining cash on some more photography-equipment [A]
</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djzuk

I wouldn't say that's a main goal for wildlife photography.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djzuk

10mp is perfectly sufficient for a professional wildlife photographer.

---

The idea of "pixels per bird" is very important. Check Arthur Morris and Markus Jais, they'll second that. In wildlife photography you want the most detail per animal possible, and be able to crop and resize without worry. (Where's Daniel Browning to explain this when we need him!) And pixel density doesn't prevent you from using good composition or telling a story. But it does help, and megapixels DO matter a good amount.


Jordan, I don't think you're a jerk (of course) and this is a very controversial topic as far as photography goes. But I can say for myself (and pros believe the same) that cameras with higher MP counts can lay down more detail per animal and facilitate post-processing. In short, wildlife photographers need as many pixels per animal as they can get. Well, there is a limit to what's reasonable, but at the end of the day an 18mp camera like the Canon 7D has a big advantage over a 12mp camera like Nikon's D300s.


Moose Peterson may use 12mp, but I'm sure he'd agree that a camera with more pixel density can be helpful.


my 2&cent;


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

I like to take pictures."


Haha superb!That's the best definition of a true photographer I can think of![img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]

---

If that's the definition, then I'm a photographer. I love taking pictures. But unlike others on this forum, I'm not an artist or a professional.