I;ll start by saying that I don't have a flash yet,but can anyone tell me if you can use a canon 580ex ll for wildlife photography attached to a canon 40d + canon 100-400?
is this how the great wildlife shots are made? using a flash?
thank you
Printable View
I;ll start by saying that I don't have a flash yet,but can anyone tell me if you can use a canon 580ex ll for wildlife photography attached to a canon 40d + canon 100-400?
is this how the great wildlife shots are made? using a flash?
thank you
Adrian, I've used that exact setup and a better beamer to stop hummingbirds' wings and other situations....but, IMHO,the lighting istoo artificial; unnatural.
Again, from my perspective; a great wildlife shot is done in natural light, but I'm sure there will be more than a few members that will disagree w/me.
So remember, there's more than 1 way to skin a cat....hope this expression doesn't break the PC barrier in today's world. [:)]
BTW...I've just upgraded my 40D to a 7D and it hasimproved the 100-400's ability in low light captures.
Regards
Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrian mandea
I'd have to say no to that. IMO, wildlife shots should use natural light. A flash has a use in wildlife photography, but that use is pretty much limited to creating catchlights in the subject's eyes (usually with flash exposure compensation dialing the flash power down).
The 100-400mm is a good wildlife lens (I just ordered mine!), but not 'great'. Great would be something like the 400mm f/2.8L IS - far out of most people's budget, but the extra 2 stops of light makes a big difference if the lighting is low.
--John
the 40d + 100-400 will cover you fine.
However, don't use flash too liberally. Some photographers (cough cough Arthur Morris) use flash all the time and it improves their images considerably and makes for more innovative shots and methods of shooting. Check out his bulletin archives and you'll see what I mean.
However, many photographers leave the flash on the camera for wildlife and ruin their shots, thinking they'll use artificial lighting if ambient lighting isn't good. Unless you really know what you're doing, just go natural light. It's easier and obviously cheaper too. A few members of this forum come to mind and I can tell you that you have to know exposure well to do this. If you do (I don't know?), then knock yourself out, get a flash and a better beamer and start shooting. But I've seen so many amateur photographers like myself ruin tons of wildlife shots by leaving a flash on the camera. Their photos just look ugly.
I myself don't use flash, I just am not at the point where it would help me. Arthur Morris is kind of the epitome of using flash for wildlife images and not making them look bad. check him out.
my 2¢
brendan
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Well, flash is used for much much more than that [:D]
And I get catchlights in all my bird pictures w/o flash. I actually don't know why [*-)]
brendan
You can use a flash for wildlife photography, but it can be difficult to use.But Ihave used it successfully.
Here is an example.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/0196-_2300_-reduced.JPG[/img]
John.
I've always thought of lighting wildlife the same as lighting a person the only difference is animalsaren'talways where you want them. So I suppose I'd set up a feeder (or a hunk of meat for a bear) and light around it with a bunch of umbrellas (:
thank you all for taking the time to answer my question, the fact is that I really don't like the 100-400 (there's one thread regarding my dissapointment with this lens) and I was thinking about photographing let's say big birds like eagles.the closest I could get to one was 50m or so, will the flash still give me some light at that distance or is useless? (the 580exll)
what about macro using this flash? with the 100mm f2,8 lens (not the IS version)
thank you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
Really, really nice John!!
Denise
I haven't done it with a 40D & 100-400 but I've used the 580EX with a 5D MkII and a 24-105F4. The light was falling fast and the only thing I could think of was use a flash. [img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.66/IMG_5F00_2831cr.jpg[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.66/IMG_5F00_2853cmr.jpg[/img]
thank you all for taking the time to answer my question, the fact is
that I really don't like the 100-400 (there's one page regarding my
dissapointment with this lens) and I was thinking about photographing
let's say big birds like eagles.the closest I could get to one was 50m
or so, will the flash still give me some light at that distance or is
useless? (the 580exll)
what about macro using this flash? with the 100mm f2,8 lens (not the
IS version)
thank you
Hey Adrian,
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrian mandea
I do it all the time! Check this out:
50D with 100mm f2.8 macro @ iso100 f10 1/250
http://www.fruityview.nl/macro.jpg
The fact that you could use a flah with macro is that you lit the entire photo. Because of the distance to your subject and background. Your flash has a flashnumber of 43m(430EX) and I believe 58m(580EX) so flashing a macrobackground at like 1m shouldn't be a problem.
With wildlife at a distance you only lit a particular area which can make it very hard to get to the correct white balance. If you will use flash-whitebalance you'll notice that your subject might be exposed corectly with natural colors, but the surroundings and background (where the flash doesn't get) could have a different color due to white balance if it is cloudy that day or your subject is in the shade for instance. That's one reason I wouldn't recommend a flash with wildlife, it might work sometimes, but I doubt you'll be happy most of the time.
The other reason is just: natural light is the best there is in my opinion. Theres nothing more beautiful than a real natural look.
Jan
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
It's because the birds' eyes are lit by the glow of your personality... [;)]