Wildlife & some sports photography - long term lens decisions

[Sheiky]

(Sorry for dragging him into this...)

Yea you should be punished for bringing his name up here [:P]


And yeah Keith I noticed that you were pretty serious about it, that's also what I liked. I just wanted to see how John Fast Glass was going to defend himself here for such words []



<div>

By no means am I the greatest nor the truest of true photographer, but I do my share of commercial work and more than once I have seen MP requirements from clients. Rarely are they as low as 10MP these days. Another reason I retired my 40D.

I don't know what your idea of a true photographer is and I guess it's a personal thing, but in my mind (and I don't earn money with taking photos) I AM a true photographer. At least for my standards [8-|]

In his review of the 5DII, he said "no one needs 21mp" or some such

Need is a big word, but it comes in handy quite often to be honest [A]but most of the time for spontaneous, sports and non-planned shots. When you've got the time to make a good composition etc and you don't need to crop afterwards, 21MP could be a bit overkill I guess. I never bothered about it [A] And it sure comes in handy when you're printing big, I love it!
</div>

[Keith B]

And yeah Keith I noticed that you were pretty serious about it, that's also what I liked. I just wanted to see how John Fast Glass was going to defend himself here for such words [img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]
<div>

By no means am I the greatest nor the truest of true photographer, but I do my share of commercial work and more than once I have seen MP requirements from clients. Rarely are they as low as 10MP these days. Another reason I retired my 40D.

I don't know what your idea of a true photographer is and I guess it's a personal thing, but in my mind (and I don't earn money with taking photos) I AM a true photographer. At least for my standards [img]/emoticons/emotion-15.gif[/img]

</div>


I should have put quotes around truest of true. I don't need to justify myself to anyone. Obviously I feel I'm "true" by my and my client's standards, but evidentially not by Fast Glass', if in fact he was serious.

Ken Rockwell is a noob, too. In his review of the 5DII, he said "no one needs 21mp" or some such. I think he was blowing out a different nostril when he reviewed the D3x, though.


(Sorry for dragging him into this...)

I have friend that shoots with a 5D mkI and a book publisher refused him images because they weren't large enough. If the images couldn't span a 2 page spread at 300dpi they refused them.


It made him look pretty bad, the client was a well respected artist in the community and my friend photographed her whole gallery solely to publish them in the book and then the publisher refused them.


At least his camera is 5-6 years old, I feel bad for folks buying brand new Nikon d3 and d700s.

[Jon Ruyle]

I have friend that shoots with a 5D mkI and a book publisher refused him images because they weren't large enough. If the images couldn't span a 2 page spread at 300dpi they refused them.

Wow...

<span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;"]No one needs 21MP. All it does
is slow everything and clog your hard drive.

Once again, sorry for dragging him in to this

[Keith B]

I have friend that shoots with a 5D mkI and a book publisher refused him images because they weren't large enough. If the images couldn't span a 2 page spread at 300dpi they refused them.

Wow...

I know! At the time the 5D mkII wasn't out yet and he asked me "What am I going to do? I can't afford $7000 for 1Ds III."


He still hasn't upgraded. Most of his clients aren't that particular but if it comes up it can hurt. Especially if that artist tells a bunch of people that he is shooting with "subpar" equipment.

[djzuk]

Well, we got off topic here. []


But oh well, I'll add my closing comment to the latest posts here.


I do believe that super-high-resolution is extremely important in some cases. 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. [:P]


Why do I think that for wildlife and sports photography? For wildlife, Moose Peterson uses a D3/s which is 12mp. You think someone is going to decline his images because it's only 12mp? And for sports... as you know, the 1D has been extremely popular. Some pro sports photographers still use the 1D Mark II.


So anyways, I find that for my future purposes the 10mp of the 1D Mark III is probably plenty. However, by the time I get to the point of purchasing a new camera, the 1D Mark IV might be in the same price range that the Mark III is in right now. So we'll see... more megapixels can definitely help in some areas. []


The end.


Derrick

[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.

[Sheiky]

Nice verdict John (neuroanatomist)

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" [] 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

[Brendan7]

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.

[djzuk]

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

[Jordan]

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.