Wildlife Photography

[Briar Lee]

The excellent cameras on these dad blasted cell phones we all have are more than adequate for everything I used to use a Kodak for as a kid.

They’ve about killed off cheap digital cameras.

But I think there’s still a place for traditional interchangeable lens cameras for photographing wildlife.

I own several cameras, but recently I’ve discovered that a $170 used Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM and my used $400 Canon 7D Mark II is capable of some great wildlife photos at our local park.




My 7D II has an autofocus system so capable I’ve been reading a couple of books figuring how to set it up.

But it works well enough as it comes out of the box.

I’m surely not the only one on here that takes photos of critters.

Let’s see yours!

 

[CoffeeAndBourbon]

Here's one my son took this spring

 

[BarrelProof]

 

[BarrelProof]

 

[BarrelProof]

 

[BarrelProof]

 

[BarrelProof]

 

[BarrelProof]

 

[BarrelProof]

 

[BarrelProof]

 

[BarrelProof]

 

[CoffeeAndBourbon]

 

[warren]

 

[warren]

Except for first meeting with a species I try to avoid what I call "ID" photos. I strive for animal activity, fighting, breeding, nurturing (see above) and so forth. But, I'm targeting certain buyers.

 

[Briar Lee]

Ruminations on digital cameras.

Kodak invented the digital camera in 1976, and until about 2000 they were expensive and not for the mass market.

Kodak for the Christmas season of 2000 sold the Kodak DC3200, and it was my first digital camera.

It worked pretty well. About on par with a phone camera today, in good light.



But it was Canon in 2003 that introduced the first really good and under a thousand dollar interchangeable lens DSLR that accepted all previous electronic Canon lenses, with the 6mp Digital Rebel. I owned an 8mp 2004 Canon Rebel XT until I gave it to my daughter the day I took this photo with it in May 2016. She still uses it to make side money at rodeos taking photos of rodeo queens and cowboys for proud parents. It can use all my Canon EF and EF-S lenses.



What is the minimum basic requirements for a wildlife camera?

You could use a modern cell phone but that’s not much fun.

The newer “bridge” super zoom cameras work, but unless you can brag about what lens you used something is missing, you know?

I own a $400 Olympus M5 Mark II and a $300 75-300mm lens, and it works. Olympus Micro Four Thirds cameras have internal image stabilization and their advantage is they effectively have twice the “reach” of a full frame or nearly half again more than an APC sensor.

They work, too:



But if you don’t have an excellent wildlife rig and you want one, I recommend Canon for these reasons:

For twenty years every new APC or full frame interchangeable lens camera has had sufficient resolution and image quality to take sharp, excellent photographs, every brand. Newer is a bit better of course, but older cameras worked better than film.

What sets Canon apart is in 1986 they switched to electronic lenses (EF) that all still work on the all cameras full frame and APC sensor Canon made yesterday (except the M). In 2003 Canon added the EF-S that only work on APC sensor cameras. And every E series Canon lens has focus drive in the lens, and the stabilized lenses have stabilization in the lens as well.

There are literally millions of EF and EF-S lenses out there to buy, that fit your camera.


They will fit the brand new R series Canon cameras using a $100 adapter.

That’s not to knock Nikon, Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, or Pentax, they all take excellent shots of wildlife.

But this lens just cost me $170 delivered.



And is it ever sharp:

 

[BarrelProof]

Except for first meeting with a species I try to avoid what I call "ID" photos. I strive for animal activity, fighting, breeding, nurturing (see above) and so forth. But, I'm targeting certain buyers.

Same. Like this:

 

[warren]

A correct camera and lens combination, along with shutter speed, aperture, pixel size (not number of pixels) and ISO settings, on-board software, certainly contribute to the quality of a shot. But, what determines a great shot is, what is between the shooter's ears and the photographer's ability to "see" the picture, only capturing the information that contributes to the shot. Great shots are taken by seasoned photographers using the correct gear, the correct settings and lens together with an "eye" developed through years of practice, years of critical evaluation and so forth. You can't get the shot you want until you can "see" the shot before you ever raise the camera to your eye.

How many folks do you know who arrive home from a "once in a lifetime trip" look at many of the photos and wonder what they were thinking (seeing?) when they took many of the shots. How many shots are washed out due to light bouncing around inside the lens barrel because they thought the lens hood wasn't necessary when shooting around water and snow? Using the equipment at hand, phone, grab camera, whatever is a waste of time until you see what captured your attention and decide how best to isolate that subject is what makes the difference between a "snap shot" and a great picture.

I won't get into the Canon v Nikon debate. It would be too technical/boring for most here. Sufficed to say Nikon is the only 35mm digital system which meets or exceeds my demands.

 

[warren]

Same. Like this:

Exactly! Patience and anticipation are required tools for wildlife shooting. Great shot!

 

[UB 40]

Where are the coyotes?

 

[sablebrush52]

I won't get into the Canon v Nikon debate.

Thank goodness. I've used Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Leica, Contax, Hasselblad, Yashica, etc, etc, listened to the "Japanese vs German lens design and formula" debates ad nauseum and find that they all have their strengths and their weaknesses and they all deliver.
But equipment is only 25% of it at best. The rest is the photographer's vision, skill, and talent.

One of the things I enjoyed about Ansel Adams books on photography was how he would say how he screwed up here, or there, and how he figured out ways to coax from the resulting negatives those images that have been loved by millions.

Digital is a very plastic medium. I can manipulate images in ways that were near impossible before. I'm no purist.

BTW, these are beautiful shots.

Thanks for sharing!