Equipment Wildlife photography

Hello Guys,

I am amateur photographer willing to peruse wildlife photography as a profession.

I’m currently using a canon D600 (cropped sensor, 18MP) camera.

I’m not sure if my current camera is good enough to start with as a professional wildlife photographer. Please suggest.

Also, please suggest a lenses to that I should go for.

Thanks in advance.

1. D600, you mean 600D?

2. if the latter, it is "good enough" -- which is not to say that there aren't better cameras for wildlife photography

3. for most wildlife photography, you need 'reach'. a long-range telephoto zoom that goes up at least to 300mm is normal

Lots of people shooting wildlife have multiple cameras, some of which are "crop" (for the 1.5X 'factor'). They also have the longest and fastest lenses they can afford, and these kinds of lenses are VERY expensive.

The road to professional (actually being able to live on what you make from the work) is a very rocky and steep one.

You need to start by building a portfolio of wildlife pictures of such quality that people will pay money for your images. Then, maybe you can quit whatever else you are doing to feed, clothe, and shelter yourself. The question is not that you are "willing", but rather will you be "able to do so"?

Good luck

Hi Naval.

Firstly, it's very, very difficult to make money out of wildlife photography. There are big names in the field and lots of amateurs taking photos that are available for free. It's possible, but I'd try it as a hobby (and do), and if you find a way to make money, that's a bonus. In other words, quitting your job in order to try to do this would be what's known in some circles as a "courageous decision". Unless, of course, you have exclusive access to a limited resource that's in high demand; if there happens to be a snow leopard that visits your back yard every day, good luck to you.

Camera: The main thing is to get the shot, so if you get an amazingly-timed picture of unusual behaviour from a rare and/or iconic animal, in theory it doesn't matter what camera you used. But better cameras make it easier to get photos of difficult subjects, and if you're up against the person standing next to you who has a top-of-the-line camera (let's say a 5DmkIV, which isn't unlikely), an editor might well prefer the image quality that the high-end option gives you. For your own enjoyment, a 600D is perfectly capable, especially if you're lucky about the shooting conditions and autofocus; if you're competing for image sales, every advantage matters. Seven years is a long time in camera development, and some of your competition will be better in low light, have more ability to adjust the exposure to balance highlights and shadows, have better autofocus, and shoot faster. None of this matters if you just want a shot that makes you happy, or if you're able to take a shot that nobody else can. But doing it as a profession means you need to deliver that advantage often enough that people will pay for your image rather than anyone else's, and I'm afraid that's a big ask for a 600D. There's no harm in starting with it, though.

Lenses: Here's the bad news. If you can get close to your subjects, you'll get unusual and good photos. Most wildlife won't let you do that, so you'll probably need a long lens - how long depends on the wildlife. Depending on your subject, the upper end of the competition will be taking some fraction of their shots with lenses like a 400mm f/2.8, an 800mm f/5.6, the 200-400mm f/4, or at least a 70-200 f/2.8. Those are a lot of money, by anyone's standards, even compared with the most you might consider spending on a camera body. Something like a 150-600mm Sigma Sport is a good and relatively affordable lens (in comparison with the others I mentioned) and will give you a lot of reach, but not quite the quality of the others. Again, if your subject does something interesting enough to make a photo stand out, losing the last fraction of sharpness, light gathering and subject separation won't matter, much. Unless someone else is there as well.

I see photos every year entered in a Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition, which use older cameras than the 600D and relatively affordable lenses (one recent winner used a GoPro!) But they do need a lot of ingenuity to make the image novel enough to stand out from the crowd - which again, wouldn't matter if you weren't competing for sales.

Good luck, and wildlife photography is a fun and educational hobby which I encourage you to explore... but in terms of making money, go into it with your eyes open.

In case I'm coming across as too harsh: I wasn't kidding about the "snow leopard in the back yard" thing. If you can get unusual images that stand out, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to make money. There are several ways to do that:

• Photograph something that no-one else can (something very rare, hence "snow leopard"); chances are that anything rare near you won't be quite as photogenic or popular as a snow leopard, but you might be a mile from the world's only population of a particular deer/squirrel/butterfly, and be better-placed than others to shoot them, particularly if they're skittish and getting a decent shot involves camping out. The trick then is finding who specifically want pictures of what you're shooting and is willing to pay for them.
  
• Photograph a behaviour that no-one else has. Even with a common animal, you might catch it doing something weird - or seemingly weird - that makes for an interesting shot (particularly if it's undocumented or anthropomorphic behaviour). Pictures of sea otters holding hands take the internet by storm, and a disproportionate number of reproduced shots of polar bears have them putting their paws over their faces. On genuinely "weird behaviour", I'll bet the images from this paper (arguably NSFW) have been reproduced more than other images of ducks. Corollary: it's almost always better to shoot an animal doing something. And pretty much all wildlife will do something if you watch it long enough. (A bird taking off/landing/preening/feeding, is more interesting than just sitting on a perch.) If you were the first person to be shooting in the places where monarch butterflies migrate, you'd have made money. If you happen to be in the middle of a locust swarm, you may well get something rare.
  
• The other side to the "weird picture" argument is the "canonical picture" argument. The greeting card market might want a lion pulling a funny face, but sometimes people just want a lion to look like a lion. Doing this right, you probably need good lighting, good timing and good luck; think about what impression the animal gives and how to frame the image accordingly. A mouse looking scary won't look very scary; a sleeping crocodile isn't as interesting as one that looks like it's about to eat something. Tell a story.
  
• Don't forget interactions. A sleeping lion? Boring. A mouse sitting on a rock? Boring. A mouse sitting on a sleeping lion? Interesting photo. There are few places in the world where orcas chase sea lions onto the beach, or where dolphins trap fish by making rings of mud, or Great Whites leap. If you're in one of those places, you've got a head start on a saleable photo. Or you could luck into it (I have a shot of a dragonfly eating a damselfly; it just landed on a hand rail in front of me). Don't forget the background - wildlife shooters often want a fast aperture (and expensive) lens to isolate the subject, but sometimes animals in the background make the shot - or sometimes the weather or scenery makes it interesting. Remember the weasel riding a woodpecker?
  
• If animals won't come to you, find a new approach. Get an unusual angle (one award winner was a curious European Robin on the ground, shot close up at eye level by a compact camera; another showed an orangutan climbing into the trees from above with a GoPro). Getting very close to something you can't normally approach is one way - but a) stay safe, and b) don't disturb your subject; cruelty to animals isn't acceptable, even accidentally stressing them by making them run away. Everyone has a shot of a lion looking into the distance. A shot of a lion looking into the distance taken from between its forepaws? That would be different. Not disturbing the lion/getting eaten is more challenging. Somehow getting close (which means your camera, not necessarily you) is generally a good thing, but often getting close without disturbing the animal is impossible, especially if you want natural and unusual behaviour - so expensive long lenses are often needed.
  
• If you end up taking the same shot as thousands of others (and there are lots of people attempting wildlife photography, from sponsored pros to multitudes of amateurs), make sure yours is the best. That means timing, composition, technique (perfect exposure and sharpness, get good at post-processing) and willingness to put time into it - you make your own luck. Unfortunately, some part of that does come down to the equipment (partly because you can "luck" into more image opportunities if it's more flexible - again, long lenses mean you can cover animals that aren't just next to you), but possibly not as much as you'd think.
  

A problem with making a living as a wildlife photographer is that specialising in one animal/location is highly unlikely to keep food on the table. Once you travel to a new subject, you lose the benefit of local knowledge, and possibly the ability to stay long enough to get the best shot. The less you know about your subject, the harder getting interesting behaviour will be - and you certainly need to know what you're looking at. A lot still comes down to putting in the hours and waiting for nature, but even then, other pros will also be there; the "making of" documentaries for series like Planet Earth show you how much planning they need, and how many weeks they stay. Photographers have it slightly easier (you need a shot, not a whole sequence), but there are also more doing it from which to differentiate yourself. I'd almost suggest you try videoing wildlife instead of taking stills, but it's an awful lot of effort for the goal of getting temporarily employed by a TV crew or trying to add to the many existing YouTube series.

If you have an unusual image that nobody else does, especially if there's something obviously appealing about it, that's a very good start. Some publications still have a minimum quality bar (a soft picture may be fine in a thumbnail of a new site but unacceptable on a magazine cover), and your equipment may fall below that. In other cases, if the shot taken with $10,000 of kit looks visibly better than yours even if you have a slightly better angle or timing, you may still lose out. It's a sliding scale, but it's a competitive market, and there are many amateurs out there with lots of disposable income. Still, you might get a substantial advantage from semi-pro lenses like the 300mm f/4 L IS.

There are also ways to get a shoe in the door. Maybe a local wildlife reserve or centre would like you to shoot some publicity photos for them, especially if you're cheap or free. Then you have a portfolio that you can take to others. Make sure you know your stuff before expecting someone to pay you for it, though. The best-known names get asked to go and shoot things, or can pitch a trip to their sponsor. Camera companies do sponsor people to make their kit look good, although not many.

I'd encourage you to look at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition for inspiration; the images usually also list the equipment used. By no means everything uses incredibly exotic equipment. The 2017 people's choice winner was taken with a Nikon D300 (from 2007) and a 17-35mm f/2.8 lens - not expensive and certainly not the latest kit. But the image of a lilac-breasted roller on a zebra in the same category used a Canon 5DS R and a 600mm f/4 - which, for the latest version, is currently just shy of $17,000 in combination. You don't have to have money to play here, but it helps. Don't be intimidated, but... well, be a little intimidated. You could also look at stock image sites for the kinds of things they like.

So: It can be done. You can sell an image taken with pretty much anything, if it has its own merits, and anyone on this site will tell you that an expensive camera doesn't make a good image (especially anyone who's seen the rubbish I churn out). Consistently taking images that people will pay for, especially of varied subjects, that's a much harder way to make money, especially in quantity. Much like football and pop music: you can make a small amount of money if you've got some basic skill and some equipment so long as you have other ways to support yourself, but there are an awful lot of people looking at the few superstars and thinking they could do that. Except that, to the best of my knowledge, the best wildlife photographers still don't make millions just for turning up.

I should probably have started with this disclaimer: I take wildlife photos for fun, not money - my primary knowledge of the kit required other than looking at the details on WPoTY and similar is from trying to take shots and seeing whether the kit I can afford keeps up. Surprise, I want a 400mm f/2.8. I only know the industry very indirectly, and I've never sold a photo in my life (or tried to). So it's possible I'm scaremongering, and I don't want to burn your dreams unnecessarily - but I'm sure of myself enough that I think you should tread carefully before quitting the day job. I hope I'm giving you something to think about without completely destroying your enthusiasm.

Again, good luck, whether you stick to trying to do this commercially, or just for fun.

Hello Guys,

 

 

I am amateur photographer willing to peruse wildlife photography as a profession.

 

I’m currently using a canon D600 (cropped sensor, 18MP) camera.

 

I’m not sure if my current camera is good enough to start with as a professional wildlife photographer. Please suggest.

 

Also, please suggest a lenses to that I should go for.

 

Thanks in advance.

The only D600 I know of is a Nikon D600 and it is a full frame camera and very good camera. Perhaps you meant the Canon 600D which is a crop sensor. There is nothing wrong with a crop sensor for wildlife, though you might want to go with one with a better focusing system. Perhaps a Canon 7D MK II or other brand like Nikon. I recommend getting a good telephoto lens. I do not know your budget, but the SIGMA 150-600mm Contemporary is a nice start that is affordable, very sharp, works with your existing camera. So you could get started and upgrade a body later. You could also look at some of Canon's big lenses that may be sharper and there are models that are faster but they are expensive. Don't rule out a used Sigma 150-600 C. You can find some older lenses out there, but many of those are not as sharp as the newer lenses. Canon make a new 100-400mm MK II that is really sharp, and the make a 400 mm L prime that is very sharp.

I really like my SIGMA 150-600mm C, just a suggestion to start out with getting your feet wet with big lenses. Here are a couple sample shots with mine on a 5D MK IV. The lens won't be as wide on a crop sensor, but may seem like it has more reach on a crop sensor.

Hi Andrew,

Thank you so much for your reply, I really appreciate the time and effort you have put it. Your reply is really informative, at the same time it doesn't have the slightest of sugar coating, the thing that I liked the most.

I very well understand what you were trying to convey when you mentioned the "snow leopard in the back yard" thing and I don't find it harsh at all.

Thanks you once again

Mark: I assumed 600D, since we're on the Canon forum and it meets the "18MP, cropped sensor" description. No big deal; it was only really confusing back when Canon actually made a D60 (in 2002), since Nikon made a D60 as well (in 2008).

I just wanted to agree about the 150-600 Sigma (the "Sport" version is better, but appreciably bigger and more expensive). Tamron also make a 150-600mm that's worth considering; check reviews. (I have the Nikon 200-500mm, so the same basic range.) I forgot that Canon had updated the 100-400, which looks to be much improved over its predecessor. The 300mm f/4 L gives a bit more light and is half the price, but is obviously less flexible (and not truly a substitute for a 300mm f/2.8 lens). Reach combined with decent performance became much more affordable with a recent set of lenses from several manufacturers, around three years ago. Beware of older options - I was deeply disappointed with my old 150-500mm Sigma (the predecessor to the 150-600 lenses). None of these have quite the sharpness or subject isolation of the truly expensive glass, but they're absolutely a step in the right direction.

Glad to (hopefully) help, Naval. Enjoy your wildlife, however you do it!

I forgot that Canon had updated the 100-400, which looks to be much improved over its predecessor

I had the original version of the Canon 100-400 L, it was a good lens on my 40D, 7D MK I, on larger sensors it was a little soft and was slow to focus. The SIGMA 150-600 C was noticeably sharper and faster focusing. I think Canon greatly improved the lens with the 100-400 L MK II.

I would love to have some of Canon's bigger lenses, perhaps one day. But I am happy with the Sigma, I have even gotten good wildlife shot with shorter lenses though you need to be closer and that is not always an option or even desirable with some animals.

Here are moose that were close enough for my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. Typically I would use this for wedding shooting, but it is a fine all around lens. It just doesn't have the reach of 600mm, but nice and sharp. Generally I wouldn't want to be this close to a moose cow and her calf, but I was on the back porch of the house and they walked into the yard. If momma perceives you as a threat to here baby she can stomp you and they are about the size of Clydesdales.