Interested in Bird/Wildlife Photography

[mike walden]

I am interested in starting wildlife/bird photography on a strictly

amateur level. Something puzzles me though. I see a lot of really

well exposed photos of birds that are extremely sharp and very

detailed. Although I understand that the depth of field goes out the

window with long lenses (in most cases), I dont understand how one

gets those crisp sharp photos using ISO 50 or ISO 100 films. Birds

are almost never still, so I cant see using fast shutter speeds with

long lenses and slow films. Can anyone shed a little light on this

for me?

[erb_duchenne]

Lenses my man!

 

Professional series of long lenses are very sharp, are fast (like f/2.8) and may have Image Stabilization. All of which helps.

 

However, you mention starting on an amateur level. Amateur lenses can be anything from 4-10 times cheaper than professional ones and usually take you only up to 300mm except for some mirror lenses. However, they're slow and may have chromatic abberations when at their widest apertures. (like f/5.6) Mirrors are ususally stuck at f/8. So, really, it's hard to get faster shutter speeds.

 

You can try 'pushing'. If you get good ISO100 film, you can set your camera at ISO400 (in effect underexposing the whole role) then tell your developer to 'push' it two stops.

[j._scott_schrader]

It is not so much about how long your lens is, but rather how fast

it is. If you are shooting with lens that is capable of f2.8 you can

achieve fast enough shutter speeds to freeze action with longer

lenses. (Of course the fast glass is also the expensive glass.)

The attached image was shot with a 600mm lens wide open @

f4 on Provia 100.

[gloria_hopkins]

Good technique is vitally important in many cases, especially with long lenses and moving subjects. Also, the ability to predict behavior helps you to be more prepared for the shot. Good luck and have fun!

[jemini_joseph]

You will learn lots of things once you start bird photography. It's almost impossible to go and buy the equipment and get the results. Each and every piece of the equipments (including tripod) and your techniques can affect the image quality. Lens, film and tripod are (yes tripod is equally important. It took a while for me to reallize this) most important factors if you are into film photography. If you use digital then the camera affects it instead of film. <br>

In final presentation on the web or printing scanning is bottleneck for film users. This is my problem right now. I use a cheap scanner. After all you should be an expert in Photo shop. <br><br>

<a href="http://www.color-pictures.com" target="w-1">http://www.color-pictures.com</a><br><br>

Good luck

[jemini_joseph]

Oh I forgot to mention that shutter speed 1/125 is good enough to freeze a bird at rest and may be around 1/250 to feeze a flying bird. This is the theory. You should have proper support and experience to get results. I didn't mean to advice you as I'm also a 'student' in this field. Just like to discuss and learn..

[mike walden]

Well, I know that this forum is kind of restricted as to what subjects are to be posted, so I dont want to intentionaly stray too far here. My best lens, at this moment is an Asahi/Pentax Takumar 300mm f4. I shoot primarily FUJI ISO 100 films, only in 35mm, manual SLR, never use digital, and never have ever shot slides, so its color negative for me all the way. I guess my concern here is from my not being really accustomed to using longer lenses (and getting good results). I just wasnt sure how you caould take such a long lens, and still use a shutter speed sufficently high enough to stop any action, and still get good color saturation with the exposure, especially when I read that the film ISO rating used for these great shots were 50 or even 40. Guess thats where the faster lenses come in, huh?

I saved some money and bought a really sturdy tripod, and bought all the best quality of the manufacturer lenses offered (in the 24mm to 200mm focal ranges). The longer lenses are certainly up there in price, some or most are beyond my budget right now, even used on eBay or Adorama.

So, to keep this from being a "novel", if you could give me one piece of good advice, what would it be, considering the lenses I currently own. And secondly, if I could add ONE lense to my Minolta X-700 setup, which one would you recommend?

[mike_scarpitti]

Mike: with regard to your last post.

 

You don't need exceptionally fast lenses or films, just good technique. Long fast lenses are multi-thousand dollar items and heavy to boot.

 

See attached taken on Kodachrome 25 with 560mm f/6.8 Leitz Telyt on a Leicaflex SL2 in 1979 at the Toronto Zoo.

[jemini_joseph]

Mike<BR>

I'm not a pro or an expert to give one piece of advice. But hope this may help.<BR>

This chipmunk shot is taken at 1/20 sec at f/7.1 with 500mm lens on a tripod.<BR>

Tripod is Gitzo 340 and head is Kirk BH-1<BR>

Film is Velvia 100F(ISO 100). I've scanned it using LS-30. No Unsharp mask to sharpen the image. Believe me, the slide looks sharper than this. If there's any softness it's because of the scanner. <BR>

<IMG SRC="http://my.execpc.com/~jemini/chipmunk.jpg"><BR>

I keep and download the shooting information from F5. That's how I put it in my web site. You can see it here. <BR>

<a href="http://www.color-pictures.com/display.asp?rollid=235&frameno=10" target="w-2">http://www.color-pictures.com/display.asp?rollid=235&frameno=10</a><BR><BR>

I guess the credit goes to the sturdy tripod. Once the camera is on the tripod the challenge is to point the camera/lens to the subject in time because long teles are heavy. I'm an average man. I cannot see any problem carrying around 15 pounds of equipments. But this is no way like a carrying a camera with 50mm lens and shoot around. You will have to plan and go.

[larry h.]

If you can afford $800-1000 or so, your best bet would be a Tamron SP 300mm/2.8 lens with Tamron's matched 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. With the proper adapters, you'll be able to use it on both your Pentax system and your Minolta system. Minolta made a 400mm/5.6 which will cost you about as much, and various mirror lenses. I don't know about Pentax lenses in the 300/2.8 range. I haven't used the Tamron, but I've always read good things about it and fancied buying it myself for my Minolta system, but honestly, I'd never use it. Other than the Tamron, your Pentax 300/4 is probably about as good as you can do, albeit with 1.4x or 2x teleconverters.

[larry h.]

Look here under keh.com. They've got the Tamron in Bargain condition (all you need) for $695 including 1.4x, hood and caps.

 

http://www.keh.com/shop/product.cfm?bid=TL&cid=06&sid=newused&crid=6148970

[doug herr]

Mike, much can be done with a 300mm f/4 lens. The best thing to do is study your subjects, learn their habits, habitats and behavior. This will help you get closer without disturbing them. Here's a link to several photographs made with lenses in the 250mm to 300mm range, all f/4 or slower, mostly with ISO 64 films: <A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/300.html" target="_blank">http://www.wildlightphoto.com/300.html</A>

<P>

Good luck!

[ligia_dovale]

You might be able to get great shots of wildlife subjects with just a 300 mm and Velvia 50ASA, even birds in flight. However, you should expect wasting film also. Not every shot of a bird in flight is going to come out sharp when using Velvia 50ASA. When they do though, you might get a trophy shot. That is provided that the lighting conditions were right, of course.

 

There are too many factors involved in taking a good shot of a wildlife subject, much more when using a slow film. A simple answer to your question does not exist, in my opinion.

[greg s]

"Birds are almost never still"

 

How 'still' a bird is/remains depends a lot on what bird you're talking about. (not refering to flight shots) A heron is a generally still bird unless you're trying to capture the moment it catches a fish. On the other hand, a kinglet spends its life gleening insects and is pretty much always on the move. The trick with the kinglet is to stay with it and find the moment when it stops, then press the shutter. Lots of patience involved.

 

A couple of helpful techniques...

 

1) Fill flash : Can freeze a still bird when or one in motion. It's common to have a bird take off just as the shutter is pressed and be pleasantly surprised by how well the beating wings are stopped by the flash.

 

2) Use of a cable release : Very helpful when the subject is still, fill flash is either not an option or desired (or you can keep the flash on), and the ambient light is relatively low. Under proper conditions you can use low shutter speeds and still obtain sharp results by getting your hands off the lens. A cable can be used in other scenarios too (e.g. high ambient light, hawk taking off from perch).

 

Good luck and have fun!

[mike walden]

Thank you all very much for your input! I will use your suggestions and just go try it out. To make a few more comments though, I feel I need to tell you that my Asahi/Pentax Super Takumara 300mm f4 is used with my Minolta setup. I do not have any other Pentax equipment. I just use a screw mount converter to mount it to the X-700. What I don't know is if this has any effect on the quality of the photo. I do know that Program Modes are not functional in this configuration. Also, anything above $200 to $300 is above my budget until next year. I will just save my money and in 5 or 6 months, purchase that fine tele lens that I have been dreaming of.

[sergey_oboguev]

What they write above and many other things, like: if you use intend to use slide film, you normally want to push it for flight shots. Loss of image quality due to grain increase is not that big with Provia, esp. compared to higher sharpness attained through shorter shutter speed.

 

However in case your budget is limited, I'd suggest you to consider going with digital body that has "crop factor", such as Canon 10D, and complement it with 400/5.6 lens. This gives you effective 640mm/5.6 combination with DOF similar to that of 400mm lens, at a cost significantly less than that of fast 600mm lenses. Sharpness is still very good (at least with Canon EF 400/5.6) and AF is excellent.

 

I do not know about other camera brands, but in Canon world you can add Tamron AF SP teleconverter to the above combination and (after taping three connectors on this TC) still retain AF and "ok" sharpness. This will give you 560mm lens on 1.6x body, i.e. effective 896mm still auto-focusable (though AF won't be as fast and as accurate, but is still practical). This combo will take you down to f/8 which is not good for flight shots, but is ok for many still situations. Even for flight cases, you can boost ISO (Canon CMOS sensors have low noise level) and often get something reasonable, and perhaps improvable further with NeatImage.

 

Besides, if you go with digital, you will save on the film and film is a big cost in bird photography. There will be digital-specific expenses, to be sure: on memory cards, computer, software and so on, but if you expect to shoot a lot it's going to be less of expenses than with film (OTOH plus is: you can edit and print images at home).

 

With 10D, you may miss higher frame rate of upper-end bodies and wish for slightly shorter shutter delay, but that is still something possible to live with.

 

This is not to debate merits of film vs. digital, but just to say that in case of budget constraints going digital for bird photography is something, in my opinion, worth to consider.

[doug herr]

Mike Walden wrote: <I>I just use a screw mount converter to

mount it to the X-700. What I don't know is if this has any effect on

the quality of the photo</I><P>

 

The only time it would have an effect on the quality of your photo

is if you have difficulty focussing at the lens' working aperture.

Since bird photography is often done at or near the maximum

aperture of the lens this is an unlikely scenario.

[stemked]

The secret, Pentax snap focus! (I think Nikon autofocus cameras can do this too)

 

If you use any Pentax autofocus camera with an 'A' lens (manual focus that retains TTL flash) you can prefocus the camera where you EXPECT a bird to be. Put the camera on 'Autofocus' use a shutter release and lock open the shutter release. And the wait. using this technique you can get nearly full frame sharp images with a 100mm macro lens of birds. If you set up your flash guns properly you can illuminate the background too. All of this at a fraction of what it costs for a pro-fast long telephoto lens.

[mike walden]

<p>Douglas Stempke writes: "you can get nearly full frame sharp images with a 100mm macro lens of birds."

<br>

<p>Uhhh...I am no pro by any means, but, to get full framed shots of birds, with only a 100mm macro lens, and on top of that, having all that flash gear setup anywhere near a bird landing spot, wouldn't the bird pretty much have to be a dead one?

<br>

<p>Seems as though ALL posts I read require long focal length lenses for the sole reason that you cannot get close to birds. Now, again, I may know nothing about a 100mm macro lens, but it can't possibly reach out far enough?

[gloria_hopkins]

Mike, 300mm is not great for bird photography but it can get you by with the medium to large sized birds. I use a 400mm with matched 1.4tc and often wish for more reach.

 

I'll say it again ... technique is important with long lenses. Maybe even more important than the brand or speed or quality of the lens. You can have the Mercedes of lenses but if you don't know how to use it or hold it, what good is it? I've made hundreds of razor sharp images of birds with a $500 Tamron 200-400 f/5.6 zoom. And I've seen images made with the best gear turn out soft because the photographer didn't know how to handle the lens. What a waste.

 

Tip: Manually focusing can help avoid missed focus in low light scenes or those with super-busy patterns and/or clutter, and even flight. AF is not always best. Good luck.

[craig l]

For a great place to start, check out Art Morris' "The Art of Bird Photography."

http://www.birdsasart.com

Good luck, have fun!

[jemini_joseph]

As you can see there're lots of answers to your question. I'm sure you like to have one line answer. Unfortunately there's nothing like that. I used ask myself this question and found the answer is in different things. Gloria said it right. Technique is more important than Equipment. I guess patience and effort is equally important. You should be lucky to get out and come back with a beautiful bird picture in a moment. Most of the time you have to plan and watch the birds for a while. You need to have lots of patience and energy. <br><br>

One more thing I like to mention. Blinds. Set a bird blind and feeder in your backyard. You will get lots of birds there. Then even 300mm is good enough for few birds.

[mike walden]

<p>Again, thanks for all the responses and tips. First, to let you know, I don't use an AF camera when taking most of my "good" photos. I always use full manual. Only use AF when going somewhere and need convenience. As far as a "one liner" answer, I never expect those. I understand there is a lot to photography and answers and help cannot be summed up in one-liners, not even in an entire book.

<p>I guess to make it simple, I was mostly requesting the "best thing" I can do with what I have available. Most answers come in the form of "heck, I have taken pretty good shots of birds/wildlife with a $500 lens and they turned out pretty good."

<p>I cannot afford a $500 lens, so the $150 lenses I do have will have to suffice. So, in saying that, the best answer I could get is to tell me what I can do with those pieces of equipment, to make the best photos I can. If it means building a "blind" to get closer, then thats what I must do. I really dont even have a clue just to how close someone really is to a subject when they manage to get those great shots. How close are they/you? 40 yards....50? More or less?

<p>I know that in my experiences, I was unable to get within about 30 yards to most large birds, and that was when they were on the ground. Most predator birds are another 30 or 40 feet up in a tree.

<p> So the puny lenses I have just wont bring them in close to make that nice frame filling shot. If an expensive lens is the only way to get that close, then I will have to come up with something more creative and sneaky. I truly don't know what my wildlife photos might look like cause I have never gotten one.

[doug herr]

Mike Walden wrote: <I>the puny lenses I have just wont bring them in close to make that nice frame filling shot. If an expensive lens is the only way to get that close, then I will have to come up with something more creative and sneaky</I><P>

 

Mike, to give you some idea how close I try to get, this <A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/mobl1.html" target="_blank">Mountain Bluebird</A> photo was made with a 280mm lens at about 10 feet. Short of the megabucks lens, something creative is your best bet. Sneaky in my experience isn't effective: the critters live and die by their ability to detect sneaky predators so if they see you acting sneaky they're outta there.

<P>

A blind can be one of your creative ideas. Use PVC pipe for a frame, covered with drab cloth with a couple of zippers sewn in, one for you and one for the lens. This <A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/wtki1.html" target="_blank">White-tailed Kite</A> was photographed with just such a blind and a 300mm lens.

[mike walden]

By the way, I sorta lied (unintentionally) about not ever getting a shot. I did have one, which I have requested critique. Gotta start somewhere I guess. I am not sure how to direct you to the photo, it is in My Portfolio which I just set up. Thanks!