bob_royse

I didn't intend to debate with Andrew the merits of the MFD of wide angles for nature photography, but I still think it's really irrelevant. If you're only photographing a relatively small area, the set focusing distance will still be geared towards getting all that small area in sharp focus and the MFD won't be used, the focus should be set about 1/3 into the hypothetical small area.

 

If you're going to photograph a small flower without regard to the background, let's say at 17mm, then you you can just slap on an extension tube, stop down all the way and set the focusing distance at infinity. That type of photography really is an effect. A professional couldn't make a living with many of those shots and an amateur couldn't give a slide show with many of those shots. It's fun to try a few times, but it really isn't very important IMO.

 

Light-falloff, flare characteristics, and general ergonomics are really what matter. Having the 17mm instead of 20mm is also important. How about a 14-35mm zoom?

I have used a fair amount of that film, but I don't intend to buy another batch. I agree with Bob Atkins that Sensia II or (the similar to my eyes) Elite Chrome 100 are better general choices.

 

I found that Elite Extra Color does enhance some colors, but not to the desired effect. Blues become artificial and garish. Particularly disturbing to me are the blue shadow areas reminiscient of old Ektachromes from the early '80's. It looks best in warm early morning and late afternoon light when there are few shadows around, but the other films you mention also look great and are saturated in those situations as well.

I have read the questions and many(but not all)of the responses. Crimony, this is a lens for wide angle nature photography. That to me means largely outdoor scenics. I've owned many wide angles over the years from various manufaturers (Canon, Nikon, and Zeiss). The primary concerns of wide and ultra-wides for nature photgraphy really are light falloff, ghosting/flare, color saturation, and general ergonomics. Zooms certainly shine for the latter. Most good wide angles from major manufaturers are sharp at the middle to small apertures where they'll inevetably be used. Who really cares how closely they focus for nature photographs? No one uses them for macro work. For nature photography they are generally used to create near/far compositions and the minimum focusing distance will rarely be used. I usually stop down a lot and hope that the whole scene looks sharp.

 

Bigger concerns for wide angles are at what f-stop will light fall-off be totally eliminated from a slightly underexposed sky, or how much you can get away with using the sun or its reflections in a scene.

 

I currently own and love the Canon 17-35 for its versatility. Light fall-off is excellently controlled at the middle apertures. I do have to be careful with the sun and strong reflections, but it's not nearly as bad as I originally feared it would be. Of course it's sharp at the middle apertures where I use it. I suspect that the Nikkor would be similar.

Getting a good spotting scope is much akin to buying a 500 or 600mm for your camera. You really do get what you pay for, and the money put forth becomes more increasingly meaningless the higher into the stratosphere you get, but, again, you really do get what you pay for.

 

I don't own a great scope, but it's fine for my needs (a non ED Nikon). When I go on trips with big-time birders, it usually outperforms their sightings because I have mine mounted on a Gitzo 1548 and they have theirs mounted on the lightest, cheapeast aluminum contraption they could find at their corner store.

 

I have owned the Kenko scope adaptor, but I found it to be useful only as a doorstop. I had it in the Nikon mount and just chucked it into the trash can when I switched to Canon. It just wasn't worth the effort to get the $2 that my conscience deemed it. It was very uncomfortable to use. I found that I had to stick my eyeball into the thing before I could use it. The one size fits all system just doesn't work. Especially considering that when viewing birds (i.e winter gulls) with a scope is at its extreme, there are freezing and whipping winds burning your face and watering your eyes. A cheap 'scope is a better bet. Even better (to me at least) would be an adaptor designed by Canon to ultimize viewing with their 300/f4 lenses that made viewing through a scope as pleasurable as looking through a camera.

The best time to go to Pt. Pelee would probably be the 2nd and 3rd weeks of May to find the biggest number of species. Since different species migrate at different times, late April through the end of May could be productive (birding wise). Good photography conditions are mostly dependant on the right weather conditions to produce a fallout. There are usually about 3 each spring along Lake Erie. You'd need a crystal ball at this point to predict when and if they'll occur. Photography can be just as productive on the S shore of Lake Erie as the N shore if you're in the middle of a good fallout. So, I'm wondering why you'd even bother going to Pt.Pelee if you live in Ohio. It's certainly less expensive and more convenient to closely follow the weather patterns and hang around the migrant traps in Ohio than dealing with the crowds and expense of the Canadian side. Although I don't want to speak for him, I do know that last spring Arthur Morris only went to Magee and didn't go into Canada. Catching a good fallout is more important that where you are. Last May I had the best photo ops with warblers in years just by combing through the bushes at the Metzger parking lot. I had 20+ warbler species as well as Philadelphia and Red-Eyed Vireos, Scarlet Tanagers, etc. down low and up close in a concentrated area waiting to cross the Lake.

 

100 rolls of film for 5 days on warblers is INCREDIBLY optimistic! Warblers don't just sit still and pose for you while you freely burn the film. 25 rolls of film in 5 days would also be optimistic. Assuming you're using a 600/f4 + 1.4x, 200ISO film will be most used, so decide what film would suit you best. Also have fill-flash techniques mastered. When a Blackburnian is singing 15 ft. from your camera isn't the time to experiment. An 80-200 zoom is pretty much useless for warblers, but a 300/f4 + 1.4x or close focusing 400/f5.6 can be useful on the Magee boardwalk, ESPECIALLY the Canon 300/f4IS or 100-400IS for handheld shots of close range birds.

 

If you're from Ohio, don't omit trips into the southern part of the state from your schedule. In late April and the first week of May, the very finest birding I know of can be encountered in the state forests when the birds arrive on territory. With some luck and effort you can even get some photographs of some southern species rarely encountered at the migrant traps along the lake (eg. Prairie, Worm-Eating, Kentucky, Cerulean, Sycamore, La Waterthrush, etc..)

I have nothing to add to all the excellent comments already posted, but if or when you feel the need for more equipment (e.g. different lenses, flashes, fancier camera bodies) do your research before you dish more money into the system you have.

 

As others already have said, what you do have now is definitely capable of making high quality photographs. The rest is up to you.

If you're going to spend big bucks, just get the Canon 600 f/4 IS lens when it's widely available. If you don't, you'll want it eventually, if you're into bird photography and the money you spend now will seem wasteful.

In Ohio there are some good owl places. Killdeer Plains Wildlife Area in Wyandot Co. is the best known spot. There are roosts of Northern Saw-Whet and Long-Eared Owls. Unfortunately over the years the birds have been subjected to much disturbance by groups of loud birders and thoughtless "photographers". It probably isn't possible to get good shots of the Long-Eareds there any more since they have become extremely wary and their numbers have dwindled. The Saw-Whets still will allow for photo-ops, but please use a long telephoto when doing so, since too many point-and-shoots and slr's with short zooms have been pointed in their faces, giving photographers a bad name.

 

Short-Eared Owls are a better subject in Ohio. Last winter ('98/'99) was excellent for them. A 500, or preferably 600mm, lens with teleconverters is mandatory, though. Killdeer Plains can be good for them also, especially when many migrants are present. I go there often, but haven't had consistent luck with them there. Last March I found a group of about 35 in a field and was able to get some good flight shots as they passed by. A better place in general for S.-E. Owls in Ohio are the reclaimed strip mines east of Columbus. As many as 80 can be counted near The Wilds in Muskingum Co., often by the side of the road. Photographing them from a vehicle is the best way to do it there. Woodbury Wildlife Area in Coshocton is another good place and there are others.

In one word - NO!

 

You don't state your subjects, but the majority of nature subjects are definitely easier and more pleasurable to photograph with an internal focus lens with a tripod collar that allows for greater distance from the subject that also easily accepts teleconverters. If you're REALLY INTO flowers and have a qualm about a sometimes flattened perspecive, then sure, haul along a 100mm macro too in your backback when a shorter telephoto with ext. tubes or zoom simply won't do.

 

As far as telephoto macros go for nature photography, all I can say is TRY IT YOU'LL LIKE IT. I sure like my Canon 180!

I've had a lot of great thrills photographing wildlife. That's why I enjoy doing it. Spending the time and energy usually will yield results if I'm persistant. I hope I have many more opportunites. I can site lots of examples, but I'll stick to your question and pick one favorite. It would definitely have to be one particular leopard as an easy choice.

 

I was in the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park in November, 1985. I had a couple weeks off from work and I camped up there for the 2nd time (I have also been back 3 times since). I lived in the beautiful city of Cape Town for 3 years. The parks board volk in Cape Town told me how horrible the conditions in the Kalahari were - no good rain for over a year. I drove up there none the less. What I found was astounding. Antelope were starving to death. Huge herds of springbok, blue wildebeest, gemsbok, red hartebeest, and eland were aimlessly taking their last breaths and looking like skeletons with hides draped over them. Calves of several species, also looking like skeletons, were wandering around alone after their mothers' milk dried up. Corpses of thoses species littered the Nossob and Auob riverbeds. I saw cheetahs feeding on eland (a large species it would never tempt attacking in normal situations). Spotted and Brown Hyenas and Lions seemed relatively abundant while they fed their young and mated profusely in the bounty of easy pickings. In the park, approximately the size of Switzerland, I was one of only 3 tourists who were there (that wouldn't be the case today, unfortunately!).

 

About 20 km's N of the Twee Rivieren camp along the Nossob riverbed, I found a dead springbok with a scar on its neck by the side of the road. I minute or so later a beautiful leopard (my favorite animal) peered from behind a tree, panting. She was a young female. She had just caught the springbok. For the next 3 days I had the opportunity to watch and photograph that leopardess as she sat in the tree with her cache. There were Spotted Hyenas and Black-Backed Jackals sometimes sleeping under that tree waiting for scraps to fall. I had the opportunity to photograph that leopardess in amazing situations as she went about her daily routine after being accustomed to my car (no other cars passed by the whole time). I have shots of her silouetted at dawn, feeding, panting, posing every which way, trotting about in beautiful evening light, and my favorite, a full-framed head shot looking in her eyes seen through my 80-200 zoom. A large enlargement of her sits over my desk to this day.

 

My camera gear consisted of some Yashica FX-D's, a Tokina 400/5.6, 80-200 and Yashica 28 and 50mm lenses. That was plenty for me at the time. I didn't know what a loupe was.

 

Now my favorite subjects are birds and I have a lot of expensive equipment to do it with properly. No ammount of time, money and equipment will ever enable me to get the shots of that leopardess again. Photographing sparrows in North America is a better investment of time and money to me now. Any trip to Africa could only be a a let down after that.

That's something that only you can decide for yourself. If you're really into photographing birds, for example, near your home then getting a long fast lens should be first your priority. If you really want to go to Africa, then don't wait until you have a 600/f4, etc. You'll get far better shots of African game in Africa with a 400/f5.6 than than you will sitting at home with a 600/f4!

 

It certainly doesn't have to cost $8200 for a trip to Africa! Buy a plane ticket, rent a car, and take a tent. Motels in small towns can be inexpensive as well. A trip there doesn't have to cost too much more that a trip within NAmerica. South Africa and some neighboring countries offer unlimited photo ops while being easy to get around at a reasonable cost. Spending a ton of money to line the pockets of a tour operator is a stupid waste of money, IMO. A do-it-yourself month in Africa along with an AF 300/2.8 + tc's is certainly within a $8200 budget.

This is way off topic to the original post, but "twitcher" isn't necessarily a derogatory term. It's a word that English birders use to describe someone that gets a twitch to chase down a rarity. There's an historical derivation that I read somewhere about some birder, but I forgot what it was. In the U.S. the word "lister" is generally used, although I think that the previous poster used the word "twitcher" to describe birders in general. It can be a derogatory term depending on how it's used. In the negative sense, a lister/twitcher is someone who hops on a plane to some remote location, spending thousands of dollars travelling, to tick a species off their list for their own ego satisfaction and then bulldozes a biologically rich field or woodlot to make a bigger lawn for themselves. In the positive sense, where the vast majority of birders fall, birding means being outside observing the natural wonder of birds and having a fascination and knowledge with their songs, plumages, genetics, and migration patterns.

 

 

In response to rene de heer's negative comments about too many twitchers being present for good photography, I assure you that many birders hold a very negative attitude towards photographers also. Photographers really need to take care not to offend birders because restrictions on photographic opportunities will inevitably result otherwise. At Magee Marsh in Ohio, a birding hotspot that I frequent in the spring, I constantly hear grumblings from birders about photographers. One truly obnxious and embarassing incident I reall was of a cigarette-puffing photographer so intent on getting a shot of a Kirtland's Warbler that he pushed away all in his in way, including some Amish children! When birders are around, great sensitivity is needed while photographing. The photographers should never intrude upon the birder who simply wants to view a species. Birders are the greatest audience for good bird photographs and that should always be considered.

 

In response to Bob Atkins comment that there are 2 types of birds, big photographable birds and little brown ones, all I can do is sit and feel my stomach churn. Personally I wouldn't walk across the street to photograph another heron or egret. It's been done and overdone by everyone, including me. Even Arthur Morris' famous shot of 2 great blues has shown up in so many calendars, books, and magazines at this point that I can only yawn now (sorry, Artie). That shot is even hanging in a nearby Chinese resaurant down the street from me. I'd rather see provacative shots of LeConte's Sparrows. Those little brown birds that Bob Atkins desribes are the real allure of birders (myself included). Shorebirds, sparrows, and warblers (they are brown too in fall and juvenile plumage) are what make me want to travel to remote locations with thousands of dollars in photo gear, and what birders who look at photographs in magazines are most fascinated by. Learning the songs, habitats, plumages, migration patterns, and general ecology of sparrows, shorebirds, and warblers can only make any camera jock a better naturalist.

Does it really matter whether the viewfinder says f4, f5.6, or f917 if the through the lens meter works? It's not a problem at all in practical use.

I'm not a Nikon person, but I did own and use that lens for a number of years. I had a Nikon F4s and all the program modes and matrix metering was available to me when I used the TC14B (although I never used them). You don't say what cameras you own, but have you considered getting a used F4s for that lens since such things seem important to you?

They probably aren't any successful bird photographers who aren't also accomplished birders. You can't separate the two. While some birders concentrate on the gaudiness of their lists, photographically oriented birders concentrate on the quality and artistry of their photographs.

 

Spend lots and lots time in the field studying your subjects with binoculars. Know their songs, when they migrate through your area, what their habits and habitats are, what their various plumages are, learn all the hotspots for birding in your area, where and when when the good light comes, follow the winds for migration movements and know when certain species will be a certain locations. The list goes on and on, but those are simply basic things that all bird photographers know. Eventually the fruitful photo-ops will come if the basic preliminary time and energy put in. There are no short cuts.

While I have never used the Canon 500/f4.5L. I have used both the Nikon 500/f4P and Canon 600/f4L with a 2x. Both those lenses are indeed capable of sharp shots with a 2x in ideal circumstances and I'm sure your lens is too.

 

Kirk makes a bracket for the Nikon 500/f4P w/2x. That dramatically helped me when using that lens with a 2x on a sturdy tripod. I have asked (via telephone) about future brackets for other lenses such as my Canon 600mm and they said that they're forthcoming. Last I checked (June), they weren't ready, but they might be now. Perhaps you should e-mail Kirk and not this forum.

 

Since Canon's new IS big telephotos are compatible with tripods, I think that the ergonomics for shooting at 1000 or 1200mm will be incredibly enhanced. I know that I'll definitley want to get an IS 600/f4 when my meager finances allow for this reason, among others.

To check out the website for the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park, go to :

 

http://www.ecoafrica.com/saparks/

 

Amazingly, the words printed there about the park are the exact same ones that appear on a map I have from there nearly 20 years ago! The MataMata camp and Twee Rivieren camp are the best ones to stay at for cheetahs, but the Nossob camp is the most interesting camp to stay at to explore remote Africa.

 

Listen to Mike Rott's advice about car rentals. When I was there last, there was no paved road north of Upington. They were talking about tarring a road in the park. Instead, they paved a road to the park and still regrade the same tracks through the riverbeds. They must be like canyons by now. A van or small truck ("bakkie", as they're called there) would definitely be worthwhile. VW's do keep the fan going after the engine is shut off. I now own a VW Jetta and that has been a problem for me recently while photographing Henslow's Sparrows from my car in Ohio. Canon IS lenses help, though.

I should add that I only went to Etosha once, spending 10 days in August. I don't think I even saw cheetahs on that trip (I was lucky with leopards there, though). The opening of the gates depends on when you go. I think they change the times monthly and the ammount of daylight changes during the course of the month.

 

In the Kalahari, on the other hand, I have easily seen and photographed cheetahs every time I've been there (5 times at various seasons, averaging about 18 days per visit). While they can be found all over the park, the best luck I had with them was usually on the Auob riverbed and the southern part of the Nossob. They're scarcer, more widely scattered, and shyer up in the northern part of the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park. (The northern part of the park is the best place for brown hyenas, though). I've also visited most of the other large national parks that have cheetahs in southern Africa (Hwange, Chobe, Kruger). The Kalahari is certainly the best place to find cheetahs. There is no close second choice.

Being able to photograph "Gepards" (cheetahs) is always pure luck. In Namibia, Etosha National Park is probably the best place to try for them. BY FAR a better place to go would be the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park in South Africa. It is located on the south-east border of Namibia. The Auob and Nossob riverbeds must surely be the best place in Africa to observe and photograph cheetahs.

 

In the Kalahari there probably isn't a best time of year to find them. They prey mostly on springbok in the riverbeds and there are usually some around all year. If you want to see young cubs, Feb. would be a good time to go. In Etosha, the winter dry season (northern hemesphere summer)would be the best time to try.

 

Any lenses between an 80-200 and a 800mm could be useful, depending on how close you are. Since cheetahs are active mostly during the day, fast film isn't too necessary. Of course, you'll want to bring some along for other creatures that are only photographable around dawn and dusk.

That's an interesting question. Fist of all I don't believe that there really is a John/Jane Doe. Different people like different things. A good photograph is a good photograph . Period. All the technical details can't be overlooked. A really good photograph is likely appeal to a wide variety of people. Color, simple compositions, great light, exposure, and subject matter are always important.

 

You say you photograph birds (so do I). For birds I find a vastly different response to my shots depending who the audience is. Living in Ohio, I, of course, have a lot of shots of the common species here. To non-birders, like family, friends and photographers, good shots of species like Northern Cardinals and flying Ring-Billed Gulls get oohs and ahs. Those species ilicit only big yawns from knowledgable birders, no matter how artistic. Meanwhile a "10" of a Worm-Eating Warbler or Le Conte's Sparrow really is appeciated by everyone.

I use a simple formula that I heard at workshops from both Larry West and Arthur Morris. Take a meter reading from a part of the sky that doesn't include the sun and open up one stop (add +1 exposure compensation). You might like to bracket around that exposure to get what you want. This works well when the sun is low on the horizon.

I agree with Shun. The first thing to also take along wound be a second camera body. If everything works fine, as it should, you'll at least be able to have a camera body with 2 different types of film at your disposal. In Africa, I think you'll find that a 100 ISO film will work in most circumstances with the gear you have. Sure, you'll see some cool wildlife around dawn and dusk, but when the sun is up, it's up. Rewinding mid-roll isn't really a good idea in the dusty areas of Botswana you'll be visiting. (ISO 200, 24 exposure might be a good idea.)

 

I also agree with Shun about extra lenses. The 100-400 would be expensive to duplicate, though. The only real substutute would be the 300/f4 IS lens. If your 100-400, for some reason, breaks, you can probably make an emergency substitute purchase in most large cities in SAfrica. Another interesting lens to consider taking along would be the 20/f2.8 lens as a standard wide angle. 28mm just lacks the punch of wider lenses if used well.

 

I used to live in Cape Town, IMO the most beautiful city in the world, and have traveled to the places you mention. I'm sure that you'll have a blast and will long to return soon.

Geez, since you're spending all the money to go to Africa, I'd think that spending a little more on something like a Tokina 400/5.6 wouldn't dent your budget. The best idea (to me at least) would be to get a used Canon 400/f5.6L or a 300/f4 and teleconverers and sell them when you return.

I agree that this time of year isn't too inspiring for photography. I usually spend most of my free time watching baseball at home with the A.C. on. But insects always offer good photo-ops this time of year. It usually doesn't take much effort to find subjects and get interesting shots.

Released a few months ago is the third edition to the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of North America". If you're among the few who already don't own it, GET IT. It has improved illustrations, more accurate and easier-to-read maps, and the latest taxonomical decisions form the American Ornithological Union.

 

I don't understand why Arthur Morris doesn't recommend the P.J. Grant book, since a photograph of his on the the cover.