|
I knew that polar bears were murdering bastards, but the curfew that we're subject to while we're in Churchill kinda drove that home in a new and exciting way. I'm not going to be lumping the gear around on my back for any distance as the trip appears to be designed for old white people. My in-laws gifted my partner and I the trip and will be there as well, and they aren't hiking anywhere. I'll use them as bait. The 300 is the largest thing I'd want to travel with so I'll do the 300, 70-200, 24-70, the extender and a monopod.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:I'm assuming this was a pre-snow trip? I shoot a lot of wildlife in really cold temps (-40) and let me tell you it's ridiculously expensive to get a decent set of gear and it takes up a huge amount of luggage space. If you can find a place that does it, rent the boots, parka, and ski pants once you're in the area instead. For gloves you cannot beat these amazing gloves that I swear by. Check out Baffin for quality snow boots. Otherwise make sure you have tons of layers rather than tons of bulky items. At the end of the day the cold is going to get through anything if you aren't moving.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:This is kinda on-topic for yall, is the canon 70-300 L solid for wildlife hikes? I don't have a telephoto yet other than the cheapo 55-250 and wanted something that would be reasonable for hikes where I live in the mountains, plus I have a trip to Costa Rica planned in January that I wanted something telephoto for as well. Not approaching anything insane like bears unless I run into black bears up here, mostly wanting to do local birds and wildlife. Seems to be a pretty well liked lens with more reach than a 70-200. The 70-300L is a funny lens because on paper it should be a dumb purchase. It's slower max aperture than the 70-200's, heavier and more expensive than the non/L and non Canon 70-300's, and not really long enough to be a dedicated wildlife lens (plus it doesn't take most teleconverters). But it's built like a tank, takes gorgeous pics, and is fun as heck to use. There's a reason why it's so popular. I've got one and love it for hiking, as much for the wide end for landscapes as for the long end. In fact, if I'm not going too far, I'll sometimes put it on my 6D and my 150-600 on my 7D2. I'd say the 70-300L is best for big wildlife and for butterflies/insects you can get close to. If you want to do a lot of bird photography, you'll end up cropping a lot and probably eventually getting something 400mm or longer. Jungle shooting can be really hard given the light. Not my forte, but you might be better off with something /f4 for the tropics. I'm sure someone else can weigh in with recs for Costa Rica. InternetJunky, love that pic!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
xzzy posted:For gloves, get something with removable fingertips. Valleret is the high roller boutique option, but they do make a good product. Cheap end is golf mittens. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=golf+mittens&ref=nb_sb_noss Bonus: You can keep a chemical warmer in each mitten and they're stellar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:The 70-300L is a funny lens because on paper it should be a dumb purchase. It's slower max aperture than the 70-200's, heavier and more expensive than the non/L and non Canon 70-300's, and not really long enough to be a dedicated wildlife lens (plus it doesn't take most teleconverters). But it's built like a tank, takes gorgeous pics, and is fun as heck to use. There's a reason why it's so popular. I've got one and love it for hiking, as much for the wide end for landscapes as for the long end. In fact, if I'm not going too far, I'll sometimes put it on my 6D and my 150-600 on my 7D2. I'd say the 70-300L is best for big wildlife and for butterflies/insects you can get close to. If you want to do a lot of bird photography, you'll end up cropping a lot and probably eventually getting something 400mm or longer. That's really helpful info, thanks! One day I'll look into getting something faster or a longer prime lens but I've been looking at it as a multi-purpose lens with more reach than a 70-200. Hiking around here is usually in the woods though, so I'm often in shadows. Could be an issue but doesn't seem like a bad choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Assuming you're asking about my trip, then yes it was pre-snow but with the wind chill the temps were around -20. I'd like to photograph polar bears but grizzlies at Lake Clarke are the top of my bear bucket list. Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Nov 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 14:32
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Was there a particular driver who visiting at that time of year? I've done Lake Clarke as well and plan to go back soon. The great thing about Lake Clarke is you are going to see bears 100%. We saw ~40 different grizzlies in the 5 days we were there and they come so close you can take full frame photos with a 100mm lens. With polar bears there is a real possibility that you get skunked and see no bears.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
I don't consider getting the camera out for deer but I don't see bucks too often so I just HAD to. Getting stinkeye from a buck by Seth Graham, on Flickr I hung out for a bit hoping he'd move somewhere a little more interesting (the blurry tree on the left edge annoys the gently caress out of me but it wasn't reasonable for me to get closer and there was no other angles to be had), but he wasn't having none of that and stood motionless staring me down until I left. Don't worry bro I'm not gonna steal your ladies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I don't consider getting the camera out for deer but I don't see bucks too often so I just HAD to. Nice catch! Also, hello camera + lens + state (?) buddy. Where did you find him? I also found some more Illinois wildlife:    
charliebravo77 fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Nov 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
Blackwell Forest Preserve. They have an excellent oak stand near the river that I'd been haunting for fall photos and apparently deer like it too because the place is lousy with them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Blackwell Forest Preserve. They have an excellent oak stand near the river that I'd been haunting for fall photos and apparently deer like it too because the place is lousy with them. Hah, I used to live right by there. I should get back down to check it out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
Took my camera to class to gently caress around with the new GH5 firmware update, the AF is actually good now. I turned on focus peaking for AFS and set it to near priority and eye focus and it just snapped right on to everything even in bad light. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Atlatl posted:Took my camera to class to gently caress around with the new GH5 firmware update, the AF is actually good now. I turned on focus peaking for AFS and set it to near priority and eye focus and it just snapped right on to everything even in bad light. Love that squirrel karate pose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Yeah, looks like you are dialed in for sure. Eye focus setting would be a dream. Does it work well for wildlife, or is it built for humans primarily? Some cameras recently have added "animal eye focus" no idea how well it works, I really want "insect compound eye manual focus assist" but I can't imagine that's high up on camera manufacturers priority lists. jarlywarly fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 10:20
|
|
|
Stumbled on some orcas for the first time today. Really would have loved some more reach, but I can’t imagine holding anything more substantial than a 70-200+2x stable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 06:09
|
|
|
Soldier crab doing it's thing. starship troopers reboot lookin good
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 03:21
|
|
|
toggle posted:Soldier crab doing it's thing. I played around with an older photo. Does this work? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Wow, that's pretty awesome. I feel like the highlights are just a touch too hot, but I dig it otherwise. Has kind of a Donal Boyd feel: https://www.instagram.com/donalboyd/
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Wow, that's pretty awesome. I feel like it might work better b&w?? It’s cool and I bet it would sell. Personally not my cup of tea. It doesn’t feel like a wild bear anymore, and that bothers me more than it probably should for a piece of art.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:I feel like it might work better b&w?? It’s cool and I bet it would sell. Personally not my cup of tea. It doesn’t feel like a wild bear anymore, and that bothers me more than it probably should for a piece of art. Agreed, also I feel like the highlights with the black background give it the illusion of being backlit in a studio setting which is why it doesn't feel as wild. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
charliebravo77 posted:I feel like the highlights are just a touch too hot, but I dig it otherwise. Has kind of a Donal Boyd feel: https://www.instagram.com/donalboyd/ BetterLekNextTime posted:I feel like it might work better b&w?? It’s cool and I bet it would sell. Personally not my cup of tea. It doesn’t feel like a wild bear anymore, and that bothers me more than it probably should for a piece of art.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 01:10
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:
Sorry if that sounded harsh. It's a very impactful photo that I think will click with a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
It'll look good on metal and you'll sell a bunch, for sure. I know this is a bird but since we're getting advice I'll throw this draft in:  Thanks to big idiot em1x burst rate I happened to have more than enough shots to do a takeoff sequence so I tried this. Is it too busy? Is this garbage? I would prefer to know prior to spending a few hours on masking and adjustments, because this stuff is pretty tedious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
Atlatl posted:It'll look good on metal and you'll sell a bunch, for sure. Maybe a tight crop on the cluster of heads? The bird on the right is almost too far away. The bodies on the left have a shadow from the tree that is a little distracting given everything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Wow, that's pretty awesome. I like it, but it doesn't feel like a photo anymore. It's a great image though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 09:52
|
|
|
Atlatl posted:It'll look good on metal and you'll sell a bunch, for sure. I think it needs more room to the right, I always like for there be space for the eye to "follow" the bird into when they are moving, if you have more room on that side use it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 10:10
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I like it, but it doesn't feel like a photo anymore. Add in some backlit water spray and it's a liquor ad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Sorry if that sounded harsh. It's a very impactful photo that I think will click with a lot of people. Atlatl posted:I know this is a bird but since we're getting advice I'll throw this draft in:
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Wow, that's pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
Atlatl posted:It'll look good on metal and you'll sell a bunch, for sure. I'd file this one under 'useful learning experience mentally filed away for future attempts'. The idea is good but there's enough niggles (the tree, the shadow from the tree, the framing) that I wouldn't go forward with it. Instead I'd use it as the start of a project to make a photo in this style but absolutely nailing every aspect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:No, it's not harsh at all. This is basically the only place in the entire internet you can get actual criticism on work so I always appreciate it. yeah pretty much Pablo Bluth posted:If you don't mind me being honest, I don't think it's remotely up to your usual standards. The fact that anyone pays enough attention to my posting that I can be called out on consistency is basically a compliment so no, I don't mind at all  I don't really have any other photos to put more room on the right, and yeah, I think there's enough problems with it as a whole that I won't mess with it too much. I might try finishing up a bit more just to mess with the crop and see what masks look better though. Funny enough, that tree in the middle was useful for masking the mismatches on either side due to the panning motion, but the shadow it casts is bothering me now that I'm not staring at feather pixels at 4:1. The big takeaway for me is that need to plan ahead to get something like this. I'll probably use the technique for my sports shooting work at some point. There are a few clubs here (skate, bmx, dive, etc) where that style of sequence is considered pretty standard, so it was nice to figure that out and realize I need to shoot way wider if I want that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
My friend asked me for advice for a telephoto lens for a safari next year. I don't really have any more details except it will be a trip with her family to South Africa (so probably not an itinerary with a super-draconian weight limit but I don't know that for sure), and I think she has a ~4 year old Nikon crop body and some sort of entry level 70-300. If it was Canon I'd probably recommend the 100-400L mk2 and then figure out what Sigma is closest to that, but I don't know Nikon. Is the 200-500 Nikon too big to be an easy travel lens? What are good options now around the 100-400 range? I can post in the Nikon thread but I figured I'd ask here first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:My friend asked me for advice for a telephoto lens for a safari next year. I don't really have any more details except it will be a trip with her family to South Africa (so probably not an itinerary with a super-draconian weight limit but I don't know that for sure), and I think she has a ~4 year old Nikon crop body and some sort of entry level 70-300. If it was Canon I'd probably recommend the 100-400L mk2 and then figure out what Sigma is closest to that, but I don't know Nikon. Is the 200-500 Nikon too big to be an easy travel lens? What are good options now around the 100-400 range? I can post in the Nikon thread but I figured I'd ask here first. Is she hiring or buying? I see people using the 300mm f/2.8 with extenders. But telephoto covers a lot of price range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:My friend asked me for advice for a telephoto lens for a safari next year. I don't really have any more details except it will be a trip with her family to South Africa (so probably not an itinerary with a super-draconian weight limit but I don't know that for sure), and I think she has a ~4 year old Nikon crop body and some sort of entry level 70-300. If it was Canon I'd probably recommend the 100-400L mk2 and then figure out what Sigma is closest to that, but I don't know Nikon. Is the 200-500 Nikon too big to be an easy travel lens? What are good options now around the 100-400 range? I can post in the Nikon thread but I figured I'd ask here first. Probably a good quality 70-300mm is the best bet, or if she's willing to go a bit larger find a used Sigma 120-400mm that'd work too, but that is still getting into the pretty large size. Mind you, none of these are as big and heavy as a 300mm f/2.8 prime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
How serious are they about it? Cost, weight and hassle can soon dampen the enthusiasm for the endeavour for those who aren't coming from an existing interest in photographing wildlife. Are they doing a private game reserve where they're likely be close, or somewhere like Kruger where it's strictly stay-on-the-road? I would point out the 150-600 Sigma Contemporary or Tamon (original not the newer G2) to them (they're the cheaper and lighter of the options), but recommend that a 100-400 (Tamron or Sigma) is probably the more sensible option (repeat the mantra about the best camera being the one you have with you, and get them to consider if they'll get bored and leave a bulky camera at the room/tent or in the bag). They might ignore you and go with a 150-600 and if it goes wrong you can do a polite 'I did say'. They could come back and bemoan 400mm being too short but I reckon that's a less serious blowback. Plus you can prime them to understand that 600mm isn't a magic solution (the technical challenges, atmospherics/heat haze, etc). I'd certainly recommend Tamron or Sigma over Nikon. This doesn't strike me as a situation where pixel peeping the last few percent of quality is relevant; low weight and cost seem a more sensible priority. Alternatively, talk them in to going m43, where they can have 200-800 equivalent at much reduced weight https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/0536950749/interview-wildlife-photographer-buddy-eleazer-on-why-he-chose-the-om-d-e-m1x https://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?eb=1&id=114
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
I shoot the EM-1X with the panaleica 100-400 and it's light enough that I carry it with me in my backpack going to class almost daily due to random bird encounters or whatever. It has plenty of reach for large animals and doesn't take up much space, I had it with me on most of my international trips and it was easy to carry on hikes. Dual IS with the GH5 or another panny body is great and takes a lot of the shooting technique barrier away from using the telephoto, but 800mm equivalent isn't all that easy to shoot without prior practice at the end of the day. Switching systems doesn't seem like it's on the table, but if it is, m43 also has the super cheap 300mm zooms available as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:My friend asked me for advice for a telephoto lens for a safari next year. I don't really have any more details except it will be a trip with her family to South Africa (so probably not an itinerary with a super-draconian weight limit but I don't know that for sure), and I think she has a ~4 year old Nikon crop body and some sort of entry level 70-300. If it was Canon I'd probably recommend the 100-400L mk2 and then figure out what Sigma is closest to that, but I don't know Nikon. Is the 200-500 Nikon too big to be an easy travel lens? What are good options now around the 100-400 range? I can post in the Nikon thread but I figured I'd ask here first. My partner and I went to Kruger a couple of years ago, flying in to Nelspruit from Jo'burg and renting a car. She had her Canon crop body with 400mm f5.6, which is about as big as you want for carry-around weight and maneuverability. I had my m43 with 15mm and 60mm macro. We did carry-on only for luggage and were fine. One thing to bear in mind is you cannot leave your vehicle, so beanbag on the door sill, shooting out a window is all you can do outside the camps. If you're on a safari truck, same deal, and you don't want to be conking people in the head with a huge 600mm or something. Honestly, the reach was good for a lot of things, but in Kruger the animals are BIG and CLOSE, so there were a number of times where she could get a great picture of a giraffe or elephant eyeball, but had no chance on the whole beast. My 120mm equivalent Olympus came in handy a lot. So like you said, for Canon the 100-400L would be perfect, but for Nikon, it looks like there's a 80-400 F4.5-5.6 which would probably be even more ideal, if your friend can stomach the $2k price. Or get the better 70-300 with a 1.4x teleconverter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
Thanks for the quick replies!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Wow, that's pretty awesome. I knew I'd seen something like this recently. Deloitte Canada has this whole "disrupting the bear" ad campaign running on the UP Express airport train in Toronto. Lots of bear imagery, including things like this:  Maybe you could sell your photo to whoever is running the campaign? Get in on some of that Big Finance moneys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
Finger Prince posted:I knew I'd seen something like this recently. Deloitte Canada has this whole "disrupting the bear" ad campaign running on the UP Express airport train in Toronto. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 16:55
|
|