Wildlife Photography, Part 1 - Equipment

[boneaddict]

Two things....first one is for Timber or anyone listening.  Take account where you do a majority of your shooting.  One thing "bad" about the 500 compared to the 400 is that you can actually have too much magnicifaction.  If you are shooting alot in NE washington and or Idaho, you might be too close to the animal to get them all in the frame.  That happened to me several times this fall.  ALot of my shots aren't cropped.
That brings us to the other thought I had about megapixels.  Unless you are selling posters, there is no need for all those megas.  In fact when reducing the pics and putting them on here, there is often distortion involved.  I call it compression syndrome have no idea what the real phenomenon is called. 

[huntnphool]

Thought I would give you guys a photo for comparison. This is the 600mm f/4, try hiking up snow covered rocks and slopes with this thing while chasing rams. One slip and its $8,000.00 in the toilet.

[PacificNWhunter]

Can't believe you guys haul those things around. Glad you do though! I like the pic's.

[boneaddict]

That was the exact thought I had after going after one of those damn sheep.  I turned around and looked at the truck below and thought hmmmm.   Kind of hard to see holes and boulders with a foot of wind blown snow over them.

[boneaddict]

How'd you  like the 600 Rob?

[popeshawnpaul]

Now you know why the 4lb 400mm f4 DO is worth every extra penny. 

[boneaddict]

I just started drinking again so I could get in shape to carry it.  I'll be working my way up to 40 oz bombs here pretty soon.

[huntnphool]

How'd you  like the 600 Rob?

Its awsome Bone, and with the 1.4 Extender you don't have to push the critters at all. My last couple posted pics were shot at 150 yards.

Theres a pretty funny story to go along with the pics Pope and I got of him, maybe some day after several drinks we will spill it. Imagine looking at a 80* snow covered slope and having no choice but to go down it while packing that thing and I do mean NO CHOICE

[boneaddict]

Looking forward to it.

[Skinner]

Great post!  It helps out with a lot of unknowns for a new camera guy.

[Timber]

Two things....first one is for Timber or anyone listening.  Take account where you do a majority of your shooting.  One thing "bad" about the 500 compared to the 400 is that you can actually have too much magnicifaction.  If you are shooting alot in NE washington and or Idaho, you might be too close to the animal to get them all in the frame.  That happened to me several times this fall.  ALot of my shots aren't cropped.

That is an excellent point bone. My plan is to carry my 100-400 f5.6 or maybe a 70-200 f2.8 and a 1.4 tc to fill in the gap. That brings me to another question for pope. How much better of a lens is the 70-200 f2.8 than the 100-400 f5.6?  Besides being faster, is it a lot sharper? What about with a 1.4 tc on it?

[Huntbear]

Awesome articles, keep them coming.

I have a question regarding camera bodies.  I know it is like asking what your favorite gun maker is!! 

How do the Nikon D60 and the Canon Rebel XSI compare?  I am doing my homework, so later in the spring, I can get the most bang for my buck.  I get that I may be talking apples and oranges, but those two seem to be in the price range I am looking at right now. Are used camera bodies worth looking at?  How do you know if they have been abused or used up?

Also, is one of the "kits" a way to go, so you get 2 or more lenses?  It seems most offer like an 18-55 and a 75-250 or 300 zoom.  I know what you said about the non prime lenses, but those are expensive, I am looking for something to grow into as I sharpen my skills, and then add a better lense or two at a later date.

Sorry for all the questions, if the are redundant,  they just kind of hit me, and it is late.

[popeshawnpaul]

Both those cameras are simple DSLR cameras.  They both do a good job.  Don't pick Nikon or Canon because of the camera.  Go find the lenses you want and then pick a lens to suit.  Or just go to a Best Buy and feel each one out.  The kits are cheap quality lenses.  You will outgrow the lenses quick and then you will have a couple cheap lenses collecting dust eventually.  I guess the 18-55 is a cheap way to get in the game, so go for it.  I would rather see someone shoot a 50mm f1.8 prime for the same money as you can get the 18-55 kit lens for.  (75 dollars)  It's better quality and faster.  Less zoom though.  Prime lenses aren't expensive.  Zoom lenses are more expensive than prime lenses. 

Used cameras are great deals.  You can buy a used 40D or a new Rebel XSI for the same money...  That's an easy choice for me as I'll go for the 40D.  The Rebel cameras have a way of telling how many actuations there are on the camera.  If you do a search online there are various ways to tell how many actuations your camera has and you can do this before you buy or find a reputable seller.  The people that sell used at fredmiranda.com seem to be very honest people.  Don't buy from ebay.  There are a few cameras like mine where there is no way to tell how many actuations there are. 

[robb92]

Very good info thanks for posting it!!!!

[boneaddict]

I have never liked the extenders or 1.4 on variable zoom lens.  They are a useful tool on good prime lens, but don't think they work worth beans on the others.  Just my opinion though.