Equipment tips...

[popeshawnpaul]

I was responding to the post below on photography tips, but half way through my response I realized my response needs its own thread.

I hear many times the old addage...any camera or lens can take great pictures.  And while this may be true some of the time, it's not true most of the time.  Ever wonder why the pros use those large white lenses?  It is because to get pro quality photos they are almost essential.  Now, I can get by shooting landscapes with a cheap lens.  Any lens is good at f16.  What your lens can do wide open at f2.8, f4, or f5.6 is the most important thing.  Most lenses aren't sharp wide open.  You must stop them down one stop to get them to be sharp. 

Lets take this example to illustrate:  I own a Tokina 400mm F5.6 lens that I use to backpack with.  While I love the size and relative quality in relation to cost, the quality has something to be desired.  First off, it is slow at F5.6, it doesn't have image stabilization, and you must stop it down to be sharp.  So...you must wait until about 10:00 AM to get enough light to shoot this lens.  When I want sharp photos I must stop it down to F8, but shooting at F8 yields very slow shutter speeds depending on the lighting situation.  The only thing I can do is to push my ISO up to 800 or 1600 speed, but then my photos end up so grainy I can't do anything with them but make an ok 5x6 print.  Additionally, when I shoot at F8, the trees in the background are not blurred enough to make that deer "pop" out of the photo.  The photo becomes too distracting to use.

Concerning film speed and digital megapixels, it is no contest for me.  I have shot with the finest grained slide films available and found them to be very limiting.  Fuji Velvia iso 50 provided great detail, but was often too slow to shoot on a marginal light day.  I simply couldn't have gotten half the shots I took on my recent trip without the new advancements in photography.  I shot this trip at ISO 100, 200, and 400.  At ISO 200 I believe I get better quality than I ever did with Fuji Velvia ISO 50 film.  And the Canon 40d I shoot with takes amazing photos at ISO 400 than can still be blown up to 20x30" and make great posters. 

I have owned an eos 1, a2, elan, etc.  I don't believe film equals digital at anything 8 megapixels or above.  I shoot at 10 megapixels and my photos are much more sharp and can be cropped quite a bit more than my best Velvia slides that have been scanned at 4000 dpi.  Not to mention I'm not conserving shots because of cost anymore...  I got many good shots that I probably never would have pulled the trigger on if I had been using film.  Most of the time, the shots that turn out great I never expected, and the shots that turn out bad I thought would be great.

On my recent trip I took a 300mm F2.8L with IS or image stabilization.  I have been reluctant to use IS but used it exclusively on this trip.  It worked great.  Even on a tripod I used it nearly all the time.  It allowed me to take photos down to 1/40th of a second, something you simply can't do with a 300mm lens that doesn't have IS.  Having IS is huge.  I usually am reluctant with a 300-400mm lens to shoot it at speeds slower than 1/250th of a second.  With IS, I got useable shots down to 1/40th of a second.  Basically, with a good digital at iso 400, a fast lens at F2.8, and IS, you can shoot great pictures of wildlife from sunup to sundown, period.  Technology has made huge advances in photography.

And lastly, the blur or bokeh is amazing with an F2.8 lens.  I know a lens like this is expensive, but it does wonders for your photography.  Remember, if you are on a budget and buying a new lens, consider a prime or fixed focal length lens.  You often get much better quality and a faster F-stop with prime lenses.  While not everyone can afford a $3,800 300mm F2.8L IS lens, many of us can afford a $1,000 300mm F4 IS lens...coupled with an XTI or 20d/30d/40d would be great.  Put a 1.4x on there for limited situations and you are set...  For as much time you spend in the field taking pictures, make them memorable.  I love going through my wildlife photos from 15 years ago and making prints of times I had long forgotten.  A point and shoot would never satisfy me.

[huntnphool]

Pope, all great points. I too have taken many pics I thought would be great only to find the ones I was killing time with turned out better. Your right on about digital compared to film, I shoot 5 times more pics now and go through them to discard the bad ones. My past trip I took just shy of 500, although not a lot for some, this would have been unheard of with film a few years ago. I was able to get a handful of good quality shots. The IS lenses are a must if using large lenses, and I still use the EF most of the time too, depending on the conditions. My biggest challenge is getting my EL 10x42's around my neck, my 20D with a large lens, a backpack with my swaro spotting scope, tripod, wyoming saw, knives, water, a rifle or bow etc. etc. etc. and getting it all up the hill. Now I'm not complaining but adding a SLR and large lens to the mix may be not only costly but quite burdensome for most I can see why most carry the point and shoots.

 On another note, for that rare instance someone gets a B&C or P&Y buck or bull, I believe pics still must be taken with film for them to officially be added to the record books. Does anyone know if they have changed their stance on this yet? I still carry a diposable camera with film too just in case

[jackelope]

While not everyone can afford a $3,800 300mm F2.8L IS lens, many of us can afford a $1,000 300mm F4 IS lens...coupled with an XTI or 20d/30d/40d would be great.

what do you suggest for those of us who can't afford $1000 lenses to go with the $1000-2000.00 cameras?

[popeshawnpaul]

What if you don't have the 1k for a lens and 1k for a camera?  Good question.  Well, I shot the following shot with a Canon EOS A2 and a Tokina 400mm F5.6 ATX.  I have seen the A2 used on sale for $100 and the Tokina lens for $150.  Look closely at the face and antlers in this photo.  The photo was in focus, but it isn't super tack sharp.  It was shot wide open at F5.6 with Fuji Velvia.  Is it good enough for most?  Probably.  I was happy with it for years.  Could I make a 20x30" print out of it?  No way.  This may look useable up to 8x10...but it is not a pro quality photo.  I do believe you have more latitude with this setup because it is a SLR and a removeable lens.  So, I don't know what the answer is if you don't have the money.  You could always rent a nice lens for the weekend when you are going on a photo safari... 

If you want to see some tack sharp photos that can be blown up, sold, or anything you want, look at the post about the 200" bighorn or mule deer.  Those photos were shot with a 300mm F2.8 L with IS. 

[huntnphool]

Hey Pope, the one thing I really need that I have no clue about is a good scanner for all my film pics. What would you recommend to convert photos to digital, not looking to reprint just get on a computer but still keep the sharpness of the photo.

[popeshawnpaul]

I rented a Nikon Coolscan from Glazers Photo in Seattle for the weekend.  I scanned all my good slides and negatives at 4000 dpi and saved them on an external hard drive in Tiff format.  Now they are saved forever.  I wasn't able to scan everything, but I got 90% of what I wanted.  There is no need to buy one unless you shoot tons of film still...and if you do you need to ask yourself why...  The price of a good scanner costs as much as a digital camera. 

[huntnphool]

"The price of a good scanner costs as much as a digital camera. "

Well since I already have two 20D bodies no way am I spending that much for a few hundered photos, Glazers it is. I had no idea they had those for rent, great info thanks.

[jackelope]

So, I don't know what the answer is if you don't have the money.  You could always rent a nice lens for the weekend when you are going on a photo safari... 

what ever happened to buying the best one could afford?? we are not all pro photographers and are not all looking for pro quality results. the photo's i take with my point and shoot are fine for me, and most of the people that look at them.
your photo's are awesome, but with all due respect, your described budget setup, even with an xti is right about $2000.00 with the 1.4x...i don't know too many people who want to spend $2k on a camera.

 

[jackelope]

p.s. i have a digital rebel(xt maybe?) also, but all i have is the lense that came on it and a 80-300 f4-5.6 that i bought used for $100.00.
i also have a film rebel, and an older eos 650 also.

[huntnphool]

"what ever happened to buying the best one could afford?? we are not all pro photographers and are not all looking for pro quality results."

 Damn jackelope, down Cujo down!!! I think you missed the subject line. Pope wasn't implying good pics can't be taken unless you spend lots of money, and by the way the setup he is talking about is more than $2000, he was just giving tips on taking better quality pics. Most of us are quite satisfied with what we photograph and the quality with which they are shot, however the highest quality pics won't happen with a point and shoot, thats all. The point and shoots are getting much better as years go by and for 99% of hunters they are perfect. One of my lenses was more than $5000, do I think everyone needs to have one, of course not. Does it help me to capture better images, without question, but I certainly understand peoples budget and priorities are a whole lot different than mine, as I believe Pope does as well. I havn't, nor have I seen anyone make a post saying how crappy someone elses pics are, that only happens on the MM ego site Please take this FWIW, but I really don't think there was any ill will or malevolence intended, andI for one appreciate hearing someone elses point of view on the matter if its going to help me take better pics.

[jackelope]

maybe that wasn't supposed to come out like it came out...i don't know.
xti-$700.00 at circuit city(even comes with a free cheapy 70-300 $150 lense)
$1000.00 lense-$1000.00
1.4x convertor-$280.00 at bh photovideo dot com

i didn't mean to sound like an ass...it just came across as soundling like the only way to get good pic's is with $2000.00 worth of camera at a minimum.
you guys both take incredible photos...thanks for posting them and please keep it up.
one of the things i like about this site is that you don't have to hear all the MM crap about how the only way you're gonna kill trophy animals is with a  $3000.00 custom rifle with a swaro scope and swaro spotters and $600 backpacks and blah blah blah.

[huntnphool]

"what ever happened to buying the best one could afford?? we are not all pro photographers and are not all looking for pro quality results."

 Me too, besides we all know it only takes a $500 73 Gremlin to hit one on the highway

 No worries man, thats one problem with internet chatting, you can't see facial expresions or hear someones tone. Although I have been shooting pics for a long time I am always listening to people, picking up every tip I can. Pope was right about another thing though, the better gear really does help but its really the person taking the pic that makes it. It drives me nutts when I get a nice deer on the ground I always take pics with my brother holding it, then when I have him do it, with the same gear, the pics seldom turn out like I would hope. I just cant get him to fill the frame, or focus right or get the whole animal, or not cut off my hat etc. Sometimes I tell him I think he is doing it on purpose so I have to show the better pics, which are always of him. Hes no dumby an d always has that *censored* eatin grin on his face when I take them too.

[billythekidrock]

It drives me nutts when I get a nice deer on the ground I always take pics with my brother holding it, then when I have him do it, with the same gear, the pics seldom turn out like I would hope. I just cant get him to fill the frame, or focus right or get the whole animal, or not cut off my hat etc.

Amen! I am the picture taker of our group and sometimes I feel like they don't care about taking a decent pic when they are behind the camera.

[popeshawnpaul]

I think the thread got a tad off topic.  I posted the photo above to illustrate a point between the cheaper telephoto lenses and the pro quality lenses.  I took it that direction because I see new posts almost daily from all the other guys on here that spend countless hours out hunting with their camera and want more from their photography. 

  "i didn't mean to sound like an ass...it just came across as soundling like the only way to get good pic's is with $2000.00 worth of camera at a minimum."   I shot the above photo with a $250 setup...  I am not saying the only way to get good pic's is with $2000 of equipment.  I'm saying it sure as heck helps with all the technical advancements made in equipment lately.  I happen to think the deer photo posted above is a good photo.  It was shot with a dirt cheap setup.  I am happy with the above photo.  I have made it a screensaver on my personal computer and have printed it many times.

This post was not intended for most of you that simply take your point and shoot out a few times a year.  This post was intended for the guys who are really into wildlife photography and are posting on here all the time that want tips to take their photography to the next level at a semi-reasonable price. 

So what does a guy do with his Rebel when you can't afford the 300mm f4 lens and you are going to Yelllowstone for the weekend?  Go to Glazers Camera in Seattle and rent the lens for $20/day.  It's not necessary to take photographs with, but if you are driving as far as many of us are and you are getting more serious about your photography, it's well worth the money.  Nobody here is a pro.  I don't sell photographs.  I would consider myself an amateur photographer that never wanted to stop hunting when the season was over, so I began picking up my camera and shooting wildlife. 

We all have to prioritise our money on our hobbies.  Many of you spend 1k on electric Scotty downriggers that I think aren't necessary.  I bought two cheap used Penns.  Many of you own an expensive rifle.  I still use my hand me down .243...  Nobody is sitting here gloating about the size of their...lens.  For those of you that love wildlife photography and want more from it, this post was for you.  If it doesn't apply to you that is fine as well.  I do like hearing the different opinions. 

[huntnphool]

"Many of you spend 1k on electric Scotty downriggers that I think aren't necessary."

Hey wait a second, I have a couple of those