Help - setup for wildlife photography?!

CatB

CatB

Suspended / Banned
Messages
162
Name
Cat
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Folks,

I currently own a Canon 400D with very basic lenses - canon EF USM (non-IS) lengths 28-55, 55-90 and 90-300mm.

I recently went on a rainforest river cruise and was very frustrated and frankly a bit gutted with the photos I could get.

In part this was entirely my own fault as I haven't used the camera seriously in years and had utterly forgotten that moving the ISO from 400 to 800 or more would have meant better sensitivity :bonk: but I got endless blurry photos from camera shake or very dark photos if I forced a quicker shutter speed to account for this.

I was often using the 300mm lens at it's maximum extent from a small boat with the engine running and the camera was asking for shutter speens of 1/80 or longer. Taking them at 1/360 is they were practically dark although they are in RAW so I'm hoping I can rescue some. I'm not sure that putting the ISO up to 800 would have totally sorted the problem and much higher I tend to be concerned about loosing sharpness.

So, I will be doing a repeat trip pretty much every time friends and family come to visit me since for the next few years I will be living in Malaysia. Please help with ideas for how to upgrade my kit to improve this (I know that I also need to upgrade my brain! book and website suggestions welcome too!) - I'm willing to spend around GBP1000 maybe up to 1500 and it's possible for me to shop in Singapore or HK, Malaysia is very expensive, I can get cheaper in the UK! 2nd had is more difficult unless people are willing to ship abroad although things could be posted to my parents in the UK if needed then transported out.

My 1st thought having seen the photos of other people on the trip was to ditch the DSLR altogether and get a Canon Powershot SX50, which seemed very impressive watching it in action - it's supposed to have the equivalent of a 1000mm telephoto and certainly seemed to deal with the low light better than my camera (but maybe it was automatically bumping up the ISO to compensate?). Is this a reasonable option? Is there a similar style of camera that would be even better? The problem with this obviously is that I loose the control of a DSLR and ability to upgrade individual bits. That said, the Powershot seems to have pretty much all the control I currently use on the D400...

Alternatively I could upgrade the lenses, camera body or both?

If I do this am I better to spend all the money on a single lens or split it between body and lenses?

If I go this route I need to stick to a body that fits the existing lenses so 600D, 650D, 700D? or 60D or 70D - obviously the more I spend on a body the less I have to spend on a lens...

Sorry for the epic post but some guidance would be most welcome!
 
Last edited:
Tough question.

I'm tempted to suggest the 60D and a Sigma 150-500 OS, for improved noise handling and reach, but the lens will pretty much always be at f6.3 which could be an issue

Oh they would need to be second hand for your budget though which again could be a problem.

No matter what you use though you'll need reasonably fast shutter speeds to compensate for the engine vibrations and the sway.
 
Last edited:
I use a Sigma 150-500mm and at f6.3 is very sharp and at iso 400 I can usually get the shutter speed up to around the 1/500th sec / 1/640th sec mark, fast enough for what you'll need

Les :thumbs:
 
Your budget is probably a bit restrictive if you also want a telephoto lens capability.

Rule of thumb: If shooting with a 300mm lens, your MINIMUM shutter speed should be 1/300. If 100mm lens, 1/100 minimum, etc. Image Stabilisation (IS) also helps.

The compact cameras are crap at digital telephoto so switch it off and stay within their optical zoom range.
 
Hi Folks,

Thanks very much for suggestions so far (keep them coming :-) ) - the comparison site is handy, I haven't seen that before.

I've had a look at the Sigma 15-500mm lens and it does indeed look like a nice option, Sigma seem harder to find in Asia than Tameron lenses but I'm sure I could track one down.

My biggest concern would be the f6.3 max aperture at 500mm. My 90-300 has a max aperture of 5.6 at 300mm and because i was shooting subjects in the shade of trees in most cases (underneath them at times) with the f5.6 and ISO400 the camera was wanteing shutter speeds of longer than 1/80 - even with image stabilisation I assume that's going to be hopeless with such high magnification. I don't know what improvement I'd get with ISO800 and how much the image quality would start to drop off at that or above.

Lez, what camera are you using that lens with and how good is the light, are you getting those shutter speeds into shade or just in good light?

Sorry for my ignorance but would a newer body with a better sensor mean that less light was required and therefore enable me to use a faster shutter speed?

Oh, and reasons why I shouldn't just buy a Powershot SX50 (or similar) would be welcome too! I love my DSLR but found it so frustrating on this trip that I'm struggling to explain to my other half why I shouldn't spend 1/4 the money on something that appeared to be doing a far better job than the big camera I was lugging around and constantly faffing with!
 
Back in the pre-digital age I used a professional Nikon F's and Canon EOS-1 etc etc but then on retiring I swopped them all for a digital compact. I currently use a FinePix F500EXR but have nearly worn it out! The zoom has started getting jerky etc.

A good compact can deliver surprisingly good results but they do have limitations, hence my plans to buy a Canon 70D plus some Canon L lenses. But I constantly carry my compact on my trousers belt and so will also replace it.

Hiring a DSLR for a day might help you decide. It comes down to what kind of photography you want to do.
 
Robin - thanks for your input. I already have a DSLR (EOS 400D) and am looking to take wildlife photos, quite possibly from a boat and in fairly low light conditions - shooting into shade of trees.

My issue is really whether to upgrade the body, the lens, both or replace it all with one of these semi-compact type things like the Powershot SX50 (no idea what the official term is!).
 
CatB said:
Sorry for my ignorance but would a newer body with a better sensor mean that less light was required and therefore enable me to use a faster shutter speed?
Click to expand...

A newer body would give you the option of higher ISO and cleaner images at higher ISO, so you could then bump up the shutter speed. I put the Image comparison link up for you to compare how well the various cameras work at higher ISO.
 
fatmarley said:
A newer body would give you the option of higher ISO and cleaner images at higher ISO, so you could then bump up the shutter speed. I put the Image comparison link up for you to compare how well the various cameras work at higher ISO.
Click to expand...

Ah, gotcha! :thumbs: Thanks - that will help with the choice around new bodies - unfortunately the 400D appears to be so old that it's not on there! So I will have to take my own pics to compare newer bodies with what I currently have.
 
CatB said:
Ah, gotcha! :thumbs: Thanks - that will help with the choice around new bodies - unfortunately the 400D appears to be so old that it's not on there! So I will have to take my own pics to compare newer bodies with what I currently have.
Click to expand...
OP: It is on there. You need to ensure that you've clicked on 'Display All Cameras' at the top of the page; otherwise it defaults to just the ones which are currently on sale new.


Everyone else: If the OP is thinking about upgrading his DSLR, which one (new or used) will give him best bang for his buck in terms of high ISO capability?
 
CatB said:
I don't know what improvement I'd get with ISO800 and how much the image quality would start to drop off at that or above.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you're so reluctant to raise the ISO. If it means a noisy, but useful image, as opposed to a blurred and useless image then just raise it...?
 
the problem you have is low light levels are causing slow shutter speeds due to f5.6 and iso400.your options are either raise the iso to 800-1600 or a faster aperture len say f4 or f2.8.really you need to do both as you need 2 stops of light to get to at least 1/320 shutter speed. a faster lens will help and so will raising the iso. i would look up the exposure triangle,have a think about how iso,aperture and shutter speed work together to produce an exposure.
 
Thanks folks - I wouldn't say I'm reluctant to raise the ISO above 400 but I guess I think of anything above 800 as poorer quality - this may be because I'm out if date with camera technology and still think of film in shops coming as 100, 200 or 400! While I was away I literally had a complete blank and forgot to do anything at all with the ISO! So now I'm not sure whether just raising the ISO would have been enough as I can't test it.

I'll look for the exposure triangle, if it gives me a way to calculate what shutter speeds I would have needed at a different ISO (given what I did need at 400 and f5.6 it will help a lot). I'll then look at the image comparisons for different ISO on different cameras. If my 1/80 and longer shutter speeds at ISO 400 translate to 1/320 or better at say 1600 and will look fine then I want bother with an upgrade, just change the ISO next time!

However, if I would need to shift the ISO to a point where the quality looked poor even to my untrained eye then I'm back to asking what would be the best investment, a lens, a body, both or a totally different type of camera?

I think the F2.8 lenses are well out of my reach :-) an F4 I'll look into. The sigma lens suggested above would give great magnification but would have an even greater issue with shutter speed due to lower max aperture.

How much can I gain from an image stabilised lens? Would it enable me to go below the magic 1/lens length?

Thanks for all the answers so far! :-)
 
If you do decide to go down the superzoom/bridge route then Panasonic do one with an f2.8 lens, the FZ200.
Stabilisation will help get you below the 1/ rule but this can get you into areas where subject movement (e.g. a monkey swinging through trees) can cause blur.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
OP: It is on there. You need to ensure that you've clicked on 'Display All Cameras' at the top of the page; otherwise it defaults to just the ones which are currently on sale new.


Everyone else: If the OP is thinking about upgrading his DSLR, which one (new or used) will give him best bang for his buck in terms of high ISO capability?
Click to expand...

yes Stewart is right I would go for a newer camera body
I have been in a similar situation in India and have now bought a 300 F2.8 lens and do believe that this is the best solution but I realise that this is out of your budget
the newest Canon body the 70D is apparently good at high ISO but have not used one, my 7D can be used at ISOs up to 1600 with good image quality
the 550D and 650D have the same sensor and are cheaper :)
 
I also have the 7D but for me the noise is too much at anything above ISO800, it may not bother most people but noise is one of my pet hates and find the 7D pretty poor at high ISOs maybe the newer bodies can handle it better and if it were me I would go for one if those.
 
If your setting were 1/80, f5.6, iso400 you can get increase shutter speed if you let in more light by opening the aperture wider or increasing sensitivity to light by raising ISO. By working full stops it's easier to work how altering aperture and ISO can help give you a faster shutter speed.

Some of the values in full stops are:

Aperture f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8, f11, f16, f22.
Shutter speed 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000
ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600

So roughly your exposure in full stops was 1/60, f5.6, ISO400. To increase shutter speed by 2 stops to 1/250 you would need to open the aperture by 2 stops to f2.8 or increase ISO by 2 stops to ISO1600. You could of course open the aperture by 1 stop to f4 and increase ISO by 1 stop to ISO800.

As you are in a boat too that gives a another source of movement, the motion of the boat swaying. This means you now have the movement of the subject, camera shake and the boat swaying movement. This really means a good shutter speed is needed, I would say at least about 1/500 to be sure, so that 3 stops of light you need to find from opening the aperture and increasing ISO. This means an extra stop on top of the above 2 stop values, that means you will need to use f4 ISO1600 or f2.8 ISO800 to get a 1/500 shutter speed.

I quite like this website as you can set the values individually and see what effect it has. Don't forget this simulator uses bright sunlight as it's light level so all values will be faster than what you where able to get. You can of course use your start settings and the exposure meter will show +3 rather than be at 0. All you then need to do is alter the settings to get same +3 exposure meter but with different settings. Have a try with the above settings.

http://www.photonhead.com/beginners/stops.php

I don't know that much about canon so others can give advice on the best canon cameras and lenses. It sounds like its a case of both the camera and lens in your case, you can probably gain 2-3 extra stops of ISO by upgrading your camera but an f4 will help keep ISO lower.

I experienced similar issues recently on a overcast morning with a deer in the shade of a tree. My first shot was at 1/500, f5.6, ISO4000 which gave a useable image on my Nikon D7100. A quick change to f4 1/320 and a slight move of position gave a more useable ISO900 (light levels increased slightly too).
 
RedRobin said:
Your budget is probably a bit restrictive if you also want a telephoto lens capability.

Rule of thumb: If shooting with a 300mm lens, your MINIMUM shutter speed should be 1/300. If 100mm lens, 1/100 minimum, etc. Image Stabilisation (IS) also helps.

The compact cameras are crap at digital telephoto so switch it off and stay within their optical zoom range.
Click to expand...

you have to allow for the crop factor on the minimum shutter speeds ! a 300mm on crop body = 300 x 1.6 = 480mm so 1/480 would help !
 
corpy said:
you have to allow for the crop factor on the minimum shutter speeds ! a 300mm on crop body = 300 x 1.6 = 480mm so 1/480 would help !
Click to expand...

....Very good point! Thanks for that :thumbs:
 
Thanks everyone, lots of very useful information there!

The calculations from rob-nikon are exactly what I needed to understand my options and what I needed to do with the camera on the trip to have got some halfway decent photos.

To be honest having trawled through all the photos last night I was absolutely gutted - there's almost nothing usable among them. Fortunately someone else on the trip had a canon sx50 and kindly transferred us his pictures, many of which were stunning.

I would definitely have to upgrade the body as part of the problem is that the screen was so poor I had no idea if what I was taking was any good or not! A better sensor would also help. I then need a telephoto IS lens with f4 or better.

I have to admit that although I have loved my DSLR I can't possibly justify that amount of money when I clearly don't have the skills and knowledge to use it properly. In contrast I can get the Canon SX50 for £240-300 which although it doesn't look on paper like it could take the shots (f3.4 to f6.1) it clearly can and has! I have also considered the Panasonic FZ200 (thanks for the suggestion) as it looks on paper like the f2.8 aperture should be much better with these low light problems but the zoom is less and the canon seems to look better at higher ISO, somewhat compensating for the fact that I may well have to use them.
 
CatB said:
Thanks everyone, lots of very useful information there! The calculations from rob-nikon are exactly what I needed to understand my options and what I needed to do with the camera on the trip to have got some halfway decent photos. To be honest having trawled through all the photos last night I was absolutely gutted - there's almost nothing usable among them. Fortunately someone else on the trip had a canon sx50 and kindly transferred us his pictures, many of which were stunning. I would definitely have to upgrade the body as part of the problem is that the screen was so poor I had no idea if what I was taking was any good or not! A better sensor would also help. I then need a telephoto IS lens with f4 or better. I have to admit that although I have loved my DSLR I can't possibly justify that amount of money when I clearly don't have the skills and knowledge to use it properly. In contrast I can get the Canon SX50 for £240-300 which although it doesn't look on paper like it could take the shots (f3.4 to f6.1) it clearly can and has! I have also considered the Panasonic FZ200 (thanks for the suggestion) as it looks on paper like the f2.8 aperture should be much better with these low light problems but the zoom is less and the canon seems to look better at higher ISO, somewhat compensating for the fact that I may well have to use them.
Click to expand...

Don't give up, good kit does help but ultimately it's the photographer that takes the photos and not the camera. The light you were shooting in would be very difficult for any beginner who has taken a few years out. You are only a little out on the setting, upping the ISO a little would have helped.

To be honest I get home sometimes and think what the hell was I using those settings for! I like to have a look at the settings in Lightroom to see if there is any way of improving the images if I get the chance to go again. Getting out and practicing helps too, even if it's just to see how to get the same exposure from different settings. Write down aperture, shutter speed and ISO in full stops on a little bit of card to take out with you. That way you can refer to it whilst out and I'm sure you will soon see an improvement. Get out with your DSLR and read up about the basics of exposure. This is one of my favourite websites to learn the basics http://www.cambridgeincolour.com. Soon you will feel that the upgrade will be worth it. It does sound like your camera was limiting you in those light conditions.

I remember when I first took up photography and thought of giving up when I went to a raptor centre and all I got was very blurred flight images. A little reading and I've got some nice images there but I've also now been many times. Visiting locations more than once helps too as you have ideas of how to improve next time. Keep those images and in a years time you can look back and see how much you have improved. I still class myself as very much beginner/intermediate as there is so much to learn, but there are plenty of people on here to help you.
 
Last edited:
It is a shame because with the right lens and a higher ISO, your pics should easily beat a bridge camera.

I'd at least try some practice shots to see if you can improve things.
 
I 100% agree with rob-nikon.

Regardless of camera equipment, the basics are a balanced mix between amount of light (aperture), time (shutter speed), and sensitivity (ISO). Different proportions of those ingredients give different results no matter how sophisticated the camera technology is.

Just keep practicing - The beauty of digital is that each shot costs you nothing so you can afford to shoot, shoot, shoot! It will them become natural to you - Just an extension of you.
 
My wife has a Canon 650D and a Sigma 120-400 OS as her mainstay for wildlife shots. She can get clean shots at ISO3200 easily and useable at ISO6400 with the body, I used to have a 60D body and that was very similar for ISO noise, but the 650D is at a very good price point now due to the 700D taking over from it. The Sigma 120-400 OS has an f5.6 max so it's slightly faster than my Sigma 150-500 OS, used mainly on my 5D3, and the reach is is an equivalent 640mm with the 650D body.

That setup should just about be attainable with your budget OP, specially if you can find a good S/H lens, although there isn't that many around compared to the 150-500 OS. You just need to have a shop around.
 
Thanks again folks - switching to a Bridge camera does feel a lot like 'giving up' and I do enjoy playing around with the DSLR, I took some beautiful photos in the Orchid Garden at KK on the way to the wildlife lodge with it but literally everything on the wildlife side is dreadful and I don't see how a DSLR can compare to a Bridge in that situation without spending 10's of thousands as well as taking a good photography course and spending all my free time practising.

In the sanctuary where things were closer I think that yes, changing the ISO and just thinking properly plus more practice with the camera would have got some good shots but from the boat where things were sitting in the tops of distant trees the Canon SX50 with the 1200mm equivalent lens was taking stunning photos - full frame shot of the head of a hornbill for example - whereas my 300mm lens was taking an outline of a whole bird that didn't even close to fill the frame, could be discerned as Hornbill shaped but certainly not identifable to species level!

fatmarley - you say that with the right lens and a higher ISO the DSLR pictures should easily beat a bridge - I'm not being argumentative but 'beat it' in what way? I'd really love to be convinced that I shouldn't give up on the DSLR!

Assuming I practiced lots and learnt to use it well to take the wildlife photos I certainly need an IS telephoto zoom lens and I really think I need a new body - I could perhaps go for a 600D as the upgrades since then to the 650D and 700D seem to have been minor. Cost for that I estimate to be around 300-400 GBP for the body and 1000+GBP for a telephoto zoom lens up to 300mm with IS, going higher if I want more magnification than my current lens of a greater aperture - the f/4 or bettter. That would just about come into my budget but I'd still have a distant bird outline in a tree! The Sigma lens discussed above I'll definitely look into - thanks. I'm genuinely interested in how that setup could give me better pictures than the bridge camera - I'm sure the optics would be better so sharper / better colours maybe...? I originally liked the DSLR because I had better control but with the bridge I could stll change aperture, shutter speed, ISO, lighting (it takes a flash) etc. and the single lens seems to go from macro to massive telephoto.

I'm very happy to reduce costs by buying 2nd hand but there is literally no 2nd hand market here in Malaysia and shipping will add significantly to any purchase made via here (plus I then have to get it through customs etc).

I'd really like to be persauded not to give up on the DSLR, maybe buy the bridge for the wildlife trips and keep practicing with the DSLR for more 'artistic' shots that I couldn't get with the bridge. I'm tempted to keep the DSLR for macro but that also requires a new lens and a body with live view would be very helpful so I don't have to have my head next to the subject!

Decisions, decisions....
 
Last edited:
I use an SX50 purely as a 1200mm digiscope/monocular. It's not an SLR replacement, but it sure is a super-long lens alternative/addition. For casual wildlife photos, where fieldcraft isn't an option, in good light [exactly the sort of days and places a casual wildlife spotter might go spotting wildlife] then it's a belter.

Up to 450mm equivalent I'd prefer my SLR. At 1200mm the SX50 is way better than a cropped image as long as the light is good. It's smaller and lighter than taking a long long lens in the bag, and at £300 or thereabouts it's not a serious or heavy investment for something I get precious little chance to do these days. I'll spring for the 600/4 once the kids are older and my time is my own once again.

What I'm saying is.. don't discount the superzoom bridges out of snobbery. Look around the web and you'll see incredible and printworthy images these things can do. Does your hobby or your available free time mandate something much, much more expensive? Only you can know that for sure.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top