Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Wildlife Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 26, 2010, 9:50 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSProtection View Post
Thanks for the advice. I have actually never taken any photos of birds before. These were my first ones. And I like it, so I will have to look at a lots of bird photos to learn more. I am going to buy a Nikon 55-200 vr lens in a few days, so I think it will be even more fun to take bird pics with that. I will have your tip in mind next time I take photos on birds.
Best regards/Daniel
Well, if you compare shots in which the bird is equally sized, those with something else in the picture, the bird actually looks more detailed than those without, even though the actual detail is the same.

You do have one stand alone shot with (considering the reach) has an amazing amount of detail.

When I'm not close enough to my target to give the kind of detail that I want, I turn the shot into a "Birdscape," in which the birds emphasize the landscape aspects of the shot.

NB. I consider 300mm the smallest lens for serious wildlife photography. Second, there's no denying that VR is a damn useful tool, but more reach and more practice in the long run is better than that extra stop or so you get from VR. I would say that to shoot with a decent non VR 300mm lens takes about a month of getting used to the weight. If you don't have the budget for 300mm with VR, I would still go for that extra reach, as long as the non VR lens is of excellent quality.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2010, 12:02 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
DSProtection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sweden
Posts: 963
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
Well, if you compare shots in which the bird is equally sized, those with something else in the picture, the bird actually looks more detailed than those without, even though the actual detail is the same.

You do have one stand alone shot with (considering the reach) has an amazing amount of detail.

When I'm not close enough to my target to give the kind of detail that I want, I turn the shot into a "Birdscape," in which the birds emphasize the landscape aspects of the shot.

NB. I consider 300mm the smallest lens for serious wildlife photography. Second, there's no denying that VR is a damn useful tool, but more reach and more practice in the long run is better than that extra stop or so you get from VR. I would say that to shoot with a decent non VR 300mm lens takes about a month of getting used to the weight. If you don't have the budget for 300mm with VR, I would still go for that extra reach, as long as the non VR lens is of excellent quality.

Dave
Yeah, you´re right. Haven´t thought of that. Thanks for the tip.

About the lens, I have a tight budget right now, so the 55-200 will have to due for now. I get it for a really good price. But my goal is to get the 70-300VR lens in the near future. I also take alot of photos of our kids when they play soccer and hockey. So as soon as I can afford that lens I will buy it. I will also buy the Nikon 35mm lens for low light photos,and was thinking about getting a 16-85VR too. But everything are so extremely expensive here in sweden.
DSProtection is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:39 PM.