You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
How good are these?
http://seriouslyforreal.com/amazing-world/the-35-most-spectacular-wildlife-photos-from-the-national-geographic-photo-contest/
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Cool
This one made me think of stw for some reason
[img] 
[/img]
This one made me think of stw for some reason
Is there a female just out of shot to the left?
That's ace
The middle is utterly stunning!
Some incredible stuff there, but also a few 'meh' shots, like the very ordinary photo of the elephants.
The leopard one reminded me of this one of my speeding lurcher. Not 60mph but still similar...
[URL= http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o199/JIMTHISTLE/panning-practice-2_zps8aef4d43.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o199/JIMTHISTLE/panning-practice-2_zps8aef4d43.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
not so cheery but these blew me away!
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
One area of photography where having a load of expensive kit really does make the difference.
The deadly lake pictures are good but they are created by the photographer. The birds didn't die like that.
Surely most areas of photography will generally benefit from having good kit? I know that every time I upgrade, I'm happier with my output ( unless I'm just justifying the cost of said kit to myself... ).
Is there a female just out of shot to the left?
Yup.
[img] 
[/img]
Excellent work Jamie,but the cropped legs with trainers look almost as strange. 🙂
Surely most areas of photography will generally benefit from having good kit?
Not as much as wildlife. I can take arty photos with my cheap stuff, it just won't be quite as sharp or as lustrous as expensive stuff.
There's no way in hell I could get anything like that Osprey shot. To get wildlife in motion you need fast shutter speed, which means large aperture, and lots of zoom.
An Olympus 70-300mm f4-5.6 like mine cost about £350. The Oly 300m f2.8, only gives you two extra stops and it costs nearly six grand!
Excellent work Jamie,but the cropped legs with trainers look almost as strange.
No PS BS. Real pic.
No PS BS. Real pic.
I was wondering how you did such a good job on her hair on the left by her arm! Was going to ask for tips!
Not as much as wildlife. I can take arty photos with my cheap stuff, it just won't be quite as sharp or as lustrous as expensive stuff.
I can only really talk about weddings and landscapes but (expensive) high ISO capable bodies coupled with ( expensive ) fast aperture lenses let me shoot in a way I couldn't with, say a D200 and a kit lens. I used to shoot on D200s when nothing else was available, and they did an OK job but limited me to using flash which meant I couldn't work like I do now.
I think we're kind of agreeing but I'd still argue that most areas of photography benefit from better kit, at least in terms of not being hampered and frustrated by kit limitations.
I think we're kind of agreeing but I'd still argue that most areas of photography benefit from better kit, at least in terms of not being hampered and frustrated by kit limitations.
I agree, if you are making a living from photography the right (read flippin expensive) equipment makes all the difference. If the photographer is good enough they will find a way to get the shot they want with less than the ideal kit.
You also have to bare in mind how the image will be used. If its a pack shot that will be reproduced on toilet paper and no bigger than a stamp you could use a 7D and a 24-105. If it's kitchen for John Lewis or a food shot for Sainsburys used for POS or a brochure you might want to use 5x4 and a P60.
One of the most important factors when it comes to kit is the lens. Crappy glass will do nothing for you.
The deadly lake pictures are good but they are created by the photographer. The birds didn't die like that.
No shit.
😆
I think we're kind of agreeing but I'd still argue that most areas of photography benefit from better kit
Of course. But my point is that wildlife is so difficult that you're hampered far more by cheap kit. In still life, cheap kit results in an inferior image. In wildlife, you end up with a blurry smudge.
My 70-300 is much softer than anything else I own at full zoom, although the lens is considered excellent at the price point. I can't crop enough to get acceptable pictures of wildlife, generally, unless it's unusually close for some reason, or unusually large 🙂
John Lewis or a food shot for Sainsburys used for POS or a brochure you might want to use 5x4 and a P60.
overkill, i shot for john lewis and made do with an H4D-40 and a 5DIII 🙄
i used a zoom too! 😳
My mate has the newborn baby photography contract for John Lewis' advertising department - her photos are what you see when you walk into the cot / pram / baby section. She shoots using a five year old FF canon.
Not billboard size but not far off.
Another mate does all of DFS' (sofa) photography. Again, no need for a Phase One outfit. All shot on a Canon FF camera too. He never hears the end of it, poor chap... Do take a seat / sofa, so good, etc. ( I'm all Nikon FWIW).
overkill, i shot for john lewis and made do with an H4D-40 and a 5DIII
i used a zoom too!
My point exactly! you "made do". Probably because of your kit limitation! Oh can I use that eye rolling thing too?? Nah I'm not that childish.
I have 'made do' with a 5D3 on countless food shoots but stack those images against a P25 let alone a P60 and I think you will see a difference.
Another factor we may have missed amongst the "I can get away with using a POS camera instead of doing it properly" debate is that of client requirement.
Sometimes it's OK to use your 5D. sometimes it isn't. In my line of work, with our clients we don't just make do. 🙄 we exceed our clients expectations.
seavers, most of my clients are visually illiterate. My wedding clients are informed by several thousand pages of whatever bridal forum they subscribe to...
Wooden moustaches on a stick? **** right off.
Aga in a field? Ditto
How many megapixels does your camera have? See above.
A couple of nothing spectacular 'wildlife' pics I took (yeah, I know cows aren't wildlife), but DoF aside (which isn't needed on the moo pic) would anyone have known the cows were on a phone and the gosling a £700 APSC DSLR with 50mm prime lens? OK the proper camera is far from high end, but had I not been using some fast glass, the gosling would have probably looked worse than the cows - and I don't think I particularly got anything wrong when I took the pic.
[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8397/8952610755_65fe7d1c0a_c.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/8952610755/ ]Moo![/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8124/8711629908_c3601b3168_c.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/8711629908/ ]Gosling[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr
[img] [/img]
Break a Zombies arm that would...
would anyone have known the cows were on a phone and the gosling a £700 APSC DSLR with 50mm prime lens?
I think you miss the point. The issue with actual wildlife is not that it's physically an animal, it's that it's usually wary of humans and is a long way away. The cows and the gosling aren't difficult subjects.
Try using your 50mm prime or phone to snap an Osprey (or any other bird for that matter) in flight, see how you get on.
But in any case, your gosling is clearly an SLR pic, to have shallow DoF like that, and the cows, whilst a good pic, do look like a phone by the way the trees look all blurred out against the sky in the background.
I think you miss the point. The issue with actual wildlife is not that it's physically an animal, it's that it's usually wary of humans and is a long way away. The cows and the gosling aren't difficult subjects.Try using your 50mm prime or phone to snap an Osprey (or any other bird for that matter) in flight, see how you get on.
But in any case, your gosling is clearly an SLR pic, to have shallow DoF like that, and the cows, whilst a good pic, do look like a phone by the way the trees look all blurred out against the sky in the background.
Nah, didn't really miss the point - just didn't put it across very well (early morning/working nights/couple of Captain Morgans) - had sort of deviated from the OP with moving wildlife and was leaning towards the different kit and what you can get away with.
Not managed a decent BIF yet with any kit I own - totally agree that for long shots of fast moving wildlife, expensive kit is always gonna shine.
Any excuse to post some pictures!
Molgrips is spot on, there is no substitute for expensive kit where wildlife photography is concerned, especially for the amateur who hasn't got time to spend weeks in a hide.
The difference between my 40d + 100-400mm and my 7d + 400mm prime is startling, and the 40d was a great camera.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Just discovered this group today on Flickr: 100 strangers.
great if you are trying to get into portrait/street photography, some amazing shots.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/100strangers/
Tlr.. Beautiful. I dream of the 300mm oly prime hoping it would help get images like that
Agree ^^ fantastic pics tlr. I need to get rich any buy a long prime!
organic - will have a proper look at that group later, but a quick glance at the first page and it's not really my thing - street photos for me should mostly be candids
Cheers, now if only I had a spare £9,000 for the 400mm f2.8, or the 500mm f4.....
Just hire it if you can't afford to buy it outright.
Break a Zombies arm that would...
😆 😆