Just got a new Canon Rebel t3i and wanting to be able to use it while hunting and training the dogs. I am looking at getting a telephoto lens, but will be far in the future before I can do that more than likely. What are some tips to help a newbie to the canine and wildlife photography world out. Tips, tricks, settings, or cheap camera accessories to help me improve.
Let's talk dog pictures
rotcsig443
201 - 220 of 319 Posts
Go for either the Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR II or the Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR. Both recommended highly to me via our Mark Atwater. You also might want to contact him and see if he's currently got any glass for sale. Good way to save a few bucks and you can trust what you're getting without a doubt.Should I get a 70-200 f2.8 or 300 f4? I've read excellent stuff about that 70-200 and have seen them priced pretty affordable used. I haven't read much about the 300. It is less expensive but not as fast. Right now I only have a 17-55 f2.8. The 70-200 would be a little more versatile for me at the moment and I could maybe get a teleconverter later on to reach out a little further. I don't know anything about teleconverters though. Not sure if its worth the cash or just save and buy bigger glass. What do you guys think?
![Image]()
Mark told me that the 70-200 VRII is in every pro's camera bag - it's the "go to" lens, so to speak. I'm going to try the 80-400 (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pr...kon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-NIKKOR-80-400mm-f%2F4.5-5.6G-ED-VR.html).
My photos suck, but it's operator error. Don't hold it against the 70-200 - or those in the future against the 80-400. I have LOTS to learn when it comes to manual settings on a DSLR. ;x
Joined
·
30 Posts
I have both the Nikon 70-200 2.8 and the 300 f4 AFS non- VR(will be selling the 300 f4) Both are extremely sharp. The Nikon 300 is often regarded as the best bang for your buck to get to 400mm(with a teleconverter). I use the 1.4 tc with both lenses. There is very little image quality loss with either but you do lose a stop of light when you use the tc. If you are going to use the lens for wildlife shooting I think the 300 paired with a tc is the way to go-the 70-200 will be too short. If it will be for general use of taking pictures of dogs and I would choose the Nikon 70-200 2.8. I looked at the 80-400 and after comparing cost, size, weight, and image quality I would choose one of the Nikon 300 f4 versions. The 300 f4 AFS can be found for around $800 used in good condition. I think it boils down to how will you use the lens. Good luck.
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
Sorry I didn't see this sooner. I am a Canon shooter, and don't know specifics on the Nikon lenses, but I have a definite opinion on what I would choose and I think I can back it up. I have used both Canon's 70-200 F:2.8 IS and Canon's 300 F:4 IS. The 300 F:4 IS is an incredible lens for the price and I think it is one of the best deals in the Canon lineup. It is a great entry level wildlife lens and if your primary goal was to photograph relatively approachable wildlife, I would probably say buy that one, however, if wildlife isn't your primary target, the 70-200 F:2.8 wins in a walk. I own the Canon 70-200 F:2.8 image stabilized, and I can say that it is a great lens, very fun to use (if not to tote). Extremely versatile, fast, and sharp. The extra stop in speed (F:2.8 vs, F:4) will provide invaluable dividends in the ability to stop motion and blur the background. I can absolutely say that I would purchase the 70-200 F:2.8 before the 300 F:4 and I can prove it since a while back I had the option of purchasing one or the other and I jumped on the 70-200 like a duck on a June bug. I wouldn't even consider the 80-400 F:4.5 - 5.6 zoom mentioned by another poster. I have a strong prejudice against zooms with variable minimum apertures. You need the most speed at the longest part of the zoom and of course, that is where the lens is the slowest. I won't own a zoom with a variable minimum aperture, if someone gave me one, it would be on ebay or traded in to KEH.Should I get a 70-200 f2.8 or 300 f4? I've read excellent stuff about that 70-200 and have seen them priced pretty affordable used. I haven't read much about the 300. It is less expensive but not as fast. Right now I only have a 17-55 f2.8. The 70-200 would be a little more versatile for me at the moment and I could maybe get a teleconverter later on to reach out a little further. I don't know anything about teleconverters though. Not sure if its worth the cash or just save and buy bigger glass. What do you guys think?
![Image]()
What did you end up doing?
HPL
Joined
·
238 Posts
I know this is off subject somewhat but what is the best way to blow up a picture taken with a phone without it coming out looking so grainy. Im not sure if its possible since its taken on a cell phone but I would love to have this blown up to put on the wall. I took this in Mississippi last year with my iPhone 5. Obviously with some editing.
![]()
![]()
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
Not familiar with phone cameras, but normally, grain prevention begins with the settings when you capture the image. The higher the ISO, AND the physically smaller the actual sensor, the grainer the image is going to be. There are grain reducing features in the most popular photo editing software, but they tend to have the side effect of softening the image. If you can change the ISO on your phone camera, you want to use the LOWEST ISO possible.
Joined
·
567 Posts
Thanks HPL. Just what I expected about the variable minimum aperture. I haven't bought any photo equipment in a few months. Just having fun learning with what I have right now. I have read the nikon 70-200 isn't a true 200 at the long end. That doesn't bother me, I just wonder if 180, or whatever the true length is, is really enough to get some shots of ducks coming into spreads or my dog on retrieves. If not, is the 300 enough? Then I need to decide which one I would use more right now. My gut says the 70-200 is more versatile for me right now.
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
A 200 is pretty marginal for most wildlife but I think that Todd Caswell (who contributes here pretty regularly and has some spectacular images) uses a Canon 70-200 for a lot of the dog photos he posts. On the other hand, I know that Tony Zappia (another contributor here) uses a 300 F:2.8 for much of his dog photography. The F:2.8 is a salient point here. A 300 is pretty much at the lower end of what one would use in most wildlife photography and as most wildlife photography is shot around sunrise and sunset, having a fast maximum aperture is a real consideration, but one pays a hefty premium for that additional speed. At this point, my recommendation would be to go to KEH.com and to Robertsimaging.com and search their previously owned departments for the 70-200 VR lens first (give them a call also, as stock turns over pretty quickly sometimes). The 70-200 MAY be capable of capturing images of ducks dropping into the spread, and will certainly be great for getting photos of your dog returning with birds or when you are able to set up photos of your dog working or just posing. Also an excellent lens (although a bit heavy) for photographing candids of family and friends, etc. Then when you are ready, same deal for the 300 and by then you might be able to consider a previously owned 300 F:2.8, but the F:4 should also be a very nice lens, just a bit more limited in low light conditions. If you are used to using a "kit" lens, you will be amazed at the optical quality an build of the pro lenses, and shocked by the weight. If the Nikon 70-200 is anything like the Canon, it is going to feel like a boat anchor at first and will certainly be a bit more cumbersome than what you might be used to, but well worth it. The 300 F:4 will be lighter, and the 300F:2.8 pretty heavy. Once you upgrade your equipment, you might want to get scheduled all hazard insurance. The insurance is pretty reasonable and I know more of more than one camera that has ended up in the drink, and that will really kill your day.
I just went back and looked at the images you posted and if the one of your jumping dog was taken at 55mm, the 70-200 will enlarge that puppy approx. 3.6 times. That will be pretty close.
HPL
Joined
·
779 Posts
Off topic of the specific equipment used to photograph dogs/wildlife. Lately I've been wanting to get a short video made and edited with some stills mixed into and put to music for my YLM. He's been running really good lately and I just want something to put on youtube or to send to people who have no idea what an HRCH/MH is capable of. How much can I expect to pay for a service like this? Would it just be cheaper to buy the equipment myself and figure it out?
My current equipment is a Canon EOS T3i with 18-55MM lens with IS and a fixed 50MM lens. I understand this is basically inadequate for my purpose.
My current equipment is a Canon EOS T3i with 18-55MM lens with IS and a fixed 50MM lens. I understand this is basically inadequate for my purpose.
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
Digital video cameras are pretty cheap these days. You will then need a computer (and since you post here, I'm going to jump to the conclusion that you may have that covered) and then you need software to deal with the editing, and some of that is pretty cheap too. If you only do it once, paying someone to do it MIGHT be cheaper, but probably by the second time you have it done, you will be better off doing it yourself. You might be able to capture the video with your phone (just remember to do it in LANDSCAPE format).
Joined
·
13 Posts
While I have only read a handful of the pages on this thread, there seems to be a general consensus on which lenses are best for most scenarios. In regards to Canon, what actual camera is best to use with a 70-200 or 300 lense?
Joined
·
779 Posts
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
That is a much different question. The pro and pro-sumer bodies have sturdier builds and some are more weather proof than the consumer line (rebel), but the sensors are all very good. Until just last November I was shooting 30D's (8.3 megapixels) and achieving very good results. I have now moved up to a 7D MKII (20+ megapixels) and it is more sophisticated, offering more operational options, good weather proofing, a very fast "motor drive" (10 fps), lots of focus points, a magnesium frame, and a 200,000+ cycle shutter. Some of the cameras (all the rebels, I think) have a "crop" sensor and some of the pro and prosumer bodies have "full frame" sensors. The 7D is crop, the EOS 5 and the 6D are full frame. There are significant price differences across the the various platforms also. I like the crop sensors as they give additional magnification (in the case of the canon APSC sensors a 1.6X "telephoto factor") converting my 70-200 into a 112-320 and my 600 into a 960). If I did a lot of landscapes or architectural photography I would probably want the full frame sensor. I have more use for telephoto than for wide angle. I suspect this isn't much help.
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
I don't know anything about current models, as I have not been in the market for a while. How good does it have to be for posting to youtube? You aren't planning on screening it at Cannes.
Joined
·
1,325 Posts
All these are big name cameras(Sony, Cannon, etc). All shoot in HD, and the Go Pro is waterproof.
http://www.best5list.com/best-hd-camcorders-under-300
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
Go pro is extremely wide angle so it is probably not a good choice for what you are looking to do. You WILL want zoom, I would think at least 10X.
Joined
·
567 Posts
Thanks. The only lens I own right now is a 17-55 f2.8. It is an excellent lens, but really not meant for pictures like my boy jumping. That was cropped quite a bit to produce what I posted here. I also emailed Mark Atwater for advice. He said 70-200 f2.8 VRII hands down for now, then I can worry about long glass a little later. Time to start saving and selling some crap on craigslist.
Joined
·
435 Posts
HPL: I just love the 300 2.8. Really like the image quality and ability to blow out a background. However, that said, my go-to, $$$ lens, has to be my 70-200 2.8 AF/IS. I've played with shooting dogs with my 600 but I do not like it. Too big and I do not like DOF when shooting on-coming dogs. The older I get; the lesser I like heavy lenses.... Can't wait till my IPhone improves their camera...
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
Look "previously owned", and I suspect that very few people would be able to tell the difference between an image shot through the Nikon original 70-200 F:2.8 VR, and the MkII, and it might be a significant difference in price (just something to consider). (Just ordered a previously owned 300 F:2.8 IS NOT MkII and am saving a couple of thousand over a used MkII) Once you upgrade, we want to see images. ;-)
201 - 220 of 319 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
