# Photographing animals from a distance



## hyujmn

Use a zoom lens?


----------



## Full_Tilt

Well obviously. But Im talking about a pretty big distance and its not as easy as just point and click with that much focal length. Plus its difficult to be discrete.


----------



## dealio

Quote: 
   Originally Posted by *Full_Tilt*   Well obviously. But Im talking about a pretty big distance and its not as easy as just point and click with that much focal length. Plus its difficult to be discrete.  
oh ok, check this out..


















  Amazon.com: Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 APO EX DG Ultra-Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras: Camera & Photo has free shipping

LOL


----------



## mrwesth

Quote:



Originally Posted by *dealio*


oh ok, check this out..


















Amazon.com: Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 APO EX DG Ultra-Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras: Camera & Photo
has free shipping

LOL


...
depending on how much reach and if he needs 2.8 he could save serious cash and get longer with
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/300-8...-apo-hsm-sigma


----------



## r31ncarnat3d

a bit at the responses here.

@OP: Telephoto + teleconverters for distance is really the only thing I can say. Other than that, just make it obvious that you're not pointing a huge lens their way.


----------



## snoogins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens


----------



## driftingforlife

Quote:



Originally Posted by *dealio*


oh ok, check this out..



















Looks like you could launch a NUKE with that thing


----------



## Ysbl

/thread.


----------



## tommykl

Can you hack a government spy satellite?

Real answer:
Depends of if you are using a DSLR or a point shoot and if you care that the picture is noisy.
Standard reply for both point/shoot and DSLR. MASSIVE megapixels camera and crop the crap out of it, e.g. 20+ mpixel in raw mode crop/zoom using photo editor of choice.

A little more options are available with DSLR cameras, moderate length prime lens plus a teleconverter(s). Best bet is a 500mm mirrored lens mounted to 2x teleconverter gets you out 1000mm, but you are hitting fstop of16. Possible to use multiple teleconverters assuming you can support them, but you sacrifice massive amount of speed which would require a tripod or some sort of support.


----------



## Full_Tilt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *r31ncarnat3d*









a bit at the responses here.

@OP: Telephoto + teleconverters for distance is really the only thing I can say. Other than that, just make it obvious that you're not pointing a huge lens their way.



Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ysbl*


/thread.


Thank you for actually contributing something to this thread.

Everybody else is just having fun making stupid comments. I dont know why I bother asking a serious question here...


----------



## dave12

Distance is relative, do you mean 25 meters or 500 meters? Is subject in motion? Do you have an estimated budget? Additionally, (and unimportant to the other questions), why would bystanders be an issue? Do you mean ushers and security guards, would the ambient noise cover the report of the shot?


----------



## Full_Tilt

Id like to be able to photograph up to about 100 meters/yards. Its important that the images are clear and without shake.

I dont think the actual shutter sound will be a problem, I just cant be seen.
I need to figure out ways to camouflage myself.


----------



## mrwesth

On a serious note... 
Drop all the guessing: who/what are you shooting?


----------



## Aeonus

You may want to look at DSLRs with a crop sensor, because it adds an optical multiplier to effective focal length. For example slapping a 300mm lens on a Canon EOS 20D results in 480mm focal length. Also, a crop sensor camera can manage with a less expensive telephoto lens because it only utilises the central area of the lens, not the sides, so the lens quality requirements aren't as massive.

I'm not saying anything about the crop sensor optical multiplier vs. a full-frame DSLR with more megapixels, though...any ideas? I usually think optics > cropping.


----------



## Full_Tilt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mrwesth*


On a serious note... 
Drop all the guessing: who/what are you shooting?


Its just nature photography. Photographing animals and such. They are easily spooked so Id like to be able to camp and wait for them to come by withotu seeing me.


----------



## ntuason

Get a 400-500mm telephoto.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Full_Tilt*


Its just nature photography. Photographing animals and such. They are easily spooked so Id like to be able to camp and wait for them to come by withotu seeing me.


People and animals are very different.


----------



## Full_Tilt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Aeonus*


You may want to look at DSLRs with a crop sensor, because it adds an optical multiplier to effective focal length. For example slapping a 300mm lens on a Canon EOS 20D results in 480mm focal length. Also, a crop sensor camera can manage with a less expensive telephoto lens because it only utilises the central area of the lens, not the sides, so the lens quality requirements aren't as massive.

I'm not saying anything about the crop sensor optical multiplier vs. a full-frame DSLR with more megapixels, though...any ideas? I usually think optics > cropping.


Hmmmm
Well I currently have a Canon XT with a sigma 100-300mm (cant recall max aperture), and I also have a Pentaz k-100d with my longest lens being a manual focus 200mm with a maximum aperture of 2.5.
Im not sure if either of those cameras have any ability to digitally zoom, but I doubt it.
I could alwasy accomplish the same thing later with cropping.

I also just remembered I have a 2:1 teleconverter for the pentax, so I could make that 200mm into a 400mm, although Im worried about how much the effective aperature will be effected.
Id like to be able to shoot in somewhat low light.


----------



## RoddimusPrime

At any rate...... use a telephoto lens on a DSLR with built in motor and image stabilization (preferably Full Frame DSLR at that distance). And a tripod if applicable.


----------



## dave12

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Full_Tilt*


Its just nature photography. Photographing animals and such. They are easily spooked so Id like to be able to camp and wait for them to come by withotu seeing me.


Then buy a duck blind or a tree stand, unless you are talking about bears, then buy a Ford Excursion. I assumed you were talking about concert shots because you explicitly said people, as both subjects and surrounding, that you needed to avoid being detected by. Now I feel uncomfortable about helping with the technical part of the shooting. Best of luck, if you are in fact taking pictures of a deer.


----------



## Full_Tilt

I didnt mean to say people, I was talking about animals the whole time, I was kinda tired when I made the thread.
Just a typo guys, no reason to be alarmed.


----------



## Aeonus

Weather conditions are also an important factor as they directly affect usable shutter/ISO ratios. Sunny and clouded-over are the easiest.

Here's a quick example of some stranger I took many years ago, 300mm + 1.6x sensor crop equalling 480mm focal length. The distance is somewhere between 100 and 150 metres I think.









I think your "friends" would be perfectly recognizable.


----------



## Full_Tilt

What was the light like when you took that? Looks pretty bright.

Id like to be have the option to do some of this in real low light. Not night obviously, but maybe like dusk. Thats when a lot of the interesting woodland critters come out to play.


----------



## _s3v3n_

Dude, when you got the clear picture of the "big foot" please do let us know and kindly post it here.


----------



## Full_Tilt

Im photographing animals, but I also dont want people to see me doing so because they'll bother me.
Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## mrwesth

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Full_Tilt*


Its just nature photography. Photographing animals and such. They are easily spooked so Id like to be able to camp and wait for them to come by withotu seeing me.


Well your original post was misleading as you said "people" were the subject matter. Hence the onslaught of posts.

However, for nature photography you have some considerations.
I shoot sports and it is very similar. 
For canon users:
A standard setup for a pro nature photog would include 1d mk IV with a 400mm 2.8 and a 1.4x extender then pair that with a serious monopod/tripod depending on your preference (see gitzmo with a wimberley head for maximum control) . This will cost you around 12k if you get great deals on all the equipment used.

Alternatively you could budget down to ~4k and get a 400mm 5.6 with a 7d and monopod. But you lose dof & IQ.

What is your budget?


----------



## mrwesth

What is your photographic background full tilt?
Nature photography is not only expensive, it is fairly technical and requires good timing to get many shots.


----------



## Aeonus

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Full_Tilt*


What was the light like when you took that? Looks pretty bright.

Id like to be have the option to do some of this in real low light. Not night obviously, but maybe like dusk. Thats when a lot of the interesting woodland critters come out to play.


Sky was sunny with complete cloud cover. To photograph anything in low light you need a really good lens with a large max. aperture. Keep in mind that an aperture of 2.4 is larger than 3.5, for example, but I guess you already knew that. Also go for a camera with as little noise as possible, so that you can use higher ISOs more freely when in a ditch.


----------



## Full_Tilt

Well since I already have a 200mm @2.5 could I use a teleconverter or a tube to get the effect of those more expensive lenses?

Do you know how much effect it has on the effective aperature. Would it be possible to use something like that in low light? or am I looking at getting some high end glass?


----------



## CalypsoRaz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *DorkSterr*


Hahahhaha!

Get a 400-500mm telephoto.


screw that, get a gun.

I kid. If you're doing nature photography maybe a blind? or in some cases, I've heard of a large mirror being used but angled slightly downward to reflect the immediate surroundings rather than some generic image or pattern.

Intended for hunting but I dont see why photography is out of the question Ghost Blind


----------



## Full_Tilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrwesth;13492031*
> What is your photographic background full tilt?
> Nature photography is not only expensive, it is fairly technical and requires good timing to get many shots.


I do a lot of portraiture, mostly just environmental portraits of people acting natural. Not studio type stuff. Besides that its just a mix of things, mostly experimental photography playing with light and long exposures.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CalypsoRaz;13492074*
> screw that, get a gun.
> 
> I kid. If you're doing nature photography maybe a blind? or in some cases, I've heard of a large mirror being used but angled slightly downward to reflect the immediate surroundings rather than some generic image or pattern.
> 
> Intended for hunting but I dont see why photography is out of the question Ghost Blind


Thats interesting, Ive never seen such a thing. I bet that creates quite a bit of cover when in the foliage.


----------



## mrwesth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Full_Tilt;13492056*
> Well since I already have a 200mm @2.5 could I use a teleconverter or a tube to get the effect of those more expensive lenses?
> 
> Do you know how much effect it has on the effective aperature. Would it be possible to use something like that in low light? or am I looking at getting some high end glass?


200 2.8 you mean?

a good 1.4 converter will bring your aperture to f4, a cheap third party will bring it to f5.6 or higher. A 2x will bring you to f5.6.

With new bodies like the 1d mark IV or the pinnacle of ISO performance in the nikon d3s, yes you can bump your iso up to 3200 and get good results shooting 500 f4 3200 well into dusk.

EDIT**
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Full_Tilt;13492079*
> I do a lot of portraiture, mostly just environmental portraits of people acting natural. Not studio type stuff. Besides that its just a mix of things, mostly experimental photography playing with light and long exposures.


Well what body are you currently using? You will want something with decent fps unless you have really good timing and been doing it for a while. At a minimum I'd say a 60d-7d


----------



## Full_Tilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrwesth;13492102*
> 200 2.8 you mean?
> 
> a good 1.4 converter will bring your aperture to f4, a cheap third party will bring it to f5.6 or higher. A 2x will bring you to f5.6.
> 
> With new bodies like the 1d mark IV or the pinnacle of ISO performance in the nikon d3s, yes you can bump your iso up to 3200 and get good results shooting 500 f4 3200 well into dusk.


No its a 2.5, its an older manual focus lens

So with my 2:1 teleconverter Im not losing too much light I guess.
My pentax k100d doesnt have a super high max ISO but its a lot better about the noise than my Canon XT is, so maybe I could get away with using it.


----------



## adamkatt

Instead of using a big zoom lens, try using a nice wide short lens..


----------



## mrwesth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Full_Tilt;13492133*
> No its a 2.5, its an older manual focus lens
> 
> So with my 2:1 teleconverter Im not losing too much light I guess.
> My pentax k100d doesnt have a super high max ISO but its a lot better about the noise than my Canon XT is, so maybe I could get away with using it.


With pentax the 200 is about is much reach as you can get. And with the k100d's iso algorithm you won't be able to shoot over 2.5 so a teleconverter is out of the question. Your alternative here is to try to shoot the animals when they are grazing or perched and use a slower shutter to compensate for low ambient. You could try panning birds in flight or animals running, but that is hard enough with a really good af tracking... will most likely just be frustrating in full manual.

Again, sports/wildlife photography is VERY expensive.

EDIT**
anyway hope this helps and wasn't too discouraging. I need to run to the post office and then back out to work. Good luck.


----------



## Full_Tilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrwesth;13492235*
> With pentax the 200 is about is much reach as you can get. And with the k100d's iso algorithm you won't be able to shoot over 2.5 so a teleconverter is out of the question. Your alternative here is to try to shoot the animals when they are grazing or perched and use a slower shutter to compensate for low ambient. You could try panning birds in flight or animals running, but that is hard enough with a really good af tracking... will most likely just be frustrating in full manual.
> 
> Again, sports/wildlife photography is VERY expensive.
> 
> EDIT**
> anyway hope this helps and wasn't too discouraging. I need to run to the post office and then back out to work. Good luck.


Thanks for all the help!


----------



## MistaBernie

Unnecessary trolls are unnecessary.

In terms of photography from a distance, you've got some decent information going here. As mentioned, decent gear for stuff like this can get expensive in a hurry. If you saw some of the gear lists for bird watchers, you may or may not have a stroke. That being said, you get what you pay for.

The camera you have should be OK in decent available light situations, but I like the recommendation of moving up to a 60D or 7D if possible. 60Ds can be had refurbed for $799 and they are worth just about every penny. In terms of lenses, TCs have been mentioned - decent TCs will only add one stop @ 1.4x, two stops at 2x.

You could always rent a relatively expensive lens (100-400 f/4) or something like that. If you end up using it alot and liking it, you can start saving up (or you could just be independently wealthy and my misconception that everyone is relatively blue collar like me could be off like it always is).

Also, dont get discouraged by the abundance of non-relevant responses you got. For the most part, the regulars in the photography part of OCN are very knowledgeable, friendly and helpful.

With the exception of Dudemanppl of course.


----------



## Full_Tilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MistaBernie;13492437*
> Unnecessary trolls are unnecessary.
> 
> In terms of photography from a distance, you've got some decent information going here. As mentioned, decent gear for stuff like this can get expensive in a hurry. If you saw some of the gear lists for bird watchers, you may or may not have a stroke. That being said, you get what you pay for.
> 
> The camera you have should be OK in decent available light situations, but I like the recommendation of moving up to a 60D or 7D if possible. 60Ds can be had refurbed for $799 and they are worth just about every penny. In terms of lenses, TCs have been mentioned - decent TCs will only add one stop @ 1.4x, two stops at 2x.
> 
> You could always rent a relatively expensive lens (100-400 f/4) or something like that. If you end up using it alot and liking it, you can start saving up (or you could just be independently wealthy and my misconception that everyone is relatively blue collar like me could be off like it always is).
> 
> Also, dont get discouraged by the abundance of non-relevant responses you got. For the most part, the regulars in the photography part of OCN are very knowledgeable, friendly and helpful.
> 
> With the exception of Dudemanppl of course.


Thank you.

They dont get that Im talking about versatility here. Ive havent done much telephoto stuff in general, Id like to get into nature photography in particular, but the same skill set can be applied to photographing people, like at sporting events.
I think the whole "not wanting to be seen" thing is what is bothering everybody.
I guess they dont understand what its like being a photographer and having people constantly bothering you about what youre doing photographing random things in public places. Ive been run off by people on multiple occasions because they think Im some sort of inspector or a PI or something.


----------



## OptimusCaik

...just make sure you phrase your sentences properly and don't get "mixed up" with your ideas..


----------



## MistaBernie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Full_Tilt;13492493*
> Thank you.
> 
> They dont get that Im talking about versatility here. Ive havent done much telephoto stuff in general, Id like to get into nature photography in particular, but the same skill set can be applied to photographing people, like at sporting events.
> I think the whole "not wanting to be seen" thing is what is bothering everybody.
> I guess they dont understand what its like being a photographer and having people constantly bothering you about what youre doing photographing random things in public places. Ive been run off by people on multiple occasions because they think Im some sort of inspector or a PI or something.


There's a trick that works about 90% of the time when you get confronted like that.

Put your camera down, smile, stick out your hand and say 'Hi, I'm xxx, I'm sorry, have we met?' 50% of the time, it works all the time.


----------



## Marin

Thread cleaned. Keep it on topic.


----------



## grunion

I photograph animals from miles away, for instance I was ~6 miles as the crow flies from this deer.










1.5 miles from these deer.



















But really, stay down wind and use attractants if legal in your area.
Make sure to post pics of your shots.


----------



## adamkatt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *grunion*


I photograph animals from miles away, for instance I was ~6 miles as the crow flies from this deer.










1.5 miles from these deer.



















But really, stay down wind and use attractants if legal in your area.
Make sure to post pics of your shots.


Man if those were my photo's I would hate to have that "Bushnell - Date" thing at the bottom


----------



## koven

animals as in woman?


----------



## adamkatt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *koven*


animals as in woman?


















; )


----------

