Thanks to all of you for taking the time to watch and offer positive feedback and constructive comments! I wanted this video to be educational and entertaining and encouraging in terms of giving people confidence to go out and take great photos even if they don't have the most expensive gear. There are some caveats and nuances indeed, and I promise to respond to all of the comments as soon as I can 🙂Cheers, Greg
For myself, the RF 100-500 is 1) still too expensive, and 2) not long enough "even on my R7 crop sensor camera". My $900 RF 800 F11 is the best lens I've ever owned for small bird photography. BTW, I did own the R5 for a year. Sold it, to buy a second R7. I also owned the Sigma 150-600, but had lots of focus pulsing issues... plus it was heavier than I'd prefer, and still not quite long enough. A "sense of place" was great.... when I did primarily landscapes :) But shooting only for myself, I want my subject in my face :) I can honestly say though, if someone were to give me $15K for a lens, I'd take that money, and spend it on a multi month birding vacation around the country :) Couldn't be happier with my R7 + RF 800 F11 :) My RF 800 F11, has totally cured my big lens lust.
So much to like in this video! I'm an amateur bird photographer, but I'm also from Latin America and I do work on the French Revolution as an eighteenth-century literary scholar. A few thoughts on the topics you covered here: I shoot with the Sony 200-600 on an APS-C body, and I've experienced the big change you described when it comes to denoising software. All of a sudden ISO ranges that were impossibly noisy became fair game, and I can now shoot in environments that would have been too dark for my aperture range and sensor size. Secondly, I am at a stage in my photography where I'm trying to move away from frame-filling subjects against an empty background, and I really appreciate the experience you shared here. One challenge most of us amateurs face in this regard is that we don't get to display our photos in large size either on screen or through print; most commonly we share them in social media, where people get to see them on the tiny screen of a cellphone. I find that to be a discouraging factor when it comes to taking more environmental shots, as the bird or subject ends up looking too small to even be noticed. May I make a suggestion for the future? I think the video was remarkably well organized and very well paced; the volume was something of a problem, though, especially towards the beginning, when your voice was covered by the soundtrack. Raising the volume for your voice would help!
Hi, Roger. Thanks so much for your thoughtful comments. I agree on everything you say, including the suggestion about the voice vs. music volume in some sections. I promise to rectify that in future videos :-)
One additional thought: When using a camera like the R5 with a lot of megapixels, I found that ditching the teleconverter and cropping in post sometimes makes more sense as it helps to keep the iso down and get more bokeh.
I’ve been using the RF 100-500 for a few months and I love it. I find it works quite well with a 1.4 converter. Yes you lose light gathering capability but as you mentioned DxO Pure Raw 3 saves the day at even higher iso.
Hi, Jeff. Thanks very much for your comment. Since I work in the low light of the rainforest, the light loss with the 1.4x TC is a tough sell for me. But, I'm glad to know that the combo can indeed work well. And yes, DxO and others definitely make this a viable combination. Maybe I'll have to revisit my 1.4x TC with the 100-500 :-) Cheers, Greg
@@deepgreenphotography I think it is worth exploring. I like it so much I was going to get the 2x as well but Canon is promising a new 1x 1.4x 2x all in one extender so I think I’ll wait to see what that is like. I am sure you have heard about that but I thought I’d mention it.
@@CarlosHernandez-kg8py I hear you on that. I haven’t seen a guess on the price yet but I am sure it will be a premium for the ability to not switch between converters all the time.
I agree with your points, especially about the background being part of the image. I'm still 50/50 about bird portraits or bird in context photos, but like you said just you can shoot both! When I shoot wide sometimes it feels like I'm just taking a photo of a bush that happens to have a bird in the shot, I'm a bird photographer so I like to focus my attention to the birds and their details rather than the habitat and landscape so that's why I like your 'typical' bird photo, but like you said it does get repetitive so wider shot are a great inclusion.
Awesome video! I went to Costa Rica recently, taking my Nikon D750 and a Tamron 100-400mm lens. Not the ideal setup perhaps, but when I put some of the results on social media, a friend who I got to know through a FB photography group, commented that it was some of my best work. At the end of the trip, I found your book in a shop at the airport. Since my bag was full, I decided to take a photo of the book so that I could order it when I got back home. Which is how I got your name. :) And now I find out you have a YT channel, and this whole topic speaks so much to me! Regarding the setup, I sometimes did come up short. 24MP isn't that much either (thinking I might actually step it up, also given the feedback of that friend). But when it worked, and I was able to capture a hummingbird, an iguana, a green basilisk lizard, and even an anteater (Corcovado)... I felt so happy. :) Especially given that the setup of body and lens weighs just 2 kg. I wish I had found your channel before I went there. It might have given me a bit more understanding. Having said that, I was always in a group with others, with a guide. So, not too fussed either. CR is expensive, but the nature... Oh my God!
Let’s be clear about one thing to be considered a professional photographer you must make your entire income or most of your income from doing photography. In any profession to be called a professional you must be making quite a bit of money from what you are doing. And there are lots of people that call themselves professional photographers and they definitely not professional.
Hi, David. That's certainly. The term gets thrown around a lot. I will tell you that I and many of my closest photographer friends do indeed make our money from nature photography without a big telephoto prime. As I mention in the video though, those big primes do offer some great advantages :-)
I decided I wanted to get back into wildlife photography about a year ago. One of the reasons I gave up on it was not being able to afford the top gear. I remember borrowing a d750 and 85mm 1.4 just to play with and took it to a seabird colony in the UK called bempton cliffs. I got some great shots including birds in flight. It changed my approach a lot. I do however have a 500mm f4 now which I love but it does steer me towards the more isolated boring portraits. I quite often wish I could go wider.
Well said Greg! I agree with virtually all of your points. I purchased a used Sigma 50-500mm in 2005 (no IS) and used it continuously until it got damaged in the Galápagos in 2019. I would still have it but it was too old to repair. It produced many great images for me over the years. The zoom range allowed me great flexibility to produce environmental shots as well as closeups. I look forward to returning to Costa Rica someday. Pura Vida!
What a great video for those of us who don't have bottomless pockets. You talk a lot of sense. And, having just got back from Costa Rica, the context was great for me.
This is so true. Sometimes big isn't better. I had my Canon 600mm out photographing eagles catching fish from about 50 yards away and added a teleconverter so I could get that much closer. Normally photographing eagles isn't too tough because they're relatively slow moving and not jerky like a hummingbird. But with this setup I found it difficult to find and track the bird in flight, even with a gimble on a tripod. After missing several shots I removed the teleconverter and got more of the surroundings in the photos, which also made for more interesting shots.
I feel professional is often thrown around. Its not defined by the gear you use. In my opinion, you're only a pro only when most of your entire income is generated from your photography. Be it prints, workshops, courses, etc. for the other 99% of us, we are hobbiests who may make some side income or do it for fun. You are right, you dont need pro glass to get stunning, even award winning shots.
Problem with long fast primes is the waffer thin DoF. You may not be able to get the whole bird in focus it is that shallow. So they usually have to be stopped down to where a zoom is. It is often a mistake to use an extra long at extreme distance. You certainly can but they are better at mid-range "fill the frame". Best stabilisation ever Panasonic G9 + Leica 100-400, wave it around like a bat, the whole package under 2kg. Olympus can do it too but only with three £7,000 lenses. There is an old 4/3 adapted Bigma for it, stunning glass but no Lens-IS and AF so bad that MF is obligatory, great tripod job moon bazooka. The 4/3 sensor doubles the reach so a FF 800 is equivalent to the mft 400, not really needing a TC. Nor is noise an issue until we get to ISO 6400 which can be fixed, can even be shot above ISO 12800 with a little NR in edit. More often than not with decent light, a high ISO is not needed even with a fast birding shutter speed and f/8. Getting silly - Samyang/Rokinon 800mm f/8 T-thread reflex plus old Kiron x2TC PK, hodge-potch of adapters to mft - 2x(800x2) = 3200mm equivalent f/16. Real pain to MF and tripod compulsory.
Thank you for this video. I can agree to all you said. Only showing protraits of birds can also be very boring after a while, to see their habitat is much more interesting I thing.
Neat video, there is far too much emphasis on kit with too many zeros. As a pro motorsport photographer I needed range and versatility, so my go to lens was a Sigma 50-500mm. When relaxing I used this a lot, the results were very hard to distinguish from a Canon 100-400 Lii [I have a YT video on this]. In fact one of my favourite images was taken using that lens on a Canon D30, 3mp sensor.
Nice to see you and hear your wisdom and experience Greg. I often think of the week we spent with you in Costa Rica: some of the best wildlife photography of my life. One day we will be back. Thanks for the video. Dave (and Alison)
Still lusting after the Canon EF 600mm f4 II, but the RF100-500 is really doing a great job at a lot of things. Early morning wildlife is a challenge though
3000$ is still a lot for most of people, the best budget lens is 200-500 mm nikon 5.6 constant aperture, Canon Rf 100-500 is around @2600$ that too 5.6 to 7.1 aperture not constant 5.6.
I have RF100-500, RF600/F4, RF800/F11. 1) RF100-500 can do everything, easiest for BIF 2) RF600/F4 can do everything except insects 3)RF800/F11 for perched birds at backyard Anyway, favourite one is RF600/F4, simply the IQ is superb, it’s on next level. of course, best photos can be taken by any lens, it’s all about luck.
great video Greg! Think you should put the title Eric suggested to get more people to see this one! I have the big lenses as well as the budget zooms too. I use them interchangeably to have an assortment of shots from a trip.
Ha ha, yes, that would have been the viral route :-) Having the big primes and tele zooms and putting both to use as you do is definitely the best case scenario. Hats off for embracing diversity in your portfolio :-)
It has been a while since I have seen one of your vids. Always enjoyed your vids. I've been doing this locally for a while & feel I know most of what you said in this vid but feel it was worth watching for the cheesey comment.
Good Video. Some input.... Sigma 150.600. *For Videography as a wildlife photo/video.. Zooming I'm n out. U loose light.. introducing high iso.. or reduce shutter.. As u said apartute is variable So not ideal 4 wild life .(To me) Then a deal breaker at 600 mm the sigma gets softer image.. A Canon 70_200 is way better plus 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverter ability as opposed to Sigma
Hi, Michael. I always found the Sigma to be quite sharp at 600 mm but it definitely has its disadvantages as you menioned. A 70-200 mm with TCs is also a great option :-)
Hey, I’d like to get started, and I found a used Nikon DX AF-S 70-300mm IF-ED VR lens for 200 USD. I plan to use it on a Nikon D3400 APSC camera body, netting me a 100-400mm equivalent focal length. Is that good?
Interesting points, I guess over there in Costa Rica the necessity for long fast glass is not so important as in other parts of the world,(in my case Europe). Robert Capa said it and I fully endorse it "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough". And if you are close enough then yes cheaper lenses are totally fine . Thing is , though, not all of us have access to wildlife like you guys have in Latin America😩And the sad truth and fact of life is that long fast primes DO make a lot of difference and they are a necessity in our part of the world, if one wants to have good keeper rate and above average results. I am not a gear whore myself, far from it, but my money goes ONLY to gear that will actually make a difference. And long fast glass is what I would describe as a good investment. Now there are ways to purchase good fast glass, for example for not much more than the 3000 you mention in the video, you can find a nice second hand 500mm f4 prime alas not the latest iteration but with VR and dissent enough A/F speed. Yes it will be heavier than the latest models but optically it will be as stelar. Having moved on from my 200-500mm (Nikon) to a 600mm f 4 VR, I can tell you right now that it was the biggest leap I had in both keepers and quality. Wildlife photography is one of the most challenging Genres and having the right gear makes one's life easier. With the new mirrorless hype there are good deals to be found in the second hand market for DSLRs,+ glass and still will only be getting better in the years to come for anyone wise enough not to get carried away with the mirrorless wave. I still shoot with DSLRs and old glass because the cost involved with going mirrorless in our Genre of photography is significant BUT does not justify any significant improvement over DSLR tech. I love your work and have great respect to your insights. Thanks for the upload.Peace!!
I agree with you for sure that it definitely depends on the circumstances. As I mention in the vid, the telephoto primes offer some great advantages. And in Latin America, we have to deal with low light nearly all the time, and the slow apertures are certainly a drawback with the cheaper telephoto zooms. Thanks so much for taking the time to comment :-)
I own Canon 70-300L a light compact telezoom, sigma 150-600 C which is a beast and has great reach with some limitations, and my favourite 100-400L as very versatile lens. 2 of the 3 purchased used and l would not pay 10k plus for some fast prime, if I did my wife will want a new car !
Why to save on lenses? For me flying to Costa Rica is the most expensive part. Even more expensive is buying house there and staying a long time. Just different view of things.
Hi, and thanks for your comment. As I mentioned in the video, those big telephoto primes definitely offer advantages when reach is at a premium. I'm not quite sure how to interpret your comment but, in my case, I went to Costa Rica for work 25 years ago, fell in love with a wonderful Costa Rican woman, married, built a house, raised our children, and made our life here. We're all still happy today. It certainly wasn't about saving money on lenses :-)
Great points! It's encouraging to hear that the "super-isolated subject on creamy background" shots are not actually what publishers are looking for much of the time. I'm a micro four thirds shooter and personally prefer the less creamy look but didn't know if that was just me. I do feel the constraint of the 6.3 aperture on my Olympus 100-400 zoom when I'm out before sunrise or deep in the woods, but next time I start thinking I need to spend money I don't have on the f4 prime, I'll focus on making the most of what I have instead. I've already proven to myself I can get usable shots even at ISO 20,000 by exposing to the right and processing with ON1 Photo Raw's NoNoise AI.
Very interesting video and I fully agree you don't need mega priced lenses and cameras to produce wonderful photos. I'm rather sorry you brought in the French revolution which was the mother of all horrible ideas leading to the deaths of literally millions of people.
You’re very soft spoken and difficult to hear-with the music overly it’s almost impossible to hear you. I recommend ditching the music earlier and getting a better microphone.
Thanks to all of you for taking the time to watch and offer positive feedback and constructive comments! I wanted this video to be educational and entertaining and encouraging in terms of giving people confidence to go out and take great photos even if they don't have the most expensive gear. There are some caveats and nuances indeed, and I promise to respond to all of the comments as soon as I can 🙂Cheers, Greg
Nice video but the music in the background is a bit distracting
I definitely agree about your comment. I promise to rectify that in future videos :-)
For myself, the RF 100-500 is 1) still too expensive, and 2) not long enough "even on my R7 crop sensor camera". My $900 RF 800 F11 is the best lens I've ever owned for small bird photography. BTW, I did own the R5 for a year. Sold it, to buy a second R7. I also owned the Sigma 150-600, but had lots of focus pulsing issues... plus it was heavier than I'd prefer, and still not quite long enough. A "sense of place" was great.... when I did primarily landscapes :) But shooting only for myself, I want my subject in my face :) I can honestly say though, if someone were to give me $15K for a lens, I'd take that money, and spend it on a multi month birding vacation around the country :) Couldn't be happier with my R7 + RF 800 F11 :) My RF 800 F11, has totally cured my big lens lust.
I have the exact same quandry 😒
So much to like in this video! I'm an amateur bird photographer, but I'm also from Latin America and I do work on the French Revolution as an eighteenth-century literary scholar. A few thoughts on the topics you covered here: I shoot with the Sony 200-600 on an APS-C body, and I've experienced the big change you described when it comes to denoising software. All of a sudden ISO ranges that were impossibly noisy became fair game, and I can now shoot in environments that would have been too dark for my aperture range and sensor size. Secondly, I am at a stage in my photography where I'm trying to move away from frame-filling subjects against an empty background, and I really appreciate the experience you shared here. One challenge most of us amateurs face in this regard is that we don't get to display our photos in large size either on screen or through print; most commonly we share them in social media, where people get to see them on the tiny screen of a cellphone. I find that to be a discouraging factor when it comes to taking more environmental shots, as the bird or subject ends up looking too small to even be noticed.
May I make a suggestion for the future? I think the video was remarkably well organized and very well paced; the volume was something of a problem, though, especially towards the beginning, when your voice was covered by the soundtrack. Raising the volume for your voice would help!
Hi, Roger. Thanks so much for your thoughtful comments. I agree on everything you say, including the suggestion about the voice vs. music volume in some sections. I promise to rectify that in future videos :-)
Well researched video. Another advantage of the Rf 100-500mm is the minimum focal distance just under three feet or one meter.
Totally true, Carlos. The 100-500 can do double duty as a great lens for lizards, butterflies, and even frogs :-)
One additional thought: When using a camera like the R5 with a lot of megapixels, I found that ditching the teleconverter and cropping in post sometimes makes more sense as it helps to keep the iso down and get more bokeh.
I use this combination and I love it. R5 and RF 100-500. I do very occasionally put on a 1.4 extender in good light.
I’ve been using the RF 100-500 for a few months and I love it. I find it works quite well with a 1.4 converter. Yes you lose light gathering capability but as you mentioned DxO Pure Raw 3 saves the day at even higher iso.
Hi, Jeff. Thanks very much for your comment. Since I work in the low light of the rainforest, the light loss with the 1.4x TC is a tough sell for me. But, I'm glad to know that the combo can indeed work well. And yes, DxO and others definitely make this a viable combination. Maybe I'll have to revisit my 1.4x TC with the 100-500 :-) Cheers, Greg
@@deepgreenphotography I think it is worth exploring. I like it so much I was going to get the 2x as well but Canon is promising a new 1x 1.4x 2x all in one extender so I think I’ll wait to see what that is like. I am sure you have heard about that but I thought I’d mention it.
@@jefffaircloth8603 I might have to sell a kidney to buy this universal converter from Canon. Sounds like a great idea.
@@CarlosHernandez-kg8py I hear you on that. I haven’t seen a guess on the price yet but I am sure it will be a premium for the ability to not switch between converters all the time.
I agree with your points, especially about the background being part of the image. I'm still 50/50 about bird portraits or bird in context photos, but like you said just you can shoot both!
When I shoot wide sometimes it feels like I'm just taking a photo of a bush that happens to have a bird in the shot, I'm a bird photographer so I like to focus my attention to the birds and their details rather than the habitat and landscape so that's why I like your 'typical' bird photo, but like you said it does get repetitive so wider shot are a great inclusion.
Awesome video! I went to Costa Rica recently, taking my Nikon D750 and a Tamron 100-400mm lens. Not the ideal setup perhaps, but when I put some of the results on social media, a friend who I got to know through a FB photography group, commented that it was some of my best work. At the end of the trip, I found your book in a shop at the airport. Since my bag was full, I decided to take a photo of the book so that I could order it when I got back home. Which is how I got your name. :) And now I find out you have a YT channel, and this whole topic speaks so much to me!
Regarding the setup, I sometimes did come up short. 24MP isn't that much either (thinking I might actually step it up, also given the feedback of that friend). But when it worked, and I was able to capture a hummingbird, an iguana, a green basilisk lizard, and even an anteater (Corcovado)... I felt so happy. :) Especially given that the setup of body and lens weighs just 2 kg.
I wish I had found your channel before I went there. It might have given me a bit more understanding. Having said that, I was always in a group with others, with a guide. So, not too fussed either.
CR is expensive, but the nature... Oh my God!
Let’s be clear about one thing to be considered a professional photographer you must make your entire income or most of your income from doing photography. In any profession to be called a professional you must be making quite a bit of money from what you are doing. And there are lots of people that call themselves professional photographers and they definitely not professional.
Hi, David. That's certainly. The term gets thrown around a lot. I will tell you that I and many of my closest photographer friends do indeed make our money from nature photography without a big telephoto prime. As I mention in the video though, those big primes do offer some great advantages :-)
I decided I wanted to get back into wildlife photography about a year ago. One of the reasons I gave up on it was not being able to afford the top gear.
I remember borrowing a d750 and 85mm 1.4 just to play with and took it to a seabird colony in the UK called bempton cliffs. I got some great shots including birds in flight. It changed my approach a lot. I do however have a 500mm f4 now which I love but it does steer me towards the more isolated boring portraits. I quite often wish I could go wider.
Indeed, I do think the big lens can be kind of a mindset trap. I love the tight shots too, but diversity in our portfolios is always good IMHO
Well said Greg! I agree with virtually all of your points. I purchased a used Sigma 50-500mm in 2005 (no IS) and used it continuously until it got damaged in the Galápagos in 2019. I would still have it but it was too old to repair. It produced many great images for me over the years. The zoom range allowed me great flexibility to produce environmental shots as well as closeups.
I look forward to returning to Costa Rica someday. Pura Vida!
What a great video for those of us who don't have bottomless pockets. You talk a lot of sense. And, having just got back from Costa Rica, the context was great for me.
This is so true. Sometimes big isn't better. I had my Canon 600mm out photographing eagles catching fish from about 50 yards away and added a teleconverter so I could get that much closer. Normally photographing eagles isn't too tough because they're relatively slow moving and not jerky like a hummingbird. But with this setup I found it difficult to find and track the bird in flight, even with a gimble on a tripod. After missing several shots I removed the teleconverter and got more of the surroundings in the photos, which also made for more interesting shots.
Awesome!
One of the best videos I've seen on this subject, thank you!
You are right thank😊
I feel professional is often thrown around. Its not defined by the gear you use. In my opinion, you're only a pro only when most of your entire income is generated from your photography. Be it prints, workshops, courses, etc. for the other 99% of us, we are hobbiests who may make some side income or do it for fun. You are right, you dont need pro glass to get stunning, even award winning shots.
That's so true. But in the end, yes, I totally agree with your comment that you don't the best glass to get the best shots :-)
Wow you talk so much sense, a relief from the usual must have the most expensive gear to be a serious photographer nonsense! Sp l subscribed
Glad it was helpful!
Kind of depends on what you are photographing, and what your goal is.
That's true. As I mentioned, the big primes offer some advantages for sure :-)
Problem with long fast primes is the waffer thin DoF. You may not be able to get the whole bird in focus it is that shallow. So they usually have to be stopped down to where a zoom is. It is often a mistake to use an extra long at extreme distance. You certainly can but they are better at mid-range "fill the frame". Best stabilisation ever Panasonic G9 + Leica 100-400, wave it around like a bat, the whole package under 2kg. Olympus can do it too but only with three £7,000 lenses. There is an old 4/3 adapted Bigma for it, stunning glass but no Lens-IS and AF so bad that MF is obligatory, great tripod job moon bazooka. The 4/3 sensor doubles the reach so a FF 800 is equivalent to the mft 400, not really needing a TC. Nor is noise an issue until we get to ISO 6400 which can be fixed, can even be shot above ISO 12800 with a little NR in edit. More often than not with decent light, a high ISO is not needed even with a fast birding shutter speed and f/8.
Getting silly - Samyang/Rokinon 800mm f/8 T-thread reflex plus old Kiron x2TC PK, hodge-potch of adapters to mft - 2x(800x2) = 3200mm equivalent f/16. Real pain to MF and tripod compulsory.
Subscribed. The Llama picture at 11:22 just blew me away. Wonderful content Greg.
Thanks so much. I'll confess that's one of my faves as well :-)
Thank you for this video. I can agree to all you said. Only showing protraits of birds can also be very boring after a while, to see their habitat is much more interesting I thing.
I think it's nice to show some diversity. So glad you found the video helpful :-)
Neat video, there is far too much emphasis on kit with too many zeros. As a pro motorsport photographer I needed range and versatility, so my go to lens was a Sigma 50-500mm. When relaxing I used this a lot, the results were very hard to distinguish from a Canon 100-400 Lii [I have a YT video on this]. In fact one of my favourite images was taken using that lens on a Canon D30, 3mp sensor.
Great video Greg!!
Nice to see you and hear your wisdom and experience Greg. I often think of the week we spent with you in Costa Rica: some of the best wildlife photography of my life. One day we will be back. Thanks for the video. Dave (and Alison)
Thanks so much, David. Cheers to you both!
I like your humorous presentation of a seriosus issue. Thanks for saving me money.
Very good tips! Thanks for the video!!
Still lusting after the Canon EF 600mm f4 II, but the RF100-500 is really doing a great job at a lot of things. Early morning wildlife is a challenge though
Wow great video, never thought about the background as a story as much. Thank you youtube always makes us feel like we need the most expensive gear
I'm so glad it was helpful :-)
Thanks!
Nice, Mr Greg, great to see you.
Spot on as usual Greg. Great to see your videos and hope you are doing well.
Thanks so much, Kevin. I hope all is well with you :-)
3000$ is still a lot for most of people, the best budget lens is 200-500 mm nikon 5.6 constant aperture, Canon Rf 100-500 is around @2600$ that too 5.6 to 7.1 aperture not constant 5.6.
That's true for sure. $3000 is a lot of money. For Nikon shooters, the 200-500 mm f/5.6 constant zoom is definitely a good option :-)
The Sigma 150-600 C was my 1st birding lens...I upgraded to the RF 100-500 but still miss the Sigma.
I have RF100-500, RF600/F4, RF800/F11. 1) RF100-500 can do everything, easiest for BIF 2) RF600/F4 can do everything except insects 3)RF800/F11 for perched birds at backyard
Anyway, favourite one is RF600/F4, simply the IQ is superb, it’s on next level. of course, best photos can be taken by any lens, it’s all about luck.
I think having a range of telephoto options is definitely a great way to go :-)
great video Greg! Think you should put the title Eric suggested to get more people to see this one! I have the big lenses as well as the budget zooms too. I use them interchangeably to have an assortment of shots from a trip.
Ha ha, yes, that would have been the viral route :-) Having the big primes and tele zooms and putting both to use as you do is definitely the best case scenario. Hats off for embracing diversity in your portfolio :-)
Always enjoy your videos; this one is no exception!
Gracias!
I prefer your title. Great vid (cept for the music).
Ha ha on the title :-) Yes, the music was an experiment, and it was too loud compared to my narration. I'll fix that in future vids.
Good find. A lot of ppl in developing countries like India can't afford the 'pro' gear
I use sony rx10 iv
Exactly, I think this type of photography can be enjoyed and done well by everyone :-)
Very encouraging video, thank you! 😊
I'm glad it was helpful :-)
Thank you a great thought provoking video 👍
Thank you, Martin!
It has been a while since I have seen one of your vids. Always enjoyed your vids. I've been doing this locally for a while & feel I know most of what you said in this vid but feel it was worth watching for the cheesey comment.
Ha ha, glad you enjoyed that :-)
Good Video. Some input....
Sigma 150.600.
*For Videography as a wildlife photo/video.. Zooming I'm n out. U loose light.. introducing high iso.. or reduce shutter..
As u said apartute is variable
So not ideal 4 wild life .(To me)
Then a deal breaker at 600 mm the sigma gets softer image..
A Canon 70_200 is way better plus 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverter ability as opposed to Sigma
Hi, Michael. I always found the Sigma to be quite sharp at 600 mm but it definitely has its disadvantages as you menioned. A 70-200 mm with TCs is also a great option :-)
Estoy aprendiendo mucho sobre contar una historia, hacer que el fondo aporte a la foto y sobre composición en sus videos, muchas gracias! Deste CR.
Que bien. Me alegro mucho que te haya servido :-)
Hey, I’d like to get started, and I found a used Nikon DX AF-S 70-300mm IF-ED VR lens for 200 USD. I plan to use it on a Nikon D3400 APSC camera body, netting me a 100-400mm equivalent focal length. Is that good?
Interesting points, I guess over there in Costa Rica the necessity for long fast glass is not so important as in other parts of the world,(in my case Europe). Robert Capa said it and I fully endorse it "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough". And if you are close enough then yes cheaper lenses are totally fine . Thing is , though, not all of us have access to wildlife like you guys have in Latin America😩And the sad truth and fact of life is that long fast primes DO make a lot of difference and they are a necessity in our part of the world, if one wants to have good keeper rate and above average results. I am not a gear whore myself, far from it, but my money goes ONLY to gear that will actually make a difference. And long fast glass is what I would describe as a good investment. Now there are ways to purchase good fast glass, for example for not much more than the 3000 you mention in the video, you can find a nice second hand 500mm f4 prime alas not the latest iteration but with VR and dissent enough A/F speed. Yes it will be heavier than the latest models but optically it will be as stelar. Having moved on from my 200-500mm (Nikon) to a 600mm f 4 VR, I can tell you right now that it was the biggest leap I had in both keepers and quality. Wildlife photography is one of the most challenging Genres and having the right gear makes one's life easier. With the new mirrorless hype there are good deals to be found in the second hand market for DSLRs,+ glass and still will only be getting better in the years to come for anyone wise enough not to get carried away with the mirrorless wave. I still shoot with DSLRs and old glass because the cost involved with going mirrorless in our Genre of photography is significant BUT does not justify any significant improvement over DSLR tech. I love your work and have great respect to your insights. Thanks for the upload.Peace!!
I agree with you for sure that it definitely depends on the circumstances. As I mention in the vid, the telephoto primes offer some great advantages. And in Latin America, we have to deal with low light nearly all the time, and the slow apertures are certainly a drawback with the cheaper telephoto zooms. Thanks so much for taking the time to comment :-)
I own Canon 70-300L a light compact telezoom, sigma 150-600 C which is a beast and has great reach with some limitations, and my favourite 100-400L as very versatile lens.
2 of the 3 purchased used and l would not pay 10k plus for some fast prime, if I did my wife will want a new car !
Video is good but Audio was fairly poor. An investment in a good mic will make your videos even better 👍
For me 7Dmk2 ans à 70-300L or for large field or long distance 5dmk4 and 150-600 sigma c.
Those sound like good combos :-)
Great video but too much noise in the audio
What a question!? Maybe I won't need one in the zoo's aviary.
Was interested in the subject but the music is making me dive out.
Why to save on lenses? For me flying to Costa Rica is the most expensive part. Even more expensive is buying house there and staying a long time.
Just different view of things.
Hi, and thanks for your comment. As I mentioned in the video, those big telephoto primes definitely offer advantages when reach is at a premium. I'm not quite sure how to interpret your comment but, in my case, I went to Costa Rica for work 25 years ago, fell in love with a wonderful Costa Rican woman, married, built a house, raised our children, and made our life here. We're all still happy today. It certainly wasn't about saving money on lenses :-)
Great points! It's encouraging to hear that the "super-isolated subject on creamy background" shots are not actually what publishers are looking for much of the time. I'm a micro four thirds shooter and personally prefer the less creamy look but didn't know if that was just me.
I do feel the constraint of the 6.3 aperture on my Olympus 100-400 zoom when I'm out before sunrise or deep in the woods, but next time I start thinking I need to spend money I don't have on the f4 prime, I'll focus on making the most of what I have instead. I've already proven to myself I can get usable shots even at ISO 20,000 by exposing to the right and processing with ON1 Photo Raw's NoNoise AI.
Indeed, it's amazing what we can do nowadays with the software :-)
Very interesting video and I fully agree you don't need mega priced lenses and cameras to produce wonderful photos. I'm rather sorry you brought in the French revolution which was the mother of all horrible ideas leading to the deaths of literally millions of people.
Eric was wrong. Good advice re inc some background.
Gracias!
Great video, but why compete with that ridiculous background music?
Go Big or go home....
You’re very soft spoken and difficult to hear-with the music overly it’s almost impossible to hear you. I recommend ditching the music earlier and getting a better microphone.
I appreciate that suggestion. Actually, the mic setup is good but I had the music too loud. I promise to address that in future videos :-)
Promo-SM
Bachground music is annoying remove it