The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Using m4/3 on safari

Terry,

You say "I tried where I could to get some cross lighting. We didn't do much backlighting by choice. I was traveling with a birder who really wanted to get good detail and catchlight in the birds eyes which really needs them facing the light. "

I personally think the shot you posted with that message is the best 'picture' you have shown so far. To me it has more atmosphere and is more unusual.

Tony
 

Terry

New member
First off Terry, thanks for taking the time to share your experiences here. I'll probably do an Africa photo safari at some point in the next few years and gear selection is going to be a quandary. Your thoughts and experiences are really valuable.

Second, I can see there are some great images in the pipe! Anxious to see more.



I think this is an excellent point. It also goes along with your "storytelling" consideration.

When I step out of my forte (landscapes) the caliber of my photos drops quite a bit. Sure, I can take a nice wildlife shot, but I feel I wouldn't bring much to the table compared to a dedicated wildlife photographer. I think most of my shots in the super-telephoto "look at the lion yawn" portrait genre would end up being nice travel log photos not unlike the tens of thousands that already exist. They would hold great personal value to me. A small heavily edited selection might be of interest to friends. I have a hard time imagining I'd produce any "wow" shots in that genre even with heavy tools. The subject matter is no longer novel to the audience. Our culture is saturated with nature films and photos, so a technically well executed documentary photo of wildlife is not going to provide interest. As someone who would be stepping into the role of "wildlife photographer" for a vacation I don't feel I'd be able to adapt creatively into that role in such a short time beyond documentary and storytelling. I don't think I'd want to haul a 15 lb lens that I'd never use for anything else to capture storytelling images, "lesser" gear would do just fine.

What I would hope (perhaps naively) is that I could bring my landscape experience to bear on a landscape I've not shot before that has wildlife as a significant element to it. For me I'd probably be better at making creative images that might connect with viewers in that context. Your zebra shot here being a nice example. I suspect much of my current gear and techniques would fit that role already and I could perhaps supplement a bit to get "documentary" shots of wild life along the way.

If you've bothered reading this far, one question :)

These trips are all vehicle based, and everyone stays in the vehicles. The vehicles are typically filled with people with giant super telephoto lenses all trying to get the "lion yawning" shot of the century. (And since some of them probably know what they are going, unlike me, they have a passing chance of doing it). The guides are probably used to catering to this as well. I have the feeling that if I approached such a trip as a landscape photo shoot I'd be a fish out of water often trapped in a vantage point not amenable to what I was trying to shoot (wildlife in the landscape instead of just the wildlife). Any thoughts about that after your experience?

Thanks again,

Ken
Hi Ken - you nailed it for me and what I wanted from this trip. Landscapes with at the animals as an element of the composition. I was also very interested in the overall experience - which includes the hunting or yawning lion, wildebeest river crossings etc. but those weren't the images I was keen on "nailing". I thought if I did a safari that I would probably go with Andy Biggs because he has a lot of landscape shots that appeal to just this aesthetic. I was invited on this trip by a friend and it was being organized by one of her friends that travels to Kenya every year. I just decided to "go for it" as she was someone that I knew and was comfortable that I could share accommodations with for a long duration trip and I had confidence with the organizer based on emails and his guidance on what to expect, bring along etc.

Our itinerary and trip was clearly geared toward photography. What that means is vehicles with only two or perhaps three people. Our Vehicles also had roof hatches which work better for camera support than some of the more open vehicles. Two people in the land cruiser gives each person room to move around and get the vantage point they need (of course less people in the vehicle costs more but was important to me). With only two people telling our guide to stop/backup/move left or right (to line up tress or animals or importantly get the right light) was no problem at all.

We went to Samburu as our first place. It was a good appetizer for what we were going to see on the rest of the trip but also had the least "openness" for landscapes. My favorite area was the Mara triangle with the long grasses - The zebra shot was right near the Ololoolo gate of the National park. Also, the areas are so vast that what you think of as a landscape lens is probably too wide. for instance the zebra shot above was taken between 90 and 100mm. I have other shots that I consider landscape that were taken with the 100-300.

Our guide knew from the beginning even before I arrived in kenya that I was interested in landscape and as I took shots that were in that genre I would show him what I was shooting and he then really understood.

Our guide had a general plan with what we were going to do each day but there was nothing etched in stone and ours was a very individualized trip. So, my overall advice would be to plan well and speak to the company you use before going on the trip. We used a company called Topcats the other company that I know of that really specializes in photography is Origins.
 

Terry

New member
Terry, how did the Oly glass work with the G3? I have a lot of Oly lenses and haven't decided whether to get a G3 or stay with my E620.
Did you have any missed shots with the Oly/G3 combination? Is your G3 still for sale?
I only had one lens the 14-54 Ver II. It was fine. Before deciding on glass I tried the 150mm f2 with and without teleconverter and focus was really not good. I don't have a stash of Oly glass or a 4/3 body so you should ask Oly people who have used their glass on the m4/3 bodies.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Lovely lovely images, Terry.
Long gone are my Canons, these little Panasonics do most what I need other then MF.
-bob
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I only had one lens the 14-54 Ver II. It was fine. Before deciding on glass I tried the 150mm f2 with and without teleconverter and focus was really not good. I don't have a stash of Oly glass or a 4/3 body so you should ask Oly people who have used their glass on the m4/3 bodies.
I only can confirm that 43 glass on m43 bodies just sucks WRT AF speed and accuracy.

On the other side I must say that especially the SHG glass on 43 bodies like E5 is stellar - fast and accurate AF, sharp that it hurts and relatively light compared to FF, although still heavier and bulkier than it could be on m43.

I especially liked the 2/150, which I used to shoot with my E1. The ideal wildlife lens and good to combine with teleconverters. Also great for shooting portrait BTW. Was one of my favorite and best lenses I ever owned. Could be one of the main reasons I might stay with the 43 E system ;)
 

kwalsh

New member
Terry, thanks for taking the time to reply.

Also, the areas are so vast that what you think of as a landscape lens is probably too wide. for instance the zebra shot above was taken between 90 and 100mm. I have other shots that I consider landscape that were taken with the 100-300.
I've noticed that with what I've seen of Africa landscapes, it is a very good point. I frequently do landscapes at longer focal lengths already, I use my 45-200 for landscape all the time and have been thinking about the 100-300 as well. I even tote around a compact 500/8 reflex in my vehicle for highly compressed landscapes, though it is rare to find atmospheric conditions in which to use it!

Thanks for the input on the vehicle selection. We know some hard core safari folks who are old hands at it so we might arrange a private tour with just a few people. I like the driving idea to avoid luggage limits. From what you've said I think I'll investigate that approach and perhaps stick to two photographers in a vehicle. My wife and I should be able to coordinate where we want the guide to put the vehicle without too much conflict!

Thanks again,

Ken
 

henningw

Member
I'm not sure what you are trying to explain here. With the two lenses you mention, a 1.4x TC will only get you to 450mm on an FF body and you will lose or at least get very slow AF. You would get more reach with a 1.6 crop body of course, but I doubt that a camera like the 7D will give better image quality if you use a 70-300 zoom with a TC than a GH2 without. The Canon alternative that would work well on a 7D is the 100-400mm, but that is considerably heavier, not to speak about much more expensive than the Pana 100-300. Better image quality? Maybe, maybe not.
Since i have both 7D with 100-400 and GH2 with 100-300, and am leaving on a two week safari in Kenya tomorrow, I have tested both combinations. My FF Canons don't give me the detail resolution that either the above two combinations give me, so it will stay home. Either of the two above give me a lot more quality than I could ever manage with film for long reach.

The GH2 with 100-300 in general gives me better image quality, particularly in good light because the optical quality of the 100-300 is noticeably better than that of the 100-400 Canon. I've tried 6 examples of the latter now, and while I have kept the best all have decentering which compromises performance and reduces it below that of the GH2 and 100-300 level. When the light gets low enough, the 7D and 100-400 pull ahead due to the better low light performance of the 7D. However, it's not worth taking the 7D just for that and it's also a lot bigger and heavier.

So I'm taking the GH2, G3 with 14-140, 100-300, 7-14, 12/2, 20/1.7, 45/2.8 and also a 75 AA Summicron with adapter. This is one lens that is fully up to the requirements of the m4/3 sensor, and the focal length is just short enough to make MF reasonable. Many other lenses aren't up to use on the m4/3 sensor, including pretty well most 200 and above lenses originally designed with 35mm film in mind. I'd love to get my hands on the Leica 280/4 APO and put that on the GH2, but they're too much for a MF lens for my taste.

I know that my Nikkor 180/2.8 ED isn't worth taking, because the image quality isn't good enough, and neither is any version of the 300mm ED Nikkors, and the only good enough 400, the old Nikkor 400/5.6PC is too clumsy to handle. My tests with all these longer lenses, including most Nikon and Canon MF, increase my respect for the unassuming 100-300 all the more.

On previous trips to Africa I've taken FF cameras with 100-400, with 1.4x and that combination didn't do it, especially if taking pictures of birds. I'd want to take something like the Nikkor 200-400/4 and tc, (but the image quality of that lens isn't that exciting) and at least a 500/4 or 600/4.

As I don't use that sort of glass for my work, I'd have to buy/rent it and then haul it. Not going to happen. My whole Panasonic kit fits in a Domke 803, and that goes with me into the airplane cabin.

Great pictures, Terry. I'll look at them in more detail when I get back.

Henning
 

Terry

New member
Have a great trip. My bet is you will keep the 100-300 bolted on the GH2 the entire time.
 

Terry

New member
Terry...would you have been hampered in any way if you used 2 G3s instead of the GH2?
I don't think so. I had two G3's with me but one had never been used. So, I figured I might as well keep it unused unless I needed it. I knew I would sell at least one if not two bodies when I got back so having one remain new was a consideration as to why I used both GH2 and G3 combo. Because the controls are a bit different, using two G3's would have been marginally simpler.

I won't deny with the bigger grip the 100-300 is probably a bit better on that body but that doesn't mean I would't have gotten the same shots with the G3. However the biggest consideration is finding a good shooting position where you can use your arms/elbows to set up a stable shooting platform on the roof of the vehicle. You can see the person standing with their head out of the hatch.

View attachment 48482
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Terry

That landscape shot with the Zebras is fantastic! It also illustrates another feature of 100-300 I have noticed when using it for landscape - good microconstrast in distant objects. Well done!

LouisB
 
Top