MF for wildlife photography?

[Guy Mancuso]

Bold statement here I will put up my P40+ against anything in 35mm at any size print even a 4x6 and you will see the difference. I did not buy this for my looks.

I'm half joking hope you all know that. But there is a lot of power in MF images, I get stuff that I am amazed how it is even there. But with that said MF is going to be tough with wildlife compared to a D3x with a 600mm lens sporting on it or even a 300mm. Just can't get that reach and speed which the DSLR's can get . The Mamiya 300mm 4.5 is a great lens and i get a lot out of it but even on a P40+ crop it's only like a 210mm or something like that in 35mm. I'm crazy but I ain't getting that freaking close to a hungry lion. :deadhorse:

 

[carstenw]

Nik, I know you want to sleep on all of this, but there is one issue which has been simmering in the back of my head, and which I didn't see really discussed here: auto-focus.

If you really count auto-focus as a prerequisite, MF is pretty much not for you. The kind of auto-focus which can follow-focus a fast bird in mid-flight, or catch a jumping shark in mid-air, doesn't exist in MF. The auto-focus is mostly single-shot, single-sensor, the Mamiya has three. The speed is also much, much lower than for 135, and the continuous framerates are mostly maxed out at around 1-1.2fps, with one or two solutions maybe managing 1.5fps. You are not going to be able to keep up with fast action with MF.

However, if you are really addicted to high resolution and great colour, and are willing to keep a Nikon D3x as well as MF, then you could probably use manual focus or slow auto-focus lenses for those of your shots which allow that, such as the large predators...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Carsten you need to go shoot a DF body. It can follow focus very well actually even with a 300mm AF. No it is not a high end Canon but it is effective. So it does exist but yes you are limited and you can only go as fast as .08 frames per second, not your typical 5 fps or more with a DSLR. The bottom line it is worth shooting MF IF you can control things which is tough and IF you can deal with what MF provides in it's maximum power to go fast. You will hit a wall on some things no doubt but it depends on what you are after in regards to animal and what it maybe doing.

Honestly everyone of the shots posted by the OP could have been done with MF as far as speed even the whale( or is that a shark) You have to carefully plan when they come up for air and where they will be . I followed them on a boat in Mexico and they are straight liners pretty much. The trouble will mostly be reach in his shots.

Maybe not my first choice but certainly would not leave my gear home to go shoot it either.

 

[gogopix]

I have to agree with Guy; it is just that WL photogs just don't try with MF. It could be weight, size, technique etc. But I have used

Hassey 500 and 2x mutar
350SA
350 contax with 1.4
500/8 HB
800mm Leica

ALL with the P65+

Even if you only use hlaf the image, you still have a 30MP image with 8 stop DR.

I won't bore you with repeats (unless you insist :ROTFL but for birds works for me. Wish I had more time.

The issue is the stability and speed; have an 'optical bench' for the modular where camera and lens are on ONE long bar. You need at least 1/1000

but then you have all those MP and DR. I am still learning, but every time I try with DSLR (and I am experimenting with a Pentax K-7 and 400mm/6.8 right now) I find it hard to get 135 up to 645 standards.

THAT SAID, it will only show up in BIG prints. Your images from D3 I guess are damn imporessive up to 8x10 but I start printing with a short side of 24inches

You have talent, clearly; I am loath to compete with those examples. But I am convinced the more one works with MF the better it will be.

I will post a few examples when I have more time

regards
Victor

 

[carstenw]

The newer cameras may focus faster, but likely only in decent-to-good light, and you have to land the focus sensor on the subject in the first place, which is okay for a lion, but not so easy for a bird. Given that nature/animal photography contains a good dose of action, I stand by my recommendation of keeping the D3x.

And Guy, not everyone is as hard-core as you about keeping just one system

The arrival of the Pentax 645D is a real joker in the deck. No one knows yet how good it will be, no one knows how fast it will be, and no one knows if it will be more like MF or like 135. Pentax has a good track record though, so I would say that unless the OP is in a hurry to buy into MF, keeping a firm eye on the 645D would be prudent.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Certainly helps in the field to shoot with a monopod with the long glass. As Victor said you need some balance and they help a great deal.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

I think the Mamiya 645 and a 500, possibly with a 2x, ought to work just fine for shooting slow-moving animals from a vehicle using a door or roof mount. Or set up with a tripod and gimbal head. For fast-moving, unpredictable movement I'd forget it as it would be highly unproductive.

 

[Ebe]

I do NOT recommend MF for wildlife.
Have shot a fair amount of wildlife and bird pictures, and feel the
DSLR Systems are better for your use.
I have a Phase MF System which includes the Mamiya 300-APO and
previously owned the Mamiya 500 with Mamiya Multiplier.
I use a DSLR for wildlife and birds, period.
BTW: The Mamiya 500mm is old technology and not up to the modern lens
and poor when used with the multiplier.
The 300 is excellent but not long enough for most wildlife.

Save your money for the new DSLR's coming out the next year or two.

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I fully agree with Ebe. DSLR for the action, MFDB for the static landscape.

And frankly, Nik, I don't see how you could improve those outstanding images with MF.

Regards,
Bill

 

[gss]

Perhaps you could get another D3X and remove the AA filter, since the D3X doesn't have an anti-dust shaker. I think you'd be stunned to see how much a difference an AA filter makes; your D3X comes with a fairly good resolution.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Most wildlife photography doesn't require much in the way of technology though. I've shot birds in flight in manual focus, and as long as the flight paths are predictable it works just fine. (In fact I used manual focus because AF on the Canon D30 was so dysmally poor.) A bird like a pelican or harrier flies mainly in a straight line. Animals like Tule elk don't move around too fast, but the areas are large and they can be aggressive, so the key is to predict their movement and park ahead where you think they'll both be and you have a good shot. The Mamiya 500/5.6 is sharp enough to outresolve my ZD back wide open both with and without the 2x, no stopping down required. So it's a pretty good complement to 35mm if you can handle the size - which really is no big deal on a gimbal head or from a vehicle. Just throw a bean sack over the sill and rest the lens on it.

 

[kdphotography]

There is no doubt in my mind that a FF DLSR with nice long glass is the better choice for photographing wildlife. It was not that long ago that I was talking with my Giant about his hopes of using medium format digital to capture wildlife. Guy, I'm sure that you've probably had the same conversation with your Giant. :ROTFL:

Probably everyone here that has bought into medium format digital, at arguably an absurd price of entry (Dante warned us), has done so in the quest to obtain the best possible image quality. And so it is with this type of thinking in mind that there is a little voice in me that says, wow, what if I could capture a once-in-a-lifetime image on medium format digital as opposed to my DSLR?

Right now, I can only dream of visiting the places that Nik has been to in capturing some really amazing images, let alone photograph there. I know that if I could, I'd have my 1DsMark IIII and big white barrelled lenses at the ready. But the new Phase 645DF causes more pause for thought. It offers really great auto-focus, and even in dimly lit interiors. (Better than my 5D II, and just behind the 1Ds Mark III). And the P65+ is pretty flexible ISO speed wise. Limited focal length though for AF lenses, and middle-aged eyes demand AF.

A full-frame DSLR is the better choice. But that little voice keeps asking, "What if...."

ken

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The one real limit I see is length and that is my real cause for pause. Now if Phase came out with a 500 F4 that is not the size of a house than it has a good chance. The question remains if your after a animal that is not in high motion and you can get fairly close than MF starts making more sense. Obviously shooting a cheetah going 40 mph at 200 yards is going to kill MF and hell hard enough with a DSLR even. So this comes down to the planning stage and what you are after and what presents itself given the location you are after. Heck folks i do this everyday thinking before i do a gig , no different here. MF is going to run into these limits on length and on high speed so with that you really have to be smart about which choice makes sense. You also need to know your gear very well on what it can and can't do. So for first time buyers this makes that even more difficult. Now i love MF and nothing can touch it as far as image . Let them have that dog fight on MF Vs DSLR image quality i already know that answer and have the gear that is the answer to it. Frankly a stupid argument. LOL

The question is in this case where are the limits and can it get it done. I like DSLR's to a certain degree but what they are good for speed and high ISO but if you can get past that within the limits than why not.

 

[Geoff]

I must agree with all the above posts. Clearly they all make sense.

So, following the adventurer's spirit, what about a comparison about a good MFDB, good glass and a decent length lens vs. state of the art Canon 7D and decent glass? How would they compare?

The first shot posted has a comparison with two shots, at actual image size: on the left is a Rollei 6008AF with dp20 (Phase P20 - 36 mm sq.) back, a Schneider 180 2.8, 1.4 tele-extender (effective overall 250 mm lens), at 400 ISO, about 5.6 at 1/125 on a tripod. On the right is a Canon 7D, with a 100-400 zoom at full extension, 1250 ISO for about 1/1000 speed, both on tripod. The Rollei shot is raw, through C1. The Canon is jpg.

The first shot is the actual image size - and you must be laughing by now: the Canon must be better. I would think so too. Take glass length over back, any day.

The second shot is a screen capture, of the two images blown up to the same amount. The Rollei is focused on the bird feeder, the Canon on the bird. Surprisingly, there isn't much difference. I might even take the Rollei - but to be sure, it would have to be the same subject matter. But the distance of camera to subject (50') is the same in both tests.

For a definitive test, they would need to be same day (a bit cloudy on the Rollei shoot, sunny for the Canon), same subject, etc. The Canon is a jpg,however a comparison (third screen save- from a 20D - sorry about that) between raw and jpg gives more detail in the raw, but not enormously so. Maybe the 7D raw through a quality converter would have much more detail.

In short - for still shots, the MFDB has a good chance - trading lens length for better back. For anything moving, you need shutter speed, and the Canon at 1250 ISO and 1/1000 shutter speed is necessary. FYI - the Canon at 400 ISO was better, but not by much, and the bird wasn't sharp at all. So for anything moving, one can draw the conclusion that this setup of MFDB would not be useful, and the Canon is a must. But for still lives, the debate is valid.

Any (peaceful) thoughts out there about this casual look?

Geoff

 

[Analog6]

I've been trying a few bird shots with the H2 & 210 f4 lens, and I'm finding it is really only suitable for still work. The auto focus is just not quick enough for birds in flight. I won't be giving up the Canon anytime soon. The Pentax 645D does look interesting though, I'll keep an eye on that one.

 

[doc4x5]

Never used MF digital, but have tried MF film for wildlife (Hasselblad V with 250) and gave up in frustration. It makes sense to use the tool that offers the best compromise between ultimate image quality and flexibility. To use an absurd example, an 8x10 has impressive detail but no one uses one for wildlife, likewise, point and shoots, which are great for party photos, do not make great landscape images. While your images are impressive captures, they look a bit oversharpened at least on my monitor.

Eric

 

[Hauxon]

I have not much to add to what's already been told, but these images are terrific!

I would hold on to the D3x and see how good the Pentax 645D is when it comes out. And if it's good and you buy one I would still hold on to the DSLR for focus and ultra-compression.

Hrannar

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Never used MF digital, but have tried MF film for wildlife (Hasselblad V with 250) and gave up in frustration.

A 250 isn't really long enough for wildlife, even on 35mm. A 300 (on 35mm) can be useful in a captive environment like a zoo, but not with wild animals. Maybe in a park where the wildlife is used to vehicles. I'd say a 500 is a better starting point (or 800 on 645). A 300 can work with a 1.3 crop factor (like the Leica APO 280 with a DMR); this comes out to about 400. A bit short but workable, and quite decent with a 1.4x.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Here's an example of a shot that was manually focused (Canon D30 and 600 IS). The D30 couldn't track worth squat, and the newer cameras (1 series) would almost certainly not pick the right focus area.

Here's an example of an image that doesn't require AF or a deep buffer at all.

Something like this requires nothing special, although this particular image was shot with 35mm and a 600.

Here's a captive shot of a grizzly at a rescue center near Yellowstone NP (forget the name off hand, it's been 8 years now). It was actually shot handheld, and the 600 was a little too long for the 1D's crop factor. But it was a grab shot where I didn't have time to change to a 400.

A 400 from a vehicle, again wild animals used to vehicles that just wandered by totally ignoring me. (As long as you stay in the car, obviously. Stepping outside is not the sane thing to do.)

This was shot with a 600. I sat quietly crouched with the camera on a gimbal head while the herd wandered by. Wapitis can get aggressive, so I didn't want to make much of a disturbance by changing lenses. A shorter lens would have been better since I had to stop shooting when they got too close. But like I said, changing lenses wasn't an option. (In hindsight I should have prepared by putting a second body on a 400.)

Tule Elk at Pt Reyes. Again, nothing special needed for this. Just predict the movement and park your car to intercept their foraging so they'll walk past.

Etc.
As you can see, there is nothing technically demanding with any of this. And this is just a random selection from what I can come up with from what I have already posted online in the past.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Of course, with captive animals you can often use anything. This was shot with an M8 and 75A at the Taronga Zoo in Sydney.

But for wild animals a 400-500 is a preferable starting point IMO.