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!

MF for wildlife photography?

Nik

Member
Hello guys!

This is going to be my first post here though I have been enjoying reading this forum on a dialy basis for the last several weeks. I mostly shoot wildlife and was wondering if you can recommend the best digital MF system for my purpose. Two things are critical for me: first, I need the longest autofocusing glass possible to be able not to disturb the birds/animals, and the second one - I need the biggest number of Mpx to produce very large prints (which is the main reason I am considering MF). As of today I shoot with D3X/D3 + 200VR, 300VR, 200-400VR, 600VR. Any help or ideas would be greatly appreciated. Below are some of the pics I took in Africa, but if you are interested to see more you are welcome to check out my website at www.nikzinoviev.com

Cheers, Nik




















 

fotografz

Well-known member
Horses for courses.

IMO, stick with what you have, there are no MF lenses with that reach that anyone other than the Sultan of Brunei could afford, and they are generally much heavier and slower focusing than their 35mm counterparts ... and none of them have IS or VR.

Now a case could be made to supplement your 35 gear with a MFD camera and a few select lenses for specific applications. In that case I'd suggest a Focal Plane camera like the Phase One 645DF with either a Phase One or Leaf digital back and a couple of the newer digital lenses. Personally, I think the Leaf Aptus-II 10 digital back could be an interesting choice for wide vistas with less distortion to add a counter point to your long lens 35mm work.

http://www.leaf-photography.com/files/leaf_aptus2_datasheet.pdf

-Marc
 
Last edited:

Paratom

Well-known member
I am really not sure if I would want to recommend MF for wildlife. Maybe as a combination, like the DSLR for really long reach and the MF for landscape and medium reach.
I would think that MF is just too slow, heavy, noisy at higher ISO plus much of the MF equipment is not weather sealed.
For the images where you dont need tomuch reach, where you have time and where you have enough light MF could work very well.
 

carstenw

Active member
Fantastic images! I don't see why you want to change anything, to be honest?

600mm in 135 is equivalent to about 930mm in MF, and there is very little in that length, and nothing with AF, to my knowledge. 400mm would be about 620mm, and the same holds there. Even if such fast, modern, sharp AF lenses existed, they would likely be f/5.6 or f/8, be huge, and weigh three tonnes.

The longest MF lenses that I am aware of are either in the 350mm or 500mm, and even those are rare. The longest current Hasselblad H appears to be the 300/4.5. There appears to be a Mamiya APO 500mm f/4.5, but perhaps more interesting is the APO 300mm f/2.8 which is designed to be used with a 2x teleconverter, for a 600mm f/5.6:

http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/MA1228/

Price: $12000...

Do you really need lenses so long? Your photos remind me somewhat of colour versions of Nick Brandt's work, and he uses a Pentax 67 II with 55, 105 and 200mm lenses, and just drives very close to the animals. Wouldn't a similar strategy work for you?
 

Felipe

Member
Awesome images, can´t see why you are looking for something else!!! You definitley already have the best tools for this kind of work.

Philipp
 

Nik

Member
Horses for courses.

IMO, stick with what you have, there are no MF lenses with that reach that anyone other than the Sultan of Brunei could afford, and they are generally much heavier and slower focusing than their 35mm counterparts ... and none of them have IS or VR.

Now a case could be made to supplement your 35 gear with a MFD camera and a few select lenses for specific applications. In that case I'd suggest a Focal Plane camera like the Phase One 645DF with either a Phase One or Leaf digital back and a couple of the newer digital lenses. Personally, I think the Leaf Aptus-II 10 digital back could be an interesting choice for wide vistas with less distortion to add a counter point to your long lens 35mm work.

http://www.leaf-photography.com/files/leaf_aptus2_datasheet.pdf

-Marc
Marc,

Thanks you very much for taking time to answer!

Here is a short story of my evolution: when I got Nikon D3 in the 4th Q 2008 (which was one of the first ones in Russia) I was very happy and thought it was "the ultimate" wildlife photographers' camera (and may be it is, please read on :)). Great high ISO performance, impressive FPS (especially so after I doubled its buffer) together with the best (IMHO) autofocusing system. About 6 months ago and after many doubts I pulled the trigger and purchased D3X. It seemed a very crazy move at a time - less than 2 fps in 14 bit NEF mode, weaker performance in high ISO + the price wasn't helping (in Russia it was selling at almost $10K) ... But when I opened a 24Mp file of a lion cub portrait taken on the early morning in Masai Mara and looked at it at 100% - I almost fell from the chair ... So over the last 6 months I was shooting D3X 90% of the time. About a week ago I gave my D3 as a present to another wildife photographer, whose camera gear was stolen. So now I shoot 100% with D3X (have D300 + the grip as a back-up). I like the quality and the detail of the D3X file at 100 ISO so much, that I changed my shooting style and strategy so that high ISO and FPS do not matter to me that much anymore. I love the A3 and A2 prints from D3X. But enlarging above that level I start losing fine detail ... The more I develop as a photographer the more I go into the direction of quality/detail/large prints rather then conviniences of the system I use. That is the reason why I started thinking about medium format. I realize that 600MM in medium format is wishful thinking rather then reality. However there's a borderline minimum focal length that I can't overcome ... and to me it is 300мм. If I can build a system that will give me at least 300mm (in 35mm terms), I will be able to take the next step and improve the end result in my photography - the print. If not, then you are right - I might as well stick to the current gear and wait 2-3 years until Nikon/Canon come up with more Mpx sensor in DSLR body (does anyone know when that is going to happen? - kidding :)). All of the above is just some background info to let you know how things developed.

Where would be the best place to find sample full res files taken with Leaf Aptus-II 10 digital back?
 

Nik

Member
I am really not sure if I would want to recommend MF for wildlife. Maybe as a combination, like the DSLR for really long reach and the MF for landscape and medium reach.
I would think that MF is just too slow, heavy, noisy at higher ISO plus much of the MF equipment is not weather sealed.
For the images where you dont need tomuch reach, where you have time and where you have enough light MF could work very well.
I see. Thank you for your reply!
 

Nik

Member
Fantastic images! I don't see why you want to change anything, to be honest?

600mm in 135 is equivalent to about 930mm in MF, and there is very little in that length, and nothing with AF, to my knowledge. 400mm would be about 620mm, and the same holds there. Even if such fast, modern, sharp AF lenses existed, they would likely be f/5.6 or f/8, be huge, and weigh three tonnes.

The longest MF lenses that I am aware of are either in the 350mm or 500mm, and even those are rare. The longest current Hasselblad H appears to be the 300/4.5. There appears to be a Mamiya APO 500mm f/4.5, but perhaps more interesting is the APO 300mm f/2.8 which is designed to be used with a 2x teleconverter, for a 600mm f/5.6:

http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/MA1228/

Price: $12000...

Do you really need lenses so long? Your photos remind me somewhat of colour versions of Nick Brandt's work, and he uses a Pentax 67 II with 55, 105 and 200mm lenses, and just drives very close to the animals. Wouldn't a similar strategy work for you?
Thanks a lot for the kind words re my images! Currently the minimum focal length I use with Nikon is 200mm, but it would be less then 10% of my images, I believe. Going below 300mm limits my shooting to the animals that can tolerate very close approach (mostly big predators) and makes bird photography close to impossible :( This would work only if I start hiding the camera, waiting for the animal/bird to approach and triggering it from a distance. Thanks for mentioning Mamiya APO 500mm f/4.5 and APO 300mm f/2.8 - I will try to find some information about their performance.
 

Nik

Member
Awesome images, can´t see why you are looking for something else!!! You definitley already have the best tools for this kind of work.

Philipp

Philipp, thanks for your post. Please, don't get me wrong - I love my gear and on a big scheme of things after using it for several years in the field I can say - is it "as good as it gets" for me. The only thing it can't currently give me - high resolution images to print large size gallery prints without losing quality. I tried upresing using various software instruments ... Some pics hold it pretty well - some don't. There is so much fine detail to be shown in these pictures. That was the reason why I started thinking that maybe MF can help me get higher res files without loosing the quality.
 

Nik

Member
Sounds like the new Pentax D645 would be right up your street. They have a 600mm if I'm not mistaken.
Thank you! I will check this lens. The new D645 is a very interesting proposition to the top DSLR user market, can't wait to see the full res files posted by someone on the web.
 

Aaron

New member
Beautiful work Nik, you shouldn't change a thing!

Nick Bradnt shoots 'fine art wildlife' on a Pentax 67 so it can be done. He must be real close though (scary close) as some images seem quite wide.
Although there is a 600mm for the 67, but thats a world of difference from your nikons ergonomics!

http://www.adorama.com/US 356436.html

Its film of course but he prints quite large, over 40 inch on the short side for some images which shows how big medium format film can go if done well.

http://www.nickbrandt.com/index.cfm

As mentioned by Ben, the 'not yet available' Pentax 645D would be a great option for what you want to do, its a weather sealed tough body so will help keep the dust out. Pentax also have some long lenses for the 645 format which i don't think are available from Hassy etc..

But again, you seem to be doing quite well with what you've got!
 

Nik

Member
Beautiful work Nik, you shouldn't change a thing!

Nick Bradnt shoots 'fine art wildlife' on a Pentax 67 so it can be done. He must be real close though (scary close) as some images seem quite wide.
Although there is a 600mm for the 67, but thats a world of difference from your nikons ergonomics!

http://www.adorama.com/US 356436.html

Its film of course but he prints quite large, over 40 inch on the short side for some images which shows how big medium format film can go if done well.

http://www.nickbrandt.com/index.cfm

As mentioned by Ben, the 'not yet available' Pentax 645D would be a great option for what you want to do, its a weather sealed tough body so will help keep the dust out. Pentax also have some long lenses for the 645 format which i don't think are available from Hassy etc..

But again, you seem to be doing quite well with what you've got!
Aaron, thank you very much for this useful information. Lot's of food for thought!
 

jerome

Member
I do agree with everybody : wonderful photos !

Anyway, there is a parameter that could helps a move toward MF : large pixel count !

If you have a 300 mm + 1.7 converter = 500 mm. It's 300 mm in 35.
But if you shoot with a 50 MP or a 60 MF digital back, you have a "600 plus" mm from you D3X.

But, as everybody told you : it's heavy, not fast, no waterproof ... Maybe the new Pentax could be a good option for you ?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
The Hasselblad 300/4.5 can be coupled with the 1.7X to deliver a 510mm field-of-view X the crop factor of 1.1X = 561mm with little to no loss of detail ... but, with the 1.7X the AF is disabled due to the f/7.6 max aperture. The H cameras only use leaf shutter lenses to 1/800th ... which IMO are not suited for wild life photography like you do.

I will say that your motivations are backed up by my own experiences having used a D3X as well a MFD 39 meg camera. When you go big prints, there is no comparison ... even using Genuine Fractals on the D3X files or other software like that.

Tele view: depending on which MF digital back you look at, you always can crop to get to the really tight field-of-view ... a full frame 645 P65+ cropped by 50% is still 30 meg. and doesn't suffer from AA filtration image softening like a CMOS DSLR does. For 645 Mamiya made a 300/2.8 APO, 300/5.6 and 500mm APO. Currently, there is the Mamiya 300/4.5 IF APO:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/182433-REG/Mamiya_210_608_300mm_f_4_5_APO_LENS.html

On a 1.3X crop P40+ camera, that 300 would be an effective 390mm field of view at 40 meg. Crop in on that image by 1/3 and you still have a 27 meg image that's larger than a full frame 35mm DSLR file, without AA filtration.

I believe that Pentax 600/4 mentioned is for the 6X7 camera and it is a beast (there is also a 800/4, 800/6.7). Do not know yet whether a Pentax 67 lens can be adapted to the new Pentax 645D camera. Hope so. And remember, a Pentax 645D is a crop frame camera so the effective focal length is multiplied by 1.3X I think. A 600 would effectively be a 780mm field of view with a larger capture area than a 35mm DSLR and 40 meg.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/600mm.shtml

-Marc
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I have another suggestion. Why not use your Nikon lenses with a MF back?
You could use the Sinar M camera for example. I think it takes also non-Sinar backs.
http://www.sinar.ch/de/produkte/kameras/134-sinar-m

I dont know how large the image circle of the Nikon tele-lenses is but if you get a high resolution back you get maybe enough MP even if you can only used a cropped area of the sensor. The final image might be still better.

Just an idea-dont know how good it would work in reality.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
The question is how much do you have to step down to get the DOF you want when using MF.
And which ISO do you need?
Plus you dont get VR or IS in those MF lenses.

Maybe it would be also an option to get that AA filter out of your d3x.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Excellent question and plays into the discussion about MF vs. DSLR. If you can find a way to work with MF you can produce significantly better IQ. The difference is the greatest if you print large...some pretty good discussion at LL about what is meant by large. Larger than 13x 19 image size? Otherwise its more important to place the emphasis on the speed and handling of the DSLR(IMHO).

If you look at the several safari s that MR at Luminous Landscape has done ..you will see that he really focuses on Landscapes with Wildlife ..rather than Wildlife images. Its the context that sets the images apart . Like the image of the Lion in grass verse the Lion head shot. Or even the two lions walking together. Its hard to create anything "new" with just the head shot...even with MF.

So I would concur that a 300MM FOV could give you this . You would miss some longer shots but probably gain better composition on the wider end.

I think your requirements are evolving as you decide what images are working for you and would look at the LL videos as they show how others trying to use MF on Safari have gone after it.
 

Nik

Member
Marc, Roger, t_streng thank you guys very much for your effort to answer my question.
I will close this thread now and take some time to research more and sleep with some of your ideas. Again, thank you!

Best regards, Nik
 

Harry

Member
Hi Nik,
I have a D3X and have recently purchase a P40+ much in the same thinking as you.
The quality is much better with MF, but focusing and general use is about 20 years back.
Another option that I did was to remove the AA filter on the D3X. It gave me about 15% better IQ. I have not had any moire problems at all.
I had it done at Maxmax.com.
Rumors are that a 32mp Nikon is coming within the year too. But just a rumor.
 
Top