Pictures of Wildlife with EOS Rebel

[cougar]

I just bought my first DSLR - a Canon SL1 which came with the kit 18-55mm lens.

I am considering buying the 55-250mm IS STM lens to be able to capture wildlife from some distance but I'm not too sure what to expect.

Today I took a picture of a black bear from about 30-50m with my lens set to 55mm.
This is what came out in JPG format (72 pixels / inch)



And this is what the cropped image looks like at 72 pixels / inch when the width is 40 cm.



Should I expect better results with my current lens at this range and what should be the settings to achieve them?

My camera is set to use the 9 point focusing and I believe I had it set at "portrait" for this shot.

Still the bear seems slightly out of focus, the eyes are not visible and his fur is just a blur.

Would I be able to get the same results with a 55-250mm lens if I am 200m away?
I guess a 55-250mm lens and a steady hand would have given me a perfect shot in this case.

 

[Overread]

A few thoughts:

1) Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson - get a copy and read it. It will teach you about the aperture, shutter speed and ISO; their relation to each other and how to use each combined to get an exposure. It will let you use modes like full manual or aperture priority for better camera control.
In general you want to get away from the "portrait; landscape; macro" modes on the dial. They are "ok" but they are basically just auto mode with a little weighting toward certain settings. However they are generally not ideal as the camera has no idea what you're pointing it at nor how you want it exposed.

2) For handholding 1/focal length is the recommended slowest shutter speed for a steady handheld shot. This assumes good posture whilst shooting and also assumes a standard person - different people might need faster and sometimes you can get away with slower.
Furthermore super short and super long focal lengths change it; a vry short focal length you can often handhold fare slower than the theory suggests; whilst once you're past around 200mm you will often find that you have to use faster shutter speeds.

3) When a digital camera under exposes it only records black with no detail data; when it overexposes it only records white with no detail. The bear in your shot is thus underexposed and only the black has been recorded. Shooting in RAW mode can give you a little more leniency in recovery; but not worlds different.

4) Looking at the trees and the bear it looks like it was back lit or at least shaded compared to the trees around it. Thus its a trade off between overexposed tree and underexposed bear and the camera tried to get in the middle to appease both. Having your own control over the camera you might choose to over or underexpose on what he camera meter thinks to get what you want. That's all about part 1 and controlling the tool rather than it controlling you.


5) Wildlife photography starts at 300mm and the general rule is that you will always want 100mm more than what you've got on the camera . The zoom lens you are looking at will certainly give you more reach; after that its down to your skills at getting close in a safe manner (for you and the subject). Longer generally makes it easier

 

[soufiej]

I just bought my first DSLR - a Canon SL1 which came with the kit 18-55mm lens.

I am considering buying the 55-250mm IS STM lens to be able to capture wildlife from some distance but I'm not too sure what to expect.

Today I took a picture of a black bear from about 30-50m with my lens set to 55mm.
This is what came out in JPG format (72 pixels / inch)



And this is what the cropped image looks like at 72 pixels / inch when the width is 40 cm.



Should I expect better results with my current lens at this range and what should be the settings to achieve them?

My camera is set to use the 9 point focusing and I believe I had it set at "portrait" for this shot.

Still the bear seems slightly out of focus, the eyes are not visible and his fur is just a blur.

Would I be able to get the same results with a 55-250mm lens if I am 200m away?
I guess a 55-250mm lens and a steady hand would have given me a perfect shot in this case.

Personally, I find the SL1 to be a great camera and the kit lens is a welcome improvement over the previous generations of Canon give aways.

Your shot isn't great which is to be expected with your first DSLR.

Learn about shooting wildlife if this is what you want to do. It's a very challenging genre of photography. It can also become very expensive as a genre if you allow it.

Though what you appear to need most is a simple basic grasp on how cameras operate and the specifics of the SL1.

Buying more gear is not the answer to learning.

If you feel you need a lens with greater reach, there are certainly less expensive routes to explore before you invest in a zoom lens. You have the option of placing a magnifier in front of or behind your current lens. Each has its own issues and neither is a perfect answer for all situations. Though IMO neither is a zoom lens perfect for any situation. A zoom lens has its own learning curve if you want to produce high quality images. Do your research and explore your options before you drop a few (several, actually) hundred on a new lens.

My standard response to a question regarding longer zooms is to forgo the individual lens at the earliest stages of your learning curve. I would always suggest an alternative thought process which leads you towards a less expensive Swiss Army knife of a camera; an "enthusiast" level superzoom bridge camera. Most of the manufacturers producing such a product will charge less for this style of camera, any of which will provide greater reach with one single lens than can any zoom lens alone.

Since you have chosen Canon as your first DSLR, you might want to look at the SX series from Canon for a good superzoom. Being a single lens camera has the advantage of always having the right lens available for most any situation. One single lens designed for one single camera allows the designer to build in many of the digital compensations required to produce high quality images.

Ignore the impulse to dismiss this category of camera due to an on paper spec which shows lower megapixel count or smaller sensor size. The lens' zoom power is increased due to the sensor size which means in real world terms you have even greater reach than a single zoom lens on a DSLR. The key to "zoom" in this case is getting more image on as many pixels as possible. With the reach of a superzoom, in your image the bear would have occupied many more pixels which can then be cropped down in post production and still have more "usable" pixels than most DSLR's with a single zoom lens could produce. The SX Canon's also include built in (switchable) multipliers for even greater reach when required.

The entire package offered by Canon in this category makes for lots of reach for minimal dollars. Do keep in mind, the greater the reach, the more difficult the camera will be to use handheld even with image stabilzation. A good tripod is almost a necessity if you want lots of reach.

The most serious downside to the smaller sensor is less good performance in low light situations. Shooting wildlife seldom requires superior low light performance so keep the SL1 available for those times.

While I strongly suggest you support your local camera retailers, you can often find a SX Canon superzoom on their refurbished on line sales pages for well under $250. That's less than what you would pay for a Canon teleconverter; Canon Extender EF 1.4X III 4409B002 B&H Photo Video

“SX50 beats all my DSLRs”

 

[cougar]

Thanks guys!

So it seems I bought the wrong tool for the job :-(

Before buying it I read that it accepts all kinds of lenses and that it would do an excellent job of capturing the image.

The 55-250mm is about Canadian $210-300, so it is still a cheaper upgrade than buying a new camera.

Next time I guess I should use the Av mode and hopefully get to see the eyes of the bear in my next picture. Still would the camera know I am focusing on the bear if 8 out of 9 focusing points are on the background, and only the center one is on the bear? (I know I have a lot to read)

Any cheaper upgrades (than $300) for someone in my situation?

I was told what I had in the picture was a trophy bear, so it is not very likley to get another one like it to pose for me soon. I should be able to make the most of those fleeting moments.

 

[fmw]

Wildlife photographers use long focal length lenses a lot. I think your telephoto zoom option will help quite a bit.

 

[chuasam]

a black bear by the side of the road is hardly wildlife photography
$300 is hardly an expensive upgrade in the world of lenses
If you want something cheaper, get the non-STM model used.
the 75-300 non-IS is rubbish

 

[soufiej]

Thanks guys!

So it seems I bought the wrong tool for the job :-(

Before buying it I read that it accepts all kinds of lenses and that it would do an excellent job of capturing the image.

The 55-250mm is about Canadian $210-300, so it is still a cheaper upgrade than buying a new camera.

Next time I guess I should use the Av mode and hopefully get to see the eyes of the bear in my next picture. Still would the camera know I am focusing on the bear if 8 out of 9 focusing points are on the background, and only the center one is on the bear? (I know I have a lot to read)

Any cheaper upgrades (than $300) for someone in my situation?

I was told what I had in the picture was a trophy bear, so it is not very likley to get another one like it to pose for me soon. I should be able to make the most of those fleeting moments.

You didn't buy the "wrong tool" for the job, you bought a very good camera with a very good lens. That doesn't make it the right tool for the job. What it does make it is the only tool you have available for the job and it's not that well suited to wildlife photography at the present time.

One problem you might easily encounter though is the SL1 is a very small and relatively lightweight camera body. This makes it a bit less balanced as you begin to add longer and heavier zoom lenses. Most student photographers have a difficult time hand holding a long lens on any camera and, if the camera and lens are unbalanced as a system, the job gets even more difficult.

A tripod/monopod is still a good addition to most photographer's equipment list.

I would repeat my earlier advice though; it is not about the zoom power of the lens but rather about getting as much of the subject on as many pixels of the sensor as you possibly can.



I would not place blame for the results of your sample shot on the equipment.

You do not have a great understanding of how photography works, which is a fairly common occurrence with your first DSLR. Comments regarding the image quality of your shot have more to do with you learning more about photography in general, how your camera works specifically and to a considerable amount learning what wildlife photography entails.

Taking a shot of a subject standing still in the middle of the day isn't very tough when it comes to wildlife photography. Please read the comments regarding you shot once again. They are meant to teach you about using your camera properly for the situation and not about you buying the wrong gear.

Everything you do with your camera is based upon knowledge of the camera and the processes involved in the type of photo you're after. Learn your camera extremely well before you venture into specific categories of photography. Learning the camera first will make learning a specific genre a softer curve.


" ... would the camera know I am focusing on the bear if 8 out of 9 focusing points are on the background, and only the center one is on the bear?"


The camera only "knows" what you have instructed it to do. It's your job now to learn how to use your equipment.



There are alternatives to a zoom lens - even 250mm isn't going to up your keeper rate when you place yourself in a situation where you must maintain a greater distance between the camera and the subject.

Unless you are only interested in photos of animals at rest, you must also consider the "speed" of the lens, not just the reach. With wildlife you are also likely to want a rather fast autofocus and a manual focus override which is easy and simple to operate. That costs money. As light levels drop, the cost of the equipment required goes up. Most wildlife won't bother to stop dead in their tracks in the middle of the road (in the middle of the day) for your shot.

And, remember, it's all about the number of usable pixels.

So, yes, you have a lot to learn.

It might be a good idea to realize most "dedicated" wildlife photographers would probably tell you their investment in their camera and their assortment of lenses has reached well into the thousands of dollars. You are not going to equal their results with a SL1 and the kit lens. The best you can hope for, IMO, is to learn the numerous techniques which will allow you to make the most of the gear you own.

Your present shot is not a throw away by any means. Learn how to process your photos and you will be able to achieve a pretty usable image overall. One thing about digital photography; the shot is never finished by snapping the shutter.

 

[cougar]

I would repeat my earlier advice though; it is not about the zoom power of the lens but rather about getting as much of the subject on as many pixels of the sensor as you possibly can.

Agreed. So, how do I do that in the situation I was in?

Taking a shot of a subject standing still in the middle of the day isn't very tough when it comes to wildlife photography.

Sorry for calling it "wildlife photography". Had to give this thread a name. The term, however is not of importance to me. What I was getting at is how to make the eyes and hair of this fairly large still animal at 50 meters away, in broad daylight, stand out.

" ... would the camera know I am focusing on the bear if 8 out of 9 focusing points are on the background, and only the center one is on the bear?"

The camera only "knows" what you have instructed it to do.

Did I tell the camera to focus on the bear in this case? If not what was I supposed to do, settings wise to focus on the bear?

There are alternatives to a zoom lens - even 250mm isn't going to up your keeper rate when you place yourself in a situation where you must maintain a greater distance between the camera and the subject.

What alternatives, given I have the SL1 ?

Your present shot is not a throw away by any means.

Does this mean with the present equipment and at that distance this is about the most I could get, anyways?

 

[cougar]

I think I can make my initial question a whole lot simpler.

The question now is:

You see the bear in the first picture I posted under the light conditions shown. You have a Canon SL1 with a 18-55mm IS lens.

What setting would you chose to make a picture better than the one shown in my second image.

Thanks!

 

[soufiej]

Hit "click to expand" to see my complete reply ...

I would repeat my earlier advice though; it is not about the zoom power of the lens but rather about getting as much of the subject on as many pixels of the sensor as you possibly can.

Agreed. So, how do I do that in the situation I was in?


That's up to you. As I said earlier, one benefit to the superzoom system is the ability of the lens to place more of the subject on more pixels despite the fact more superzooms have smaller sensors with few pixels than are typical on a DSLR. With the greater reach of the lens, even after cropping the file you still have more usable pixels to work from.

You can purchase zoom lenses though, if your specialty will be wildlife, you will need several as the one on your camera is almost never the one you need for the shot. Switching between lenses often means you have lost the shot by the time you've got the right lens on the camera.

Here's a link to an article written by a birder; STOKES BIRDING BLOG: Canon SX 50 HS for Bird Photography: I love this camera!

She carries a very expensive, very large and very heavy DSLR and a SX50 superzoom. That zoom lens won't even fit on a SL1. (And I'm not pushing the SX50, I just happen to own that camera so I have links to article discussing that camera.)

Here's a link to the zoom lens seen in that article; Canon 500mm F/4L

And here's the link to the 1.4 teleconverter; Canon 1.4x

The teleconverter increases the reach of the lens giving you more zoom power at the expense of less light entering the lens to reach the sensor. This option essentially halves your aperture value which means less light reaches the sensor - bad for low light shots - and meaning there is less background blur to make your subject pop out of the image.

Teleconverteers are the low cost alternatives to a more expensive zoom lens. They have their trade offs and you need to realize they are not always the perfect solution but they are less expensive.

The superzooms typically have built in teleconverters and the SX series Canons also include digital zoom for up to 2X magnification.

I can't tell you which is best for your situation. Head to your local camera shop and have a conversation.

Taking a shot of a subject standing still in the middle of the day isn't very tough when it comes to wildlife photography.

Sorry for calling it "wildlife photography". Had to give this thread a name. The term, however is not of importance to me. What I was getting at is how to make the eyes and hair of this fairly large still animal at 50 meters away, in broad daylight, stand out.

Well, it begins with the proper equipment and then you knowing the capability of that equipment. If you're on a budget, then you have to make your decisions based upon available funds. I'm not trying to bet you up but the SX canon has more reach than the 500 mm with the 1.4 teleconverter. You have to decide which suits you but you can see the really top line gear is not cheap.

Processing with a decent editor can help your existing photo. Learn your processor.

" ... would the camera know I am focusing on the bear if 8 out of 9 focusing points are on the background, and only the center one is on the bear?"

The camera only "knows" what you have instructed it to do.

Did I tell the camera to focus on the bear in this case? If not what was I supposed to do, settings wise to focus on the bear?


You told the camera to focus on all nine points set by the controls on the SL1. Fortunately, at the distance you had between the camera and the subject, the available depth of field was adequate to keep most of the image sharp enough.

I'll give you the same advice most student photographers receive here ... Pull up your owner's manual on line. Sit down with your camera in hand and go through the manual page by page. Obviously, there are some pages you won't need to worry about - the bear is not going to blink for you so skip that page.

But learn your camera. Do this for a few nights in a row until you can begin to work the controls without thinking about how. Virtually every feature you would find on a more expensive Canon consumer DSLR is in the SL1. The difference is the features can be found in the menu/functions controls and you need to know how to reach them and what they will change.

Once you have the operation down, use your camera. If you don't pick up your camera for two weeks, most of what you learned will not come back to mind. It might be a good idea to copy the manual to your smart phone of you carry one. Otherwise, there are pre-printed cheat sheets for the SL1 or you can copy off a few pages from the manual to carry with you.

Using the camera often will set the controls/features in your memory.

Focus points on the SL1 are covered on pg 105 of the manual.

You can also simply pal e your camera's model number and the feature you want to learn into a search engine; SL1 focus.: Canon Rebel (EOS 300D-760D) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

canon sl1 focus points - Google Search

There are alternatives to a zoom lens - even 250mm isn't going to up your keeper rate when you place yourself in a situation where you must maintain a greater distance between the camera and the subject.

What alternatives, given I have the SL1 ?


If you only want to carry the SL1, think about teleconverters and a zoom lens. Like I said, a big zoom lens will not be that comfortable to hand hold on the SL1.

Your present shot is not a throw away by any means.

Does this mean with the present equipment and at that distance this is about the most I could get, anyways?

You shouldn't have tried to get any closer to the bear so, in one sense, yes. Depending on the size of image you wish to display, now it's up to your editor/processor.

 

[KmH]

This is what came out in JPG format (72 pixels / inch)
And this is what the cropped image looks like at 72 pixels / inch when the width is 40 cm.

For electronic display the pixels per inch (PPI) value is meaningless.
The only numbers that count are the pixel dimensions (image resolution) of the photo.

PPI is a print resolution, so it only applies when a physical print is made.
The print resolution and the image resolution together determine the size of a print.

 

[cougar]

Wildlife photographers use long focal length lenses a lot. I think your telephoto zoom option will help quite a bit.

Thanks Fred for providing one of the short useful answers in this thread.

Most of the other posters must be on drugs. I never asked about balancing the camera, never asked about alternative cameras and so on and so forth. Yes, you may know something, but it is not on the point.

Soufei, you answered my basic question with this?

"You shouldn't have tried to get any closer to the bear so, in one sense, yes. Depending on the size of image you wish to display, now it's up to your editor/processor."

I do not see your answer to your suggestion to get more pixels of the image on pixels of the sensor in what you wrote above.

 

[Scruffy]

Don't let any one put your camera down, I and many Pro's use Rebels My two current camera's are both purchased on the reviews of Nat Geo Photographers. That being said If all you have is a holga pinhole then that doesn't mean poor shooting its never the camera it the artist. When it comes to lenses same story.
Can you tell the difference between a $150 lens and a $15,000 lens? - DIY Photography

I like teddy bears black or otherwise. Cheers Pete

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, so a couple of quick thoughts.

If you plan on doing any sort of wildlife shooting, a telephoto lens is a really good investment regardless of your skill level. I'm not a Canon shooter myself, I shoot Nikon, so I'll leave it up to the Canon folks to make recommendations regarding what would be the best "bang for your buck" in telephoto. In general though you can usually get out to about 300 mm without a great deal of expense or weight, longer range usually starts getting expensive and heavy pretty quick.

Ok, so with the shot at hand - you'll note the bear's fur lacks a lot of detail. My guess is the camera was set for "matrix" metering, or whatever the Canon equivalent is, meaning that the camera is basing the exposure off of the light available in the entire scene.

What helps a lot in shots like this, where you have a very dark subject against a much brighter background is to switch to spot metering. This causes the camera to calculate the exposure based off your point of focus, rather than the entire scene. The end result would be the bear itself would be properly exposed, and your background would be overexposed, however that is something you can fix in post.

I usually have my camera set to CWA - center weighted average. It calculates the exposure based on the scene however it gives the most weight to the values it's reading from the center, so it's kind of a nice in between from spot to matrix. A lot of times for shots like this you don't have a lot of time to deal with changing camera settings. I can adjust to matrix or spot if I have the time, but if not CWA usually does a good enough job that the results are workable.

 

[fmw]

Modern

Wildlife photographers use long focal length lenses a lot. I think your telephoto zoom option will help quite a bit.

Thanks Fred for providing one of the short useful answers in this thread.

Most of the other posters must be on drugs. I never asked about balancing the camera, never asked about alternative cameras and so on and so forth. Yes, you may know something, but it is not on the point.

Soufei, you answered my basic question with this?

"You shouldn't have tried to get any closer to the bear so, in one sense, yes. Depending on the size of image you wish to display, now it's up to your editor/processor."

I do not see your answer to your suggestion to get more pixels of the image on pixels of the sensor in what you wrote above.

Photographers have fallen pretty hard for the megapixel wars. The fact is all modern DSLR's have plenty of resolution to handle the vast majority of photographic requirements. The only problem with your shot is that you were too far away from the bear for the lens you used or you didn't have a long enough lens to get the bear large enough in the frame from your position. The reason we have interchangeable lenses is to have a variety of glass to handle our needs. The telephoto zoom is just what you need.