Pictures of Wildlife with EOS Rebel

[astroNikon]

Paddington looks a little cranky. Perhaps some salmon would help.

that photo yells .. BREATH MINT !!

 

[table1349]

Photographer Michio Hoshino Killed by Bear

In a 100 yard dash the bear always wins. 30 meters, seriously?

 

[soufiej]

Was there any way, or set of settings allowing me to capture a better image of the two bears at 30 meters from me; maybe not?

With your current gear, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a workable image under those circumstances.

And you are pushing the limits of how close you want to get to a bear ... or a cougar ... or most wildlife.

First rule of wildlife photography is: DON'T BE STUPID JUST TO GET WHAT MAY BE YOUR LAST SHOT.

You've had to crop heavily to pull out the two bears. The sharpness of such a crop is going to be disappointing for any image larger than, say a 4X6. Even that is going to be iffy since contrasting surfaces will not be rendered with smoothness due to the arrangement of the various pixels of the sensor. Details would be difficult to extract IMO from such a black blur of stuff.

There are several specific purpose editors out there which could be employed though now you're talking cost vs result again.

More than likely, the bears were more noticeable to you when you took the photo than they appear in the final shot. You simply have to realize a camera lacks the perceptual dynamic range of the human eye. Extremely high contrast images are difficult to render with any modern DSLR.

Film would have done slightly better but the issue remains a difference between a captured image and the human brain's cognitive operations. You have perception on your side and time based context to recognize the situation. The camera only has fixed settings to work from.

There is a HDR function on the SL1 when shooting in Jpeg. It's not always a usable feature when shooting wildlife since it depends on taking three successive images and then blending them into one final image in the camera. Wildlife typically doesn't remain still enough, long enough for this to be a common usage feature out in the field.

HDR can also be accomplished in post production but again requires several identical shots used for blending. Since the value of HDR is achieved with multiple identical files, the best HDR results are obtained with a tripod holding the camera absolutely steady when shooting stationary subjects such as buildings. Hand held HDR's are, IMO, not really worth it due to camera shake. They are there for the once in a lifetime - not the final shot of your lifetime - moments. They can preserve a moment - your last? - but will lack overall quality.



Otherwise, this is a compromise of the SL1 to cost. Canon's several times the SL1's price DSLR's will have a greater number of focus and exposure points to select from. This would have made your shot more controllable though, as I mentioned earlier, one of the issues you will face with wildlife photography is the simple fact critters don't normally wait around holding perfectly still while you change a lens or adjust camera settings.

The more you know about your camera, the more familiar you are with adjusting the camera quickly and effectively, the better able you are to adjust quickly to the desired settings.

It's been said several times in this thread, learn your SL1 and your lens inside and out. Practice when you are sitting at home so you are ready to work when you go out.

What also gets repeated on this forum is the simple idea buying more gear is no substitute for learning photography's rules and knowing your present equipment.

The more adept you become at making on the fly adjustments, the higher your keeper rate rises.

 

[soufiej]

How to Take Better Wildlife Photos: Be a Naturalist First

 

[cougar]

You simply have to realize a camera lacks the perceptual dynamic range of the human eye. Extremely high contrast images are difficult to render with any modern DSLR.

Yes, these are exactly my thoughts too. I wear glasses and without them I may walk into a bear without seeing it, but with the glasses on I see much better than any camera particularly in situations where part of the image is in the sun and part is in the shade.

I do not have the intention of chasing wildlife to get pictures. The camera will be used on hikes which I do often (my legs permitting) and every now and then I might be in a situation where I can shoot a bear from 30-50 meters or so. When I fish the rivers in fall (one river in particular) there are bears showing up every now and then. Sometimes they do not care if your are there or not. They still come out in front of you, or behind your back.

There are risks with everything and bears are quite like humans in this respect. You always hope you do not run into a killer.

 

[Dao]

Do you have a zoo in your area? Practice there first to get the feel about how close you need to be from the subject. If there are no zoo in your area, just go to a park and take photos of some objects in the park. i.e. A trash bin in the park.

First you need to know how the focal length affect your photo in terms of field of view.

 

[Alexander Dingley]

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

As much as people say gear doesn't matter that isn't true. Sure you can get a good image with a rebel and a plastic fantastic 50mm. But when it comes to wildlife and paid gigs there is a reason pros use $5000 bodies and up. They have a much superior focus system and burst rate, which for a working pro is everything. For a hobbiest as yourself sure it doesn't matter but too a pro good gear is a necessary investment.

 

[robbins.photo]

As much as people say gear doesn't matter that isn't true. Sure you can get a good image with a rebel and a plastic fantastic 50mm. But when it comes to wildlife and paid gigs there is a reason pros use $5000 bodies and up. They have a much superior focus system and burst rate, which for a working pro is everything. For a hobbiest as yourself sure it doesn't matter but too a pro good gear is a necessary investment.

Gear does matter vrs it's the photographer not the camera blood bath to begin in 3... 2... 1...

 

[table1349]

As much as people say gear doesn't matter that isn't true. Sure you can get a good image with a rebel and a plastic fantastic 50mm. But when it comes to wildlife and paid gigs there is a reason pros use $5000 bodies and up. They have a much superior focus system and burst rate, which for a working pro is everything. For a hobbiest as yourself sure it doesn't matter but too a pro good gear is a necessary investment.

Gear does matter vrs it's the photographer not the camera blood bath to begin in 3... 2... 1...

Yeah, cause these suck with such low quality gear.

 

[Dao]

I strongly believe gears matter. However, in this case, lens and the photographer are more important than the camera itself.

i.e. http://img2.juzaphoto.com/001/shared_files/uploads/9555.jpg

The above photo from Juza was taken with a 11 years old Rebel XT (350D) paired with a 600mm L lens.

 

[spiralout462]

The 55-250 stm suited me very well for a couple years. It's a great bargain in my opinion. If the budget allows, a 300 f4 or 400f5.6 will yield even better results as you learn.

Good luck. Wildlife/birding is very addictive.

 

[Didereaux]

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.

Forget about finding what would have been the best settings etc with what you had. You got about as good as was possible with that camera and lens under those conditions...although you WILL want to learn to use the Av, Ts and Manual modes! As for the 55-250mm lens you mentioned it is probably the best lens for the money you could put on that camera. on your crop frame camera that lens is about the equivalent of an 80-375mm lens. Quite adequate for most wildlife, can be used with birds with great care and patience. I used a T2i and the 55-250mm for some time and got some fine bird and wildlife shots. Hang in there and realize that the only real thing that is going to improve your photography is PRACTICE! Learn the setting of your camera, the limits of your lens and then USE that knowledge.

 

[cougar]

As for the 55-250mm lens you mentioned it is probably the best lens for the money you could put on that camera.

It cost me CAD $211 delivered. I hope it arrives safely.
With 2 kids and the income I have, not much is left for toys (for me), so I cannot see myself spending $1,000 on a lens that more likely than not will be collecting dust in the basement.

With the expensive equipment you also worry about damaging it, losing it, someone steeling it, so not an option for me. I live in a wet spot where rain is in the forecast 200+ days in the year. Other times the temps are down to -20C.

But equipment is getting cheaper gradually. In 10 years we may be getting 500mm zoom lenses for $200 or under.

When I bought my first digital camera , a 2MP Canon A40 in 2001, I paid for it about the same amount I now spent on the 18MP Rebel Sl1 with its kit lens. And $500 back then could buy you way more than $500 today.

 

[table1349]

As for the 55-250mm lens you mentioned it is probably the best lens for the money you could put on that camera.

But equipment is getting cheaper gradually. In 10 years we may be getting 500mm zoom lenses for $200 or under.

They already do. Quality leaves a lot to be desired. Jet.com

 

[Alexander Dingley]

As much as people say gear doesn't matter that isn't true. Sure you can get a good image with a rebel and a plastic fantastic 50mm. But when it comes to wildlife and paid gigs there is a reason pros use $5000 bodies and up. They have a much superior focus system and burst rate, which for a working pro is everything. For a hobbiest as yourself sure it doesn't matter but too a pro good gear is a necessary investment.

Gear does matter vrs it's the photographer not the camera blood bath to begin in 3... 2... 1...

Yeah, cause these suck with such low quality gear.

I never said you couldn't get good shots, I'm saying that a more expensive camera will be more reliable and easier to capture your vision without fighting your gear for it.