What camera/lens setup for photographing grizzlies/puffins/bald eagles in Alaska?

[table1349]

The only filters you might need depending on what you want to shoot will be an CPL and an ND. They will both be drop in filters at the lens mount barrel on the lens. The ND might be useful if you are into water shots and can not get close to say a waterfall due to the terrain. Something like Palouse Falls for example.

The CPL could be handy depending on the conditions and location. They tend to have a touch more snow in Alaska then we do here in Kansas and it seems to hang around longer. You could find youself in a situation were there is snow or large amounts of water that you need to deal with reflections.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

The only filters you might need depending on what you want to shoot will be an CPL and an ND. They will both be drop in filters at the lens mount barrel on the lens. The ND might be useful if you are into water shots and can not get close to say a waterfall due to the terrain. The CPL could be handy depending on the conditions and location. They tend to have a touch more snow in Alaska then we do here in Kansas and it seems to hang around longer. You could find youself in a situation were there is snow or large amounts of water that you need to deal with reflections.

for wildlife? wouldnt those both cut down on shutter time? i would never use an ND for wildlife probably. for landscape most def, but not wildlife.

 

[table1349]

The only filters you might need depending on what you want to shoot will be an CPL and an ND. They will both be drop in filters at the lens mount barrel on the lens. The ND might be useful if you are into water shots and can not get close to say a waterfall due to the terrain. The CPL could be handy depending on the conditions and location. They tend to have a touch more snow in Alaska then we do here in Kansas and it seems to hang around longer. You could find youself in a situation were there is snow or large amounts of water that you need to deal with reflections.

for wildlife? wouldnt those both cut down on shutter time? i would never use an ND for wildlife probably. for landscape most def, but not wildlife.

If all you are going for is the wildlife then no to the ND but still possible for the CPL. One place that is always a magnet to wildlife is water. Everything has to drink, be it pray or predator. Eagles are natural fishers snatching fish from streams and rivers. Bears like both meat and obviously nuts and berries. Lots of berry thickets near water.

One of my favorite bear, cougar and elk spots in New Mexico is a small secluded meadow with a mountain stream running through it. There is always something to capture. Keep in mind that Alaska streams are often what we call rivers down here.

Thing is, when you get to Alaska you may find a few more things than just the wildlife that you want to shoot. And no they don't need to cut down your shutter time, just up you ISO.

 

[Big Mike]

Do you guys think I need monopod for a huge lens like that? Or should I just stick with the tripod/gimbal setup?

You probably won't know until you're there...in the exact time and place. A monopod doesn't take up much space and is not terribly expensive...and it's certainly a better option than using nothing...which is what would happen if the tripod isn't convenient or handy.

I don't have a great monopod, but I usually bring it with me when out 'in the wilderness'. I use it as a walking stick when hiking etc.

 

[grafxman]

I just put a deposit down for a Grizzly Bear Photo Workshop in August 2014. I have a Canon 7D, Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6, 10-22mm, and 24-105mm L.

To get really high quality shots, what lens do I need and do I need better a better body than my 7D? I like it for the high FPS and the 1.6x crop zoom. Do I need to rent a 500, 600, 800??? Thanks?

I have shot thousands of photos handheld with my 7D. Many of them of wildlife as well as zoo animals. I use a Sigma 50-500mm and a Sigma 18-250mm macro. I never use a tripod or monopod. They just get in the way. Photos such as this one:

IMG_1825 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

are not difficult with practice. I started out with a 35mm in the '60s that didn't have any stability. I learned breath control and how to exhale about half way then shoot. I rid myself of one of the most annoying and picture destroying habits of DSLRs by setting up the 7D to focus ONLY when I depress the back focus button. Once the object of interest is in focus I then depress the shutter. In other words focus is never accomplished with the shutter button. Using back focus ensures that your focus won't change when the shutter button is depressed.

Your Canon 100-400mm is an excellent lens and if you're happy with it then fine. However the Sigma 50-500mm has a significantly wider zoom range and it focuses to 1.64 feet versus nearly 6 feet for your Canon. So if an animal comes any closer than 6 feet to your vehicle or hide you won't be getting a photo of it that's in focus. A shot such as this one:

IMG_0761 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

is impossible to get with your Canon. It was at 500mm and just a few feet away. If I was going to Alaska to photograph bears and other wildlife I can't think of anything I would need to get in the way of photo gear. I might take my Sigma 1.4 and 2.0 TCs with me. I used the 2.0 TC for these shots:

IMG_0590 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

IMG_0583 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

IMG_0579 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

All of these 1000mm shots were handheld. Check Exif information.

I suggest you find some wildlife areas and practice shooting handheld at some birds. The more wildlife photos you take the more ready you will be for Alaska. Maybe you'll even realize the limitations of what you have now, rent some different and more powerful lenses and really get going with wildlife photography. Hope this helps. Good luck.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

thanks. i've shot wildlife plenty around the tetons and yellowstone. learned a lot. got some great shots, but wondering if i can get better with a better lens.

 

[grafxman]

thanks. i've shot wildlife plenty around the tetons and yellowstone. learned a lot. got some great shots, but wondering if i can get better with a better lens.

:blushing: I should have checked your hyperlink. You do have a lot of great shots. Unfortunately I wasn't able to check your Exif data. I would say you probably won't get better with a better lens. You're plenty good enough right now. However you may get more excellent photos of a wider variety if you have a more versatile lens.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

thanks. yeah, i think i might rent the new 200-400 f/2.8 with the built in 1.4TC. should give the widest range without sacrificing quality.

 

[snowbear]

Don't forget to take a slower acquaintance with you.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

Don't forget to take a slower acquaintance with you.

haha. well it's a $4000 workshop. i doubt most people my age can afford it, so i'll probably be the fastest runner in the group haha

 

[Mike_E]

You could always twist an ankle running away.

I'd take a back-up..











Mark V® Deluxe | Rifles | Products | Weatherby.com

 

[CraniumDesigns]

You could always twist an ankle running away.

I'd take a back-up..

haha, well there's 6 other people on the workshop, i'll have bear spray, and the guide i believe has a gun in case. should be fine.

 

[grafxman]

I'm old and fat. You pay the bills and I'll be your backup.

 

[Solarflare]

I would go for a 400mm f2.8 and 1.4 & 1.7/2.0x TCs. That will give you longish FAST glass, and when you want to get closer you're still at worst, only at 800mm f5.6, PLUS it's going to be the lightest load for the most power. I don't speak Canon, but if the Canon 100-400 is anything like the Nikon 80-400, I'd leave it at home. As for support, a good monpod AND a heavy tripod with gimbal head would be ideal.

Uh ...

I hope you talk about the old AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, not the brand new AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR ?

Because that one only got very enthusiastic reviews so far.