Introduction and guidance

Hello everyone. I am new to the website and relatively new to this type of photography, but I must say that I have stumbled across something that I dearly love. I am an avid gardener, love the outdoors and have always loved taking pictures. Back in the spring my husband encouraged me to branch out a little further and try the SLR Digital cameras on the market, and I ended up purchasing a Nikon D40X and am using mostly the AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED. So here's my question. If I'm just taking pictures around my yard of my garden or birds in my yard, I do ok with this lens. But I also love going out to some of the Wildlife Refuges in NJ and know I need something else to get anything comparable to what I see on this website and other websites. I can't spend $$$thousands for some of the lens that I know are on the market, so I need some guidance from others that have been there and done that.

Do I plan on turning pro - it's not likely, but it's kind of like going hunting. You don't go out hunting bear with a small handgun, you take your big guns! Even though I live in New Jersey now, right out of Philly, I spent the first 45 years of my life in rural Louisiana, and I do mean rural. My dad was an avid hunter, and my brothers still hunt, my nephew is a Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Game Warden, so I understand what you need to go hunting. Well, I want to shoot wildlife with a camera as opposed to shooting it with a gun or bow and arrow. As you can see I'm totally addicted at this point and I need your help to point me in the right direction for my next fix!

Thank you in advance for your help and your patience!

Mel

Mel: Welcome to NPN. I think you'll find it a great place to learn. Focal length does come at a price but you can save $$$ by using third party lenses which still will give you very good results. The Sigma 170-500 and Tamron 200-500 both sell for under $1000. Consider the used market also. Reputable dealers like KEH.COM usually have a large selection to choose from. Your garden is also a great source of subjects. Hope to see you in the Flora gallery. >=))>

Thank you Bill, I will look into your suggestions and check out KEH. I hope to post some of my garden pics soon, along with some of the bird pics I have taken and ask for some suggestions on ways to improve.

M

Careful there! You have a D40x, which will NOT autofocus with most of the 3rd party long lenses. The D40x requires AF-S/AF-I/HSM lenses. What you should look at is the Sigma 50-500 HSM (which has HSM, which in turn is Sigma's AF-S equivalent) or the Sigma 80-400 OS (which has an internal focus motor as far as I know, even though it's not HSM).

Longer is better. Good luck.

Basil

Basil thanks. I did a quick search on the Sigma 50-500 and although expensive, certainly less than the $$$thousands I've seen on the upper-end lens. It was good reviews from what I can see and looks like something that would be workable for me. Other thoughts out there?

You're right, it is a lot like hunting. Even with the big gun lenses, to get the real closeup shots of small wildlife that you see here you will still need to be very close to the subject. Spend time practicing you're stalking skills (sound like it's already genetic) and set up a blind or feeder in your yard so that you can get close to your subject. Try to get them to come to you, chasing birds through the forest usually results in very few good shots. Go to places where the wildlife is not so timid and is used to people (squirrels at the park, seagulls at the beach for instance). These are skills that will be useful no matter what lens you are using, and come at a low cost. Look at it this way, you can save many thousands of dollars on a bigger lens if you're stalking skills get you a few feet closer. Also, learn how to sit still and to be patient. Some of the shots you see here are the result of someone sitting perfectly still under a camouflage tarp for 8 hours until the critter came into firing range. Best of luck

Hi Mel, and welcome to NPN! You've broached a subject where there will be no shortages of greatly varied opinions. I'm a lifelong and avid hunter myself, and I'm sure you realize that most game is seen early morning or late afternoon when light is a precious commodity. A lens in which the widest aperture is f/5.6 or slower will not allow you an adequate shutter speed in many of the circumstances you may find yourself in. Those lenses may also have a hard time auto-focusing in darker situations. Unless you're planning on visiting National or State Parks where animals are accustomed to humans and are not as wary, I might suggest that you consider a shorter lens, but one with a wider aperture and VR. The VR is your f/5.6 is great for overcoming lens movement but will not overcome blur caused by a slower shutter speed. The Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR is more expensive ($1500-new), but it is fast, incredibly sharp, and has the newest generation VR (so does your 70-300 VR). True, the image will not be as large as one from your 300, but it will be tack sharp! I have enlarged images with my 70-200 to unbelievable percentages and still had a very usable result. Remember, a tack sharp image can be enlarged easily, but a blurred image caused by a long, but slow lens can never be corrected, much less enlarged. I now use my 70-200 VR instead of my older and slower 500, and get better results even with the huge enlargement necessary to compensate. It's THAT sharp.

With the D40x, your best bet is the Sigma 50-500mm HSM or the Nikon 300mm f4 AFS plus a Nikon TC-14E. Birds are a specialty and anytime you get into specialties it starts to get expensive.


Kent in SD

Well, I was hoping for a simple answer, but I guess there is no such thing. So, unfortunately, I am now totally confused. I did some research on the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR and nothing but rave reports on it. But I have looked at enough photos over the past months and looking at the equipment they are using for some of these shots, and they never seem to be taken with anything under 300, I am familiar with the lens and teleconverter you are referring to above Kent, I've seen similar setups mentioned as equipment used for some of the bird shots I've drooled over. I do understand that I have to invest in a good lens, but I can't spend $5000+, which is what I've seen some of the better ones run. I am very happy with the Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S Autofocus Lens (Vibration Reduction), but it doesn't have that "razor sharpness" that you like to see in some of the bird pics. Now, all of this having been said, , I'm still unsure which way to turn. I know the final decision is mine to make, I just would like to be at least 90% convinced that I am making the right decision.

Mel

Mel, I have found when I am confused about a decision, the best thing is often to do NOTHING. Continue to use your 70-300 VR, and work on your technique. You mention it doesn't have the "sharpness" you desire, but I would respectfully disagree there. It isn't considered a "pro" lens, but the optics are excellent from everything I read. Many times the dfference between a "pro" lens and "consumer" lens has little to do with the optics, other than pro lenses are usually faster, but a lot to do with build quality, weather sealing, etc. The lack of sharpness may come from a weakness in technique, or could be due to the slowness of the lens (f/5.6); i.e blur instead of not being sharp.. With that lens you may be stuck using it in brighter light situations for wildlife, but when used in good conditions where you're able to choose a higher shutter speed it should render excellent results.

You didn't mention it, but are you using a tripod, or are you shooting handheld? If you're shooting with a tripod, the VR should be turned off if the head is locked down, Not doing so can introduce a degree of softness into the image as well. There are many variables to consider, and before you go out and spend a lot of money, the best choice may be to correct any other weaknesses first, then concentrate on the lens. Just a thought.

Thanks again Bill for your comments. You may be completely correct in that some of the "lack of sharpness" is with technique and I won't disagree with you there, and I have been working diligently on improving my techniques. I don't have to make a decision immediately about a lens, which is why I'm trying to take the time to get as much input from others as I can, but something there can be TMI (too much info) and you just have to step back and decide what is right for you. You are right that the 70-300 VR does give sharper images in brighter light which can be a problem if you are trying to shoot in early morning and late evening light.

Thanks again!

The 70-300 VR is not a razor sharp lens - not compared to stuff like the 105/2.8 VR Micro Nikkor, for example (I have both of these, so I can compare). But it delivers excellent performance for the bucks you paid. If you're unhappy with the sharpness you're seeing, it may be the lens (limit of the optics), it may be you (technique), but it might also be your post-processing. What do you usually do, and where (Lightroom, Photoshop, what else)? Do you shoot RAW or JPG? Which RAW converter? All of these can influence the sharpness of the final output, not only the lens. But of course - the sharper the lens, the more detail you can potentially extract...

Basil

I do most of my editing in Photoshop Elements 5, but also use Adobe Lightroom. The picture I am attaching was edited in Elements, I reduced, sharpened, and reduced again. Now I did not use a tripod for this shot, I had the camera supported on a fence in my yard. Tell me, just looking at this picture, what I could do to improve on these type of shots.

Looks quite o.k. to me (other than that the bird could fill more space in the frame, but I guess you were limited by the 300 mm lens). Usually - assuming that the post-processing was done properly - a web-sized shot should not show lens softness unless the lens is really, really bad. This is because the difference between a good lens and a very good one is on the single pixel level. By reducing the size (= combining multiple pixels into one), these differences become invisible. So if you'd post a 100% crop, we could probably give more helpful advice.

Basil

Is this more of what you are talking about. Does this give you a better idea?

Mel, what were the technicals on this image (aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc)? Sharpness looks good to me, although it appears just a tad too contrasty.

Bill, the settings were: Aperture priority, f/5.7, ISO 200, Focal Length 300

Thanks Mel. One thing I would recommend is that you stop using Aperture Priority. Switch to Manual, so you can retain full control of the outcome. Just a picky thing there. You will quickly become used to using manual, and in the long run it will make you a more procifient photographer IMO. BTW, I just sent you an email concerning sharpness. I see no real issues with your lens in this image. The only issues of concern would have to do with more practice in your post processing, which will naturally come with more experience. As I mentioned earlier, it just a bit contrasty, and the BG appears very bright. A little levels or curves adjustment, and a little burning here and there would make the image more pleasing to view, and emphasize the bird more. You didn't mention which method for sharpening you used, but it looks a wee bit rough. Marc Adamus' sharpening technique (HERE) works wonderfully for landscapes, but I know birders often choose a different method of sharpening. Not being a birder, I'm unfamiliar with it, but I think Bob Steele (NPN'er) could perhaps help you there. In short, a nice image that just needs a little tweaking, no major overhauls.

Thanks Bill. I've actually already printed out and used Mar Adamus' sharpening technique, and it's really a bit much for birds from what I can tell, but it still could just be me. I'm going to keep plugging away and I'll see if Bob Steele has any tips out there. Thanks again.

Mel

I have to respectfully disagree with Bill when he says to switch to manual. I find it easier to use Aperture priority with exposure compensation when shooting single subjects with blurred BGs. I think the advantage is less settings to worry about, especially in changing lighting conditions.

And one other option might be to rent one of the big lenses for a weekend. It might cost a couple hundred dollars, but maybe you'd better realize what you want out of your pictures.

One last thing - do you shoot RAW or JPG? If you're shooting JPG, then your camera is doing some sharpening in camera, which you lose comtrol over. RAW may help there.

Re: The second pic: It looks a bit oversharpened in the dark regions of the head. So I would recommend sharpening a little bit less (maybe use RAW, so you have full control over what happens), but otherwise, things look fine. Detail is definately there.

Basil

Bill, I've not received the email you mentioned earlier. I do use manual on occasion, but I find that for me, right now anyway, I like the camera to do some of the work, especially when I'm taking pictures of something that I have no control over how long that subject is going to sit there for me to take the picture. But I do understand what you're saying about using the manual, having more control over how the camera is to react. Now, I do want to start shooting more pics in RAW and see if that won't help some.

David, I actually had a lady at one of the local camera stores suggest the same thing to me and we do have a place in Philly that rents out camera equipment and I may do just that. But for now I think I will agree with an earlier opinion to just do nothing for now regarding another lens and work on my technique with what I have.

Basil, I agree that something doesn't look right around the head area, it doesn't seem to match the rest of the body in detail.

There are just so many variables and different ways to go. If you were going to invest in software, which way would you go. I have Photoshop Elements 5, I am testing Adobe Lightroom, I have tested Nikon Capture NX and PS3. So, I'm willing to put out the money for the right program, all of you, IYO, for the right workflow, which would be the best investment for me. I will persevere!

Hi Mel. I don't know what happened to the first attempt, but I just re-sent the email. If you don't get it soon, you might check your spam folder. I sent it to the email link you have below your name. If you still can't find it, just post a note here and I'll link to it here on NPN.

You mention you're going to start shootng RAW. That will help matters greatly, especially when it comes to post processing. PS Elements 5 is a nice program, with most of the same features found in CS3. I see no need to move up to CS3 at this point. As for the RAW converter/processor, you will once again find varied opinions, and truthfully, all will be accurate to some degree. If you want to use the latest version of ACR (Adobe Camera Raw, ver. 4.2) then you would need to move up to CS3 (I don't know if it will work with CS2 or not), but that's a pretty hefty price tag initially. ACR 4.2 is an excellent RAW converter (much nicer than the earlier versions). Even though it shows a vast improvement over the earlier version, it is still not my favorite converter though. I still prefer to use Capture One for my RAW conversion. It latest version is 3.7.7. It doesn't not have all of the features ACR 4,2 has currently, but in my comparisons it still outdid ACR 4.2. Also, Capture One is currently testing their version 4 in it's beta version. You can download either and try it for free. The version 4 beta definitely has some beta issues to contend with, so you might want to stick with 3.7.7 for a test.

I too mostly use A priority whenever possible. The reason is it's just faster and I don't have to dink with the camera as much. I concentrate on getting the shot. Everyone has their own approach, of course.

The photo above actually is pretty sharp. You would have to spend at least a thousand bucks before you got something better. Try shooting off that fence post with a sock filled with sand under the camera. Wait, sand might work its way into the camera somehow eventually. Use a sock full of dry rice or beans.


Kent in SD

I'd just like to say welcome to NPN, Mel! You've already seen how much information is available here! It's pretty darn cool. The decision about lenses is always a tough one because there are so many things to consider. I think Bill is on the mark with his advice to wait. Practice a lot with what you have until you've sorted out how and what you most like to shoot. The images you posted are just fine imo, and you've received ample feedback on what to work on. That's cool. So, GO! girl-- c'mon and shoot and post and join in on the critiques. I'll be watching for you! Flora forum rocks, so let's see your garden!

Is PS Elements 5 a stand alone program, or is it an add on for something else? I'd like to upgrade the Freeware that I've been using, but can't justify the cost of CS3

Tim, it's a stand-alone program and is a good value for the money.

Tim, IMO To go along with Elements 5, Scott Kelby has an excellent book called, "The Photoshop Elements 5 Book for Digital Photographers". It is truly a "See Spot Run" book on how to use the program. A word of warning though, I have seen his books knocked hard for his sense of humor in some of the sections. I don't buy his books for his personality - just for how easy they are to use and what I can get out of them. It takes you step by step through all the processes available and has plenty of pictures showing each step.

First let me say how nice everyone here has been and how helpful they have all been. No one talking down to me, just eager to share their experience with you. Just a couple of things I would like to add to this post if I could. I was out yesterday on my own taking pictures at the John B. Forsythe Wildlife Refuge down in Oceanville, NJ and there was a gentleman there getting ready to head out. Definitely a Pro with what he was carrying and seemed more preoccupied with trying to get out of there so I apologize, I did not get his name, but he was using a Sigma 300-800 lens, and said that with the camera he uses his final capability is 1200mm, and this thing looked like a "frikin'" canon! He had a portfolio in his car and was showing me and a couple of others that were standing around drooling some of the pics he had taken in the past. So in answer to one of the questions as to the type of pics I want to take, well, that's it!!! I know, I know, slow down. But seriously, I do enjoy taking those types of shots and with my Nikon 70-300, unless the egrets or herons, or whatever are just a few feet in front of you, you just don't get anything usable. Granted these type of shots are not my main interest, which is why I don't want (nor can I) invest a lot of money in something that I would not be using exclusively. That having been said, I would like to be able to get somewhat closer shots, which bring me back to the Sigma 50-500mm that someone had mentioned to me earlier. I'm in no rush, because I do plan on taking my time and continue working with what I have, because I can get some great shots with this camera in other areas, and who knows, I may want my next lens to be a macro lens to use in my garden shots.

I did take some raw shots yesterday while I was out, haven't had a chance to do anything with them, but I'll let you know how this worked for me.

Regarding the questions above about Elements 5, this is a great little program, within most everyone reach price-wise and I highly recommend it to anyone that needs something, but like most of us, don't want to tie up a lot of money in software (especially when I'm dreaming about another lens at some point)! I'm also testing Adobe Lighroom and loving this program, a little pricy but not competely out of reach.

Catherine, thanks for the welcome and I will be posting some pics for critiquing and will also try to get some in the flora forum this week, 'cause I do have some killer shots in my garden if I do say so myself!

Thanks again for all of the help and hope to get to know all of you a lot better!

Mel

Mel,

I think that you and I are in the same, or similar boat. My 70-300 is nice, but it's just not good enough. My main photographic interest is coyotes. I can get them close enough by calling, but I want shots at them hunting, or the pups during denning season. 300mm just doesn't cut it for that. That's a big reason I read this board daily, Lots of great people here who will take the time to teach us how to improve, so that I can hopefully sell enough of my other images to buy the $5,000+ lens that I want!

Keep posting your questions, I'm learning as fast as I can!

Thanks Tim, I know what you mean. It's not that I just want bigger and better just for the sake of having bigger and better, I just want my pictures to look like I am envisioning them to look, but never fear, we'll get there. I'm learning right along with you.

Mel

From Melinda: "I know, I know, slow down."

I'd say just the opposite, Mel. Speed up! The more you shoot and examine the conditions and settings that lead to where you get, the faster you'll get as good as your mind's eye wants you to be. Of course, I'm kidding, partly. There's no need to rush. Everyone finds his or her own best pace, and that pace certainly can change over time with the experience level. It sounds like you are having fun and being inspired by learning as you go, and that's the key at any level of photography (and, IMO, at all points in our lives).

Steve, I've never been one to do anything half-speed, it's full-steam ahead, but that's what makes all of this so fascinating. Because you do learn as you go and I've always found that if you have to dig and hunt long and hard, the lesson learned tends to stick with you the next time. Thanks for your words of encouragement!

Mel