Posted by Ryan Petri on August 2, 2006 at 11:13 AM
Ok so I wanted to start a new hobby with taking semi-awesome pictures of nature.
Ever since I was a kid I've had a huge love for traveling and nature so I figure, why not bring these memories back with me.
I'm thinking of buying a camera. I've got the cash so don't worry about throwing expensive ideas at me. I have NO CLUE on what the terms are for cameras or what extra peices I'll need to apply to the camera so please, the less technical the better.
I've been to Alaska recently and plan on going back again. Amazing pictures I could have goten there!!
All I'm really asking is, fill me in with some ideas for cameras I could buy specifically for nature shots, only. What lens I'll need? What other nifty things I'll need to make shots sharper? Maybe even a stand? Help me out as much as possible.
I can't stress enough, though on teaching me the absolute BASICS. Remember, I know nothing.
I think a necessary and first step to take on the path to making nature photographs is to decide which genre of nature photography appeals most to you.
So, ask yourself this question: "What do I really love about the natural world? What really moves me? Is it the landscape? Is it the birds and beasts? Is it trees, and flowering plants?
Your answer to this question will (in part) drive the equipment question because each of the genre of nature photography requires differing sets of gear. For example, I do mostly landscape photography using large format 4x5 film. If I wanted to shoot small birds at a distance, I would need to purchase a completely different type of camera and long telephoto lenses.
In order to help answer your questions, I suggest taking a fair amount of time perusing the images in the forums here at NPN. Study them carefully. Most of the photographers list the gear they used to make a particular image. This will help guide you. There is also an extensive archive of articles here that will go a long way toward getting you started.
Once you have a really sound idea of the path you want to take, let us know. The folks here are very helpful and extremely knowledgeable. We will do our best to help make your first steps on the journey a bit less bumpy.
Again, welcome to NPN!
Best regards,
-PB
Posted by Nathan Buck on August 2, 2006 at 12:29 PM
Great advice from Preston for sure Ryan! You will definitely need a tripod, no matter what type of photography that you get into. What head you use though will depend on what type of photography that you do. Also, if you plan to hike, you may want a carbon fiber tripod for the weight issue.
Soooo...as you can see, giving us some more information will be helpful!
Nathan
Posted by Ryan Petri on August 2, 2006 at 12:51 PM
Wow thanks a ton for the responses guys! This site is really helping me a lot move along with what I've always loved to do, just never had the drive.
I'm especially interested in birds/beasts the most. Anything that's wild and moves! I also love, love, love the world of insects. Any awesome shots of bees on flowers or just tribes of ants drives me crazy. It's a whole world no one really takes the time to examine and think about. That's why i'd love to take some amazing shots of these categories to not only remind me of where I've been and seen, but also to frame and give to friends.
I realize that the lenses required for birds/beasts would be completely different than close up shots of insects. Please emphasise on both topics.
Also I was wondering, do professional photographers comit their work into photoshop? I always think of those black rooms where excellent photos are made. I don't want to "change" or "tweak" any of my work with photoshop. It makes me feel fake.
Thanks for all your incredibly helpfull ideas, keep them coming
-Ryan
You'll get some good advice here, and Preston and Nathan already gave you good advice.
My advice to you is that you should first learn the basics of photography by reading a good book and by reading articles on the internet.
I developed an interest in nature photography about 2 years ago, and then I found NPN—it has helped me a lot. I still own point and shoot cameras, but now I think I'm in a position to use a digital SLR. I learnt a lot by reading photography books, photography magazines, articles on the internet, and by reading comments and critiques posted on photos here on NPN. Now after learning a lot about photography, I'm planning to buy a digital SLR with some good glass. Actually, I'm saving for it since 2 years. You said that you have got the cash, so you don't need to wait that long. You'll also learn a lot here on NPN by reading comments and critiques posted here.
Whatever you end up buying, I wish you all the best with your nature photography. It's a great journey you are starting on.
Regards,
Zaid
Posted by Dan Borzynski on August 2, 2006 at 1:30 PM
For insects and small creepy-crawlies, you are probably looking at using what is called a macro lens. It is designed specfically to allow close focusing, to 1 to 1 for modern lenses. What this means is that if an object is 1 inch in real life, it will be reproduced as 1 inch across on the film or on the sensor. Pretty much any current macro lens from any manufacturer is an excellent lens. Canon, Nikon, Minolta and Pentax for those specific brands, and for third parties, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron.
Juza suggests on the digital forum Sigma's 18-125. This won't get you quite to that level, but there is an inexpensive way out. There are what is known as diopters. These are essentially a mini lens that screws onto the front of your lens, and allows you to get closer to your subject. This is probably a good way to get started as you have the best of both worlds: closeup capability and a good generally use lens, and reasonable cost. You will lose a little bit on image quality vs buying a dedicated macro lens, but it really is a good solution.
For birds, this is tougher. I have been using a 300 f4 lens, and teleconverter. Even from third parties, this is not real cheap. You are looking at $1,000. The main problem here is that as the focal lengths get longer (more of a telephoto), the costs get a lot higher. Ideally, for birds, you would be looking at 500-600, plus teleconverter, but I am spending 5-8,000 of your money. That is the main reason I use the midlevel 300. I can get a fair number of shots, but have to work for them a lot harder.
With regards to tweaking in Photoshop, some adjustments will ALWAYS be needed. Right from the (non-consumer level point and shoot) camera, or film scanner, some adjustments for contrast, color and sharpness will have to be done. That is because these devices are trying to maximize the information present, rather than maximizing the image. Usually, the changes tend to be pretty minor.
The thing I usually need to do is if one particular color is dominant, especially near sunset or on cloudy days, the white balance will be off. What this means is that the camera software decided that colors should look one way, but in reality, they don't. You wind up with an image that has a wierd yellow, or blue, or magenta cast, or something else. My "tweaking" is to correct for the camera's mistake. Most people don't consider that to be an adjustment worth mentioning, since you are trying to return the image to reality, rather than change reality, which I think is what you are concerned with.
A similar thing applies to sharpness and contrast - I am trying to fix the camera software interpretation rather than fixing reality.
Other things too. You'll almost always have some dust on the sensor. You are going to have to do some digital work to clean that up as well. Again, this isn't changing reality.
Caveat: It sounds like I am knocking digital cameras and their output. I am not. I own the Canon 20 D and it is my primary 35 mm based body. You just need to remember what I stated above - these cameras are designed to maximize information rather than the picture that comes out of the camera itself.
On the other hand, wholesale cloning to remove branches, bringing in other elements from other images, delibrately messing up the color, etc, I try to avoid. I suppose that I took try to take some moral high road here, but realistically, it is because I am photoshop lazy. I'd rather be behind a camera than in front of a computer monitor.
Also, if you want to shoot BW, you are going to have to accept a certain amount of manipulation. I have used the BW mode of my camera and have found the results to be better if I convert from a color image. This probably is far past what you would consider tweaking or changing, but it is what is necessary for me, short of buying BW film.
I hope this helps a bit.
Posted by Nathan Buck on August 2, 2006 at 3:45 PM
Dan has given you some more good advice Ryan. I have a macro lens, a Sigma 180 mm macro, and I love it. The 180mm range is good if you are going to shoot insects because you have more 'reach' than with some of the shorter lenses.
What Dan said about editing an image is also correct, though you will find many differing ideas and viewpoints. If you are passing an image off as 'the real world', then editing surely must be minimal. If you are going to present an image as anything other than the 'real world', then you have a lot more latitude in your editing.
Be sure to check out the NP 101 section of NPN for some basic information too.
Nathan
Posted by Dan Borzynski on August 2, 2006 at 4:25 PM
I am definitely seconding Nathan's comments about differing opinions on digital manipulation! About every six months or so here, there is a long and sometimes heated debate about what constitutes minimal manipulation. You are going to have to find your our middle ground and what constitutes acceptable for you. As I said, my standards are largely based from trying to spend as little time as possible in front of the computer,
Posted by Jim Erhardt on August 2, 2006 at 6:53 PM
Ryan, welcome to NPN!
Great advice above, to which I would add that we have an entire section dedicated to those just starting out in nature photography - our Nature Photography 101 section. There you will find many excellent articles on a variety of subjects, all of which will give you some ideas on what is involved with different kinds of nature photography.
Please feel free to post your specific questions in this forum - we look forward to your participation!
Posted by David Chauvin on August 3, 2006 at 6:23 AM
Ryan,,,,, if you are into birds AND bugs, one solution is a 300mm lens with extension tubes. The tubes reduce the minimum focus distance, allowing more magnification. (check our Ronnie Gaubert and Will Brozy's work with this setup). The 300 can also be used for wildlife and birds and it's one less lens to buy initially. A 1.4x abd 2x teleconverter make it even more versatile.
Since you are into the the longer end of the lens game, I would recommend one of the cropped sensor bodies like the 20D or D200, which have the "multiplier" effect on every lens used.
Hope this helps.
David
Posted by Kent Staubus on August 3, 2006 at 5:47 PM
The type of photos you take will determine what you need. For what you've stated, a good minimum would be: Nikon 80-400mm VR lens, Tamron 90mm Macro lens, Bogen 3021 tripod with AcraTech Head, Nikon D50 camera. Note that the camera I suggest is about the cheapest item. GO CHEAP ON THE CAMERA, put money on the lens and tripod. If the Nikon 80-400mm VR lens is too much $$, look at a used Sigma 50-500mm on eBay. Don't go cheaper on the tripod/head, just buy from eBay.
If you have more money to blow, replace the D50 with a D70s. Nikon has a new D80 coming at some point that will be a terrific value, for under $1,000. Still, buy the camera with what money you left over from buying lenses and a tripod. Don't dump your money on an expensive camera and then have to buy crappy lenses and worthless tripod. Instead of a D70s, really I think you would get more use from buying a better tripod (Gitzo carbon fiber) than a more expensive camera. The tripod will hold its value and the value of digital cameras drop like a rock pretty quickly. The tripod will have the biggest impact on the quality of your shots, the lens will determine what kind of shots you can take. The camera is just along for the ride, so go CHEAP there. Good lenses and tripods you keep, cameras come and go. Few beginners seem to grasp this until they waste many hundreds/thousands of dollars.
Kent in MO
Posted by Basil Greber on August 4, 2006 at 1:23 PM
Couldn't agree more, Kent! While I have not spent a whole lot of bucks on lenses (all except my kit lenses are "previously loved" onces), I think I should rather have gotten one good lens (used or not) right from the start instead of "a couple" of so-so ones.
Not that they are crappy, but somehow the confidence that the shots will look allright is absent with some of them (see some older threads on color casts & strange exposure times etc.).
Discussion
11 repliesEver since I was a kid I've had a huge love for traveling and nature so I figure, why not bring these memories back with me.
I'm thinking of buying a camera. I've got the cash so don't worry about throwing expensive ideas at me. I have NO CLUE on what the terms are for cameras or what extra peices I'll need to apply to the camera so please, the less technical the better.
I've been to Alaska recently and plan on going back again. Amazing pictures I could have goten there!!
All I'm really asking is, fill me in with some ideas for cameras I could buy specifically for nature shots, only. What lens I'll need? What other nifty things I'll need to make shots sharper? Maybe even a stand? Help me out as much as possible.
I can't stress enough, though on teaching me the absolute BASICS. Remember, I know nothing.
Welcome to NPN!
I think a necessary and first step to take on the path to making nature photographs is to decide which genre of nature photography appeals most to you.
So, ask yourself this question: "What do I really love about the natural world? What really moves me? Is it the landscape? Is it the birds and beasts? Is it trees, and flowering plants?
Your answer to this question will (in part) drive the equipment question because each of the genre of nature photography requires differing sets of gear. For example, I do mostly landscape photography using large format 4x5 film. If I wanted to shoot small birds at a distance, I would need to purchase a completely different type of camera and long telephoto lenses.
In order to help answer your questions, I suggest taking a fair amount of time perusing the images in the forums here at NPN. Study them carefully. Most of the photographers list the gear they used to make a particular image. This will help guide you. There is also an extensive archive of articles here that will go a long way toward getting you started.
Once you have a really sound idea of the path you want to take, let us know. The folks here are very helpful and extremely knowledgeable. We will do our best to help make your first steps on the journey a bit less bumpy.
Again, welcome to NPN!
Best regards,
-PB
Soooo...as you can see, giving us some more information will be helpful!
Nathan
I'm especially interested in birds/beasts the most. Anything that's wild and moves! I also love, love, love the world of insects. Any awesome shots of bees on flowers or just tribes of ants drives me crazy. It's a whole world no one really takes the time to examine and think about. That's why i'd love to take some amazing shots of these categories to not only remind me of where I've been and seen, but also to frame and give to friends.
I realize that the lenses required for birds/beasts would be completely different than close up shots of insects. Please emphasise on both topics.
Also I was wondering, do professional photographers comit their work into photoshop? I always think of those black rooms where excellent photos are made. I don't want to "change" or "tweak" any of my work with photoshop. It makes me feel fake.
Thanks for all your incredibly helpfull ideas, keep them coming
-Ryan
Welcome to NPN!
You'll get some good advice here, and Preston and Nathan already gave you good advice.
My advice to you is that you should first learn the basics of photography by reading a good book and by reading articles on the internet.
I developed an interest in nature photography about 2 years ago, and then I found NPN—it has helped me a lot. I still own point and shoot cameras, but now I think I'm in a position to use a digital SLR. I learnt a lot by reading photography books, photography magazines, articles on the internet, and by reading comments and critiques posted on photos here on NPN. Now after learning a lot about photography, I'm planning to buy a digital SLR with some good glass. Actually, I'm saving for it since 2 years. You said that you have got the cash, so you don't need to wait that long. You'll also learn a lot here on NPN by reading comments and critiques posted here.
Whatever you end up buying, I wish you all the best with your nature photography. It's a great journey you are starting on.
Regards,
Zaid
Juza suggests on the digital forum Sigma's 18-125. This won't get you quite to that level, but there is an inexpensive way out. There are what is known as diopters. These are essentially a mini lens that screws onto the front of your lens, and allows you to get closer to your subject. This is probably a good way to get started as you have the best of both worlds: closeup capability and a good generally use lens, and reasonable cost. You will lose a little bit on image quality vs buying a dedicated macro lens, but it really is a good solution.
For birds, this is tougher. I have been using a 300 f4 lens, and teleconverter. Even from third parties, this is not real cheap. You are looking at $1,000. The main problem here is that as the focal lengths get longer (more of a telephoto), the costs get a lot higher. Ideally, for birds, you would be looking at 500-600, plus teleconverter, but I am spending 5-8,000 of your money. That is the main reason I use the midlevel 300. I can get a fair number of shots, but have to work for them a lot harder.
With regards to tweaking in Photoshop, some adjustments will ALWAYS be needed. Right from the (non-consumer level point and shoot) camera, or film scanner, some adjustments for contrast, color and sharpness will have to be done. That is because these devices are trying to maximize the information present, rather than maximizing the image. Usually, the changes tend to be pretty minor.
The thing I usually need to do is if one particular color is dominant, especially near sunset or on cloudy days, the white balance will be off. What this means is that the camera software decided that colors should look one way, but in reality, they don't. You wind up with an image that has a wierd yellow, or blue, or magenta cast, or something else. My "tweaking" is to correct for the camera's mistake. Most people don't consider that to be an adjustment worth mentioning, since you are trying to return the image to reality, rather than change reality, which I think is what you are concerned with.
A similar thing applies to sharpness and contrast - I am trying to fix the camera software interpretation rather than fixing reality.
Other things too. You'll almost always have some dust on the sensor. You are going to have to do some digital work to clean that up as well. Again, this isn't changing reality.
Caveat: It sounds like I am knocking digital cameras and their output. I am not. I own the Canon 20 D and it is my primary 35 mm based body. You just need to remember what I stated above - these cameras are designed to maximize information rather than the picture that comes out of the camera itself.
On the other hand, wholesale cloning to remove branches, bringing in other elements from other images, delibrately messing up the color, etc, I try to avoid. I suppose that I took try to take some moral high road here, but realistically, it is because I am photoshop lazy. I'd rather be behind a camera than in front of a computer monitor.
Also, if you want to shoot BW, you are going to have to accept a certain amount of manipulation. I have used the BW mode of my camera and have found the results to be better if I convert from a color image. This probably is far past what you would consider tweaking or changing, but it is what is necessary for me, short of buying BW film.
I hope this helps a bit.
What Dan said about editing an image is also correct, though you will find many differing ideas and viewpoints. If you are passing an image off as 'the real world', then editing surely must be minimal. If you are going to present an image as anything other than the 'real world', then you have a lot more latitude in your editing.
Be sure to check out the NP 101 section of NPN for some basic information too.
Nathan
Great advice above, to which I would add that we have an entire section dedicated to those just starting out in nature photography - our Nature Photography 101 section. There you will find many excellent articles on a variety of subjects, all of which will give you some ideas on what is involved with different kinds of nature photography.
Please feel free to post your specific questions in this forum - we look forward to your participation!
Since you are into the the longer end of the lens game, I would recommend one of the cropped sensor bodies like the 20D or D200, which have the "multiplier" effect on every lens used.
Hope this helps.
David
If you have more money to blow, replace the D50 with a D70s. Nikon has a new D80 coming at some point that will be a terrific value, for under $1,000. Still, buy the camera with what money you left over from buying lenses and a tripod. Don't dump your money on an expensive camera and then have to buy crappy lenses and worthless tripod. Instead of a D70s, really I think you would get more use from buying a better tripod (Gitzo carbon fiber) than a more expensive camera. The tripod will hold its value and the value of digital cameras drop like a rock pretty quickly. The tripod will have the biggest impact on the quality of your shots, the lens will determine what kind of shots you can take. The camera is just along for the ride, so go CHEAP there. Good lenses and tripods you keep, cameras come and go. Few beginners seem to grasp this until they waste many hundreds/thousands of dollars.
Kent in MO
Not that they are crappy, but somehow the confidence that the shots will look allright is absent with some of them (see some older threads on color casts & strange exposure times etc.).
Basil