Choosing a Camera for Nature photography

lawrencebrussel

« on: December 03, 2011, 05:41 »

#link

Nothing is better than being in the lap of nature and capturing the beauty of nature in the camera. Natural photographs have a soothing effect on an individual and are in demand all across the world for their beauty and message that they deliver.


	Ignore \| Logged

Lagereek

« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2011, 05:53 »

#link

Dont know about that. Mosqitos, snakes, sticks and straws, insects, malaria, fever, flies, bugs, yettis, snowmen, warewoolfs, vampires. I can think of better ans safer ways of photography.
Apart from that. Canon MII or Nikon D3X, should do it.


	Ignore \| Logged

BaldricksTrousers

« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2011, 08:34 »

#link

What exactly is "nature photography" as far as you are concerned?


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2011, 08:38 »

#link

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 03, 2011, 08:34

What exactly is "nature photography" as far as you are concerned?

In my experiences, stuff that doesn't sell. Unless you're in real estate of course.


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2011, 08:46 »

#link

It sells, but not from the micros unless it's coffee table stuff of sexy, well-known species (mostly for the US market).
Real nature photos sell from real nature stock libraries, but even more likely if you write articles and provide a package.
How do I know this? I've read often from real nature stock libraries (which I don't submit to) in the UK/Europe what their 'most wanted species' are. These species are well-represented on e.g. iStock, but with surprisingly few sales.
Serious nature, i.e. rare species, unusual behaviour etc has little market via micro, partly because the buyers don't trust them to be unmanipulated. Plus many species on the micros - and Alamy and Getty - are wrongly labelled - and there are hundreds of 'animals in the wild' on iStock which are anything but. Wrong environment, you can see the bars, fake lighting ... you name it.
So if you have lots (you need hundreds, different from what's already out there) of real serious nature, look around for other outlets.


« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 08:59 by ShadySue »	Ignore \| Logged

BaldricksTrousers

« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2011, 08:59 »

#link

What I'm wondering is if he means landscapes, panoramas, birds, insects,jungle animals, microscopic life, flowers...

True, the choice of subject might not make much difference to the assessment that the best camera will do the best job, but it makes a heck of a difference to the lens - you generally don't shoot birds with a 105mm macro lens, or insects with a 600mm f4.


	Ignore \| Logged

WarrenPrice

« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2011, 10:50 »

#link

Balderickstrousers is pretty much "right on." Your choice would be more about the lens than the camera. For instance: If it is birds you'll want the longest, fastest lens you can afford. For flowers - a macro works best. Nature is a very broad subject.
I might take exception to Sue's analysis; of my top ten sellers eight are nature -- broadly defined. Agree with Sue on what some of us call nature. One of my Nature best sellers is a bluebonnet isolated on white background -- in the studio -- taken with 100mm macro. One is an elk taken with 300mm f4 with 1.4 teleconverter. It had a collar before I removed it.

Also, I don't sell nearly as much as the top artists in here; maybe because I like shooting nature. Grin

Do a google search on the more specific subject of your nature photography. You'll find many articles on the subject.

You'll buy many cameras over the years -- the lens is forever. Undecided


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2011, 13:41 »

#link

Quote from: lagereek on December 03, 2011, 05:53

Yeah the bugs, bites, sprains, burrs in your shorts, ticks in your skin and vermin in general are part of the game. It just makes it all more fun. That and climbing up a hill for 45 minutes, nearly having a heart attack, to a great scenic overlook, only to find out it's hazy from up there. Cheesy

Never saw a Yetti and I was at Loch NEss, no sea creatures. Disappointed... seems they only appear for people with out of focus pocket cameras or no cameras. Isn't that odd? How do they know? Trespassing (a US thing, at least the UK is civilised for hikers) can be exciting, expecially since 9/11 but heck, people will go a long way for an interesting photo, that doesn't sell?

Hey, help me here Chris. What's a Canon MII? I've never seen that camera and I shoot Canon?

I agree with the rest, it's not the camera, it's more likely the lens. And then it depends? What kind of nature? For wildlife A nice 400mm on a crop camera would be nice reach. 1.4 EX will make your camera manual, but in effect a 560mm? For flowers and things, maybe a 100mm Macro?

I'm beginning to believe that the 300mm f/2.8 may be the most versatile tele around. Fast and sharp, add an extender and it's still nice. Now I want one! LOL I bet I can get a used one for just under $4000, list is over $7000!

So then, what's great for someone starting out? Canon 100-400 IS/USM zoom, around $1500 and a nice lens. If you shoot Nikon ask someone else.


	Ignore \| Logged

PaulieWalnuts

« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2011, 15:23 »

#link

What am I missing here? This post doesn't really seem like a question nor does it make a point. Sounds more like something from Jack Handy's Deep Thoughts.


	Ignore \| Logged

MatHayward

« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2011, 15:36 »

#link

I'm with Paulie on this one.

That being said, I love the 1DX is going to be the ultimate nature shooting camera. The 1DMarkIII for current cameras is what I use. 10 frames a second is pretty handy when shooting a quick animal.

They do sell, just not as often as ultimately they are timeless photographs that don't need updating very often from a buyers perspective. A lion shot from 10 years ago is not going to be a lot different from one shot today. I've got most of my nature shots on my Infinite collection here...

http://us.fotolia.com/p/200920505


	Ignore \| Logged

WarrenPrice

« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2011, 16:59 »

#link

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 03, 2011, 15:23

What am I missing here? This post doesn't really seem like a question nor does it make a point. Sounds more like something from Jack Handy's Deep Thoughts.

Do you mean ... It's funny???

Huh


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2011, 21:23 »

#link

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 03, 2011, 15:23

What am I missing here? This post doesn't really seem like a question nor does it make a point. Sounds more like something from Jack Handy's Deep Thoughts.

It feels like the pickup line of a Jehovah witness. So Sir, you think all this beauty came along just by itself? Don't you think this is the Work of a creative Intelligence? Definitely of course now can I enjoy my Sunday? Wink