Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
As a side note, with wildlife, I hate to say it's about the equipment but there are areas where better equipment makes things a lot easier. Minimal shutter lag so when they do turn "just right" or walk into just the right light or a combination thereof so you can say "Okay, now" and have the camera respond is worth A LOT.
Agreed. If your longest lens doesn’t get you close enough to the action, you’re kind of screwed. Then is it fast focussing enough?
Shutter speed is also important if you want to try and get a good number of shots to pick from.

But I’m sure the OP doesn’t need to worry about all that. He has a great camera.
 
Absolutely agree with you on that, Bunnspecial! The right gear does make a difference in shooting wildlife, including a tripod or monopod in many situations, the ability to shoot quickly in Continuous High with many frames per second, and of course usually a long lens, either a zoom or a prime, often with a teleconverter attached.. Knowing the habits of the wildlife is very useful as well, along with much, much patience. Some wildlife photographers will spend hours sitting in a "blind" waiting for just the right light, the right moment, to capture their elusive subjects.
I’m not really patient enough for all that waiting. But I enjoy getting a good wildlife picture now and then.
 
I've never done the sitting-in-a-blind thing but on some of the photography trips I used to go on we'd set up, then stand around for what seemed like hours, waiting for bird action to happen. Then suddenly an eagle or other bird(s) would appear and everyone would rush to their cameras and start acquiring focus and shooting..... The people who had been doing this for years were always the ones who would come home with outstanding shots and willingly shared their tips with the rest of us but even so, it takes the right gear plus quite a bit of patience, time and willingness to keep at it to develop those skills.

The first time I went to Conwingo Dam in Maryland was an eye-opening experience for me as I looked around at all the guys setting up their tripods with their massive long prime lenses. It was my first time in such a setting and I quickly realized that my 70-200mm just wasn't going to cut the mustard, especially for shooting BIF at a distance. I did get a few shots of "birdie-on-a-stick" when an eagle would obligingly land on a tree branch. The next time I went to Conowingo I had a longer lens and a sturdier tripod.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apple fanboy
Absolutely agree with you on that, Bunnspecial! The right gear does make a difference in shooting wildlife, including a tripod or monopod in many situations, the ability to shoot quickly in Continuous High with many frames per second, and of course usually a long lens, either a zoom or a prime, often with a teleconverter attached.. Knowing the habits of the wildlife is very useful as well, along with much, much patience. Some wildlife photographers will spend hours sitting in a "blind" waiting for just the right light, the right moment, to capture their elusive subjects.

I've done a bit of bird photography in the past, although nothing serious. I've practiced mostly just by sitting in the back yard, or even the front yard, but I'm a bit self conscious about looking like a peeping Tom with a big camera and lens :)

My long glass is definitely a bit limited for me. I have a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR1, the first gen VR lens, and a 300mm f/4D(one of the first AF-S lenses). I've had a D500 in the past, which was awesome for this stuff, but was used infrequently enough that I had a hard time justifying it(still haven't bought a D850, which gripped has comparable AF, a slightly slower frame rate, and the DX crop resolution is the same as the D500). For now, my "action" camera is an(aging) D3s, which works decently but I can definitely see the limits.

In any case, I can do alright with the 70-200 for a lot of purposes, but that doesn't give me a ton of reach. I have recently added a 1.7x, and of course like most camera brand TCs used on long lenses(which is generally the only place they work) I don't see a huge image quality hit. AF can get a bit pokey but it works well enough for what I do and I'm pretty sure I keep all the sensors on the D3s(I know I do on the D800/D810). The 300mm f/4 works with the 1.7x, but only like a dozen of its 53 sensors will AF, so tracking is difficult. That's not a particularly fast focusing lens anyway, and in fact I dare say my 70-200 with the 1.7x at 300mm focuses faster.

Nothing QUITE beats getting just the right moment, but higher burst speeds do increase your "hit rate."
 
In general, it's not better or lesser equipment what matters the most, but the person taking the photo, plus some good luck. Photographing wildlife such as bears that are in an specific location, where one has to attain a permit is an event that requires planning. In such cases one can choose the gear that one thinks would be right for the occasion. But even so it does not guarantee that one would take a better photo than a photographer next to you who's using equipment that is inferior to yours. Wildlife photographers were taking photos long before long and sophisticated telephoto lenses and cameras existed. Back then there wasn't such thing as "electronic shutter, 20-40 burst modes, Eye focus" nor "focus tracking."

The said, Apple fanboy's photos of frogs are nothing but outstanding. Ah...almost forgot! The photo of the toad is just as good too. Also, mollyc's photo of the child holding a frog is quite lovely.
 
Last edited:
In Nikon I had the 300 f/2.8 prime and the 80-400mm, with either a 1.4x or a 1.7x TC to use with the 300mm prime. It wasn't until I got into Sony that I progressed to longer lenses and now have a 100-400mm and a 200-600mm. The 100-400mm I can handhold and often walk around the neighborhood with it but the 200-600mm mainly lives on the tripod now. Both lenses can use Sony's 1.4x TC. I would love to have one of Sony's long primes but they're really a bit out of my reach as far as budget goes and I would have a hard time justifying such a purchase to myself. Alfred, the geese and the ducks and any other wildlife I run across will just have to make do with the other two lenses being aimed at them! LOL!

The last Nikon full-frame camera I had was the D3 -- so that's going back quite a long way! I somehow just never moved on upward as new models came out as that was when I was taking a brief hiatus from photography, having gotten rather burned out, I think. I loved that D3, though -- a wonderful camera. At the same time I had it I also had the D300, which was the perfect companion for going out shooting wildlife, and that was the camera to which the longer lenses were attached and on the tripod.

When I made the switch to the A7R IV things had changed quite a bit in the technical aspects since my D3! I love the higher resolution of the A7R IV but definitely it is more a camera for shooting macro, portraits, landscapes..... I started thinking vaguely of getting an A9 to accompany it, or the A9 II when it was released, but hadn't gotten around to it when the A1 was announced. I read the specs, waited for reviews to come out and knew that the A1 would be my choice to be my camera for shooting wildlife, as well as walking around the neighborhood. The two cameras complement each other very nicely. Right now, of course, I'm shooting primarily with the new camera but my general idea is that the A7R IV will still be the one which mounts the macro lenses and spends time with me shooting flowers or interesting objects....

There is definitely a noticeable difference between the two cameras when I'm shooting wildlife in the Continuous High speed and having the shutter set at a high speed. -- I'm still trying to remind myself to keep a light finger on that shutter button so I don't run through an entire memory card in just minutes! Definitely it can mean the difference between getting just the right shot at the exact right moment or not.....
 
In general, it's not better or lesser equipment what matters the most, but the person taking the photo, plus some good luck. Photographing wildlife such as bears that are in an specific location, where one has to attain a permit is an event that requires planning. In such cases one can choose the gear that one thinks would be right for the occasion. But even so it does not guarantee that one would take a better photo than a photographer next to you who's using equipment that is inferior to yours. Wildlife photographers existed long before long and sophisticated telephoto lenses and cameras existed. Back then there wasn't such thing as "electronic shutter, 20-40 burst modes, Eye focus" nor "focus tracking."

The said, Apple fanboy's photos of frogs are nothing but outstanding. Ah...almost forgot! The photo of the toad is just as good too. Also, mollyc's photo of the child holding a frog is quite lovely.
Well even a broken clock is right twice a day! Those frog pictures are some of the best I have ever taken. Thanks for your kind words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clix Pix
In Nikon I had the 300 f/2.8 prime and the 80-400mm, with either a 1.4x or a 1.7x TC to use with the 300mm prime. It wasn't until I got into Sony that I progressed to longer lenses and now have a 100-400mm and a 200-600mm. The 100-400mm I can handhold and often walk around the neighborhood with it but the 200-600mm mainly lives on the tripod now. Both lenses can use Sony's 1.4x TC. I would love to have one of Sony's long primes but they're really a bit out of my reach as far as budget goes and I would have a hard time justifying such a purchase to myself. Alfred, the geese and the ducks and any other wildlife I run across will just have to make do with the other two lenses being aimed at them! LOL!

The last Nikon full-frame camera I had was the D3 -- so that's going back quite a long way! I somehow just never moved on upward as new models came out as that was when I was taking a brief hiatus from photography, having gotten rather burned out, I think. I loved that D3, though -- a wonderful camera. At the same time I had it I also had the D300, which was the perfect companion for going out shooting wildlife, and that was the camera to which the longer lenses were attached and on the tripod.

When I made the switch to the A7R IV things had changed quite a bit in the technical aspects since my D3! I love the higher resolution of the A7R IV but definitely it is more a camera for shooting macro, portraits, landscapes..... I started thinking vaguely of getting an A9 to accompany it, or the A9 II when it was released, but hadn't gotten around to it when the A1 was announced. I read the specs, waited for reviews to come out and knew that the A1 would be my choice to be my camera for shooting wildlife, as well as walking around the neighborhood. The two cameras complement each other very nicely. Right now, of course, I'm shooting primarily with the new camera but my general idea is that the A7R IV will still be the one which mounts the macro lenses and spends time with me shooting flowers or interesting objects....

There is definitely a noticeable difference between the two cameras when I'm shooting wildlife in the Continuous High speed and having the shutter set at a high speed. -- I'm still trying to remind myself to keep a light finger on that shutter button so I don't run through an entire memory card in just minutes! Definitely it can mean the difference between getting just the right shot at the exact right moment or not.....
I’d be more concerned about the editing time than the SD cards!

But by skipping a few generations of camera you have seen a big leap forward in the technology. It’s the same with iPhones. If you upgrade every year, you see small subtle changes (mostly). If you leave it a few years there is a lot more to notice!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clix Pix
Yes, that's what I keep reminding myself -- remember, you don't want to spend three hours in front of the computer just wading through all these near-identical images and then wind up processing only a few!!! LOL! The card I am using in the A1 is a CFExpress Type A one, and it is somewhat faster than my Sony Tough SD cards that are in the A7R IV. I like that I can also use the SD cards in the A1, too, but haven't done that yet.

The changes in camera technology between the D3 and the A7R IV and between even the A7R IV and the A1 are pretty amazing. I'd been using mirrorless and an EVF since the NEX 7 so that was not a big change for me, but some of the features and functions certainly are!
 
Along with "what makes a great picture?" we really also should be considering what makes a good photographer? What are the most important inherent personal qualities he or she should have?

It varies of course, as there will be different opinions on this, but according to one article I picked at random:


5 Desirable Qualities Every Good Photographer Should Have​


FEATURESPHOTO
October 29, 2020

Here are five desirable qualities every good photographer should have:​

1. Creativity and Imagination​

Photography, for all intents and purposes, is a form of art. Therefore, it requires a creative mind—and plenty of imagination. A good photographer must be able to look at something ordinary, or even extraordinary, and find a million different ways to interpret what he’s seeing and convey those interpretations in beautiful and meaningful photos.
As you may have already heard, composition is everything in photography. Even if you aren’t concerned about the artistic side of your craft, composition is still key in producing good photographs. Sure, some basic composition rules can guide you, but at the end of the day, creativity and imagination are the best guides for stellar compositions.

2. An Eye for Detail​

A good photographer must have a very keen eye for detail to ensure that all elements within the photo—the lighting, the composition, the subject, and everything else in between—work together harmoniously to convey the right vision or message.
Key elements that make up a photograph:
  • Lighting
  • Composition
  • Storytelling
  • Emotion
Even the tiniest detail can make or break a photograph. So having an eye for detail, and being meticulous when scrutinizing every single element to ensure cohesiveness, is very important in producing the perfect photograph.

3. Patience and Flexibility​

No matter how much you try to control every variable, things just won’t go your way at times. There will be days when the lighting won’t cooperate, when your models or clients will be exceptionally difficult, or when your camera just won’t give you the desired results.
And of course, there will be times when you’ll have to take a billion photos just to get one perfect photo.
Whatever photography field you may be in, patience (lots of it) is always an essential quality to have. You need to be patient enough to wait for the perfect lighting. You need to be patient enough to deal with crying babies, hyperactive animals, and difficult clients. And most of all, you need to be patient enough to keep trying when you simply can’t get the right shot.
In addition to patience, you also need to be flexible. The two qualities go hand in hand—you need to be patient enough to deal with whatever comes your way, and you need to be flexible enough to make the best of undesirable conditions.

4. Good People Skills​

Being a professional photographer means working with people—whether it’s a client, a model, or even a fellow photographer. Thus, being a good photographer requires good people skills — it’s one of the essential photographer qualities. You’ll also need to network to obtain clients and partnerships, so knowing how to connect and communicate effectively with others is imperative.
When you’re photographing people, knowing how to take a good photo simply isn’t enough. You also have to know how to interact with your subjects to make them feel at ease, get them to cooperate, or draw out all the right emotions out of them.

5. Passion​

What sets a good photographer apart from the rest? Passion.
When you’re passionate about what you do, it will always shine through in your work. It takes a lot of time and effort to make it as a professional photographer, and the ones who do succeed and manage to make a name for themselves are those who are truly passionate about their craft.
Passion makes the photographer—it will always make you work a little harder, push a little farther, and strive to be better than you were the day before.
 
Absolutely agree with you on that, Bunnspecial! The right gear does make a difference in shooting wildlife, including a tripod or monopod in many situations, the ability to shoot quickly in Continuous High with many frames per second, and of course usually a long lens, either a zoom or a prime, often with a teleconverter attached.. Knowing the habits of the wildlife is very useful as well, along with much, much patience. Some wildlife photographers will spend hours sitting in a "blind" waiting for just the right light, the right moment, to capture their elusive subjects.
True. This is a great shot of a Lion I took with Mr. Powershot.

IMG_0115.JPG
 
It's a better composition. The photo is lacking detail, but that is more because of the camera.
Yes, it's a better composition, but the lighting is even and I actually think there is more detail here than in the frog photo. I'm not willing to say the details are lacking from a tiny web sized image. It's likely that Mr. Wolfe doesn't know (or care) about sharpening for web and things that the rest of us do.

The lion is looking out the frame with plenty of space for his gaze to rest. He is largely on the rule of thirds (these points go to your composition remark). Although the image would be stronger if Lion were looking at the camera, let's be realistic; his eyes are clearly visible and in focus.

But this image has no blown bits from harsh flash lighting. (There is a little bit at the foreground pavement that is blown from a sun patch, but that's actually quite easy to fix via cloning or cropping, and as it stands it doesn't really detract from the image.) I do think that since Mr. Wolfe shot it at 10mp rather than his usual smaller resolution that there are a lot more details retained in the image than with the frog image.

With the steady gaze of the lion it's a better overall moment to capture than the frog image, and there is more story. We can see that the lion is in a zoo, but must also have a companion or something else that he is fixed on (this lets the viewer's imagination take over to figure out what he might be looking at.) The exposure is well done, and there is suitable dynamic range within the image.

This image has a ton more going for it than the frog image.
 
It's a nice shot, not a "great" image, and yes, significantly better than the one of the frog. Of course the shooting conditions were different: an animal in captivity (i.e., the zoo) with limited space to roam vs a frog in his natural habitat. A small, nitpicky thing here, but it would have been better had the lion's tail been fully visible rather than partly cut off so that the viewer could view this relaxed lion in his entirety.
 
It's a nice shot, not a "great" image, and yes, significantly better than the one of the frog. Of course the shooting conditions were different: an animal in captivity (i.e., the zoo) with limited space to roam vs a frog in his natural habitat. A small, nitpicky thing here, but it would have been better had the lion's tail been fully visible rather than partly cut off so that the viewer could view this relaxed lion in his entirety.
It’s a great shot.
 
It’s a great shot.
Not entirely sure why you've asked for opinions.

But, as a novice photographer with lots of enthusiasm, I just want to say that I've been following this thread with interest and massively appreciate all of the fantastic advice from those with a far more experienced eye than me... I rarely post but I'm hugely appreciative, Your time (and most importantly your patience) is not wasted, I at least am taking a lot from this thread :)
 
Not entirely sure why you've asked for opinions.

But, as a novice photographer with lots of enthusiasm, I just want to say that I've been following this thread with interest and massively appreciate all of the fantastic advice from those with a far more experienced eye than me... I rarely post but I'm hugely appreciative, Your time (and most importantly your patience) is not wasted, I at least am taking a lot from this thread :)
Please post more often. We are all on different parts of our photographic journey. Feel free to ask for feedback as well. People on here are in my experience, only to willing to help.
 
I too am curious as to what the OP thinks makes the lion image a great shot. What really grabs you? what do you think could have been improved? What would you do differently next time? These are questions any competent photographer is asking themselves with every image they shoot.

I do think it's much better than his 'great' frog shot, but not really seeing the magic combination that would actually warrant the 'great' label. Maybe I am being cynical but it kinda feels like the OP is looking more for validation than useful information he could use to improve his skills. If so that is a bit of a shame, as it can only impede his progress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clix Pix
I too am curious as to what the OP thinks makes the lion image a great shot. What really grabs you? what do you think could have been improved? What would you do differently next time? These are questions any competent photographer is asking themselves with every image they shoot.

I do think it's much better than his 'great' frog shot, but not really seeing the magic combination that would actually warrant the 'great' label. Maybe I am being cynical but it kinda feels like the OP is looking more for validation than useful information he could use to improve his skills. If so that is a bit of a shame, as it can only impede his progress.
I don't think he is looking for anything other than hearing himself talk, to be honest. As I've said before, I keep engaging in these discussions for the others who are reading along, like MadAngelUK. 🙂
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.