Medium Format for Wildlife Photography

[ramblinlamb]

Hey folks,

I have a friend who is an active wildlife photographer who is considering switching to digital medium format to shoot wildlife. Upon hearing this my mind hit the brakes and pondered "how the heck would one do that and get the utmost sharpness from medium format"?? In all the reviews of the various "unobtanium" digital medium format cameras the one constant is the need to SLOW DOWN one's behind the camera process to maximize the sharpness potential of an digital medium format camera.

Is it possible to shoot digital medium format in a very fluid wildlife moment and still maximize sharpness? Is the potential framerate adequate?

Resolution is an addictive drug. I confess to being a card carryin addict. But in wildlife work speed with sharpness is almost as important, or even more important.

Since this mere fotog doesn't have enough cash for an exquisite/unobtanium digital medium format (although that new Pentax 645Z is looking mighty sweet) I have no real hands on experience to be able to judge if a digital medium format could do the job as well as say a Canon 1 Series or an equivalent Nikon.

So, any and all feedback is greatly appreciated! Thx!

[LesPalenik]

Shooting wildlife with a medium-format or even large format camera can be quite rewarding. In my film days, I used to shoot wildlife with a 617 panoramic camera.
You won't get the same type of closeup portrait as with a 600mm lens and a 35mm camera, but on the other hand you can capture the animals in their environment and sometimes get a more complete story.

http://www.panoramicimages.com/singleproduct.asp?media_type=Images&searchword1=109483&player=real&done=true

[amsp]

Nick Brandt uses a Pentax 6x7 and a normal lens, so I'd say what you can & can't do with a medium format camera is all about the photographer.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Andy Biggs does that, too. There are some long lenses for medium format. We have a photographer named Matthias Klum in Sweden who used to shoot Pentax MF for National Geographics, so it obviously can be done, but I guess he is on DSLRs now.

Another question is if it is a smart thing to do?

Best regards
Erik

Hey folks,

I have a friend who is an active wildlife photographer who is considering switching to digital medium format to shoot wildlife. Upon hearing this my mind hit the brakes and pondered "how the heck would one do that and get the utmost sharpness from medium format"?? In all the reviews of the various "unobtanium" digital medium format cameras the one constant is the need to SLOW DOWN one's behind the camera process to maximize the sharpness potential of an digital medium format camera.

Is it possible to shoot digital medium format in a very fluid wildlife moment and still maximize sharpness? Is the potential framerate adequate?

Resolution is an addictive drug. I confess to being a card carryin addict. But in wildlife work speed with sharpness is almost as important, or even more important.

Since this mere fotog doesn't have enough cash for an exquisite/unobtanium digital medium format (although that new Pentax 645Z is looking mighty sweet) I have no real hands on experience to be able to judge if a digital medium format could do the job as well as say a Canon 1 Series or an equivalent Nikon.

So, any and all feedback is greatly appreciated! Thx!

[Doug Peterson]

Let's get this out there right away: no matter your talent level or level of experience the number of keeper frames you can generate per day will be lower shooting medium format for wildlife vs 35mm.

You will miss more shots. You will be unable to take some shots that you otherwise would have found easy.

The gear is very unforgiving and demanding on the photographer; no IS, larger mirror, much slower AF (or no AF), slower frame rates etc

That said, I've seen some incredible wildlife/bird work shot on MF.

It's not normally what I'd suggest (and my job is at a dealership that sells Phase One and Leaf!), but that doesn't mean you can't do it. Sometimes it's fun to use the "wrong" tool for a job.

So your friend should think about what his goals are. If he will cringe because he missed a cool shot then this is probably a bad idea. If he's okay getting less shots, but (potentially) loving the handful he does get then it's at least worth some testing/evaluation.

I would really really really suggest he rent or demo before he commits to *anything* in medium format. Most pro dealers can arrange a rental-towards-purchase (at least that's true of us).

[tsjanik]

It is certainly possible to shot birds with MF.  My real interest is landscapes and macro and I  use a 645D; however, because of my location (migratory path, Great Lakes shore) I see many opportunities to shoot birds that I can't ignore.  If birds were my major interest I would use a 35mm with fast and accurate AF for sure.   The first five shots below were taken handheld with 645D and a Pentax 400mm lens using AF.  The remainder used the Pentax 600mm with a 1.4x; manual focus, tripod.  
I include the last one to show it is possible to catch a bird in flight using MF, although the keeper rate is low

Tom


20120818_1515 by tsjanik47, on Flickr

_IGP6448 by tsjanik47, on Flickr

1_IGP7118 by tsjanik47, on Flickr

_IGP1148 by tsjanik47, on Flickr

20140223_0756 copy by tsjanik47, on Flickr

_IGP1004 by tsjanik47, on Flickr

_IGP0783 by tsjanik47, on Flickr

[Geoffrey]

There are two things in play: focus and speed. AF for MF isn't as fast as DSLR, and manual focus isn't good for most birds. Then there is the issue of shutter speed - on some leaf type shutters 1/500 is the fastest and thats not good for longer lenses. So IMHO I'd recommend a setup with 1/1000 if 300 mm or more.

[EricWHiss]

Tom,
Nice shots!

[tsjanik]

Thanks Eric!

[Paul2660]

+2 on very nice shots. What was the shutter speed on the hummer if I can ask.

Love the 2nd shot

Paul

[tsjanik]

Thanks Paul.  1/500s for the hummer @f8. 

Tom

[ErikKaffehr]

Yes, very nice pictures!


Erik

+2 on very nice shots. What was the shutter speed on the hummer if I can ask.

Love the 2nd shot

Paul

[tsjanik]

Thanks Eric.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Wildlife photography is more about knowing your subject than about gear. But once you get close the wildlife gear can be helpful. I would say the Pentax 645 is well posed for wildlife among MFD systems as there is a good selection of long lenses of good quality. Also, I would guess that AF is advanced by MFD standard.

The 645Z is probably an upgrade in that area.

Having a crop factor, and also relatively small pixels, is normally an advantage in wildlife, as getting near to wildlife is often problematic.

Best regards
Erik

[abiggs]

I made the move in 2012 and haven't looked back. I am finishing off a long blog article on the subject, and hopefully it will answer some questions you may have.

[mahleu]

It depends on a couple of things;

-how close can he get to the wildlife/how big is it (an elephant next to your car doesn't need a big lens)
-how does he shoot, burst fire action shots or more thought out scenes (action can be shot on the medium format but it's a lot harder)

Given the choice I would switch and then buy something like a Canon 7D with a 400mm lens and have the best of both worlds.

[abiggs]

Hey guys-

I just posted a blog entry on the very subject. Thoughts?

http://www.theglobalphotographer.com/the-global-photographer/2014/7/27/why-medium-format-digital.html

[ErikKaffehr]

Nice article!

Best regards
Erik

Hey guys-

I just posted a blog entry on the very subject. Thoughts?

http://www.theglobalphotographer.com/the-global-photographer/2014/7/27/why-medium-format-digital.html

[torger]

To make MF worth it you need to adapt a shooting style that make use of its strengths and minimises the impact of its weaknesses. Modern wildlife photography often make use of the progress in 35mm AF, speed and reach. Many photos you see published would be much more difficult to capture with MF gear.

However there are alternate styles. Animals that sit relatively still and allows the photographer to be close opens up for MF.

In the film days I guess MF was used more, but then 35mm was more primitive too. If you compare yesterday's wildlife shots with today's you can see that standards have been raised. To make wildlife with MF today one need to adapt a style that does not rely on AF and speed.

[lowep]

I agree like for most everything else, DSLR is more convenient but MF is sexier - though not even taking into consideration the costs involved I would hate to have to try and snap a quick series of shots of a lion suddenly popping up out of the grass and racing after a gazelle with any MF outfit. So if you do decide to go with MF maybe consider adding a tranquilising gun like the wardens use to your gear?

The MF shots of the birds in flight are fabulous. The question that I think needs to be asked is how many years did you spend refining your technique to get these shots with that gear?