Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: mcbroomf on July 26, 2011, 05:40:25 pm
-
Hi Michael
The link appears to be bad
http://on%20safari%20with%20a%20leica%20s2%20and%20panasonic%20gh2/
-
Yes, the link on the 'What's new' is bad, the correct one is:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/on_safari.shtml
(Can be found via Essays on the left under S)
And as much as I wish success to the Leica S2 (and acknowledge that MF has an advantage due to size, although diminished by low QE), I have to add there is a big difference between saying saying that the limitations of the S2 don't have a significant effect for certain shooting styles and that only these limitations somehow make this shooting style possible (or that the absence of these limitations would make it impossible).
For the price of S2 + 180 mm, you can easily get a D3x, have the AA filter removed and add top-notch lenses like the Zeiss 100 mm f/2 or a Nikon 200 mm f/2. You could even get some excellent Leica R lenses (eg, the 100 mm f/2.8 Apo or the 180 mm f/2 Apo) and do a mount conversion.
I have trouble understanding what the point of comparing the size of a Nikon D3x + 200-400 mm f/4 zoom with a Leica S2 + 180 mm f/3.5 is. Compare it with a 100 or 135 mm lens attached and the overall size is not that different (S2 having a somewhat smaller body but a larger lens).
-
The link has now been fixed.
Michael
-
Interesting read-
I'm headed to Kenya in a couple of weeks with a combination of GH2's and G3. Leaving all medium format gear home.
The others with me will be shooting long Canon and Nikon but I didn't want to go in that direction.
I was interested to see if Mark used any of the touch focus capabilities on the micro 4/3's cameras but it seems he used manual focus for everything. I've worked with the cameras and animals to see how well I could use the touch screen to direct focus and also use the LCD to both focus and shoot (a feature on both cameras). This will allow me to not have to exclusively use the EVF all of the time. I've found I could get good sharp results using the cameras this way.
We will only have two shooters in our vehicles (planned in advance) and will have more ability to direct our guide (hopefully!).
I'm not worried about the "plasticy-ness" of the m4/3 cameras. They get the job done and are at a price point that allows you to change bodies and upgrade as Panasonic makes improvements to the system. Every m4/3 body I've had has been 100% reliable which I care about more.
-
Interesting read indeed and lots of interesting advise.
I do of course understand that the main point of the essay is that it makes sense to use short focal during safaris. But in the end most of the images posted were shot with a tele corresponding to the range of a 200-400 on a D3x. :-)
I would think that for many photographers involved in such trip, they are sort of a once in a lifetime opportunity. I am not sure those would prefer to leave the D3x at home in favor of a G2. The gap in terms of image quality is just too high to consider the G2 as a credible option if the trip and the associated images are really important.
Just my 2 cent.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Interesting read indeed and lots of interesting advise.
I do of course understand that the main point of the essay is that it makes sense to use short focal during safaris. But in the end most of the images posted were shot with a tele corresponding to the range of a 200-400 on a D3x. :-)
I would think that for many photographers involved in such trip, they are sort of a once in a lifetime opportunity. I am not sure those would prefer to leave the D3x at home in favor of a G2. The gap in terms of image quality is just too high to consider the G2 as a credible option if the trip and the associated images are really important.
Just my 2 cent.
Cheers,
Bernard
I totally agree. I also find it somewhat at odds that on the one hand its 'ok' to bag 35mm DSLR's (seemingly at every opportunity) and on the other its 'ok' to accept a G2 - An oxymoron in my book. I also think its quite hilarious that one can criticise high end 35mm DSLR's (like a d3X or 1DSMKIII) as having bad ergonomics in comparison to MF Cameras. My own experience with MF camera bodies (not backs), limited as it is with Phase, and Blad - not Alpa) is that they feel like plastic toys with horrendous ergonomics compared to a pro 35mm DSLR. But hey... each to their own.....
Edit, just to add the other side of the coin - I don't own a Leica S2 but have demo'd one and its gorgeous and with wonderful ergonomics.
-
An older more conventional LuLa essay on Safaris is here:
Digital Safari Equipment Tips (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Safari-Tips.shtml)
By: Nathan Myhrvold 2007
Some of his work is here (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/myhrvold_lions07/myhrvold_lions07_index.html).
Cheers
-
Great essay!
Slightly out of left field but that's why I enjoyed it!
Good to see how the S2 performed in the field.
When I go to Africa it will be with my 1DS Mrk3 (or 4 if it's around) and probably my 400mm DO and some Zeiss primes ... sound rather boring compared to an S2
Dave
-
I would think that for many photographers involved in such trip, they are sort of a once in a lifetime opportunity. I am not sure those would prefer to leave the D3x at home in favor of a G2. The gap in terms of image quality is just too high to consider the G2 as a credible option if the trip and the associated images are really important.
Let me play devils advocate for a moment.....If your general shooting has nothing to do with long lens wildlife and you don't own a 400mm, 600mm the associated tele-converters and all the assorted gear (Wimberly etc.) how would your thinking change on what to bring on such a trip?
That is exactly the situation I was/am in as I prepare for a trip to Kenya in two weeks. My main system is Rm3di and wide angle lenses and will be in Kenya where shooting is done from roof hatches in the vehicle.
-
Let me play devils advocate for a moment.....If your general shooting has nothing to do with long lens wildlife and you don't own a 400mm, 600mm the associated tele-converters and all the assorted gear (Wimberly etc.) how would your thinking change on what to bring on such a trip?
That is exactly the situation I was/am in as I prepare for a trip to Kenya in two weeks. My main system is Rm3di and wide angle lenses and will be in Kenya where shooting is done from roof hatches in the vehicle.
Sure, there are many people who don't have the right equipment, that cannot be helped. You can consider borrowing or renting if those images are important. You can also purchase a second hand D7000 and a second hand 80-400 on ebay and sell them back after you return.
My reaction was against a conscious choice to leave heavy equipment at home in favor of lighter one. I am just saying that it only makes sense if the technical quality of the images you will be shooting is not that important for you.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Admittedly I enjoy reading Mark's articles. However on this one I would like to comment on the section "Tips and Suggestions to Improve Your Wildlife Images":
While that section aims to advise to improve ones photography, I believe one very important part is missing: it should have been mentioned and cautioned not to push beyond limits out of respect and care for the animals.
Staking an elephant for two hours sounds outmost questionable and especially when over two hours driving the bush in a a vehicle. Thus sounds as what period should NOT be made, it plain sounds wrong. Circulating in helicopter and making six turns over animals can get them stressed. As may be what we see in the second photo, not sure...
It may not have been as bad as I point out in above, but... again I believe this should have been an important tip of advise.
Thus:
A rule of thumb in wild life photography should be to at all times respect the animals.
Been to Africa two times and many more places, but the important is to capture relaxed and pleasing looking animals, not ones that one have stressed. If not, what is point of the travels? They are same as people that way, with respect and discretion and contact --- on their terms --- one get the best images.
Best regards
Anders
-
Let me play devils advocate for a moment.....If your general shooting has nothing to do with long lens wildlife and you don't own a 400mm, 600mm the associated tele-converters and all the assorted gear (Wimberly etc.) how would your thinking change on what to bring on such a trip?
That is exactly the situation I was/am in as I prepare for a trip to Kenya in two weeks. My main system is Rm3di and wide angle lenses and will be in Kenya where shooting is done from roof hatches in the vehicle.
For a once in a lifetime trip, I'd purchase the gear necessary to get the photos I want. The incremental cost of a new lens or even a new camera (within reason) is a lot less than the total cost of the trip. Plus you should find plenty of use for the new gear once you get home.
Les
-
Good and important point!
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
Admittedly I enjoy reading Mark's articles. However on this one I would like to comment on the section "Tips and Suggestions to Improve Your Wildlife Images":
While that section aims to advise to improve ones photography, I believe one very important part is missing: it should have been mentioned and cautioned not to push beyond limits out of respect and care for the animals.
Staking an elephant for two hours sounds outmost questionable and especially when over two hours driving the bush in a a vehicle. Thus sounds as what period should NOT be made, it plain sounds wrong. Circulating in helicopter and making six turns over animals can get them stressed. As may be what we see in the second photo, not sure...
It may not have been as bad as I point out in above, but... again I believe this should have been an important tip of advise.
Thus:
A rule of thumb in wild life photography should be to at all times respect the animals.
Been to Africa two times and many more places, but the important is to capture relaxed and pleasing looking animals, not ones that one have stressed. If not, what is point of the travels? They are same as people that way, with respect and discretion and contact --- on their terms --- one get the best images.
Best regards
Anders
-
Les,
Mark wrote an article before leaving on how difficult some of this gear is to find - but in any case I did a critical review of the shots that I am likely to print larger and they aren't closeup animal portraits but more landscapes with animals as a feature in the landscape. So, going out to buy a Nikon/Canon kit was not in the cards. I think that was also the gist of Mark's article.
Just 2xD7000 plus the 70-200mm and 200-400mm is over $11,000. Now add in additional lenses etc and it is a pretty hefty bill (which in my case after an IQ back upgrade seemed way over the top).
Yes, the gear can be sold after the trip so it would probably be a few thousand dollars of a hit (about the same as renting). In the end I decided to just enjoy the experience and not get too hung up on printing gigantic and will most likely do a few larger landscape prints and animal close up shots in a book for myself.
I still at the last minute could decide to take an Alpa TC with one lens and my back....but as of right now I'm not there.
-
In the article by Mark preceding this, he talked about how he found it difficult to obtain a pro-level 35mm DSLR that he thought would be suitable. In the second paragraph of "Chosen Tools" in this story, he then talks about how he comes close to loathing them. Which gives me pause to wonder, how serious should we take his former article about the difficulties in finding a 35mm camera? How much effort is anyone going to put into finding and buying something that they dislike? I'm not saying that it wasn't difficult but rather it is harder to accept it as an honest piece of writing (and his efforts) when paired with the comments from the Safari article.
There's another angle on this ... the comments are that the cameras have become "big" and "a chore." Is it that or has Mark aged and thus his perception of what he's willing to carry around also changed? (I've noticed comments from others along similar lines but they've always remarked that it's their aging that has changed what they decide to carry around with them - that's fine, understood, accepted and not something to argue about.) For example, a Canon 1V (no battery grip) is 940g, the 5D 895g and a 5D Mark2 is 840g. Exactly how are they getting "bigger and heavier"? If Mark is going to go out and make statements about how cameras are getting "bigger and heavier" then he needs to back that up with specific models and numbers because it would seem that some cameras are actually getting lighter, not heavier. Or at least I can easily present facts that disagree with Mark's seemingly subjective statements. It may be that he's drawing on his experience with other cameras - but I don't know because he's not mentioned what his reference points are. But it is also quite possible that his comments about "bigger and heavier" are just another facet of his dislike about DSLRs (i.e. he doesn't like them so throws up other unsubstantiated comments to back up his prior thoughts.) I found this commentary to be very distracting and almost caused me to not like the article in total. It doesn't help me understand what it was like using the cameras that he took and it doesn't help me understand his suggestions on safari photography. Although I may have just committed the very same sin...
The above aside, it was good to read about the working experience with the 100-300 on the GH2. Having read about the choice to use it from the prior article and Michael's comments on it, it was something that I was seriously considering however it would seem that there are some engineering refinements to make on Panasonic's behalf. There's some followup missing - did the replacement 180mm from Leica fix the problem? Is the problem Mark experienced a known problem with that lens?
There's one final comment - the digital sensor exposure problem. Ever since the expose to the right article by Michael, I've been wondering how do we get manufacturers "get it." By "get it" I mean, have the camera take pictures that are maximally exposed without blowing highlights and without having to set +2/3 or +1 or +2 or -1/3 exposure compensation.
-
In the article by Mark preceding this, he talked about how he found it difficult to obtain a pro-level 35mm DSLR that he thought would be suitable. In the second paragraph of "Chosen Tools" in this story, he then talks about how he comes close to loathing them. Which gives me pause to wonder, how serious should we take his former article about the difficulties in finding a 35mm camera? How much effort is anyone going to put into finding and buying something that they dislike? I'm not saying that it wasn't difficult but rather it is harder to accept it as an honest piece of writing (and his efforts) when paired with the comments from the Safari article.
There's one final comment - the digital sensor exposure problem. Ever since the expose to the right article by Michael, I've been wondering how do we get manufacturers "get it." By "get it" I mean, have the camera take pictures that are maximally exposed without blowing highlights and without having to set +2/3 or +1 or +2 or -1/3 exposure compensation.
I think there were a fair number of comments on the earlier article offering suggestions to Mark (I know I made one and was also critical of his dismissal of DSLRs outright). That's water under the bridge now that the trip is over. I think your final comment is a good one but remember a lot of shooters who buy most DSLRs are only in it for the JPGs in which case ETTR is a non issue for them. I think it would be difficult to automate ETTR since there is a lot of difference in various scenes (dark background to snow white) where each one would require a different adjustment. What I would really like is a better programmable bracketing choice for my D300. The Nikon supplied choices don't give quite the range if you are going to do HDR so you need to do this manually.
-
Of all the comments in this thread I find Anders' point to be the most appropriate. Having been to Africa on five extended trips totaling 11 months, I was appalled at the number of photographers who selfishly ruined the shots of others by having their drivers approach the subject closer and closer in their shortsighted effort to get the shot they wanted, often causing the animals to charge (Cape buffalo, Lion and Elephant) or flee. They blew my shots as well as the shots of others who came prepared with long lenses, dozens and dozens of times. Nothing is more infuriating than setting up with "proper equipment" out of respect for the wildlife and waiting what can be lengthy periods of time for the animals to calm down or approach closer... only to have some vehicle pull in front of you with someone shooting with a normal focal length lens, ruining your shot.
There is not only a "safe zone" that should be respected when photographing wildlife but a respectful zone beyond which you disturb the wellbeing of the animal. This is far more important than getting the shot. Keep in mind that there are often dozens of vehicles jockeying for position on safaris and the unspoken rule is to never compromise the shot of someone who was there before you. With normal lenses this means a shot filled with safari vehicles as well as your subject.
In short, nothing justifies violating the rules of etiquette for wildlife photography. Like Bernard suggested, use the right tool for the job. You will encounter once in a lifetime possibilities and will wish you had the proper equipment if you don't.
Thank you Anders for making this most important point!
-
I think your final comment is a good one but remember a lot of shooters who buy most DSLRs are only in it for the JPGs in which case ETTR is a non issue for them. I think it would be difficult to automate ETTR since there is a lot of difference in various scenes (dark background to snow white) where each one would require a different adjustment.
Why can't the camera meter the brighest part of the scene to be in the upper 1% of its palette (lets say 250-255 on any 8 bit colour channel) but also know what the correct exposure is for "70% grey", capture data to satisfy the "maximum exposure" rule and then apply the exposure compensation correction during the JPG render?
-
Interesting article; I think there's a serious point in the idea of going for more environmental shots of wild animals, rather than the typical "gotta get the whiskers and the highlight in the leopard's eye" photos.
As much as I enjoyed the article (and the shooting and procedure tips) I also agree with Sekoya that Mark's comparative equipment views aren't particularly useful. Most highly skilled, professional wildlife photographers use Nikon and Canon pro gear, and do quite well with it...wouldn't you say? If Mark simply doesn't like it, that's fine. But to suggest that it's anything other than excellent gear (and that he wasn't handicapped by not having it) is just not right.
On Bernard's comment, I think he's correct for those few people who print very large and very professionally, but most people -- even those who go on once-in-a-lifetime safaris -- may never actually print at all, but will look at their photos on video screens. Of those who do print, I would suspect a large majority never go beyond 13x19 or so, and really don't have plans to publish the photos commercially. If you fall into that category, Panasonic equipment makes great sense. And it even works for most publication (typical magazines, web use, etc.) I have a bunch of Panasonic equipment, purchased for its size, and for daytime street use, but I also have Nikon and Pentax gear. If I were going on Safari, I'd probably take a couple of D7000s for the combination of relatively light weight, high picture quality and good low-light response.
I certainly would not take a single Leica S2, not so much because of usability issues, as because on that kind of trip, where equipment does get banged around a bit, I'd want a back-up body and perhaps some backup lenses.
-
My reaction was against a conscious choice to leave heavy equipment at home in favor of lighter one. I am just saying that it only makes sense if the technical quality of the images you will be shooting is not that important for you.
If you actually shot with a GH2, you might be more than a little impressed with it's "technical quality." Seriously, not much (but yes, some) left on the table IQ-wise between it and the top end Nikon or Canons with big glass. Keep in mind, many of the little Panny G lenses are Image Stabilized and quite excellent optically...
-
If you actually shot with a GH2, you might be more than a little impressed with it's "technical quality." Seriously, not much (but yes, some) left on the table IQ-wise between it and the top end Nikon or Canons with big glass. Keep in mind, many of the little Panny G lenses are Image Stabilized and quite excellent optically...
Jack, I am aware of the qualities of the 4/3 cameras.
But my view is that there is a larger image quality gap between a D3x and a GH2 than there is between a IQ140 and a D3x for example.
Whether that is relevant depends entirely on the application.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Rather than argue the difference of an S2 vs. a 1Ds, it's an exercise in bringing gear not intended for the scene, and dealing with limitations over expectations. Certainly if I was afforded multiple trips to far off and exotic locals, I would take such risks for the sake of re-energizing what was becoming and all too familiar experience. It's nothing more than that. As for my first trip I would certainly invest in the heavy glass, and would gladly accept the inconvenience of weight and sore shoulders in exchange for something that my portfolio lacks. It's all part of the experience. My experience, not yours or someone elses. Likewise, if your folio is already full of shots at 400mm, then by all means, try something different. But you don't have to afford an S2 to do it. Just use a shorter lens, or even a vintage lens, and take a different approach.
Lastly, I agree with the last statement. Try to enjoy the visit. The real camera is the one between the ears.
-
If I would go again (which I hope and assume)... I know what gear I will bring! ;)
First time was in 2000 with a Canon AV-1 with 35-70 f/4 on a failing lens mount and Kodak negative film. I got some good and memorable shots. Kenya.
Second time was in 2003 with Nikon F100, 28-70 AF-S, 80-400 VR and Fuji Velvia 50. I got some good and memoarable shots. Zimbawe, Botswana.
Next time I would bring what gear I have and am familiar with!!!
Just upgraded to Hy6 with one lens; 80mm f/2.8 AFD PQ, Afi-II 12. I would bring just that. Perhaps add just one lens @ 150 or 180mm, and/or simply crop. The best equipment to use is the one we already command. New gear will not necessarily bring better images. Too much we else think in terms of gear and are being sold GEAR.
Albeit... looking back, I wish on my first trip I would have shot at least slides... albeit that trip was my wake up to photography. Kenya ;D
Regards
Anders
-
I came back from an 11 day camping safari in Botswana last month and I brought a 7D, 5D2 and 1DIV, as well as a GH-2.
For the long lens work I used a Sigma 50-500 OS EF mount and Canon 70-200 IS II. The GH-2 had the 14-140 and 100-300.
I barely used the the GH-2 because it tended to be infuriating how the operating system and menus would 'lock' you out of modes that it didn't think you could or should be on. This annoying tendency made it really hard to like the camera since I'd wind up shooting jpeg when I wanted RAW, or be in crop mode (teleconvertor mode) when I wanted 'full frame'.
Also, while the AF was quick, the blackout period during fast shooting meant that I'd rarely be able to get the shot like I could on the 7D or 1DIV. Then again, the Panasonic was 1/3 to 1/5 the the price of the systems it was up against. Also the single mode rolly wheel wasn't very convenient when you have 3 wheels and a joystick on the Canons.
I'd also say the GH-2's construction felt flimsy, plastic and downright cheap, compared to my dad's GH-1.
I wound up using the GH-2 much less than I thought I would (probably 1% of my shooting), but I've been trying to give it more opportunities, since I hope that I will 'grok' the way it works once I have enough shots under my belt. Whoever wrote the manual should be shot and hung, then revived so they could be drawn and quartered. I've only seen worse manuals from industrial equipment manuals from low quantity production specialized foreign machine shops.
Optically, the 100-300 lens isn't bad...as a lightweight combo it was a no brainer for me to carry a full GH-2 setup along since the whole combination weighed less than one of the heavy lenses.
-
TEB
Sounds like you did what I suggested. Figure out what photos you want, make sure you have the gear you need to take them, if not purchase gear necessary. As I read Mark's article, that's pretty much what he did.
Hope you have a great time.
Les
-
TEB
Sounds like you did what I suggested. Figure out what photos you want, make sure you have the gear you need to take them, if not purchase gear necessary. As I read Mark's article, that's pretty much what he did.
Hope you have a great time.
Les
I just got back and was happy with my choice of using m4/3. Will I have the same results with the birds that my friend will have with a 1DIV, 800mm plus tele converter. No way but that wasn't my primary concern. Shooting at long focal lengths not always in great light had me taking way more shots than normal (to make sure I got a sharp good shot). I used the 100-300 on 90% my shots.
I've started posting the results here:
http://www.terrybanet.com/?page_id=12