Wildlife Photography: Handheld vs Tripod & Tripod setup

[Paul_Mc]

Subject: Wildlife Photography: Tripod vs Handheld and which Tripod Setup?

Howdy! 8^)>
First I'd like to ask of those that shoot wildlife and nature (macro, birding, waterfalls, moutain ranges, etc.) what's the percetange of time you shoot handheld vs tripod for those wildlife moments? You know, those candid and chance encounters in the wild. I don't mean at the zoo either. Do you always take tripod with you and use it all the time? Or do you keep tripod at home all the time and always handheld?

Second, when using a tripod, please - which tripod do you own and what type of head?

I plan to get the gitzo 2220 explorer since it can get real low, and the markins m-10 ballhead. But is this ballhead good for birding? And if I get the Bigma, 100-400 or 400 5.6 will the ballhead handle this lense well?

My gear needs to be versatile for all sorts of occasions, whether getting low at a pond photographing a frog or setting up to take shots of birds.

My main goal is wildlife with other nature shots (waterfalls, mountain ranges, sunsets) a far second.

I am interesting in photographing everything from insect macros to birds on a big lense (which i havent decided will be the Bigma, 100- 400 or 400 5.6) I know with bugs you sometimes dont have time to setup a tripod.

But then there are times when you can use a tripod - for instance, setting up at a flower waiting for a butterfly to land.

If you can also offer any advice and experience plus galleries or samples of your gear I sure would appreciate it.

THANKS! - Paul

[jimtfoto]

We do a lot of bird pix, but have yet to use our tripod for this purpose. So the tripod (it's a SLIK pro model, but can't recall the exact number) and our two monopods (Manfrotto, again can't recall the number) and a window-mount are rarely used. Find that with birding handheld is best (we're using a Bigma and a Canon 100-400) since you usually have to track the bird quickly and the tripod puts limitations. It would be OK to use for other landscape-style shots e.g. mountains which don't move, and waterfalls which do, but you want a slow shutter speed to blur water movement. Anyway these are just my observations over the past summer's birding. The tripod and monopods are kept in the car ... just in case.
cheers,
jim

[Lamium]

Take a monopod with you and you will have the best of both worlds, I use the Gitzo Monotrek

[ohenry]

I probably do 75% or more of my shots of nature and wildlife on a tripod. I use a Gitzo 1325 with either an Acratech Ultimate Ballhead and RRS plates or a Mongoose M262 Gimbal head. The Mongoose is a dream to use and balances both my Canon 400mm f/5.6L and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lenses perfectly. If I could solve the balance issue with shorter lenses, I would use the Mongoose all the time.

[LazyPhotographer]

I use the 100-400L IS and never use a tripod. I own 3 of them, but rarely use them... 2 of them are in the truck just in case though. Sometimes I use the window pod or will lean against the truck. However, every time I use the 100mm macro - I keep thinking things could be more successful if I did use a tripod. (PS: I shoot birds mostly)

[IanD]

Tripod? Oh yeah, that thing that keeps on sliding around in its case in the back of the truck. I've got 2 of them, one lives in the front hall closet and the second one in back of the truck. I rarely use them and prefer to carry a mono pod if I know I'll be shooting long and slow. The majority of my shooting is done with a 100-400 IS and I can get good results down to 1/60th of a sec.
Main tripod is a Manfrotto 055AB with a 488RC2 ball head.

[Scottes]

I shoot mainly birds and generally prefer free-hand, but will use a monopod often enough and occasionally I'll drag out the tripod. The monopod is somewhat limiting and the tripod very limiting, but both have their benefits of course. Of course they both add to stability and thus to sharper shots - when the situation allows.

Considering the macro you wish to do the G-2220 is ideal, I think. It's the one that I wish I owned. (I own the Manfrotto 3021 Pro.) For a ballhead I like adjustable tension since it's pseudo-gimbal (but not nearly as smooth). The Manfrotto ballhead (490-RC4) that I got is huge (2.5 lb), probably too big for the 2220's arm when extended. Getting a small ballhead with adjustable tension would be very nice, but big bucks from Kirk or RRS or similar. Almost any ballhead will handle those small lenses you've got listed.

For a one-lens solution to what you wish to do I'd very strongly recommend the 100-400. It's IS will be indispensable for the small stuff, as is the close-focusing. The 400 prime has too much of a minimum focus distance. But I really don't know about the Bigma.

I did a review comparing the Canon 100-400 vs the 400 Prime (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43436) that you might find informative.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It depends on the lens.. for me anyway, and may for you as well.

I have a large prime that REQUIRES a tripod..

Any other lens I prefer to use a monopod most of the time.

With the 100-400mm IS you certianly can go all hand held... it is both lightweight,. and it has the IS to help.

If you get the Bigma.. that lens really BEGS for a monopod at least.

[robertwgross]

This past summer I have spent a lot of time photographing medium size waterfowl (mallards and smaller). However, due to the distances, I have had to use my 100-400mm lens with two 1.4 teleconverters. Obviously, I would not even think about shooting that combination without a tripod.

So, I cover a few miles each time with the tripod erected, lens mounted on it, and the camera body hanging over my shoulder. That way, I can set up and shoot within a few seconds upon finding the subject (which is about as long as the subject gives me before turning tail).

---Bob Gross---

[PhotosGuy]

I used to work like robertwgross, with small modifications. I had a quick release for the cam if I didn't want it to hang from the tripod.
Tripod was a Tiltall, which I dont think you can buy anymore. I could keep the head snug & use it as a monopod with the legs together, or set the legs & keep the head loose for faster aiming. Or, lock it down for shots where I had more time. It worked pretty well for me, & I didn't have to choose between a tri- or monopod.

[Lioness]

bob-this is the first I've heard fo someone using 2 1.4 tc. I didn't realize it could be done (okay I'm a beginner :) ) Does that affect clarity or anything else? I've thought about using a 1.4x for my 75-300mm is usm. (I'm saving up for a 100-400 L) What do you think?

[Hellashot]

bob-this is the first I've heard fo someone using 2 1.4 tc. I didn't realize it could be done (okay I'm a beginner :) ) Does that affect clarity or anything else? I've thought about using a 1.4x for my 75-300mm is usm. (I'm saving up for a 100-400 L) What do you think?

Great, another user looking back in time dragging up a 5 month old post.

[Lioness]

If it's revelant to what I want to know-why does it matter how old the original post is?

[Scottes]

If it's relevant - which it is - it doesn't matter how old the post is. Lioness's question is certainly a lot more relevant that Hellashot's inane comment.


Lioness - yes it will affect the image quality. If you use 2 Canon 1.4s you'll need an extension tube between them because of the little protrusion. I believe that Bob uses a Sigma and a Canon so the tube isn't needed. The Canon 1.4 will not fit your 75-300, so you'd have to go with another brand like a Sigma. I would worry about the quality of the 75-300 plus a 1.4TC - that lens alone is considered to be fairly soft. But if it gets you the shot then it could be worth it to you. Using 2 TCs with that lens will most likely produce a very soft, almost unusable image.

I'd wait for the 100-400 if you can. It will be far superior to the 75-300 with a 1.4TC.

[Lioness]

scottes-thanks for the comments. I think I will wait for the 100-400. Do you think a lens hood is needed for the 75-300?

[Scottes]

A lens hood is definitely recommended for both light-blocking and protection of the front element.

If you should happen to drop the lens the hood may take the impact rather than the front element. It could save your lens, and I've heard a few stories of a hood doing so.

A hood is highly recommended to block light when you're shooting towards the sun. The hood will reduce the likelihood of flares appearing in your pictures. Without the hood you can get flares any time the sun is in front of your lens - even at an 85-degree angle. A hood can stop flares unless the sun is within the field of view. It can also help add contrast by reducing the amount of side-light falling across the lens.

So a hood is recommended unless you plan on never dropping the lens and you always shoot with the sun behind you. Good luck on both, I'd say. :-)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Definately a good idea to find the old post with relevent information rather than a post a new thread,. in fact it is proper forum etiquette :)

.....from the forum users bible;
"It is allways better to post in an existing thread
than to start a new one!"
:lol:

I still see this as a "lens dependant" application. When I have a lightweight IS lens I may shoot handheld,.. otherwise it is either monopod or tripod for sure.

Wildlife on a tripod though,. for me,. means a gimble mount head,.. otherwise by gaining the tripod's stability advantage,. you give up too much "pointability". The gimble mount head offers the best of both worlds :)


HOODS:

When outdoors ,. I feel they are an absolute must!
The effect that they have on image quality can be dramatic in certain adverse lightig situations.. particularly outside in the sun.

And as Scotts mentioned,. the extra level of protection they offer is important. My large Prime lenses are too big for a screw on UV filter,. so the only line of defense agaist a tree branch dragging across the front element is a Hood.

[robertwgross]

Yes, I shoot most of my good stuff with the 100-400 lens with zero, one, or two 1.4 teleconverters (of which one is Canon). Note that you don't get autofocus past a certain point, depending on the body. Most of the time, the lens sits on a tripod that is lightweight enough that I can carry it around for miles and miles a day. More importantly, the tripod can be erected in a hurry, which is very important for a wildlife shot. In fact, if I am walking around with this thrown over my shoulder, and with the camera switch off, I can spot my subject, switch the switch on, set the tripod, focus and shoot just about a second or two after the camera is ready.

The prevailing wisdom with 1.4x teleconverters is that if you have a very sharp lens to begin with, and if you put a sharp 1.4x teleconverter on it, you can still get sharp results. However, if you begin with some mushy lens and put any 1.4x teleconverter on it, you have mush for results. Don't get me wrong. In some cases, mush is better than nothing at all. Maybe not.

---Bob Gross---

[robertwgross]

HOODS:
When outdoors ,. I feel they are an absolute must!


Agreed. Either to protect against flare or tree branches.

---Bob Gross---

[Lioness]

I really think I want the 100-400. Since you have experience with the lens- would you suggest that? I want something with more zoom than I currently have and enjoy taking outdoor/nature pictures. I don't do a lot of birds or anything super small. I prefer the zoom lenses to the prime lenses. I like the variability I have with them. i had also considered the 70-200 L but I'm really thinking I would like the 100-400 more.

I looked up the lens hood I need and will go and pick one up tomorrow.

Can you give me more information on what the gimble head is?

as an extra side note- how significant are the uv filters you use? are there significant differences between them?

[gary_hendricks]

1) I like to shoot birds. Most of the time, I'd use handheld as I don't have the time to setup a tripod. What I try to do is lean against some object, like a tree, to get some form of stabilization.

2) My tripod is always in my car. For daily use, I prefer the Vanguard Tourist-2 compact travel tripod. It's served me well on most shooting occasions. For more in-depth work, I use a Manfrotto.

Hope this helps.

[Scottes]

I've said many times: If I only had one lens, it would be the 100-400 L. I love this lens for it's versatility - everything from butterflies and up. The IS is very nice to have, the close-focus abilities are awesome.

It's not perfect - many say that it's not that sharp. I'll disagree with that - it's more than sharp enough - but sharper lenses do exist. It's not so great autofocusing in low-light. It is not very good for birds in flight.

But I love it.

Considering that you have a 75-300mm are you just looking for some extra reach? Have you thought about the Canon 400mm L? It's about $300 cheaper than the 100-400, not as versatile, no IS, but much faster to AF and better in low-light and birds in flight. Some might say it's sharper than the 100-400 but I haven't noticed a difference.

This review may give you a little more info about both lenses, and what each is good for: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43436

[thomascanty]

I have three tripods and a monopod in the car with me at all times, but rarely use the tripods for wildlife, and the monopod only occasionally. The tripods are really only used when I want to take long exposure shots or digital infrared.

Oops. I didn't realize this was an old thread...

[Lioness]

I love my 75-300 but would like more reach-I think the IS has been fantastic too. I have looked at the 400 L but I really like the zoom over the prime. I know a lot of people really like the prime lenses, but I enjoy having the range without changing lenses. I think I would get more use out of the 100-400 over the 400. Most of my shooting with it will be outside during the day- so light won't be an issue most of the time, will it? I probably won't be doing much bird-in-flight shooting at this point.

I've also considered a lens to make up for my "missing range" on the lower end. For this I've considered the 28-135 IS. Any thoughts there?

[Big_B]

I mainly shoot landscape. Although I own a tripod, I rarely use it - I prefer the freedom of shooting handheld. That said, I do find that using a tripod tends to increase my composition disipline and so improve my photos. That is, I tend to spend more time thinking about the composition and so take better shots as a result. Perhaps I should use my tripod more often! :rolleyes: :D