We use telephoto lenses for landscape photography quite often to make composition easier and cleaner. I would use 600mm not just for wildlife photography.
Absolutely and a great point to make. I tried to just focus on wildlife in this video but would be good to have a similar video exploring how longer focal lengths can be useful in landscapes and challenging our preconceptions about that area too. Thanks for the comment!
Great video. I just got a Tamron 100-400mm F4.5 to 6.3 VR for my Nikon cameras. As I have both DX and FX (crop and FF). What are the pros and cons of using either format with the 100-400mm. I know on crop aps-c camera the 100-400mm acts like a 150-600mm but will the digital noise be more of a problem at times in low light of early morning or late afternoon. I guess it might depend on how high I raise ISO, which I will have to do in lower light. This lens was half the cost of variable telephotos that go up to 600mm. Any comments of sensor size, which you prefer and why?
Thank you for the comment and for the kind words. I actually have a video discussing that topic here m.th-cam.com/video/K3XNBRlsbx4/w-d-xo.html Both have there merits for sure, I shoot a lot of low light both wildlife and weddings and appreciate the flexibility full frame gives me there. But I started on apsc as it was a great way to get into wildlife for the extra reach but also I think having the limitation of not being able to push my iso as hard made me get creative with how I could reduce camera shake in low light too. If I had to pick one it would be full frame for me but hopefully the video will show you more details and let me know if you have any other queries.
My kid and I both have inexpensive MFT setups, they have Olympus I have Panasonic. I have a 100-300, they have a 100-400, and honestly that extra 200mm full frame equivalent zoom feels like they can get so much closer from farther away. Particularly for birding. So I am trying to focus on improving my shots with my lens.
Crop factor is also a really good thing to consider when thinking about focal length especially cost as you say. Thank you for the comment I might have to do a video on that in future. Hope you and your kid are enjoying your photography journey
if you want a pic of lions face, yes but wildlofe photography doea not limit to this. A landscape where lions are hunting antelopes could be more interesting, and could be done with smaller focal length
@@EmilioLopez-il4biThere’s also a whole small-in-frame movement where people take small animals like song birds, shoot at 200mm or 300mm, and show a lot of the environment. Scott Keys is great at this.
I was trying to photograph some stonechats at the weekend with 600mm reach. I couldn't get any closer. I was really close tbh and crouching behind some fern but they still looked small on the screen They just about came out with a crop but normally i like 800mm or using a 2x on my Olympus lens. It's doable but really tough with small birds.
Such beautiful birds aren’t they but yes really small so does push the camera to its limit as you say. I think this is a case where looking to incorporate some of the environment into the photo might be a good idea as long as it compliments the subject well.
Haha. Would be interested to see someone make a camera trap with a fisheye so you could do it at a distance. Thanks for the comment too. What lens you shooting 800mm on?
Tough question as there’s alot to consider there making a straight answer to that tricky. Understanding the effect of focal length is one step in the process. Sensor size is another you’ll want to look at and what that does. I’ll try and make a video on sensor size soon. Weight will be different on both when you factor in the size of the lenses too. Budget and what you want to use the camera for are also going to be big factors. I know that’s not a straight answer but hopefully gives you a starting point to working out the answer.
@@alemilito2274 from the images I've seen over the years from the RX10 and recently with the 6700 with 70-350 combination I would say the 6700. It's surprising good from what I've seen.
Considering they were a bit slow with their first couple of mirrorless cameras, Nikon have really been smashing it out the park recently haven’t they. Especially the variety of wildlife lenses they have
Think it depends on where your wildlife is. Most of my wildlife is in urban parks. The 70-300mm is lens of choice for me.
Definitely going to be another important factor. Thanks for taking the time to comment
We use telephoto lenses for landscape photography quite often to make composition easier and cleaner. I would use 600mm not just for wildlife photography.
Absolutely and a great point to make. I tried to just focus on wildlife in this video but would be good to have a similar video exploring how longer focal lengths can be useful in landscapes and challenging our preconceptions about that area too. Thanks for the comment!
Great video. I just got a Tamron 100-400mm F4.5 to 6.3 VR for my Nikon cameras. As I have both DX and FX (crop and FF). What are the pros and cons of using either format with the 100-400mm. I know on crop aps-c camera the 100-400mm acts like a 150-600mm but will the digital noise be more of a problem at times in low light of early morning or late afternoon. I guess it might depend on how high I raise ISO, which I will have to do in lower light. This lens was half the cost of variable telephotos that go up to 600mm. Any comments of sensor size, which you prefer and why?
Thank you for the comment and for the kind words. I actually have a video discussing that topic here m.th-cam.com/video/K3XNBRlsbx4/w-d-xo.html
Both have there merits for sure, I shoot a lot of low light both wildlife and weddings and appreciate the flexibility full frame gives me there. But I started on apsc as it was a great way to get into wildlife for the extra reach but also I think having the limitation of not being able to push my iso as hard made me get creative with how I could reduce camera shake in low light too. If I had to pick one it would be full frame for me but hopefully the video will show you more details and let me know if you have any other queries.
My kid and I both have inexpensive MFT setups, they have Olympus I have Panasonic. I have a 100-300, they have a 100-400, and honestly that extra 200mm full frame equivalent zoom feels like they can get so much closer from farther away. Particularly for birding. So I am trying to focus on improving my shots with my lens.
Crop factor is also a really good thing to consider when thinking about focal length especially cost as you say. Thank you for the comment I might have to do a video on that in future. Hope you and your kid are enjoying your photography journey
Yes you do
Short answer is: Yes, unless you want to photograph only bugs or really big animals.
if you want a pic of lions face, yes but wildlofe photography doea not limit to this. A landscape where lions are hunting antelopes could be more interesting, and could be done with smaller focal length
@@EmilioLopez-il4biThere’s also a whole small-in-frame movement where people take small animals like song birds, shoot at 200mm or 300mm, and show a lot of the environment. Scott Keys is great at this.
@@EmilioLopez-il4bi all big animals were I live are nocturnal and rare so it is pretty pointless
I was trying to photograph some stonechats at the weekend with 600mm reach.
I couldn't get any closer. I was really close tbh and crouching behind some fern but they still looked small on the screen They just about came out with a crop but normally i like 800mm or using a 2x on my Olympus lens.
It's doable but really tough with small birds.
Such beautiful birds aren’t they but yes really small so does push the camera to its limit as you say. I think this is a case where looking to incorporate some of the environment into the photo might be a good idea as long as it compliments the subject well.
Fisheye is best, so you can really go close to the wildlife and ruin their peace 💪 800mm is actually my preferred.
Haha. Would be interested to see someone make a camera trap with a fisheye so you could do it at a distance. Thanks for the comment too. What lens you shooting 800mm on?
@@WildlifewithRich 200-800mm 😊 I don't recommend fisheye when big animals crosses over your hide 😅 especially not when it's males 🤣
Great video AGAIN! Cheers Richard!
Cheers dude!
actually you need 2 range, 500mm + 1000mm range. 600mm is just a compromise.
Hi! Better Sony RX 10 mark iv or Sony A6700 + lens Sony 70/350?
Tough question as there’s alot to consider there making a straight answer to that tricky. Understanding the effect of focal length is one step in the process. Sensor size is another you’ll want to look at and what that does. I’ll try and make a video on sensor size soon. Weight will be different on both when you factor in the size of the lenses too. Budget and what you want to use the camera for are also going to be big factors. I know that’s not a straight answer but hopefully gives you a starting point to working out the answer.
@@alemilito2274 from the images I've seen over the years from the RX10 and recently with the 6700 with 70-350 combination I would say the 6700.
It's surprising good from what I've seen.
Thanks you! I think that for travel life RX 10 iv is better because no need change lenses and it s very complete and versatile :)
Think it depends on where your wildlife is
I live and do Wild Life photographer in Africa and on my Z8 I have a 180-600 and its on 600mm most of the time
The z8 looks phenomenal especially value wise! Definitely jealous of your setup and location Africa is still on my to do list.
I too have the Z8 with the 180-600mm. Arguably the best combo available.
Considering they were a bit slow with their first couple of mirrorless cameras, Nikon have really been smashing it out the park recently haven’t they. Especially the variety of wildlife lenses they have