Like anything, wildlife photography is full of misconceptions. New photographers see rules and guidelines from the experts, and believe they have to follow every last one or they won’t be a good photographer. Here are a few common beliefs that just aren’t true.
More megapixels is better
For certain professionals this is true, but today’s standard of 20 to 30 megapixels in a camera is more than enough for most people. Even 12 to 18 megapixels is sufficient if you aren’t making large prints.
With just a couple megapixels, you can make great 13×19″ prints and even 20×30″ with sharp images. Images uploaded to Facebook are less than 3MP.
A billboard is a HUGE print, but because of the viewing distance you don’t need more megapixels than you would for a smaller print. Keep in mind the larger your print is, the farther away you are expected to view it. As you get farther away, you need less pixels to perceive sharpness and detail. Art in galleries is viewed much closer than billboard distance, so more detail and resolution is better, even though the physical size is smaller.
If you are printing extremely high quality large images (40×60″+) meant to be viewed up close, then more megapixels will definitely help. The Canon 5Ds, Nikon D850, and Sony a7r III are great for this. You’ll also need the highest quality lenses capable of resolving a similar amount of detail at that resolution.
Fitting more megapixels into the same size sensor means each pixel is physically smaller. In general, this means lesser quality as far as noise and dynamic range. The Sony a7S II is incredible in low light because it is a full frame sensor with only 12.2MP. Each pixel is much larger than you’ll find in their 42MP models. Keep that in mind when camera shopping. Do you want a camera best suited for large prints and high resolution, or something better in low light using high ISO?
High ISO is bad
ISO 6400 – f/8 – 1/125th
This elk image was taken after sunset (9PM), and even at f/8 I was at ISO 6400. Looking at all my images from the past few years, I’ve only need to go above ISO 6400 a handful of times. You’re well after sunset at that point, to where you can barely see things yourself.
The only time you need to worry about the amount of noise in your image is when it becomes so distracting that it competes with the content of your image. Some photographers will have you believe the smallest amount of noise makes an image unusable. That’s the farthest thing from the truth! Nobody cares what ISO you shot an image at. If the content is strong, the camera settings become irrelevant.
However, if you’re entering a contest and the judges have to pick between two equally great images, they’ll pick the one with less noise if it’s becomes the determining factor. If you submit a noisy image to a high-end contest, you won’t win. Just one of many reasons I don’t enter them myself…
If you are shooting at a high ISO, the key to minimizing noise is to open your aperture wider or slow down your shutter speed. Either one gets more light on your sensor, which helps cover up noise at that ISO. Sometimes that means risking a blurred subject with slower shutter speeds, so you need to take multiple shots at various shutter speeds if you can. The elk was not moving and the camera was resting on the window, so I could freeze motion with 1/125th of a second.
Sharpness is everything
Instead of judging your image on how tack sharp it is, try just deciding if it’s sharp or not. A simple yes or no, not a never ending quest for more sharpness.
It’s not necessarily the amount of sharpness that’s important, it’s the relative sharpness compared to the rest of the image. The contrast between a blurry background and detailed subject is what draws the viewer to the subject, even if the subject isn’t tack sharp.
Atmospheric conditions and distance often limit the sharpness you can achieve. Unless it’s blurred to the point where it’s distracting and looks like a mistake, don’t throw away the image.
This shot from yesterday is a good example. Because of the distance combined with falling snow, it was impossible to get a super sharp image. It may not be as sharp as other images I’ve taken, but it’s not unsharp. It’s up to you to judge where the line of sharp/unsharp is, but it doesn’t need to be between “tack sharp” and “slightly unsharp.”
Keep in mind this was taken at 800mm, nearly 300 yards away, and cropped 1.6x in camera. The distance alone is really detrimental to getting the sharpest image possible.
You have to use a tripod
For the past two years, my main lens has been the 400mm f/2.8L IS, usually combined with a 2x extender and 5D Mark IV. This combo weighs close to 15 pounds, but I very rarely use a tripod. How do I get sharp images handholding such a heavy lens?
- I use a shutter speed fast enough to freeze any movement
- Image stabilization works wonders for handholding.
With image stabilization turned on, you can handhold at shutter speeds much slower than you think. The typical rule is to use a shutter speed that is equal to 1 over the focal length of your lens (800mm = 1/800th), but modern image stabilization allows you to use a speed of 3-4 stops slower than that. You can easily shoot at 800mm with 1/200th of a second, and even 1/100th or slower with practice.
ISO 6400 – f/2.8 – 1/50th (handheld)
If you look at most of my images at 800mm, the shutter speed is 1/400th. This is enough speed to freeze most wildlife action and freeze any camera movement.
When do you really need a tripod?
- Long exposures
- Standing in one place for a long time
A longer lens is better for wildlife photography
Longer lenses are meant for filling the frame at a short to medium subject distance, not for photographing subjects from super far away. They certainly can help with that, but then you’re dealing with unfavorable atmospheric conditions because of the amount of air between the camera and the subject.
The superzoom 150-600mm lenses are a popular choice among beginner to intermediate photographers trying to get to 600mm. Why pick this one over the brand name like a Canon 100-400mm? Price is probably the main reason for a lot of people, but just because it’s a longer focal length doesn’t make it the better lens. Even though the 600mm is longer, the 400mm is much sharper and will yield better image quality. Even the 400mm with a 1.4x extender will yield better quality than the 600mm. The Canon 400mm f/5.6 prime is even sharper, and great for bird in flight photography.
Shooting in manual mode means you’re a better photographer
I prefer shooting in manual mode, and that’s what I teach, but the same exposure can be had in any of the modes if you know how they work. A proper exposure all that matters, I just find manual mode the fastest and simplest way to get there.
A common technique among professionals is setting aperture and shutter speed themselves, then using ISO on auto. You can then use exposure compensation to adjust brighter or darker if you need to.
Even fully automatic settings can get you good results most of the time, but the camera doesn’t always know how bright or dark you want to expose. It also doesn’t know how fast your subject is, and which shutter speed you need to freeze action. High and low key scenes require exposure compensation or manual settings, since the camera always strives for an average “middle” ground exposure.
If you’re familiar with film, you may understand ISO (ASA) is usually the set value, and you’re only adjusting shutter speed and aperture to get a good exposure. In digital, I like to set aperture and shutter speed to fit the subject and visual goal, then adjust ISO to fit the brightness of the scene and get a good exposure. Even in full manual settings, you’re only adjusting one setting (ISO). That’s just as quick and easy as adjusting exposure compensation in one of the other automatic or semi-automatic modes.
Unedited or “straight out of camera” images are better
If you don’t like editing, you can simplify your workflow to avoid most processing or editing of your images. Basic settings can be adjusted to produce a nice JPG straight from the camera that can be uploaded quickly and easily. Does less editing make you a better photographer? Absolutely not.
Some people love photography more, others love editing more. Everybody will have their own balance between the two. Although I shoot only in RAW, I rarely spend more than 3-5 minutes processing an image. I have my own presets that I apply to most images that cuts a lot of time. I no longer do much with brushes, retouching, or anything that takes significantly more time.
Some photographers will teach you that what comes out of the camera is closest to real life, and therefore better. This is just not true. You’re taking a digital image of something, and it’s run through your camera and software’s own processing before you even start editing. Editing helps get back to a more natural appearance, or add your own style.
Photography is an art, and images can be edited as much or as little as you see fit. Editing doesn’t take away from the “art” of photography. Do you think Ansel Adams shared un-manipulated images right from the camera?
You can’t shoot in “bad” light
What one photographer might consider bad light is totally different from the next guy. I personally love shooting in the stormiest of weather, as dark and cloudy as possible. The light is nice and even, plus colors and detail really pop in the rain. Heavy snow makes for wonderful images with a great atmosphere and story built in.
Is there a such thing as harsh light? Of course. Shooting in the middle of a sunny day leads to dark shadows and bright highlights. You can still adjust your shooting to avoid that. Shaded light during the day is still great. Closeup images focus on one area, minimizing the large contrasts.
You should shoot as many images as possible to ensure you get a few good ones
Absolutely not true. Maybe for the fastest birds in flight you can utilize 10 frames per second for a second or two, but for a bison standing still in Yellowstone? You can waste a lot of time with how many images you’ll have to sift through later.
Slow yourself down, and focus on each individual shot. You’ll still get plenty of keeper images and you’ll have fewer images to look through with higher quality. Practice taking images at the precise moment of action instead of relying on the camera.
[text-blocks id=”4129″ plain=”1″]
Thanks, I learned alot. I am buying a camera so it was particularly helpful.
Interesting article, with many wise words.
We all want photos that we can show to friends, or post on a
Facebook Page and hope people say “WOW, what a great
picture “. In reality the only person you need to please is
yourself. I don’t buy magazines as I dislike most of the
photos they print. I don’t like pictures of water taken with an
ND filter, or those with a green sky and red grass, to me they look silly.
Thoroughly enjoyed this blog. Clears up many things for me. Sometimes I happy with my Canon SX30 IS, then other times I am so confused with it, that I want to sell it/toss it. My husband says I spend too much time fiddling with settings than getting on with our hike. Most of the time I get frustrated and turn it back to auto. This blog has helped me realize a few things I have been doing/not doing. I have your eBook but have not spent enough time reading/studying it. Thanks for all you do to help us be a good photographer and happy with our photos.
My boyfriend is always teasing me about taking so many photos. I’m learning settings also. I’m getting pretty good with manual for birds and the wild horses. Some days I just can’t cope with too much cloud cover or too much sun. I try not to use auto but had great results using landscape or sport mode. When looking at my photos on the computer I go over them thoroughly in tight zooms because I sometimes find things I didn’t realize I captured! Good luck.
I used Landscape a lot when traveling and what to get a quick photo of a beautiful sunrise/sunset, or scenery. I tried Sports with birds and I am pathetic with shooting moving birds. If they are sitting nicely like bluebirds or cardinals then I can take my time using Manual.
I shoot a D810 with a 400mm, 2.8, an older model without image stabilization, and was wondering what your thoughts are on using a 2x TC.? Is there too much degradation? I always use a tripod, shoot manually, and use a cable release.
I so agree with you on shooting too many frames of the same thing. I was shooting grizzlies in Hayden catching ground squirrels, and there was a bright sun making everything real contrasty, and I was getting horrible heat waves ruining my shots, but I kept shooting and wasted the entire morning. Will be in Yellowstone for five weeks starting around the middle of May, and hopefully will not make the same mistake.
Great perspective on “the rules”! Thank you.
Thanks Trent, another excellent article!
great article. Can’t wait until May 20-24 in Yellowstone
Thanks Bruce. See you soon!
The fox you suggest your using a 2x converter but yet you say it was f2.8? Can’t be both which is wrong
No teleconverter for the fox photo. I just added the camera and lens info.
As always, wonderful advice that provides encouraging information.
Thank you Debra!
Nice Article!
Thank you!
Excellent article! My trusty Canon SX50 (it’s old, but so am I) has gotten me many Judge’s Choice awards over the years. It’s versatile, light weight, and can be set to manual – if you don’t mind wading through menus.
Thank you! My first published photo was in an outdoor magazine well known for it’s great photography. I took the photo with a pink point and shoot Sony haha!
I love it. Makes me think about how I shoot. I do a lot of sports photography (Cross country and Track) but love the chance to do wildlife. I want to go to Yellowstone for wildlife and Colorado for pure nature.
Thanks James!
Great post!
Thanks Loi!
I gave up the extra 100 mm of the Sigma 150-500 zoom for the Canon 100-400 mm zoom. The difference in clarity and detail is amazing! I’m shooting the same Bald Eagles at the same distance and getting much better photos! I’ve learned a lot about manual and how to use it but on some days I just use the more preset modes. Sport and Landscape are two of my favorites. I edit as little as possible.
Glad you found it to be true! Have you tried the teleconverter with the 100-400mm?
My boyfriend is always teasing me about taking so many photos. I’m learning settings also. I’m getting pretty good with manual for birds and the wild horses. Some days I just can’t cope with too much cloud cover or too much sun. I try not to use auto but had great results using landscape or sport mode. When looking at my photos on the computer I go over them thoroughly in tight zooms because I sometimes find things I didn’t realize I captured! Good luck.
No I haven’t, Trent. How much of a difference does it make? Does it improve on the long distance shots?
It will help a little if you can’t get physically closer.
Thanks, Trent. I will keep a teleconverter in mind…
Thank you!! With each blog post I’m getting more excited about the Yellowstone workshop in May! I’ve slowly come to a few of these thoughts on my own, and it’s nice to have validation.
Thanks Katy! See you soon!
Great information I’m really looking forward to learning more in the upcoming workshop.
Thanks Gerald!
Great perspective for all genres of photography, not only wildlife. You could legitimately boil it all down to one statement: ” If the content is strong, the camera settings become irrelevant.”
That’s very true. Nobody cares what ISO or aperture was used for photo that truly moves them.
As always, great information and encouragement. Makes me want to get out more!
Thanks Ralph!
Thanks Trent. Great article and yes, I have heard many of those thoughts before. I feel better about some things now. I cany wait to work with you next month in Yellowstone.
Thanks Dennis, see you next month!
Nice write-up and breaks a lots of the myths out there.
Thanks Jeffrey!