# Pictures of Wildlife with EOS Rebel



## cougar (May 8, 2016)

I just bought my first DSLR - a Canon SL1 which came with the kit 18-55mm lens.

I am considering buying the 55-250mm IS STM lens to be able to capture wildlife from some distance but I'm not too sure what to expect.

Today I took a picture of a black bear from about 30-50m  with my lens set to 55mm.
This is what came out in JPG format (72 pixels / inch)





And this is what the cropped image looks like at 72 pixels / inch when the width is 40 cm.





Should I expect better results with my current lens at this range and what should be the settings to achieve them?

My camera is set to use the 9 point focusing and I believe I had it set at "portrait" for this shot.

Still the bear seems slightly out of focus, the eyes are not visible and his fur is just a blur.

Would I be able to get the same results with a 55-250mm lens if I am 200m away?
I guess a 55-250mm lens and a steady hand would have given me a perfect shot in this case.


----------



## Overread (May 8, 2016)

A few thoughts:

1) Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson - get a copy and read it. It will teach you about the aperture, shutter speed and ISO; their relation to each other and how to use each combined to get an exposure. It will let you use modes like full manual or aperture priority for better camera control. 
In general you want to get away from the "portrait; landscape; macro" modes on the dial. They are "ok" but they are basically just auto mode with a little weighting toward certain settings. However they are generally not ideal as the camera has no idea what you're pointing it at nor how you want it exposed.

2) For handholding 1/focal length is the recommended slowest shutter speed for a steady handheld shot. This assumes good posture whilst shooting and also assumes  a standard person - different people might need faster and sometimes you can get away with slower.
Furthermore super short and super long focal lengths change it; a vry short focal length you can often handhold fare slower than the theory suggests;  whilst once you're past around 200mm you will often find that you have to use faster shutter speeds. 

3) When a digital camera under exposes it only records black with no detail data; when it overexposes it only records white with no detail. The bear in your shot is thus underexposed and only the black has been recorded. Shooting in RAW mode can give you a little more leniency in recovery; but not worlds different. 

4) Looking at the trees and the bear it looks like it was back lit or at least shaded compared to the trees around it. Thus its a trade off between overexposed tree and underexposed bear and the camera tried to get in the middle to appease both. Having your own control over the camera you might choose to over or underexpose on what he camera meter thinks to get what you want. That's all about part 1 and controlling the tool rather than it controlling you.


5) Wildlife photography starts at 300mm and the general rule is that you will always want 100mm more than what you've got on the camera . The zoom lens you are looking at will certainly give you more reach; after that its down to your skills at getting close in a safe manner (for you and the subject). Longer generally makes it easier


----------



## soufiej (May 8, 2016)

cougar said:


> I just bought my first DSLR - a Canon SL1 which came with the kit 18-55mm lens.
> 
> I am considering buying the 55-250mm IS STM lens to be able to capture wildlife from some distance but I'm not too sure what to expect.
> 
> ...






Personally, I find the SL1 to be a great camera and the kit lens is a welcome improvement over the previous generations of Canon give aways. 

Your shot isn't great which is to be expected with your first DSLR.

Learn about shooting wildlife if this is what you want to do.  It's a very challenging genre of photography.   It can also become very expensive as a genre if you allow it. 

Though what you appear to need most is a simple basic grasp on how cameras operate and the specifics of the SL1.

Buying more gear is not the answer to learning. 

If you feel you need a lens with greater reach, there are certainly less expensive routes to explore before you invest in a zoom lens.  You have the option of placing a magnifier in front of or behind your current lens.  Each has its own issues and neither is a perfect answer for all situations.  Though IMO neither is a zoom lens perfect for any situation.  A zoom lens has its own learning curve if you want to produce high quality images.  Do your research and explore your options before you drop a few (several, actually) hundred on a new lens. 

My standard response to a question regarding longer zooms is to forgo the individual lens at the earliest stages of your learning curve.  I would always suggest an alternative thought process which leads you towards a less expensive Swiss Army knife of a camera; an "enthusiast" level superzoom bridge camera.  Most of the manufacturers producing such a product will charge less for this style of camera, any of which will provide greater reach with one single lens than can any zoom lens alone. 

Since you have chosen Canon as your first DSLR,  you might want to look at the SX series from Canon for a good superzoom.  Being a single lens camera has the advantage of always having the right lens available for most any situation.   One single lens designed for one single camera allows the designer to build in many of the digital compensations required to produce high quality images.

Ignore the impulse to dismiss this category of camera due to an on paper spec which shows lower megapixel count or smaller sensor size.  The lens' zoom power is increased due to the sensor size which means in real world terms you have even greater reach than a single zoom lens on a DSLR.  The key to "zoom" in this case is getting more image on as many pixels as possible.  With the reach of a superzoom, in your image the bear would have occupied many more pixels which can then be cropped down in post production and still have more "usable" pixels than most DSLR's with a single zoom lens could produce.   The SX Canon's also include built in (switchable) multipliers for even greater reach when required. 

The entire package offered by Canon in this category makes for lots of reach for minimal dollars.  Do keep in mind, the greater the reach, the more difficult the camera will be to use handheld even with image stabilzation.  A good tripod is almost a necessity if you want lots of reach.

The most serious downside to the smaller sensor is less good performance in low light situations.  Shooting wildlife seldom requires superior low light performance so keep the SL1 available for those times. 

While I strongly suggest you support your local camera retailers, you can often find a SX Canon superzoom on their refurbished on line sales pages for well under $250.  That's less than what you would pay for a Canon teleconverter; Canon  Extender EF 1.4X III 4409B002 B&H Photo Video

“SX50 beats all my DSLRs”


----------



## cougar (May 8, 2016)

Thanks guys!

So it seems I bought the wrong tool for the job :-(

Before buying it I read that it accepts all kinds of lenses and that it would do an excellent job of  capturing the image.

The 55-250mm is about Canadian $210-300, so it is still a cheaper upgrade than buying a new camera.

Next time I guess I should use the Av mode and hopefully get to see the eyes of the bear in my next picture.   Still would the camera know I am focusing on the bear if 8 out of 9 focusing points are on the background, and only the center one is on the bear?  (I know I have a lot to read)

Any cheaper upgrades (than $300) for someone in my situation?

I was told what I had in the picture was a trophy bear, so it is not very likley to get another one like it to pose for me soon.  I should be able to make the most of those fleeting moments.


----------



## fmw (May 8, 2016)

Wildlife photographers use long focal length lenses a lot.  I think your telephoto zoom option will help quite a bit.


----------



## chuasam (May 8, 2016)

a black bear by the side of the road is hardly wildlife photography
$300 is hardly an expensive upgrade in the world of lenses
If you want something cheaper, get the non-STM model used.
the 75-300 non-IS is rubbish


----------



## soufiej (May 9, 2016)

cougar said:


> Thanks guys!
> 
> So it seems I bought the wrong tool for the job :-(
> 
> ...





You didn't buy the "wrong tool" for the job,  you bought a very good camera with a very good lens.  That doesn't make it the right tool for the job.  What it does make it is the only tool you have available for the job and it's not that well suited to wildlife photography at the present time.

One problem you might easily encounter though is the SL1 is a very small and relatively lightweight camera body.   This makes it a bit less balanced as you begin to add longer and heavier zoom lenses.  Most student photographers have a difficult time hand holding a long lens on any camera and, if the camera and lens are unbalanced as a system, the job gets even more difficult.

A tripod/monopod is still a good addition to most photographer's equipment list.

*I would repeat my earlier advice though; it is not about the zoom power of the lens but rather about getting as much of the subject on as many pixels of the sensor as you possibly can.  *



I would not place blame for the results of your sample shot on the equipment.

You do not have a great understanding of how photography works, which is a fairly common occurrence with your first DSLR.  Comments regarding the image quality of your shot have more to do with you learning more about photography in general, how your camera works specifically and to a considerable amount learning what wildlife photography entails.

Taking a shot of a subject standing still in the middle of the day isn't very tough when it comes to wildlife photography.  Please read the comments regarding you shot once again.  They are meant to teach you about using your camera properly for the situation and not about you buying the wrong gear.

Everything you do with your camera is based upon knowledge of the camera and the processes involved in the type of photo you're after.  Learn your camera extremely well before you venture into specific categories of photography.   Learning the camera first will make learning a specific genre a softer curve.


_" ... would the camera know I am focusing on the bear if 8 out of 9 focusing points are on the background, and only the center one is on the bear?"_


The camera only "knows" what you have instructed it to do.  It's your job now to learn how to use your equipment.



There are alternatives to a zoom lens - even 250mm isn't going to up your keeper rate when you place yourself in a situation where you must maintain a greater distance between the camera and the subject.

Unless you are only interested in photos of animals at rest, you must also consider the "speed" of the lens, not just the reach.  With wildlife you are also likely to want a rather fast autofocus and a manual focus override which is easy and simple to operate.   That costs money.  As light levels drop, the cost of the equipment required goes up.   Most wildlife won't bother to stop dead in their tracks in the middle of the road (in the middle of the day) for your shot.  

And, remember, it's all about the number of usable pixels.

So, yes, you have a lot to learn.

It might be a good idea to realize most "dedicated" wildlife photographers would probably tell you their investment in their camera and their assortment of lenses has reached well into the thousands of dollars.  You are not going to equal their results with a SL1 and the kit lens.  The best you can hope for, IMO, is to learn the numerous techniques which will allow you to make the most of the gear you own.

Your present shot is not a throw away by any means.  Learn how to process your photos and you will be able to achieve a pretty usable image overall.  One thing about digital photography; the shot is never finished by snapping the shutter.


----------



## cougar (May 9, 2016)

soufiej said:


> *I would repeat my earlier advice though; it is not about the zoom power of the lens but rather about getting as much of the subject on as many pixels of the sensor as you possibly can.  *



Agreed.  So, how do I do that in the situation I was in?



soufiej said:


> Taking a shot of a subject standing still in the middle of the day isn't very tough when it comes to wildlife photography.



Sorry for calling it "wildlife photography".  Had to give this thread a name.  The term, however is not of importance to me.  What I was getting at is how to make the eyes and hair of this fairly large still animal at 50 meters away, in broad daylight, stand out. 



soufiej said:


> _" ... would the camera know I am focusing on the bear if 8 out of 9 focusing points are on the background, and only the center one is on the bear?"_
> 
> The camera only "knows" what you have instructed it to do.



Did I tell the camera to focus on the bear in this case?  If not what was I supposed to do, settings wise to focus on the bear?



soufiej said:


> There are alternatives to a zoom lens - even 250mm isn't going to up your keeper rate when you place yourself in a situation where you must maintain a greater distance between the camera and the subject.



What alternatives, given I have the SL1 ?



soufiej said:


> Your present shot is not a throw away by any means.



Does this mean with the present equipment and at that distance this is about the most I could get, anyways?


----------



## cougar (May 9, 2016)

I think I can make my initial question a whole lot simpler.

The question now is:

You see the bear in the first picture I posted under the light conditions shown.  You have a Canon SL1 with a 18-55mm IS lens.

What setting would you chose to make a picture better than the one shown in my second image.

Thanks!


----------



## soufiej (May 9, 2016)

Hit "click to expand" to see my complete reply ...



cougar said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> > *I would repeat my earlier advice though; it is not about the zoom power of the lens but rather about getting as much of the subject on as many pixels of the sensor as you possibly can.  *
> ...



_You shouldn't have tried to get any closer to the bear so, in one sense, yes.  Depending on the size of image you wish to display, now it's up to your editor/processor._


----------



## KmH (May 9, 2016)

cougar said:


> This is what came out in JPG format (72 pixels / inch)
> And this is what the cropped image looks like at 72 pixels / inch when the width is 40 cm.


For electronic display the pixels per inch (PPI) value is meaningless.
The only numbers that count are the pixel dimensions (image resolution) of the photo.

PPI is a print resolution, so it only applies when a physical print is made.
The print resolution *and* the image resolution *together* determine the size of a print.


----------



## cougar (May 9, 2016)

fmw said:


> Wildlife photographers use long focal length lenses a lot.  I think your telephoto zoom option will help quite a bit.



Thanks Fred for providing one of the short useful answers in this thread.

Most of the other posters must be on drugs.  I never asked about balancing the camera, never asked about alternative cameras and so on and so forth.  Yes, you may know something, but it is not on the point.

Soufei, you answered my basic question with this?

"_You shouldn't have tried to get any closer to the bear so, in one sense, yes. Depending on the size of image you wish to display, now it's up to your editor/processor."_

_I do not see your answer to your suggestion to get more pixels of the image on pixels of the sensor in what you wrote above._


----------



## Scruffy (May 10, 2016)

Don't let any one put your camera down, I and many Pro's use Rebels My two current camera's are both purchased on the reviews of Nat Geo Photographers. That being said If all you have is a holga pinhole then that doesn't mean poor shooting its never the camera it the artist. When it comes to lenses same story. 
Can you tell the difference between a $150 lens and a $15,000 lens? - DIY Photography 

I like teddy bears black or otherwise. Cheers Pete


----------



## robbins.photo (May 10, 2016)

Ok, so a couple of quick thoughts.

If you plan on doing any sort of wildlife shooting, a telephoto lens is a really good investment regardless of your skill level.  I'm not a Canon shooter myself, I shoot Nikon, so I'll leave it up to the Canon folks to make recommendations regarding what would be the best "bang for your buck" in telephoto.  In general though you can usually get out to about 300 mm without a great deal of expense or weight, longer range usually starts getting expensive and heavy pretty quick.

Ok, so with the shot at hand - you'll note the bear's fur lacks a lot of detail.  My guess is the camera was set for "matrix" metering, or whatever the Canon equivalent is, meaning that the camera is basing the exposure off of the light available in the entire scene.

What helps a lot in shots like this, where you have a very dark subject against a much brighter background is to switch to spot metering.  This causes the camera to calculate the exposure based off your point of focus, rather than the entire scene.  The end result would be the bear itself would be properly exposed, and your background would be overexposed, however that is something you can fix in post.

I usually have my camera set to CWA - center weighted average.  It calculates the exposure based on the scene however it gives the most weight to the values it's reading from the center, so it's kind of a nice in between from spot to matrix.  A lot of times for shots like this you don't have a lot of time to deal with changing camera settings.  I can adjust to matrix or spot if I have the time, but if not CWA usually does a good enough job that the results are workable.


----------



## fmw (May 10, 2016)

Modern


cougar said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Wildlife photographers use long focal length lenses a lot.  I think your telephoto zoom option will help quite a bit.
> ...



Photographers have fallen pretty hard for the megapixel wars.  The fact is all modern DSLR's have plenty of resolution to handle the vast majority of photographic requirements.  The only problem with your shot is that you were too far away from the bear for the lens you used or you didn't have a long enough lens to get the bear large enough in the frame from your position.  The reason we have interchangeable lenses is to have a variety of glass to handle our needs.  The telephoto zoom is just what you need.


----------



## soufiej (May 10, 2016)

cougar said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Wildlife photographers use long focal length lenses a lot.  I think your telephoto zoom option will help quite a bit.
> ...






Gee, I don't know, cougar.  Are you saying you think I'm on drugs and I am not helpful but you still want me to answer your question?  You want/need to be spoon fed in single sentence replies? 




I'm going to believe you are simply not well informed and therefore don't yet realize when someone is offering you advice. 




In your op you said _"I guess a 55-250mm lens and a steady hand would have given me a perfect shot in this case."_

You have several things wrong in that one sentence.

First, the "mm" setting on the lens is not a determining factor as to the distance between the lens and the subject.  Do some research.

Second, longer zoom lenses tend to be heavier with most of the mass appearing at the front of the lens.  This causes an imbalance when used with a small, lightweight camera body such as that found on the SL1. 

This is, despite your current level of knowledge, a significant factor in creating a useful camera/lens system.  Hand holding such a system becomes ever more difficult as the zoom power increases.  

So, no, I am not on drugs and you really should not go around insulting those who are attempting to help you.

If your attention span is so short that you are about to stop reading this post, be my guest. 



I've given you two alternatives to your present kit lens.  If you read my posts to the end, you may find them. 

A 250 mm lens will not place significantly higher amounts of subject on more pixels in comparison to your present kit lens when the subject is the size of the bear and at the same distance as the bear.  

Will such a lens give you more usable pixels?  Yes, but not that many when the subject is at that distance.  Thankfully, in this case, a bear is a rather large subject.   That's not the case with most "wildlife".

You need to head to a local camera shop and try several lenses to get a real world idea of just how much more zoom power you would need to engage in "wildlife" photography.  I can't tell you how to buy because I'm not even sure you are that interested in "wildlife" photography.  Seems you came a cross a bear and that's about the extent of your interest. 

Go discuss this with a shop where you can handle various lenses and possibly a superzoom camera. 

At this point, it would seem all I can do is tell you a teleconverter will be a less expensive way to gain reach with any lens and to say that a 1250mm reach is greater than a 250mm reach.


----------



## astroNikon (May 10, 2016)

As time goes on one desires to have additional features (faster FPS, more focus points, better in low light, etc).  And as you strive to improve long distance photography (wildlife, etc) on may look at longer lenses (after all, you don't want to get too close to a bear, or mountain lion, etc).  And many start looking for the DSLR zuper zooms such as  My One Night Stand with the Tamron 150-600mm

essentially.  You can do just fine with what you have an the 55-250 you mentioned.  Or you can get a longer focal length lens.  Then in the future you may want something even longer.  or higher quality.  It's all dependent upon your budget.  But considering what you currently have and want to do you are doing just fine.

What you should also do is learn more about controlling your camera rather than using automatic controls.  Learn to shoot in Manual Exposure and why you should select a certain Aperture, and Shutter Speed and ISO.  Learn the various Focus Modes of the camera and how to use them.  Learn more about Post Processing the images to get the most from them.   Then you'll notice an improvement in your photos technically.


----------



## cougar (May 10, 2016)

soufiej said:


> You want/need to be spoon fed in single sentence replies?



Sorry, didn't mean to insult anyone.  I only found your replies to be off topic.

Instead of 30 sentences, I was expecting to get something like 30 characters.

ISO = X
Aperature = F
Speed = Y

I will post the settings for my picture once I get back home and take a look at the original file.   

Then I have 1 more picture than I can post for similar comparison where the light situation is different.

Yes, I needed to adjust my light metering from matrix to center based.   The only reason I took this picture was, I was prepared to see the bear and was looking for him with the camera beside me.  I could have made all adjustments before he showed up.

But then, yes, I needed the 250mm lens, so I will order it this week


----------



## astroNikon (May 10, 2016)

cougar said:


> ISO = X
> Aperature = F
> Speed = Y



This really cannot be answered unless you just like an "auto" mode type reply, something that can get the job done but not perfectly.  Such as the Sunny 16 Rule ==> Sunny 16 rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aperture totally depends upon the Depth Of Field (DOF) that you want, which also is totally dependent upon the aperture range of the lens (f/1.8 or f/2.8 or something smaller) and distance to subject.  For example, this DOF calculator  lets you calculate how deep the in focus range is dependent upon aperture and distance to subject ==> A Flexible Depth of Field Calculator

Shutter speed totally depends upon how you want to stop action which may be more than "normal" if you are using along range lens.  Or sync with a flash.  Or you may want to be a bit creative with Shutter Speed and not totally stopping action.   Such as getting an animal running and showing some leg blur  ==> Using Camera Shutter Speed Creatively

And ISO lets you pull the other two together dependent upon available lighting before you change ISO ==> Camera Exposure: Aperture, ISO & Shutter Speed

Otherwise you use an AUTO mode, or a SCENE/EVENT mode or something similar and let the camera try and figure it out.


----------



## cougar (May 10, 2016)

Thanks AstroNikon,

I may have a tendency to over simplify things.  What I was first looking for is an obvious mistake I had made which affected the quality of my image, like having a shallow DOF where the bear ended up behind it, wrong focus settings or speed.

With the equipment I bought I do not intend to make submissions to National Geographic but hope to get some acceptable images for my own use.  And my thought was that Canon would have had the general user like me in mind for their entry level DSLR-s, making it easier to take a picture of a large animal at 50 meters, even if the user doesn't have all the knowledge required.

So far I am inclined to think that the number one item that could have improved the quality of that bear image is the 250mm zoom lens.


----------



## chuasam (May 10, 2016)

cougar said:


> Thanks AstroNikon,
> 
> I may have a tendency to over simplify things.  What I was first looking for is an obvious mistake I had made which affected the quality of my image, like having a shallow DOF where the bear ended up behind it, wrong focus settings or speed.
> 
> ...


Oh suuuuure...make photography even EASIER than it already is.
Perhaps someone should design and market a bear lure to get the bear to move to the right spot and pose on command.


----------



## table1349 (May 10, 2016)

cougar said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> > You want/need to be spoon fed in single sentence replies?
> ...


----------



## chuasam (May 10, 2016)

Best thing to do is to take those rules and completely ignore them.


----------



## zombiesniper (May 10, 2016)

I'll make this short. 

Question one. How can you have done better with current gear?
Learn more about photography and how to expose/ compse a picture. Learn your camera. 
Regardless of gear this will help the most. 

Question 2. What could I buy to make this shot (wildlife) better. 
The most under used but most bang for your buck is the Canon 400 f5.6. It's not the fastest lens but it is hands down the best wildlife lens for under a couple grand.


----------



## cougar (May 10, 2016)

This is what the data from the Bear picture says:

Focal Length: 49mm (didn't want to go all the way to 55)
Exposure time: 1/60 sec
ISO: 100
F-Stop: 5.6

In my view, looking at the picture all seems to be properly exposed (for my liking) but I am just missing the pixels on the bear.  If the wasted pixels I cropped to get the second posted picture could be used to populate the image of the bear, I would have had a perfect picture.

Here is another situation.  I see the bear; I set the camera to:

Focal Length: 49mm (didn't want to go all the way to 55)
Exposure time: 1/125 sec
ISO: 100
F-Stop: 5.6


And I get this picture:





If I crop the middle portion of this dreary landscape I get this:





Was there any way, or set of settings allowing me to capture a better image of the two bears at 30 meters from me; maybe not?


----------



## zombiesniper (May 10, 2016)

The bear is the darkest thing in the photo. Add to this that you'll be cropping most of the surrounding away anyhow I would expose for the bear and over expose the background by a 1/2-1 stop to ensure I had as much fur detail as I could. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## cougar (May 11, 2016)

zombiesniper said:


> I would expose for the bear and over expose the background by a 1/2-1 stop to ensure I had as much fur detail as I could.



Complicated stuff.  I think I just need to tie a salmon to a line , throw it into those bushes and then pull the line back slowly.  

I bought the 250mm lens.  Delivery time 2-4 weeks.  Once I get fresh shots with it I will update the thread.


----------



## astroNikon (May 11, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Oh suuuuure...make photography even EASIER than it already is.
> Perhaps someone should design and market a bear lure to get the bear to move to the right spot and pose on command.


Pour liberal amounts of BBQ sauce on your arm.
Approach bear, stick out arm.
have camera ready in other hand 
You'll be able to take some shots that no one else has probably taken.
of course, this is not recommended by anyone sane.  LOL


----------



## table1349 (May 11, 2016)

Paddington looks a little cranky.  Perhaps some salmon would help.


----------



## astroNikon (May 11, 2016)

cougar said:


> This is what the data from the Bear picture says:
> 
> Focal Length: 49mm (didn't want to go all the way to 55)
> Exposure time: 1/60 sec
> ...



1/60th is too slow for anything on 4 legs.
at least 1/125 as your other photo if they aren't moving.
Try 1/250th though.  But I wasn't there to see how they were moving.

Also learn about your Metering Modes ==> Canon metering modes: how to get perfectly exposed images in any situation | TechRadar

You have a dark bear in the shadows and when it isn't in the shadows it's bright sunlight.
You'll have to expose for the bear and crop out the blown out areas (if they do get blown out).
But you'll have to tell your camera to SPOT meter or a small area - but check out the options.

Also faster shutter to make sure you don't get any motion blur.  You can also get motion blur from you pressing the shutter button at speeds of 1/60.  Thus higher speeds recommended.

You might want to see how the shutter speed affects thing.
have a person stand in front of you, but slighlty moving side to side.
take a shot at 1/60, then 1/125 then 1/250

then do the same experiment with them walking, taking the speeds even higher to get the photo sharp.


----------



## astroNikon (May 11, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Paddington looks a little cranky.  Perhaps some salmon would help.


that photo yells .. BREATH MINT !!


----------



## table1349 (May 11, 2016)

Photographer Michio Hoshino Killed by Bear

In a 100 yard dash the bear always wins.  30 meters, seriously?


----------



## soufiej (May 11, 2016)

cougar said:


> Was there any way, or set of settings allowing me to capture a better image of the two bears at 30 meters from me; maybe not?




With your current gear, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a workable image under those circumstances.

And you are pushing the limits of how close you want to get to a bear ... or a cougar ... or most wildlife. 
*
First rule of wildlife photography is: DON'T BE STUPID JUST TO GET WHAT MAY BE YOUR LAST SHOT.*

You've had to crop heavily to pull out the two bears.  The sharpness of such a crop is going to be disappointing for any image larger than, say a 4X6.  Even that is going to be iffy since contrasting surfaces will not be rendered with smoothness due to the arrangement of the various pixels of the sensor.  Details would be difficult to extract IMO from such a black blur of stuff.

There are several specific purpose editors out there which could be employed though now you're talking cost vs result again.   

More than likely, the bears were more noticeable to you when you took the photo than they appear in the final shot. * You simply have to realize a camera lacks the perceptual dynamic range of the human eye.  Extremely high contrast images are difficult to render with any modern DSLR.*

Film would have done slightly better but the issue remains a difference between a captured image and the human brain's cognitive operations.  You have perception on your side and time based context to recognize the situation.  The camera only has fixed settings to work from. 

There is a HDR function on the SL1 when shooting in Jpeg.  It's not always a usable feature when shooting wildlife since it depends on taking three successive images and then blending them into one final image in the camera.  Wildlife typically doesn't remain still enough, long enough for this to be a common usage feature out in the field. 

HDR can also be accomplished in post production but again requires several identical shots used for blending.  Since the value of HDR is achieved with multiple identical files, the best HDR results are obtained with a tripod holding the camera absolutely steady when shooting stationary subjects such as buildings.  Hand held HDR's are, IMO, not really worth it due to camera shake.  They are there for the once in a lifetime - not the final shot of your lifetime - moments.  They can preserve a moment - your last? - but will lack overall quality. 



Otherwise, this is a compromise of the SL1 to cost.  Canon's several times the SL1's price DSLR's will have a greater number of focus and exposure points to select from.  This would have made your shot more controllable though, as I mentioned earlier, one of the issues you will face with wildlife photography is the simple fact critters don't normally wait around holding perfectly still while you change a lens or adjust camera settings. 

*The more you know about your camera, the more familiar you are with adjusting the camera quickly and effectively, the better able you are to adjust quickly to the desired settings.*

*It's been said several times in this thread, learn your SL1 and your lens inside and out.  Practice when you are sitting at home so you are ready to work when you go out. 

What also gets repeated on this forum is the simple idea buying more gear is no substitute for learning photography's rules and knowing your present equipment.

The more adept you become at making on the fly adjustments, the higher your keeper rate rises.*


----------



## soufiej (May 11, 2016)

How to Take Better Wildlife Photos: Be a Naturalist First


----------



## cougar (May 11, 2016)

soufiej said:


> *You simply have to realize a camera lacks the perceptual dynamic range of the human eye.  Extremely high contrast images are difficult to render with any modern DSLR.*



Yes, these are exactly my thoughts too.  I wear glasses and without them I may walk into a bear without seeing it, but  with the glasses on I see much better than any camera particularly in situations where part of the image is in the sun and part is in the shade.

I do not have the intention of chasing wildlife to get pictures.  The camera will be used on hikes which I do often (my legs permitting) and every now and then I might be in a situation where I can shoot a bear from 30-50 meters or so.  When I fish the rivers in fall (one river in particular) there are bears showing up every now and then.  Sometimes they do not care if your are there or not.  They still come out in front of you, or behind your back.

There are risks with everything and bears are quite like humans in this respect.  You always hope you do not run into a killer.


----------



## Dao (May 12, 2016)

Do you have a zoo in your area?  Practice there first to get the feel about how close you need to be from the subject.  If there are no zoo in your area, just go to a park and  take photos of some objects in the park.  i.e.  A trash bin in the park.

First you need to know how the focal length affect your photo in terms of field of view.


----------



## Alexander Dingley (May 12, 2016)

Scruffy said:


> Don't let any one put your camera down, I and many Pro's use Rebels My two current camera's are both purchased on the reviews of Nat Geo Photographers. That being said If all you have is a holga pinhole then that doesn't mean poor shooting its never the camera it the artist. When it comes to lenses same story.
> Can you tell the difference between a $150 lens and a $15,000 lens? - DIY Photography
> 
> I like teddy bears black or otherwise. Cheers Pete




As much as people say gear doesn't matter that isn't true. Sure you can get a good image with a rebel and a plastic fantastic 50mm. But when it comes to wildlife and paid gigs there is a reason pros use $5000 bodies and up. They have a much superior focus system and burst rate, which for a working pro is everything. For a hobbiest as yourself sure it doesn't matter but too a pro good gear is a necessary investment.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 12, 2016)

Alexander Dingley said:


> As much as people say gear doesn't matter that isn't true. Sure you can get a good image with a rebel and a plastic fantastic 50mm. But when it comes to wildlife and paid gigs there is a reason pros use $5000 bodies and up. They have a much superior focus system and burst rate, which for a working pro is everything. For a hobbiest as yourself sure it doesn't matter but too a pro good gear is a necessary investment.



Gear does matter vrs it's the photographer not the camera blood bath to begin in 3... 2... 1...


----------



## table1349 (May 12, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Alexander Dingley said:
> 
> 
> > As much as people say gear doesn't matter that isn't true. Sure you can get a good image with a rebel and a plastic fantastic 50mm. But when it comes to wildlife and paid gigs there is a reason pros use $5000 bodies and up. They have a much superior focus system and burst rate, which for a working pro is everything. For a hobbiest as yourself sure it doesn't matter but too a pro good gear is a necessary investment.
> ...


Yeah, cause these suck with such low quality gear.


----------



## Dao (May 12, 2016)

I strongly believe gears matter.  However, in this case, lens and the photographer are more important than the camera itself.

i.e.  http://img2.juzaphoto.com/001/shared_files/uploads/9555.jpg

The above photo from Juza was taken with a 11 years old Rebel XT (350D) paired with a 600mm L lens.


----------



## spiralout462 (May 12, 2016)

The 55-250 stm suited me very well for a couple years.  It's a great bargain in my opinion.  If the budget allows, a 300 f4 or 400f5.6 will yield even better results as you learn.  

Good luck.  Wildlife/birding is very addictive.


----------



## Didereaux (May 12, 2016)

cougar said:


> I just bought my first DSLR - a Canon SL1 which came with the kit 18-55mm lens.
> 
> I am considering buying the 55-250mm IS STM lens to be able to capture wildlife from some distance but I'm not too sure what to expect.
> 
> ...




Forget about finding what would have been the best settings etc with what you had.  You got about as good as was possible with that camera and lens under those conditions...although you WILL want to learn to use the Av, Ts and Manual modes!     As for the 55-250mm lens you mentioned it is probably the best lens for the money you could put on that camera.  on your crop frame camera that lens is about the equivalent of an 80-375mm lens.  Quite adequate for most wildlife, can be used with birds with great care and patience.   I used a T2i and the 55-250mm for some time and got some fine bird and wildlife shots.   Hang in there and realize that the only real thing that is going to improve your photography is PRACTICE!   Learn the setting of your camera, the limits of your lens and then USE that knowledge.


----------



## cougar (May 12, 2016)

> As for the 55-250mm lens you mentioned it is probably the best lens for the money you could put on that camera.



It cost me CAD $211 delivered.  I hope it arrives safely.
With 2 kids and the income I have, not much is left for toys (for me), so I cannot see myself spending $1,000 on a lens that more likely than not will be collecting dust in the basement.

With the expensive equipment you also worry about damaging it, losing it, someone steeling it, so not an option for me.  I live in a wet spot where rain is in the forecast 200+ days in the year.  Other times the temps are down to -20C.

But equipment is getting cheaper gradually. In 10 years we may be getting 500mm zoom lenses for $200 or under.

When I bought my first digital camera , a 2MP Canon A40 in 2001, I paid for it about the same amount I now spent on the 18MP Rebel Sl1 with its kit lens.  And $500 back then could buy you way more than $500 today.


----------



## table1349 (May 12, 2016)

cougar said:


> > As for the 55-250mm lens you mentioned it is probably the best lens for the money you could put on that camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They already do.  Quality leaves a lot to be desired.  Jet.com


----------



## Alexander Dingley (May 14, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Alexander Dingley said:
> ...



I never said you couldn't get good shots, I'm saying that a more expensive camera will be more reliable and easier to capture your vision without fighting your gear for it.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 14, 2016)

Alexander Dingley said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


That's not how this works.  One side takes everything you say to a ridiculous extreme and then then folks on the other side do the same to them.

Haven't you ever used the internet?  Lol

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## table1349 (May 14, 2016)

Alexander Dingley said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


Spoken by a person that has never used a 1Dx Mk II.  It's not complicated at all.


----------



## cougar (May 14, 2016)

Now I am falling even lower - I was unable to take a decent picture of the 2 bears where one was at 10 and the other, believe it or not was only 5 meters away .
I think I will remain a landscape photographer.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 15, 2016)

cougar said:


> Now I am falling even lower - I was unable to take a decent picture of the 2 bears where one was at 10 and the other, believe it or not was only 5 meters away .
> I think I will remain a landscape photographer.


Just a quick glance but looks like the issue here is your cameras autofocus system.  The camera will pick the point of focus based on the highest point of contrast within the autofocus points available.

As a result it looks like your camera has chosen something other than the bear as it's primary point of focus.  Try reducing the number of autofocus points your camera can choose from.  On my nikon I usually use only one and aim for the critters eye.  I will also use 9 points sometimes, but rarely do I give it more than that.  

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## zombiesniper (May 15, 2016)

Good point on focusing above.
Lets look at the settings you were using for shot one.
49mm
Aperture priority
F/20
1/80sec
ISO5000

Aperture
The aperture here is what could be causing some of your issue. F20 is great if you want near the whole scene in focus which in this case I would be wanting the bear in focus and let the rest of the scene blur out.
Due to the high aperture your ISO had to compensate by raising to 5000. 5000 iso is not going to produce clean shots with your camera, or mine.

AV mode. Although this is a very useful and highly recommended mode. May I suggest you use "M" and heres why.
In M you can set your Depth of Field (DOF) and your shutter speed expressed in 1/xxx and with ISO set to auto 90% of the time your camera will properly expose the shot while you still have control over DOF and enough shutter speed to ensure a crisp shot.

If I was using your gear on that shot I would probably start with the following settings and see how it went from there. (Obviously these are rough estimates as I wasn't there and can't fully appreciate the scene from the pics.)

Mode M with Auto ISO.
1/100 Based on a 55mm lens (1/400 based on your new lens)
f8
ISO is set by the camera.

So why do I start with these.
M - I explained my rationale above.
1/100 - I doubled (approx) the focal length of the lens due to not knowing how stable you are as a shooter.
f8 - This should allow enough DOF without sending the ISO into an unusable range.

All of the above are just a basic set up to start. Once a couple of shots are taken I would adjust the settings to get the lowest SHARP shutter speed I could and adjust the DOF (if required) to ensure I'm getting everything I want in focus.

This may sound difficult but it really isn't. Go into your yard and find a subject, flower rock whatever and try these settings. Then adjust one and see the difference.

Last point. Take some time and learn the basics of shutter/aperture/ISO. It's not hard to learn the basics and it will improve your pics dramatically.





Cliff for the ADHD crowd.
Saw the pic, recommended settings and to learn the basics.



All opinions expressed above are from a novice so take them with a grain of rocksalt.


----------



## Braineack (May 15, 2016)

Any camera is only as good as the user.  The settings chosen for each picture made no sense for what you were trying to capture.


----------



## cougar (May 15, 2016)

Thanks sombiesniper!

I didn't look at the settings.  ISO5000 has apparently messed everything up!

I think I used the same Av mode and high ISO to shoot the pictures below and they are also a mess.  
And it is not an easy feat to get up there.

Now I have to do it again.



















I feel sorry I did not used one of the Auto modes.   For me it would have worked the best.  I tend to always forget something.


----------



## zombiesniper (May 15, 2016)

Some of those can be saved in post with a little dehaze and saturation correction.


----------



## 101Photography101 (May 15, 2016)

fmw said:


> Wildlife photographers use long focal length lenses a lot.  I think your telephoto zoom option will help quite a bit.



I agree with this statement, for sure!


----------



## beagle100 (May 16, 2016)

cougar said:


> zombiesniper said:
> 
> 
> > I would expose for the bear and over expose the background by a 1/2-1 stop to ensure I had as much fur detail as I could.
> ...



that's good but for wildlife you're going to eventually want longer

even the old original 55-250 is still good - for a $50 lens
(not a bear)




Untitled by c w, on Flickr


----------



## zombiesniper (May 16, 2016)

Agreed longer is always better (puns aside).


----------



## robbins.photo (May 16, 2016)

Ok, so a couple of quick samples of what I was talking about earlier, this was taken with my Nikon D7100 using a single focus point, I put the focus point on the eye:




Lake and Park 518 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

This was shot when I was still using a D5200, again, single focus point, the bear's paw:




20140419 N85 108 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

And again, single focus point using the eye as the point of focus, also shot with the old D5200:




20140406 291 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr


----------



## cougar (May 16, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> .. this was taken with my Nikon D7100 using a single focus point, I put the focus point on the eye.



Is this the metering setting?
I had mine set to "Center weighted average" for the last 3 bear pictures.  Maybe it was supposed toe be "Spot metering" ?

Oh, I noticed there is an AF Method setting on the fourth menu tab which allows you to select "FlexiZoneAF[]"


----------



## robbins.photo (May 16, 2016)

cougar said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > .. this was taken with my Nikon D7100 using a single focus point, I put the focus point on the eye.
> ...



Actually what I'm referring to here is how many auto focus points you let your camera choose from.    After looking at the SL1's manual doesn't look like it has the ability to limit the focus points however you can choose a particular focus point while shooting:

http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/5/0300010915/01/eos-rebelsl1-100d-im-en.pdf

Starting on Page 105

On my Nikon I can actually limit the number of focus points it chooses from, which is a great feature.


----------



## cougar (May 16, 2016)

Thanks Robbins.

I will use this setting next time.
(and I will set the metering mode back to what it was.)


----------



## robbins.photo (May 16, 2016)

cougar said:


> Thanks Robbins.
> 
> I will use this setting next time.
> (and I will set the metering mode back to what it was.)



Metering is also important for these situations where you have a dark or light subject because you want to meter for the subject rather than the background when possible.  CWA is usually a good option, Spot metering can also be a great option as well.  Matrix metering will expose for the entire scene, which will not usually give you the best results on a shot like this one.


----------



## astroNikon (May 16, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> cougar said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Robbins.
> ...


Your photos are of a bear not moving much.
his #1 was moving.
His #3 wasn't moving but the focus was on the plants in front. The bears hair showed some detail though not in focus.
I think he needs to understand Shutter Speed better too for stopping moving objects.  Aperture priority is great if the camera selects a fast enough shutter speed.  And Shutter is great if the camera selects a deep enough Aperture.   He could opt for some "sport mode" which may work in this instance (I don't know Canons).


----------



## robbins.photo (May 16, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > cougar said:
> ...



Thought that had already been discussed by others but ok sure, no argument here.. lol


----------



## astroNikon (May 16, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


TPF's redundant redundancy department.


----------



## chuasam (May 16, 2016)

Zoo shots don't count. They're so much easier and you don't risk being eaten


----------



## robbins.photo (May 16, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Zoo shots don't count. They're so much easier and you don't risk being eaten



Not all of them were shot at a zoo.  I was simply looking for bears since that was the subject in question and my response specifically was speaking to best practices for shooting subjects that don't have a great deal of contrast.  

As for the rest, I actually find shooting outdoors far easier than shooting at the zoo from a technical perspective.  No glass to contend with, no mixture of sunlight and fluorescent screwing with the white balance, etc.


----------



## beagle100 (May 19, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Zoo shots don't count. They're so much easier and you don't risk being eaten
> ...




sure, being close to the bears in the great wild outdoors is preferable but sometimes it's easier and cheaper to just go to the zoo


----------



## chuasam (May 19, 2016)

beagle100 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...


Should tell NatGeo that and they could so save their travel budget.


----------



## cougar (May 21, 2016)

I had this one done today:





If I can get a semi-decent shot of a white dog, I must be able to take a picture of a black bear.
Will see what tomorrow brings.  It's a long weekend here by the way.


----------

