BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Frustrated Backyard Nature Photographer :)

I've traded in my Nikon FG (1982) for a digital camera (still have my Kodak Brownie!) ... I've had it for a few weeks, but only in the last few days have I really tried to do anything more than out of the box shots ... hence my frustration :)

It could be that I'm trying to accomplish something that's well over my equipment (please feel free to say so!) ... here's the scenario.

- my small suburban backyard is a haven for wildlife, and have had Red-Tailed Hawks in it for a few weeks, among other creatures great and small (ok, so that line is already taken).

- I also bought a 2x Telephoto lens, for a capacity of 304mm so that I could take better shots of what's lurking in my yard.

When I initially brought in my SLR to Nikon, they said all I needed to "frame" the intended subject was a 200mm zoom lens ... at a cost of up to $1500.

I wasn't crazy about that idea, so switched to a digital camera ... but am extremely frustrated at attempting to frame the Hawk.

I did manage to get a picture of the Hawk yesterday, but it is only centered in the shot, rather than taking up the majority of the canvas. It was less than 20ft away from me, so I figured I should be able to accomplish what I want with what I have.

Is it possible to frame wildlife at rather short distances with what I have?
I seem to be able to get fairly good close-ups, but overall, that's not what I plan to use the camera for the majority of the time.

Any help (or bad news) would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Barb

To love this question, log in above
December 26, 2001

Dashed dreams,

Barb

To love this comment, log in above
December 30, 2001

How long a lens you need to fill the frame with your subject depends on subject size and distance. The camera store wasn't that far off. For 35mm film format it would require a 200mm to about a 350mm lens if the hawk is about 20 feet distant. I'm trying to remember how large a red-tail actually is. It's been about 6-7 years since I've seen one. IIRC they're about 2 feet tall when mature. Wing span would be between 3-4 feet outstretched.

At 20 feet, a 200mm lens gives you a "field width" of about 3-1/2 feet. Since 35mm film is rectangular, this is across the long side of the rectangle. To fill the frame with one perched at about 20 feet distant and the camera turned vertically would require a 300mm to 350mm lens at 20 feet (assuming the bird is about 2 feet tall).

How I did the math (so you can plan on what you need in the future):
It's all similar triangles. The ratio of field width (subject size) to subject distance is the same as the ratio of focal length to film width. I can "get away" with feet on one side and millimeters on the other since they are ratios.

For the field width of 2 feet at 20 feet distant:
20/2 = f/36f = 36*(20/2)
f = 360mm

For the first one of 3.5 feet:
f = 36(20/3.5)
f = 206mm (approximately)

-- John

To love this comment, log in above
December 31, 2001

"f" is the lens focal length.

For the field width of 2 feet at 20 feet distant:
20/2 = f/36
f = 36*(20/2)
f = 360mm

For the first one of 3.5 feet field width at 20 feet distant:
f = 36*(20/3.5)
f = 206mm (approximately)

-- John

To love this comment, log in above
December 31, 2001

If you really want to do wildlife, get a used SLR and at least a 200-mm telephoto. Manual focus set-ups are surprisingly inexpensive used. No need to get a wide-aperture tele. Canon, for example, had a 100-300 zoom that was only a 5.6, but is really quite reasonably priced used. The "L" version is much more expensive. They also had a 300-mm f5.6. 200's are a dime a dozen. The not-so wide max apertures of reasonably-priced teles will require you to use a tripod, and fast film, a good practice for shooting wildlife, anyway.

To love this comment, log in above
December 31, 2001

UGH! ... I just traded in my 35mm Nikon FG for this Coolpix! :)

I think I'll have to stick to close-ups, and not be overly concerned with it's limitations ... unless I consider photography as a serious hobby, and then go back to an SLR.

Since I have no idea what all the numbers mean, I should also consider a book or 2, or take a course ... I love taking pics, but am always frustrated :)

Thanks very much, and have a great New Year!

Barb

To love this comment, log in above
December 31, 2001

Thanks, John! I really appreciate you taking the time to fill me in on what the numbers mean.

If Doug is correct and that a digital 300mm zoom is the equivalent of 100mm on an SLR, then I've definitely not got the right camera for the type of shots I've always loved to do ... no wonder my shots were okay at the zoo with my SLR, but now in the "real world", the digital is bugging me ... so it makes sense I'm not getting good close-ups.

I guess that means that if I buy the 4x converter (450mm or 600mm, I can't remember which), I still won't get the desired wildlife portraits :(

Overambitious Barb :)

To love this comment, log in above
December 31, 2001

Some confusion is created by digital camera makers in an effort to give people a feel for the range the zoom lens on the digital has by equating its actual focal length(s) to those that would be required for a 35mm film camera. The "big print" usually contains the equivalent range and the "fine print" (in the specifications chapter of the manual) usually has the actual.

The reason for this? 35mm film has a standard frame size (24mm x 36mm). If I discuss a 300mm lens for a 35mm camera with someone, we both have a "feel" for the magnification and perspective the lens has. The CCD's found in digital cameras are not all the same size. They vary from about 1/5th to about 1/3rd that of a 35mm film frame. The size varies even among Nikon's various CoolPix models! This makes it difficult for someone to quickly compare zoom lens ranges between digital cameras using the actual focal lengths of the lenses on them. It require knowing the CCD size and then doing geometry/trigonometry math to calculate the angles of view.

From what you mentioned in your initial question I'm guessing you have a CoolPix 995 with a 3X optical zoom that can extend to 4X using "digital" zooming. Then you also bought a 2X tele-converter that screws onto the front of the camera lens. If this is true, I have a couple of suggestions:

(1) Turn off the "digital" zoom and stay in the 3X range of the "optical" zoom. As mentioned previously, the "digital" zoom gains greater magnification electronically at the expense of image resolution (the lens does nothing more than its 3X maximum).

(2) With the 2X teleconverter, the optical zoom fully extended will give you the equivalent of using a 230mm lens on a 35mm film camera. An object of about 2 x 3 feet in size 20 feet away should just about fill the image with a little left around the edges. This is also pushing the limit of what can be held by hand without camera shake blurring the image and requires a very steady stance. When fully zoomed and using the teleconverter, try bracing the camera bottom on the back of a chair (porch railings and flat tops of fences work too) or, turned vertically, against a the side of a porch or fence post. Anything horizontal or vertical that's flat and relatively solid can be used with a little imagination.

(3) Try to use the highest resolution mode possible. This captures the greatest amount of detail. You can downsize this later if you need to for screen viewing. For printing, you need much more resolution than you do for viewing on a computer screen.

-- John

To love this comment, log in above
December 31, 2001

	Watch Your Back Hawk actually posed for me for about 15 minutes. I had the kitchen window wide open, and then it decided to fly directly towards me. The picture is where it landed after it's U-turn for my face! Approx. 10ft away. B. A. Sybal
	I'm Watching You I desaturated the red brick and USM slightly. It was about 30ft away. B. A. Sybal

BTW, a belated Happy New Year!

No, I don't have 2 additional lenses for the Coolpix 995 -- just one: the 2x converter, which I understand gives me a range of up to 304mm in SLR terminology :)

I think I'm getting the hang of using the camera now ... albeit with numerous horrible shots that are easily deleted!

I have read that I need to keep my elbows in and to brace myself against something when using the converter: not always an easy feat with nature ... I'm at it's beck and call, and try to what I can in this dreary environment (brown bird, brown fence and brown shrubbery makes for very little contrast).

I also definitely stay away from digital zoom, as I know it can blow out the pixels. I work in prepress so understand most of what I can do digitally.

I'm attaching a pic that shows the back of the hawk, which turned out okay ... it's the front of it, and during flight that I'm having the most difficulty capturing well.

To love this comment, log in above
January 05, 2002