Hip Coyote wrote:
I am a m43 user as well and it works just fine. I suggest you reconsider your lens selections. Yes, there will be bears off in a distance. The 75-300 might be ok for that. But there will be times when bears are closer. The 12-100 would be perfect for this scenario. I've not been to see the bears, but have been on safari. People like their long lenses until they realize that sometimes, the animals are quite close. Too close for some of the long lenses to capture. With the 12-100 (or 12-200??) and the 75-300 you have 24-600 mm ff equivalent covered. The teleconverters will also add some flexibility to your kit.
Further, find out the seating situation...if you can set cameras on the seats (the buggy is not packed with people) then consider having two cameras.
Finally, you should also be prepared for the northern lights...
I am a m43 user as well and it works just fine. I... (
show quote)
Thank you Hip Coyote! Before I forget, I am taking your quote beneath your message to heart! Some of the photos NatHab showed were the bears right up on the transport vehicle. So, while I did see those photos, I definitely didn't think about close-up photos...how silly of me. I have the 7-14mm --14-28mm 35mm equivalent at f/2.8-- and the 12-100mm -- 35mm equivalent 24-200 I believe it is f/4--
I always have two of the same cameras now. When I had the Canon 5D, the recall notice didn't get to me. I am on my first photography trip to four distinct areas in Oregon. The second day, the camera quits. Bring it to a Canon shop. Will take over a week to have it repaired. Had to use my camera phone. Believe me, camera phone photos were definitely not great in 2000!
It took three years (Iceland once, Fairbanks twice) and on the third trip, I captured the Northern Lights! I have my lens for that. I was definitely going to bring it.
Thank you again, Linda
recb wrote:
Photographing light colored bears on a white background will need compensation to “over expose”. By default the cameras auto exposure will under expose. Bears can be close but I would expect most to be a considerable distance away, so I would want the longest focal length I could handle.
recb, thank you for providing that nuanced detail...as an amateur, I don't always think about or know about these subtleties in light. I am appreciative of you comment and grateful that OM-1 will let me adjust the final exposure in real time! Otherwise, I would have had a lot of post-processing to do!
I think I will see what the weight is of my heaviest lens and camera and use that combination extensively when practicing at the zoo! Linda
[quote=Gibar][quote=cahale]Shouldn't they be going INTO hibernation in November?[/quote
Sorry, boys and girls polar bears do not hibernate.[/quote]
Hi Gibar! I have a horse too - liked your profile photo! You are correct; they do not do a typical hibernation. That said, when the mother bears are ready to deliver their babies, they go into a quasi-hibernation for months. When the babies are ready to learn how to hunt, the mother takes them from their "home" and brings them to the water where the seals are. The mother is very thin and hungry during that time! Source:
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/blog/polar-bear-fact-sheet/
debk wrote:
I do not own the 40-150 2.8 lens yet, but two of my friends have one and love it. I do own the 75-300 (and 100-400). If it were me, I would take both lens and get a teleconverter for the 40-150. The 40-150 is likely the sharper lens. The 75-300 is small enough and would not add too much extra weigh, so I would bring that for the extra reach if needed. I would hate to go on a trip like you are doing and not have a long enough lens. The 40-150 would allow you to get some environmental shots as well as getting closer.
I do not own the 40-150 2.8 lens yet, but two of m... (
show quote)
Thank you debk for your suggestions! I hadn't thought of taking both. In the time of writing my responses to everyone's thoughtful comments/suggestions, I realized that I did have the 2x converter. Perhaps the 40-150 with the 2x would be enough - wouldn't that be 80-300 or 35mm equivalent 160-600mm? I am so happy the trip is in 2024 rather than this year! So much to think about and measure... Linda
JFCoupe wrote:
As mentioned, do not hesitate to bump you ISO. On several trips to Alaska, British Columbia and even Africa I shot many images with my Olympus EM1 MKII at ISO 6400. The noise cleaned up pretty good in LightRoom and the newer Noise Reduction in LR would do an even better job.
So your 75-300 lens should be fine or alternatively add a 2x TC to your 40-150 lens.
Most of all, enjoy seeing the bear first hand. They are marvelous animals.
Thank you JFCoupe for your sharing your knowledge and encouragement! I had forgotten about the Noise Reduction - haven't used it! Have something else to try while at the zoos in somewhat preparation for the trip! Linda
ricardo00 wrote:
It appears that the OP (Linda) has left this discussion. From a post in an another thread, it seems she is considering a bridge camera, so weight definitely seems to be a major consideration. We all have different limits and hers may be more constrained than many of the other posters on this thread.
I did not leave completely ricardo00! We are having remodeling work being done and I am suddenly the general contractor! Oh the stress of it all! I know what I want done. Sometimes the communications falter...but I am here - very grateful of the extensive knowledge being shared! Linda
WOW! MDI Mainer - all three photographers shoot "portraits" of the animals with some photos showing more landscape! I love shooting their faces, sometimes just an eye. Only once in a while do I shoot with them against their specific landscape. In Fairbanks, it was the caribou and the dog races. I can only practice portraits in the zoos...the gorillas, elephants and lions. Gorillas are very expressive!
Thank you so much for sharing those links! I will refer to them often. Linda
MadMikeOne wrote:
Well, that's a new one. I wasn't aware that Polar Bears hibernate.
Just the mothers while they give birth and time to let their cubs grow a bit before leading them to the seals. The mother teaches them how to hunt. By the time, they start hunting she is very hungry...Source:
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/blog/polar-bear-fact-sheet/ Thank you for commenting. It's good to share information! Linda
scubadoc wrote:
I shoot both a Canon FF R5 and the Olympus OM1 cameras. I often take both on a shoot as I can put different lenses on each body to enhance my chance of taking a quality image. The OM-1 is a fantastic camera and don’t let the size of the image prejudice you into thinking that it is not a capable camera. On a recent trip to Brazil, where I was shooting jaguars in the Pantanl region,I was able to get outstanding photos with the OM-1 USING THE 40-150 MM Lens and a 2x extender if needed. I also have the Pro 100-400 for shooting BIF. While the dynamic range of the Oly is less than that of a FF body, as long as there is reasonable light, I doubt you would notice. Noise can be reduced easily with post processing software. The OLY has excellent image stabilization, and the ability to track animal eyes across the FOV is fast, accurate, and produces amazing images. You need to be fairly judicious when cropping an image, as you cannot crop with the OLY to the same extent that you can with a FF camera.
Enjoy your trip. I am jealous.
I shoot both a Canon FF R5 and the Olympus OM1 cam... (
show quote)
Scubadoc, I am jealous of your trip to Brazil!! Thank you for all your comments! I forgot about the eye tracking. I haven't used it before. As an amateur, I doubt very much that I will notice! I agree with the cropping issue...Thank you for reminding me about the benefits the OM-1 offers. Sometimes, I get too far into the weeds! Linda
Dbrow411 wrote:
One thing you might want to consider is renting a camera since this is a once in a lifetime experience. There are companies that do this and will likely help you with picking out the lightest camera with a lens that's long enough for safety. BTW, I'm jealous! 😁
Thank you Dbrow411 for your suggestions. I do rent lenses but a camera, I don't know. I typically bring my two OM-1s. I know Pros bring two or more bodies that are different from each other. I had one camera break on a trip in 2000. It was the only camera body I had. Never again...always bring two of the same bodies. As a senior amateur, it would be difficult to remember the differences between two different cameras when in the heat of the moment! My mind isn't as sharp as it used to be! :( Linda
JD750 wrote:
if your gonna do that rent it well in advance and shoot with it enough to become familiar with it. Otherwise if you can’t do that, it is better to go on a trip with a camera you are familiar with and know how to operate!
Thank you JD750! I agree with you on all points! I only rent cameras if I am considering buying one. For trips, I only rent lenses. Familiarity rules! When photographing the Northern Lights, I had two custom modes programmed into my OM-1 cameras. It makes it so much easier...and I can deviate just as easily, if need be. Linda
burkphoto wrote:
The 40-150 is likely a better lens, and if weight is a concern, it will generate less fatigue as the days wear on.
Although the OM-1 has AWESOME IBIS, IBIS starts to lose effectiveness after about 60mm of real lens focal length (120mm full frame equivalent). Neither of your lenses has a stabilizer in it. So that means you need all the speed you can get, to avoid camera shake. But with wildlife photography, the main reason for a faster shutter speed in most cases will be to stop subject motion. If it were my choice, that tips the scales in favor of the 40-150 Pro zoom with its f/2.8 fixed maximum aperture. It will give you well over a stop more light at the short end, and even more at the long end of the 40-150mm range.
The 40-150 is likely a better lens, and if weight ... (
show quote)
Thank you burkphoto for the light explanation! I needed to remember that photography is called "painting with light". I know I will lose light when I use the 2x teleconverter so it is reassuring to know that I start with more light! I've been keeping score. It shows that the 40-150 wins -- especially with the teleconverter! Linda
recb wrote:
Yes Nathab guides are very experienced and extremely knowledgeable. They really yake the whole experience to a new level. Hope you appreciate that the time when bears are around waiting for the water to freeze is not the time that one can wander around alone.
recb, I sure do now!! I definitely do not want to be any bear's dinner or snack! Thank you for the smile I now have! Linda
ricardo00 wrote:
Hi Linda, Thank you for your kind words on my photos and video. Sounds like you are prepared and will have an amazing time (though you might want to get better gloves, I have photo one's that open at the tips and allow me to put hand warmers in, quite expensive but worth it especially if you will be hanging out on the back. Called Heat3 Extreme Winter Photography gloves, sold by Naturescapes.) Several things. First, I think the OM-1 is much better than the mega zooms with their small 1 inch sensors. (My wife went from a Panasonic mega zoom to a cropped DSLR and is much happier). The video of the mom and cub was not shot from the back of the tundra buggy but on a different trip where you are on the ground (I did say we went 3 times). But definitely take video, I took video of the bears mock fighting as well from the back of the tundra buggy. I am always surprised that more people don't take video. Finally, the aurora photo was in Churchill. The aurora can be shot from outside your lodge in Churchill (it is one of the best places to see the Aurora, as good as Iceland and Fairbanks). However one of the NatHab people needs to be willing to go out with you since the polar bears are around (Drew Hamilton is fantastic, one of the NatHab guides). In fact, in one photo I was able to get the polar bear in the aurora (again, not the tundra buggy trip and the bear is a distance away):
Hi Linda, Thank you for your kind words on my pho... (
show quote)
WHOA!! The polar bear AND the Lights! That is amazing! Thank you for the gloves recommendation. I will seriously look at them. Linda PS my gloves were the three layers of Vallerret.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.