Wildlife photo question (Page 2): Shouldn't they be going INTO hibernation in November?[/quote Sorry, boys and girls polar bears do not hibernate.

Gibar

[quote=cahale]Shouldn't they be going INTO hibernation in November?[/quote

Sorry, boys and girls polar bears do not hibernate.

debk

Linda S. wrote:

Hello, br br I looked for a Wildlife category but... (show quote)

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.

JFCoupe Loc: Kent, Washington

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.

ricardo00

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.

MDI Mainer

Forget any regrets about using a micro four-thirds camera. There are great wildlife photographer pros who use OM System gear exclusively and free from full-frame snobbery.

https://leehoyphotography.com/

https://www.emilietalpin.space/

https://thisweekinphoto.com/itinerary-08-wildlife-around-world-kevin-loughlin/

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

Watch your exposure compensation. Your camera basically reads for neutral gray. With snow and bears being white, the images could turn out very gray. Adjust your exposure compensation and check a few test shots before you continue to shoot.

ricardo00

MDI Mainer wrote:

Forget any regrets about using a micro four-thirds camera. There are great wildlife photographer pros who use OM System gear exclusively and free from full-frame snobbery.

https://leehoyphotography.com/

https://www.emilietalpin.space/

https://thisweekinphoto.com/itinerary-08-wildlife-around-world-kevin-loughlin/

Wow those photographers have lots of great photos! Definitely make a strong case for the OM system.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

cahale wrote:

Shouldn't they be going INTO hibernation in November?

Well, that's a new one. I wasn't aware that Polar Bears hibernate.

scubadoc Loc: Sarasota, FL

Linda S. wrote:

Hello, br br I looked for a Wildlife category but... (show quote)

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.

Dbrow411 Loc: South Daytona, FL

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! 😁

JD750 Loc: SoCal

[quote=Gibar][quote=cahale]Shouldn't they be going INTO hibernation in November?[/quote

Sorry, boys and girls polar bears do not hibernate.[/quote]My bad!! I thought it was just bears. He did say polar bears.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

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! 😁

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!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Linda S. wrote:

Hello, br br I looked for a Wildlife category but... (show quote)

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.

Linda S.

Hello! I haven't left this discussion. We are having work done at our home and somehow, I am the "general contractor"! I will answer each comment now. I truly appreciate them and have learned a great deal. Thank you so much!

Linda S.

User ID wrote:

My brother has great bear pix from Churchill, printed to 24x30. The tundra buggies get rather close to the bears. He just used an M-leica (film camera) with "portrait lenses".

That sounds amazing! Film has the most "pixels" (not using the word "pixels" in its true sense.) Film is the best for taking photos IMVHO. I just wish it had the ability to show what the end result was going to be while still in the camera before printing.

I only know about Canon's Mark IV series and the OM-1. (I had all Kodak cameras as a child and a Minolta Maxuum as an adult) In the OM-1 viewfinder, if I adjust the exposure control, what I see there is what I will receive when printed. I definitely need that "what you see is what you get" functionality!

Trade-offs . . . Linda