World Wildlife Photography Exhibition: No Fuji gear.

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

By your definition, if I get incredibly lucky and capture a rare warbler perched in a bush in my yard, it's not a wildlife photo because I didn't spend days hunting it down up in the mountains. Pfft!

Click to expand...

You might be catching wildlife in that case, but does it deserve to win a prize?

Click to expand...

rlmack said:

stevo23 said:

rlmack said:

By your definition, if I get incredibly lucky and capture a rare warbler perched in a bush in my yard, it's not a wildlife photo because I didn't spend days hunting it down up in the mountains. Pfft!

Click to expand...

You might be catching wildlife in that case, but does it deserve to win a prize?

Click to expand...

If it's a great photo capturing the bird in an interesting pose, why not? Whether it's deserving of a prize in any contest would depend on the other photos competing against it, IMO. (Assuming the photo meets all contest criteria.)

Click to expand...

AndyMulhearn said:

Cliff Fujii said:

AndyMulhearn said:

Matsu said:

Peter3579 said:

The X-T2 only came out mid 2016. The 100-400 early 2016.

by the time these hit the stores I am sure many images would have been taken with existing gear. Also, it will take years to end Canikon dominance in this field.

Click to expand...

Canon and Nikon combined likely outsell Fuji by a factor of 75-80:1. I wouldn't expect this situation to change, and it's completely irrelevant anyway - Fuji doesn't need to match them in order to develop an sell a high quality camera system.

Click to expand...

To be honest, Wildlife is such a specialist area that I don't think Fuji need to try to compete. If they want to go down the 600 f4 route then good luck to them, personally I see their market being elsewhere.

Click to expand...

long glass can also be used in sports and action photography.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Though as I've only done some rugby from the stands, I'm guessing having a longest reach of 400mm is less of a drawback.

Click to expand...

stevo23 said:

rlmack said:

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

By your definition, if I get incredibly lucky and capture a rare warbler perched in a bush in my yard, it's not a wildlife photo because I didn't spend days hunting it down up in the mountains. Pfft!

Click to expand...

You might be catching wildlife in that case, but does it deserve to win a prize?

Click to expand...

If it's a great photo capturing the bird in an interesting pose, why not? Whether it's deserving of a prize in any contest would depend on the other photos competing against it, IMO. (Assuming the photo meets all contest criteria.)

Click to expand...

That's my point. It's trite and cliche, something that usually gets a photo disqualified.

Click to expand...

stevo23 said:

rlmack said:

deednets said:

I live in New Zealand but wildlife is never considered anything within the inner districts of a city. Your ratehr open approach would mean that why take the tube?? Just shoot any bird from the comfort of your lounge seat, wildlife it is. Done??

Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say that the majority of us, when presented with the term "wildlife photography," immediately think of things like bears in the woods or lions in the savannah. But that's not nearly the same thing as defining wildlife as only existing outside city limits. That's silly.

Click to expand...

But it seems that anything that doesn't require a some kind of a trek shouldn't be considered for winning status.

stevo23 said:

I occasionally enjoy taking pictures of squirrels at the park. They're furry, cute, and have funny little hands. They are also wild. They are wildlife. The fact that they are wild critters is part of what makes them appealing to photograph. After all, I don't get too enthused about taking photos of the neighborhood cats. Neighborhood raccoons though, yes indeed! They may be mundane and citified wildlife, but that doesn't make them un-wildlife.

Click to expand...

So if you want to get stuck on the exact definition of what is wild, yes. But think a little more beyond a definition. Does it make sense that

stevo23 said:

By your definition, if I get incredibly lucky and capture a rare warbler perched in a bush in my yard, it's not a wildlife photo because I didn't spend days hunting it down up in the mountains. Pfft!

Click to expand...

You might be catching wildlife in that case, but does it deserve to win a prize?

Click to expand...

AndyMulhearn said:

deednets said:

AndyMulhearn said:

deednets said:

AndyMulhearn said:

It just didn't feel right to me, but looking at the negative responses I had, I am the only one who thought this was odd.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Excuse the poor quoting but this is part of what you said in your otiginal post:

My gut feel tells me that this must be a biased enterprise as I am sure there should be some SONY/Fuji users here.

Is is possible that you perhaps set yourself up for the response you got by suggesting that the selection was inherently biased?

Click to expand...

50.000 entries of which 49.990 were taken with either a Nikon or a Canon?? Or none of the other cameras made it into the higher levels within the selection process.

Anything is possible, but just from experience, which can be vacillating either way I guess, any competition where the entries come from one or 2 sources near exclusively make me wonder.

Click to expand...

I suppose the alternative view is that none of the shots entered with Mirrorless cameras were good enough for consideration. As a mixed Canon/Fuji shooter, very few of the wildlife shots I take with my X-Pro 2 come close to the quality I can get with my 7D2 or even those I got with my original 7D and 400L. And I have to say that's reflected in most of the wildlife shots I see from the X-t2 and 100-400. There's very few I see that wouldn't go in my first cull from a shoot and I don't even bother entering this competition as none of my work is good enough/different enough to complete.

Click to expand...

AndyMulhearn said:

AndyMulhearn said:

The world in general is often biased by interests and not so much by what most posters here seem to think that there is abolutely not a hint of bias.

Click to expand...

Well aside from deliberately excluding shots based on EXIF data which I believe would not be something the competition would do - it would make more sense to day it's just a Canon/Nikon only competition - how much time do you think five judges would spend looking at 50k shots? Enough time to check the shot and then the exif?

AndyMulhearn said:

If that is the case, why did the gear at the exhibition take up so much space?? Maybe 25%-30% of the size of the image was reserved for the gear being used.

Click to expand...

You may well have seen a different version to the one I've seen. The Photos are generally large - about A2 - size and the details of the shot, of which the camera and lens detail is a small part as it includes how the shot was taken and location details plus biography, fits on a postcard. Hardly seems to be too much attention on the branding and way less than you describe.

AndyMulhearn said:

And not a hint of a secondary interest in this you think? It's possible but I am possibly also too old to be educated into believing that when a brand name is mentioned 50 times at an exhibition (out of a hundred mind you) then this has got NOTHING to do with the brand this is about artistic value "only" ...

Click to expand...

Nope, that makes no sense. Sorry.

[snipped details of cameras used]

AndyMulhearn said:

In contrast to the actual exhibition there were ONLY Nikon and Canon found here. 4 out of 5 judges are associated - or in the case of Matias Klum - a Nikon Ambassador.

Click to expand...

Hmm, the most used cameras for wildlife are big DSLRs with long lenses. Shock, horror wildlife photographer judges tend to use big DSLRs with long lenses. Doesn't prove they're biased though.

AndyMulhearn said:

Let me turn this question around: if the judges had been SONY shooter of Olympus birders, would there also have been Nikon and Canon "only" here??

Click to expand...

How many top wildlife photographers fall into that category? Shoot Olympus that is? I did a quick google this morning and none leapt out at me.

AndyMulhearn said:

Anything is possible, but - call me a cynic - if I see a pattern this strong, I at least ask myself if this is a mere coincidence. If I then read that the judges are associated with the winning gear being used ...

Click to expand...

I'll call you a cynic.

AndyMulhearn said:

Nevermind ...

Note: it is of course entirely possible that none of the 5 judges had any bias and were judging those images without seeing the EXIF.

Possible this is of course!

Click to expand...

Like I said, either the automatically filter based on Exif in which case the conditions of entry would reflect that. Or the judges check exif and discard shots from the wrong cameras or all 50k shots submitted. Either option sounds highly unlikely.

Click to expand...

webber15 said:

AndyMulhearn said:

webber15 said:

I suppose the alternative view is that none of the shots entered with Mirrorless cameras were good enough for consideration. As a mixed Canon/Fuji shooter, very few of the wildlife shots I take with my X-Pro 2 come close to the quality I can get with my 7D2 or even those I got with my original 7D and 400L. And I have to say that's reflected in most of the wildlife shots I see from the X-t2 and 100-400. There's very few I see that wouldn't go in my first cull from a shoot and I don't even bother entering this competition as none of my work is good enough/different enough to complete.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Can't agree with you there...

Fuji well capable and these just jpegs.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4171742

Dave...

Click to expand...

AndyMulhearn said:

webber15 said:

AndyMulhearn said:

AndyMulhearn said:

I suppose the alternative view is that none of the shots entered with Mirrorless cameras were good enough for consideration. As a mixed Canon/Fuji shooter, very few of the wildlife shots I take with my X-Pro 2 come close to the quality I can get with my 7D2 or even those I got with my original 7D and 400L. And I have to say that's reflected in most of the wildlife shots I see from the X-t2 and 100-400. There's very few I see that wouldn't go in my first cull from a shoot and I don't even bother entering this competition as none of my work is good enough/different enough to complete.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Can't agree with you there...

Fuji well capable and these just jpegs.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4171742

Dave...

Click to expand...

Sorry but that doesn't convince me. Without critiquing them individually, theres nothing in that selection that persuades me Fuji yet has a viable option for long-lens wildife photography. Most are too dark or shot at the wrong angle - birds from directly above never work.

But then I said "There's very few I see that wouldn't go in my first cull from a shoot" not there are none I've seen. There's a guy on another forum I'm a member of that has some good results with the 100-400 but even then, nothing I would submit.


Sandwich Tern

EOS 7D2, Sigma 150-600 at 600mm, f8, 1/1600 and ISO 400.

Click to expand...

webber15 said:

AndyMulhearn said:

webber15 said:

AndyMulhearn said:

webber15 said:

I suppose the alternative view is that none of the shots entered with Mirrorless cameras were good enough for consideration. As a mixed Canon/Fuji shooter, very few of the wildlife shots I take with my X-Pro 2 come close to the quality I can get with my 7D2 or even those I got with my original 7D and 400L. And I have to say that's reflected in most of the wildlife shots I see from the X-t2 and 100-400. There's very few I see that wouldn't go in my first cull from a shoot and I don't even bother entering this competition as none of my work is good enough/different enough to complete.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Can't agree with you there...

Fuji well capable and these just jpegs.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4171742

Dave...

Click to expand...

Sorry but that doesn't convince me. Without critiquing them individually, theres nothing in that selection that persuades me Fuji yet has a viable option for long-lens wildife photography. Most are too dark or shot at the wrong angle - birds from directly above never work.

But then I said "There's very few I see that wouldn't go in my first cull from a shoot" not there are none I've seen. There's a guy on another forum I'm a member of that has some good results with the 100-400 but even then, nothing I would submit.


Sandwich Tern

EOS 7D2, Sigma 150-600 at 600mm, f8, 1/1600 and ISO 400.

Click to expand...

The moment you crop into that Sandwich tern shot it falls apart...& oversharpened, an unnatural "digital feel" Canon apsc sensor??

Click to expand...

webber15 said:

Only the Green Heron of my shots was from above.

Click to expand...

webber15 said:

And the Nighthawk, the light was perfect so changing the exposure Is a no no...

Click to expand...

webber15 said:

Dave...

Click to expand...