Nikon and Canon Photographers scooped up most of the wildlife awards.

With my recent trip to South Africa coming up and there's the question of should I rent the Panasonic 200mm 2.8 for it. I bought the following books.

• British Wildlife Photography Awards: Collection 8
• Wildlife Photographer of the Year 27

Mostly to study the images and also to inspire me. For those who haven't seen these books or the previous years. Each award winning photograph has the camera model, lens and what setting. Now before I get into the telephoto lenses the award winning photographers used. Daniel Cox recently spoke about the Panasonic 200mm 2.8 and he said it's mostly a sport lens.

While mirrorless has been making entries into the sport and wildlife with new bodies and lenses. We shouldn't forget both Canon and Nikon had their bodies and lenses out for years. The four new mirrorless telephoto lenses only been out for under two years and they are:

• Sony FE 100-400 with a possible teleconverter
• Fuji 100-400 with the optional teleconverter
• Olympus 300mm
• Panasonic 100-400

That said Sony, Fuji and Panasonic has announced further wildlife and sport pro lenses. So mirrorless will make a bigger impact into wildlife photography and may have the advantage in the future. We know both Nikon and Canon will each release a new mirrorless format and it will take a few years for them to catch up to both M43, Sony and Fuji. Both M43 and Fuji are releasing smaller pro telephoto lenses and more photographers will take notice. They may not get the extra thin depth of field but the larger lenses will be hand holdable compared to the full frame counterparts.

In the books there were a lot of super wide up close shots but when it comes to telephoto lenses, the 400mm prime was virtually didn't feature. When I was looking at the stats, what became apparent there were mostly three type of telephoto lenses used for the award winning shots and I will list them below.

• 500mm F4

Surprisingly the 500mm F4 were featured heavily in the award winning images. Maybe because the lens is cheaper than both the 400mm F2.8 and the 600mm F4. Also the lens has further reach than the common 100-400 4.5-5.6 and shallow depth of field. It seems to be popular for award winning wildlife photographers and maybe we could get our own 250mm F4 for the M43 format.

• Canon 100-400 and Nikon 80-400.

This could also include the Nikon 200-500. It shouldn't be a surprise the backbone lens of wildlife and sport photography would feature heavily in the photo competition. On a full frame camera and shot wide open, it will create a thin depth of field and a lot of photographers usually stop down. Sadly M43 doesn't have a lens like this except for the Panasonic 45-200 and that probably the worst Panasonic zoom lens.  But there are alternatives like the approx 75-300 and the approx 40-150 range.

• Nikon 200-400 F4

Surprisingly the Nikon 200-400 F4 featured heavily and I don't think I saw a single shot from the more expensive Canon counterpart with the in built teleconverter. The good news is Panasonic will be releasing their own version of this lens aka 50-200mm F2.8-4. It probably cost one third of the Nikon and one fifth of the Canon's.

•  Conclusion.

Approx five years ago both Olympus and Panasonic were starting to release pro lenses and bodies in the M43 format. We saw the GH3/EM5 and later the 35-100mm 2.8/40-150mm 2.8. Both lenses were great for animals and birds who were close but there weren't the long telephoto lenses to back up the mid telephoto zooms. Later we saw the release of the GH4 and the EM1. Finally a year later we finally got our long expensive telephoto lenses with the Panasonic 100-400 and the Olympus 300mm.

I will be studying the pictures more but there were pictures I think I could get the same results or similar with my existing M43 kit. The only problem is when it comes to the blurred background the M43 can't compete very well against the Full Frame cannons. That said do you want cheaper and smaller gear or do you want very large lenses to create truly stunning art shots.

It will be interesting to see what the bokeh will look like on the PL 50-200 and maybe we will see a 500mm F4 for micro four thirds if the system would benefit  from the lens.

If you are travelling take in account weight restrictions on flight with canon and Nikon this will impose more restrictions with what you can take due to weight.

paul cool wrote:

If you are travelling take in account weight restrictions on flight with canon and Nikon this will impose more restrictions with what you can take due to weight.

my Brother has taken a Nikon 500mm/4 on flights many times without any problems, and we are talking companies like Ryanair and Easyjet as well as bigger operators

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

paul cool wrote:

If you are travelling take in account weight restrictions on flight with canon and Nikon this will impose more restrictions with what you can take due to weight.

my Brother has taken a Nikon 500mm/4 on flights many times without any problems, and we are talking companies like Ryanair and Easyjet as well as bigger operators

With the 15 pound carry on weight limit for international flights, the lens at 6.8 pounds would tend to limit your other carry on options.  The larger problem for me is that it would exceed my carry/hand hold weight limit, but the lens is excellent.

drj3 wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

paul cool wrote:

If you are travelling take in account weight restrictions on flight with canon and Nikon this will impose more restrictions with what you can take due to weight.

my Brother has taken a Nikon 500mm/4 on flights many times without any problems, and we are talking companies like Ryanair and Easyjet as well as bigger operators

With the 15 pound carry on weight limit for international flights, the lens at 6.8 pounds would tend to limit your other carry on options. The larger problem for me is that it would exceed my carry/hand hold weight limit, but the lens is excellent.

it's very doable as he can contest with the amount of travel he has done with it, sometimes and/or the 200-400mm/4, i think it's upto the individual if they wish to travel this way and most of his trips were down to shooting aviation so very specific rather than just taking it along on holiday

C Sean wrote:

The only problem is when it comes to the blurred background the M43 can't compete very well against the Full Frame cannons.

Let me quote Eric Hosking, one of the best wildlife photographer of all times.

"Many photographers are very proud of their wide aperture lens without thought as to its use. An f3.5 lens of 300mm is certainly an expensive job, but this focal length working at maximum aperture gives such a tiny depth of field, particularly when working at short range, that it is to be discouraged in most circumstances. There are altogether too many photographs that have a narrow band of focus separating unsightly blurs at the top and bottom of the picture. ..."

Okapi001 wrote:

C Sean wrote:

The only problem is when it comes to the blurred background the M43 can't compete very well against the Full Frame cannons.

Let me quote Eric Hosking, one of the best wildlife photographer of all times.

"Many photographers are very proud of their wide aperture lens without thought as to its use. An f3.5 lens of 300mm is certainly an expensive job, but this focal length working at maximum aperture gives such a tiny depth of field, particularly when working at short range, that it is to be discouraged in most circumstances. There are altogether too many photographs that have a narrow band of focus separating unsightly blurs at the top and bottom of the picture. ..."

That's one man's opinion. There are others that would disagree, but that's fair enough as well. I know exactly what he's saying, but that's also more than likely for FF. There are reasons to keep the lens wide open when shooting birds for unexpected reasons. I never stop down my canon lenses, that's not what they were bought for. Then again, I'm also shooting on an m4/3 sensor, not FF and that does make a difference.

If I look at Steve's settings in bright daylight, he would agree with Eric. His settings with a 500 F/4 on a 1Dx MKII is, F/8 - F/11at ISO 1200 - ISO 1600 and still get high shutter speeds. That's ISO's I can't use, I don't like going over ISO 400 for birds. As said though, we are shooting an m4/3 sensor and not FF. Others use the lenses wide open, could be for subject isolation (which I personally love to see), could be for having the highest shutter speed they can get and still have a low ISO.

All the best and largely, that's a personal thing, not a rule just for one man. There are always exceptions.

Danny.

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

paul cool wrote:

If you are travelling take in account weight restrictions on flight with canon and Nikon this will impose more restrictions with what you can take due to weight.

my Brother has taken a Nikon 500mm/4 on flights many times without any problems, and we are talking companies like Ryanair and Easyjet as well as bigger operators

think restrictions this year have been tightened a friend my camera club can no longer take her 500 mm f4 so has to take the 200-500mm instead

paul cool wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

paul cool wrote:

If you are travelling take in account weight restrictions on flight with canon and Nikon this will impose more restrictions with what you can take due to weight.

my Brother has taken a Nikon 500mm/4 on flights many times without any problems, and we are talking companies like Ryanair and Easyjet as well as bigger operators

think restrictions this year have been tightened a friend my camera club can no longer take her 500 mm f4 so has to take the 200-500mm instead

i know Ryan air have changed their baggage rules as have easyjet....then again with ryanair i am surprised you don't have to pay extra to get a pilot these days

OzRay wrote:

Most photographers use Canon/Nikon

Most wildlife photographers use Canon/Nikon.

Most awards are likely to go to Canon/Nikon users.

It's akin to like saying most Americans use an iPhone, therefore most mobile phone photographs in the US are taken with an iPhone.

which asks the question....why do they mostly use Canon/Nikon?

The concentration of Canon and Nikoon has to do with time. Some of those photographers are shooting with gear, especially lenses, that were around before M43. Even when they have a new lens here and there they a into a system and slow to change.

IT has little to do with the hardware's ability to make a photograph, and more to to with what experienced, talented photographers have in their kit.

Tom

Okapi001 wrote:

C Sean wrote:

The only problem is when it comes to the blurred background the M43 can't compete very well against the Full Frame cannons.

Let me quote Eric Hosking, one of the best wildlife photographer of all times.

"Many photographers are very proud of their wide aperture lens without thought as to its use. An f3.5 lens of 300mm is certainly an expensive job, but this focal length working at maximum aperture gives such a tiny depth of field, particularly when working at short range, that it is to be discouraged in most circumstances. There are altogether too many photographs that have a narrow band of focus separating unsightly blurs at the top and bottom of the picture. ..."

Looking at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year finalists, there are plenty of images shot with narrow apertures, or using wide angle lenses to get a lot in focus, but there are also great images that use shallow depth of field in a creative way.

It's a tool that can be overused, but there are circumstances where the wide open aperture was necessary for an award winning shot. I can see why wildlife photographers would want that tool at their disposal, even if they'd agree with Eric Hosking that it isn't a good idea in "most circumstances".

Wu Jiaqiu wrote

which asks the question....why do they mostly use Canon/Nikon?

Tradition and vendor lock-in are significant factors.

Let's look at the situation some 40+ years ago. A lot of wildlife photographers had Olympus OM-1/2/4. By the year 2000 virtually all of them switched to another brand, due to the fact that Olympus basically skiped the autofocus phase of film photography.

There were also Pentax and Minolta, popular in general, but for various reasons not so much among wildlife photographers.

So most of the wildlife photographers were using Canon or Nikon, which continued in the digital era. Only recently Sony, Olympus and Panasonic have cameras and lenses that can potentially atract serious wildlife photographers, and it seems especially Olympus is doing quite well in that regard.

A good friend of mine and a great wildlife photographer has been using Canon for 40+ years. Recently he admited that in his opinion Sony is better (for wildlife photography), but he is too invested in Canon to switch.

It should also be mentioned that the difference between major brands (or formats) is in most cases not that big to justify major costs associated with switching systems. But despite that we see some serious Canon and Nikon users switching to Olympus (or Sony or Panasonic).