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

Okapi001 wrote:

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).

most people i know have spent so much on big lenses they have no intention of selling and rebuying everything just for another format to get basically where they were

Ab Latchin wrote:

There is more overlap between the systems than people care to admit.

If he is shooting at ISO 1600 and f8-11. You should be shooting at f4-5.6 and at ISO. 400. You should be able to produce the same SS and subject isolation.

So I don't understand you saying you can't use those ISOs. You don't have to.

It's a sensor size thing. Even comparing the underwing noise on a BIF with my Sony APS-C I see the difference compared to m4/3. FF seem to be able to raise the shadows far better than we can using those ISO's.

All the best.

Danny.

I'm not expecting the 50-200 to come out before my trip to Africa and if it does I probably give it a miss. I will get the lens but I would rather have the 35-100 2.8 with me than have a lens that approx half a stop quicker than the 100-400.

I highly recommend the Olympus 40-150 2.8. I'd rather have the extra stop than the 50mm more reach. And I can't imagine the PL 50--200 being any better optically.

Tom

Tommi K1 wrote:

C Sean wrote:

• 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.

Nope, not for the shallow DOF. It is for the deeper DOF that is wanted but when it is in expense of slower shutter speed, people go for higher shutter speed.

Go and actually take a look at the wildlife photography finalists and award winners. There are plenty of shots using wide open apertures (including f/1.4 portrait primes in some cases) that didn't need the extra shutter speed.

A significant number of images clearly use shallow depth of field as a creative tool to isolate a particular subject or part of a creature. For example, it's a technique used in a couple of shots by this Wildlife Photojournalist Award finalist, while his other images are stopped down to get everything in focus.

Tommi K1 wrote:

nzmacro wrote:

Okapi001 wrote:

"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.

Yes, it is opinion based to his experience.

That's ISO's I can't use, I don't like going over ISO 400 for birds.

You can't or you don't like?

As for me, in my experience I can go to ISO 3200 without any problems with birds as I get feather and all visible well enough without such loss compared to FF.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos1dxii&attr13_1=canon_eos7dii&attr13_2=olympus_em1ii&attr13_3=sony_a9&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&attr126_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.778574036331485&y=-0.9800545105327303

for a brief moment i thought you had posted an image of yours.....but no, just the DPR studio test scene, i know myself i like to keep the aperture open when shooting wildlife to get the fastest shutter speed with the lowest iso  i can....i can post samples

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

nzmacro wrote:

Okapi001 wrote:

"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.

Yes, it is opinion based to his experience.

That's ISO's I can't use, I don't like going over ISO 400 for birds.

You can't or you don't like?

As for me, in my experience I can go to ISO 3200 without any problems with birds as I get feather and all visible well enough without such loss compared to FF.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos1dxii&attr13_1=canon_eos7dii&attr13_2=olympus_em1ii&attr13_3=sony_a9&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&attr126_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.778574036331485&y=-0.9800545105327303

for a brief moment i thought you had posted an image of yours.....but no, just the DPR studio test scene, i know myself i like to keep the aperture open when shooting wildlife to get the fastest shutter speed with the lowest iso i can....i can post samples

That's because you know what you are doing. How the heck you read all that from him is beyond me .... or did you

All the best.

Danny.

nzmacro wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

nzmacro wrote:

Okapi001 wrote:

"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.

Yes, it is opinion based to his experience.

That's ISO's I can't use, I don't like going over ISO 400 for birds.

You can't or you don't like?

As for me, in my experience I can go to ISO 3200 without any problems with birds as I get feather and all visible well enough without such loss compared to FF.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos1dxii&attr13_1=canon_eos7dii&attr13_2=olympus_em1ii&attr13_3=sony_a9&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&attr126_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.778574036331485&y=-0.9800545105327303

for a brief moment i thought you had posted an image of yours.....but no, just the DPR studio test scene, i know myself i like to keep the aperture open when shooting wildlife to get the fastest shutter speed with the lowest iso i can....i can post samples

That's because you know what you are doing. How the heck you read all that from him is beyond me .... or did you

All the best.

Danny.

with long lenses and focal lengths is easy to tell who walks the walk and who talks the talk, i must admit i read most of it....honest.

I actually invested in a decent tripod for the first time in my life......i'm going early morning wildlife chasing with it soon.....the local birds are looking very worried indeed

Tommi K1 wrote:

nzmacro wrote:

Okapi001 wrote:

"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.

Yes, it is opinion based to his experience.

That's ISO's I can't use, I don't like going over ISO 400 for birds.

You can't or you don't like?

As for me, in my experience I can go to ISO 3200 without any problems with birds as I get feather and all visible well enough without such loss compared to FF.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos1dxii&attr13_1=canon_eos7dii&attr13_2=olympus_em1ii&attr13_3=sony_a9&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&attr126_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.778574036331485&y=-0.9800545105327303

The difference is negligent. Remember that you are looking about a 1.2m wide print when you are looking those DPR comparison shots. Images that are JPEG compressed heavily (even every single raw file they tell, that is just direct raw decoding without denoising etc) and without any other processing and preparation for printing.

Pixel peeping those samples, ANYONE should come to conclusion that Sony A9 is totally the best of all four.

Does that mean that no one can use a Canon 1D X Mk2 or 7D Mk2 for willife photography at ISO 3200 and below?

As I could almost make a small bet that majority of the Canon shooters would be using either of those or similar (older or similar performance).

But we are just pixel peeping like 3% of the whole photograph content!

Now lets go the whole process:

1) Choose the final image size and viewing medium type (specifications for digital, physical)

2) Choose the viewing distance.

3) Choose the cropping limits (when you need to get closer)

4) Choose your shutter speed and aperture ratio for DOF of above one requirements.

5) Choose your ISO based above ones.

In what situations the 4/3" system sensor hits the wall? Very rarely...

And we are still talking only about noise and resolution performance. Now add there like the change to get the moment by using a Pro-Capture in E-M1 Mk2 or 60 FPS raw shooting capability. Have a totally working AF in any aperture value (direct backlighting is often a case) or ways to magnify the viewfinder, tilt the screen up/down and use touch screen to release shutter (while hiding behind the tree etc).

And even more important, weight and size of the gear so you have will and strength to go for the extra few kilometers forward.

The body design so you can still keep operating camera without ever need to move your thumb and index finger away.

The technology that you don't need to move your sight from the subject and yet be 100% sure that every single frame you take is exactly correctly exposed. So no time to chimp screens and try to read a EV meter etc.

When a m4/3 camera like E-M1 Mk2 beat every single one camera out there offering multifold better changes. That tiny noise difference doesn't matter.

But the competition comes behind and slowly. 10 years later to so speak.

And the problem is not in the gear, it never was. It has been that the majority of the people working in that field are vendor locked to Canon and Nikon. They know only Canon and Nikon. They don't care about anyone else.

Sony is now sexy among young people who get fooled by the small technology differences in sensors being the only thing mattering. Yet you can't get the gear setup small and light as m4/3 can offer. The problem to get that gear up there is still a challenge for many. And yet these many professionals are so dedicated that they are carrying far more heavier and larger gear out there, even when their gear has inferior IQ compared to Sony.... And yet they come out with a superior photographs than Sony people?

Why? Because they know their gear, they know their subjects and they just go out instead worry about DXO scores. As nothing of that matters.

And that is the achilles heel in m4/3 system that it is so underscored by even most avid m4/3 users here. Constantly under attack by FF fanboys about equivalence and how the extreme IQ is the requirement...

Even this thread is about a books that are mainly produced by the Canon and Nikon users. And libraries and book stores are all full of those... How many even dares to talk about m4/3 when "it doesn't have a FF sensor" so "I can't use above ISO 400"....

Oh yeah, a studio scene from DPR. Congrats

Its very simple. I can jump over a cliff and I wouldn't like the result, so I can't and won't. Yes that is a personal choice. I can go over ISO 400, but don't like the results, so no, I can't and won't. Again, yes that's a personal choice, just like the cliff. Others can for what they take. Life is good with choices and I already made mine years ago.

I'm very pleased for you if you can for your bird's, BIF's and motorsports. Good on you. With FF I would push the ISO higher.

Danny.

nzmacro wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

nzmacro wrote:

Okapi001 wrote:

"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.

Yes, it is opinion based to his experience.

That's ISO's I can't use, I don't like going over ISO 400 for birds.

You can't or you don't like?

As for me, in my experience I can go to ISO 3200 without any problems with birds as I get feather and all visible well enough without such loss compared to FF.

The difference is negligent. Remember that you are looking about a 1.2m wide print when you are looking those DPR comparison shots. Images that are JPEG compressed heavily (even every single raw file they tell, that is just direct raw decoding without denoising etc) and without any other processing and preparation for printing.

Pixel peeping those samples, ANYONE should come to conclusion that Sony A9 is totally the best of all four.

Does that mean that no one can use a Canon 1D X Mk2 or 7D Mk2 for willife photography at ISO 3200 and below?

As I could almost make a small bet that majority of the Canon shooters would be using either of those or similar (older or similar performance).

But we are just pixel peeping like 3% of the whole photograph content!

Now lets go the whole process:

1) Choose the final image size and viewing medium type (specifications for digital, physical)

2) Choose the viewing distance.

3) Choose the cropping limits (when you need to get closer)

4) Choose your shutter speed and aperture ratio for DOF of above one requirements.

5) Choose your ISO based above ones.

In what situations the 4/3" system sensor hits the wall? Very rarely...

And we are still talking only about noise and resolution performance. Now add there like the change to get the moment by using a Pro-Capture in E-M1 Mk2 or 60 FPS raw shooting capability. Have a totally working AF in any aperture value (direct backlighting is often a case) or ways to magnify the viewfinder, tilt the screen up/down and use touch screen to release shutter (while hiding behind the tree etc).

And even more important, weight and size of the gear so you have will and strength to go for the extra few kilometers forward.

The body design so you can still keep operating camera without ever need to move your thumb and index finger away.

The technology that you don't need to move your sight from the subject and yet be 100% sure that every single frame you take is exactly correctly exposed. So no time to chimp screens and try to read a EV meter etc.

When a m4/3 camera like E-M1 Mk2 beat every single one camera out there offering multifold better changes. That tiny noise difference doesn't matter.

But the competition comes behind and slowly. 10 years later to so speak.

And the problem is not in the gear, it never was. It has been that the majority of the people working in that field are vendor locked to Canon and Nikon. They know only Canon and Nikon. They don't care about anyone else.

Sony is now sexy among young people who get fooled by the small technology differences in sensors being the only thing mattering. Yet you can't get the gear setup small and light as m4/3 can offer. The problem to get that gear up there is still a challenge for many. And yet these many professionals are so dedicated that they are carrying far more heavier and larger gear out there, even when their gear has inferior IQ compared to Sony.... And yet they come out with a superior photographs than Sony people?

Why? Because they know their gear, they know their subjects and they just go out instead worry about DXO scores. As nothing of that matters.

And that is the achilles heel in m4/3 system that it is so underscored by even most avid m4/3 users here. Constantly under attack by FF fanboys about equivalence and how the extreme IQ is the requirement...

Even this thread is about a books that are mainly produced by the Canon and Nikon users. And libraries and book stores are all full of those... How many even dares to talk about m4/3 when "it doesn't have a FF sensor" so "I can't use above ISO 400"....

Oh yeah, a studio scene from DPR. Congrats

Its very simple. I can jump over a cliff and I wouldn't like the result, so I can't and won't. Yes that is a personal choice. I can go over ISO 400, but don't like the results, so no, I can't and won't. Again, yes that's a personal choice, just like the cliff. Others can for what they take. Life is good with choices and I already made mine years ago.

I'm very pleased for you if you can for your bird's, BIF's and motorsports. Good on you. With FF I would push the ISO higher.

Danny.

Danny,

I was doing some PP on a BIF the other day and I swear that when I zoomed right in on that shadowed under-wing area I saw that there was a studio test chart stuck to the bird's wing. I suppose that's why we shouldn't pixel peep too much  

Peter

Ab Latchin wrote:

Not really. It is a technology and light thing. For example Canon FF sensors set to stops higher iso will not raise shadows as well, and neither will a Sony.

So as I said, if your ff shooter is at f11 and ISO 1600, you will be at f5.6 and ISO 400. Both Sony and Canon do not have a full two stop noise advantage and will have noisier shadows. In Sony's favor they have a lot of high resolution bodies to claw back some of the noise.

Nikon is really the class leader here, but even they are not miles ahead of the 2 stop difference.

So, sure if the FF Camera uses a larger aperture and the same iso three is lots of advantage, if they use the same size aperture and a higher iso they don't, especially not a Canon.

The thing is if you are shooting birds in flight DOF is not a challenge even with long telephoto lenses on FF . Unless the bird is a pterodactyl . Thanks to the distances typically involved { hence why you are using long telephoto lenses} . Plus shooting birds is bloody hard in the daylight so I doubt many are doing it in the dark

If you can sneak up on the wee buggers you can then shoot with shorter focal lengths . People here tend to forget that before digital came along 35mm was considered a small deep DOF format relative to other systems . While 110 film was of course a low quality toy format

Then there is of course the huge MP count available on many FF cameras such as the 45mp D850 or 42mp A7RII/III. Which allows for significant cropping whilst still retaining a large file size if really needed .There is also a far lower penalty for pushing shadows on for example a BIF shot , where the far brighter background typically results in a somewhat underexposed bird unless you choose to blow out the sky.

Here is a 19.4mp crop from a D850 which gives you a 1.5x crop factor

Original frame:

1.5X 19.4 MP crop with 100% detail sample inserted

samtheman2014 wrote:

Ab Latchin wrote:

Not really. It is a technology and light thing. For example Canon FF sensors set to stops higher iso will not raise shadows as well, and neither will a Sony.

So as I said, if your ff shooter is at f11 and ISO 1600, you will be at f5.6 and ISO 400. Both Sony and Canon do not have a full two stop noise advantage and will have noisier shadows. In Sony's favor they have a lot of high resolution bodies to claw back some of the noise.

Nikon is really the class leader here, but even they are not miles ahead of the 2 stop difference.

So, sure if the FF Camera uses a larger aperture and the same iso three is lots of advantage, if they use the same size aperture and a higher iso they don't, especially not a Canon.

The thing is if you are shooting birds in flight DOF is not a challenge even with long telephoto lenses on FF . Unless the bird is a pterodactyl . Thanks to the distances typically involved { hence why you are using long telephoto lenses} . Plus shooting birds is bloody hard in the daylight so I doubt many are doing it in the dark

If you can sneak up on the wee buggers you can then shoot with shorter focal lengths . People here tend to forget that before digital came along 35mm was considered a small deep DOF format relative to other systems . While 110 film was of course a low quality toy format

Then there is of course the huge MP count available on many FF cameras such as the 45mp D850 or 42mp A7RII/III. Which allows for significant cropping whilst still retaining a large file size if really needed .There is also a far lower penalty for pushing shadows on for example a BIF shot , where the far brighter background typically results in a somewhat underexposed bird unless you choose to blow out the sky.

Here is a 19.4mp crop from a D850 which gives you a 1.5x crop factor

Original frame:

1.5X 19.4 MP crop with 100% detail sample inserted

Dof issue does happen occasionally even on m43 with bif not so much but i can nearly always shoot w/o a few occasions where it matters grey wagtail should i of shot at 5.6 think so which would of meant f11 ff ,the deer i stopped down to 5.6 to get all in focus because it was so big ,and the heron i should of stopped down also to 5.6 to get more wing in focus.to say you can always shoot w/o on full frame is a exaggeration .

To be a proper wildlife expert the idea is to get as close to your subject as you can.

paul cool wrote:

samtheman2014 wrote:

Ab Latchin wrote:

Not really. It is a technology and light thing. For example Canon FF sensors set to stops higher iso will not raise shadows as well, and neither will a Sony.

So as I said, if your ff shooter is at f11 and ISO 1600, you will be at f5.6 and ISO 400. Both Sony and Canon do not have a full two stop noise advantage and will have noisier shadows. In Sony's favor they have a lot of high resolution bodies to claw back some of the noise.

Nikon is really the class leader here, but even they are not miles ahead of the 2 stop difference.

So, sure if the FF Camera uses a larger aperture and the same iso three is lots of advantage, if they use the same size aperture and a higher iso they don't, especially not a Canon.

The thing is if you are shooting birds in flight DOF is not a challenge even with long telephoto lenses on FF . Unless the bird is a pterodactyl . Thanks to the distances typically involved { hence why you are using long telephoto lenses} . Plus shooting birds is bloody hard in the daylight so I doubt many are doing it in the dark

If you can sneak up on the wee buggers you can then shoot with shorter focal lengths . People here tend to forget that before digital came along 35mm was considered a small deep DOF format relative to other systems . While 110 film was of course a low quality toy format

Then there is of course the huge MP count available on many FF cameras such as the 45mp D850 or 42mp A7RII/III. Which allows for significant cropping whilst still retaining a large file size if really needed .There is also a far lower penalty for pushing shadows on for example a BIF shot , where the far brighter background typically results in a somewhat underexposed bird unless you choose to blow out the sky.

Here is a 19.4mp crop from a D850 which gives you a 1.5x crop factor

Original frame:

1.5X 19.4 MP crop with 100% detail sample inserted

Dof issue does happen occasionally even on m43 with bif not so much but i can nearly always shoot w/o a few occasions where it matters grey wagtail should i of shot at 5.6 think so which would of meant f11 ff ,the deer i stopped down to 5.6 to get all in focus because it was so big ,and the heron i should of stopped down also to 5.6 to get more wing in focus.to say you can always shoot w/o on full frame is a exaggeration .

I was only referring to BIF , and assuming you have the right focal lengths shots of herons , deer and every other critter you can think of can be  done on FF without having to shoot at high ISO  { unless the light forces it of course}

A quick search through Flickr etc will attest to this . Your shots do not show shutter speeds  or aperture , but the stag is pretty much  static so you could simply shoot at a slower shutter speed while using a slower aperture if needed. Obviously this would not apply to faster moving subjects .

To be a proper wildlife expert the idea is to get as close to your subject as you can.

In that case I will sneak up on the blighter's and use a wide angle lens  Those bloody telephoto lens can be very pricey and much more challenging to use

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/58365044@N05/

samtheman2014 wrote:

paul cool wrote:

samtheman2014 wrote:

Ab Latchin wrote:

Not really. It is a technology and light thing. For example Canon FF sensors set to stops higher iso will not raise shadows as well, and neither will a Sony.

So as I said, if your ff shooter is at f11 and ISO 1600, you will be at f5.6 and ISO 400. Both Sony and Canon do not have a full two stop noise advantage and will have noisier shadows. In Sony's favor they have a lot of high resolution bodies to claw back some of the noise.

Nikon is really the class leader here, but even they are not miles ahead of the 2 stop difference.

So, sure if the FF Camera uses a larger aperture and the same iso three is lots of advantage, if they use the same size aperture and a higher iso they don't, especially not a Canon.

The thing is if you are shooting birds in flight DOF is not a challenge even with long telephoto lenses on FF . Unless the bird is a pterodactyl . Thanks to the distances typically involved { hence why you are using long telephoto lenses} . Plus shooting birds is bloody hard in the daylight so I doubt many are doing it in the dark

If you can sneak up on the wee buggers you can then shoot with shorter focal lengths . People here tend to forget that before digital came along 35mm was considered a small deep DOF format relative to other systems . While 110 film was of course a low quality toy format

Then there is of course the huge MP count available on many FF cameras such as the 45mp D850 or 42mp A7RII/III. Which allows for significant cropping whilst still retaining a large file size if really needed .There is also a far lower penalty for pushing shadows on for example a BIF shot , where the far brighter background typically results in a somewhat underexposed bird unless you choose to blow out the sky.

Here is a 19.4mp crop from a D850 which gives you a 1.5x crop factor

Original frame:

1.5X 19.4 MP crop with 100% detail sample inserted

Dof issue does happen occasionally even on m43 with bif not so much but i can nearly always shoot w/o a few occasions where it matters grey wagtail should i of shot at 5.6 think so which would of meant f11 ff ,the deer i stopped down to 5.6 to get all in focus because it was so big ,and the heron i should of stopped down also to 5.6 to get more wing in focus.to say you can always shoot w/o on full frame is a exaggeration .

I was only referring to BIF , and assuming you have the right focal lengths shots of herons , deer and every other critter you can think of can be done on FF without having to shoot at high ISO { unless the light forces it of course}

A quick search through Flickr etc will attest to this . Your shots do not show shutter speeds or aperture , but the stag is pretty much static so you could simply shoot at a slower shutter speed while using a slower aperture if needed. Obviously this would not apply to faster moving subjects .

To be a proper wildlife expert the idea is to get as close to your subject as you can.

In that case I will sneak up on the blighter's and use a wide angle lens Those bloody telephoto lens can be very pricey and much more challenging to use

Yes but how much am going to gain shooting these subjects with a 600 mm f4 on full frame if i keep everything in the envelope that i use printing a3 comps ,projector shots limited res ,facebook  ,flickr and even publication will only be A4 .