| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Not quite "sports": Lens advice for Antarctica?
Nic Hume, Photographer
 |
-- | -- | Varied. | Posted: 12:31 AM on 02.04.09 |
->> This is obviously a bit off-topic, but I need a bit of advice:
As a few of you know, I'm currently two years into a three-year trip around the world. I'm traveling relatively light gear-wise (see below) as I'm effectively a backpacker.
In December 2009 and January 2010 I'll be taking a 19-day trip to the Antarctic, from Ushuaia, Argentina south to the Antarctic Peninsula, then looping around South Georgia and heading back to Argentina. Weather-permitting (it should be good at that time of year) I'll have shore expeditions regularly, and I expect to see all KINDS of gosh-darn cool things, including all sorts of fun wildlife (PENGUINS! BIRDS! SEALS!) and the like. I also expect to do a reasonable amount of landscape-style shooting of ice-floes, sunsets, etc.
Right now the longest glass I have is a 70-200 on a full-frame body. The obvious solution for wildlife photography is to get a doubler, which I'm planning on doing, BUT, I'm not sure if I'll be really particularly upset by the image degradation. I've only been a Canon shooter during my travels, and haven't used canon TC's at all.
I'm debating trying to rent something longer and get it shipped down, or possibly buy something longer in Buenos Aires and then sell it immediately after the trip...
Does anyone have any experience shooting this sort of stuff? How much will I miss having "real" long glass, and is it potentially worth the hassle of trying to move around with? One person has already suggested I try and take a 500/f4 with me, but imagine trying to backpack with THAT beast? ...
I'm also wondering if I should pick up a flash. It's been suggested due to the relatively harsh light that far south, but I've made it two years without using one so far...
Temperatures should range from -5 to +5 (Celsius) so it's not *TOO* extreme in that regard, and most of my gear (except my new Mk II) has been to -35 deg. C in Tibet and Kashmir, so I'm not too worried. It kills the batteries, but everything seems to still work OK.
So, has anyone done this before? Any suggestions?
My current travel kit is:
5D Mk I
5D Mk II
17-35/2.8
70-200/2.8 (NON-IS)
24/1.4
--Nic |
|
Dave Prelosky, Photographer
 |
Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 12:44 AM on 02.04.09 |
| ->> For Pete's sake, get a hold of Canon and let them turn you into an endorsee. Let them decide how to get the gear to you. Antarctica should play well in the next set of product lit.... |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
 |
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 12:54 AM on 02.04.09 |
->> Nic--
Consider adding a Canon 50D which with its crop factor will be like shooting with a 1.6X extender. Also, get the Canon EF 1.4X Extender which works quite well with the 70 - 200 / 2.8. With these additions (200 x 1.4 = 280, 280 x 1.6 = 448) you have an effective 448mm / F-4 which is a lot like a 500/4 and much more easily back packed. The 50D uses the same battery as the 5D II so that won't complicate your battery management.
You'll be down there during the long days and short nights and hopefully mild weather. Sounds like a great excursion.
--Steve |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 1:07 AM on 02.04.09 |
| ->> I don't know about lenses but I would bank on 81A warming filters........ |
|
Lane Hickenbottom, Photographer
 |
Omaha | NE | usa | Posted: 1:22 AM on 02.04.09 |
->> Never been, but I think harsh light on the equator. Enjoy the low-lying sunshine way down south! Isn't it the magic hour for like 16 hours a day down there?
Much smaller (and cheaper) than the 500 f/4 is the 400 f/5.6 which can be had for about a $1000.
As you know, size is everything when backpacking. For $200 you could pick up a Canon 75-300mm f4-5.6 III USM. Probably a crappy lens, but it's small, cheap, and will help you reach a little bit. Placed on a 1.6 crop factor camera and you've got a poor-man's nature photography setup. |
|
Chris Large, Photographer
 |
Okotoks | AB | Canada | Posted: 1:22 AM on 02.04.09 |
->> I also recommend the 1.4 extender which will give you more reach. Not sure if it's worth the expense and size for another body unless you replace the 5d with the 50d. I would also go with a flash and off camera cord - there are alot of very cool closeups, portraits etc that will really come to life with a bit of fill. If you are shooting RAW, low ISO then you can crop to get the same results as a 500MM.
I've shot the high arctic as opposed to Antarctica but I think there alot of similarities. I was dazzled by the light reflection off the ice, the sunsets/sunrises, the vastness of it all. Have fun. |
|
Matthew Hinton, Photographer, Assistant
 |
New Orleans | LA | USA | Posted: 1:23 AM on 02.04.09 |
->> It's not the temperature it's the wind chill. You may consider a viewfinder diopter or attachment that allows you to zoom in on the finder to see well through goggles.
There was a guy on the discovery channel who did those ice trucker documentaries and he talked about his eyelashes freezing in harsh wind and having to crawl back to camp listening to the hum of a generator because he couldn't open his eyes.
Though it's summer down there now, you may find yourself in a situation where it's windy and you would have to look through goggles for comfort. |
|
Juliann Tallino, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Port Townsend/Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 9:38 AM on 02.04.09 |
->> A 2x on a 70-200mm would not be good, you can get away with the 1.4tc on a zoom but only in bright light. What about the 400 f5.6? I just rented one for a trip through the everglades next week. Lighter than a 70-200 and supposedly very sharp even at the f5.6 end. Even buying one of those isn't that bad, about the same as a 70-200 non IS.
I read that in below freezing temps you should hold your breathe when you focus/frame your shots because your breath could freeze on the camera. BRRRR |
|
Harrison Shull, Photographer
 |
Fayetteville, WV | Asheville, NC | | Posted: 10:02 AM on 02.04.09 |
->> the 100-400L IS lens gets poo-poo'ed here at SS a good bit. But it is not intended to be a fast action sports lens. It packs down to just slightly smaller than the 70-200 2.8IS so it wins big points for portability. Much of my shooting is from backpacks in the backcountry so I face your dilemma of packing everything in quite often.
With the nice high ISO performacne of the new 5DmII (original 5D is not bad!) you will be able to make this lens work well for the kinds of realtively slow moving stuff you will shoot down there. If shot correctly, watching shutter speeds and employing the IS, the 100-400 lens will make some really nice images. |
|
Sheen Yen, Photographer
 |
West Lafayette | IN | USA | Posted: 10:16 AM on 02.04.09 |
->> Steve, good suggestion on the 50D- but just wanted to point out that it does not use the same battery as the 5d II.
If you need to crop tight, the 50D does a great job.
Nic, I would go with the 1.4x II extender as well. You'll see some degradation in image quality but it's really not a big deal if convenience is the issue. Are you bringing a tripod with you while you're backpacking? |
|
Adam Bettcher, Photographer
 |
Bloomington | MN | USA | Posted: 10:24 AM on 02.04.09 |
| ->> Not an equipment suggestion specifically but Ushuaia is a wonderful town with lots of interesting people to photograph. I ended up there after completing Camel Trophy 1998. We drove land rovers from Santiago to Ushuaia in the winter, it was quite the experience. I shot an 80-200 and a 1.4 for most of the trip along with a 20-35 and a fisheye on F3 hp's and an F5. Let me know if you have specific questions on Ushuaia, I might be able to guide you more specifically. |
|
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Central | NJ | USA | Posted: 10:56 AM on 02.04.09 |
->> The Canon 400 f/5.6 is a great light long lens--and here's a secret with it:
The old Kenko 1.5X is "dumb" insofar is it isn't chipped. This means your camera doesn't realize it is a TX any more than your television notices there's an extension cord.
You do lose a stop of light, but you've got a lot of reach with and without the TX, in a very lightweight compact package. |
|
Chris Peterson, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Columbia Falls | MT | USA | Posted: 10:57 AM on 02.04.09 |
->> Nic, I live eat and breathe wildlife and birds. You'll really, really want a 400 AND a 1.4 tele. I backpack with a 400 all the time. I actually find it's easier to carry it on a monopod than in a pack, because the weight is directly on your shoulders, as opposed to in a pack, where it rests on your lower back. I did something in the order of 200 miles plus miles last summer alone in Glacier Park. Believe it or not, it's not that bad once your legs get in shape. You can shave weight off with a 400 f4 (Canon).
My 2 cents. |
|
Matthew Ginn, Photographer
 |
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 11:36 AM on 02.04.09 |
| ->> I thought the animals in Antarctica were all so friendly you could walk up and hug them. Maybe a wide zoom would be all you need. |
|
Walter Calahan, Photographer
 |
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 2:06 PM on 02.04.09 |
->> The people behind Luminous Landscape have chartered a few trips to Antarctica, why not contact them for advice? http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
I'm sure whatever long glass you get will be fine until you are eaten by the friendly, huggable Antarctic animals. |
|
Eric Francis, Photographer
 |
Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 10:54 PM on 02.04.09 |
->> I'd say forget about the 50D, 1.6x doesn't really give you anything real, just a perceived magnification.
400 5.6........ isn't that the same as putting a 2x on the 70-200?
I know, I know, the 2x is not that great of an optic. But this is all about being very mobile. Lane is right, every lbs. or oz. counts in this situation.
I actually think a 300/4 and a 1.4x would be a great addition to this kit is you really want more glass.
Maybe even think about updating you 70-200.
just my .02 |
|
Rich Cruse, Photographer
 |
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 11:23 PM on 02.04.09 |
->> A little off topic, but I wanted to share an image my sister took in Antarctica in Hannah Point. She works for a travel company and travels all over the globe. She took it with a Sony CyberShot DSC-H2 6 megapixel camera. The camera is an all-in one design with a 12x optical zoom and takes AA batteries.
She received an honorable mention for this terrific image of a penguin encountering an elephant seal. I gave her grief for entering it in the contest because they took all kinds of rights with each entry.
http://intercontinentalconnections.com/honorable-mention.php#S5TFPEOJ
When I first saw the image, I told her I might be able to market it for her and asked for the hi res version. She sent me a 3 megapixel image! It turns out she had the camera set to "medium" resolution! UGH! That was the last time she did that! |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 11:31 PM on 02.04.09 |
->> Eric--
Help me understand how the 1.6X crop factor of the 50D doesn't give you anything real, just a perceived magnification, but the 1.4X would be a great addition.
Why not a 50D with its 1.6X magnification, and no loss of the f-stop that occurs with the 1.4x convertor?
Have I missed something here?
--Steve |
|
Eric Francis, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 12:17 AM on 02.05.09 |
| ->> ...because the 50D is just a smaller chip. |
|
Eric Francis, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 12:49 PM on 02.05.09 |
->> Steve,
The 50D is a 15mp chip...
The 5DII is a 21mp chip...
Cropping the 5D image give you the exact same image as the 50D will produce. So, there really is nothing to be gained unless you want the built in flash on the 50D.
In the end, Nic is the one who has to carry this stuff.
e |
|
Mike Morelock, Photographer
 |
Greenwood | AR | USA | Posted: 1:16 PM on 02.05.09 |
| ->> Actually if you scaled a 50D sensor up to 5D2 size you'd get a 39mp camera, so the 50D does have more reach. Also the crop 50D works better with the 100-400 since that lens is typically a lot better in the center than on the edges. |
|
Isaac Ginsberg, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Seattle | WA | U.S.A | Posted: 2:21 PM on 02.05.09 |
->> My 2 cents...
First of all.. Plan on having your auto focus freeze... If you don't remember how, plan on rediscovering the manual focus ring on your lens! The small motors just can not handle sub -20 very well... (I am from northern MN originally)
I spent 40 days shooting in the Arctic last year, I brought with me my 17-55 2.8 lens, and (because it was light, small, and easy to manual focus) a 70-300 4.0-5.6....
I also brought the 1.4 converter for any REALY long stuff... or things I could not safely approach, such as bears.
I used the 17-55 99.9% of the time... Having brought my long glass was almost a joke to me by the end... However... I did use it on two occasions, both for shooting wildlife at some distance... When I did this I was using the 70-300 with the converter... Firstly Yes, this meant entirely using manuel focus for me because it made the Autofocus ridiculously slow... But when I got back home I almost cried looking at the photos.... After using the converter everyone of the images was of such poor quality that I could not print any of them..... Sigh..
DO forget the converter.. Bring a fixed 300 F4. if you feel you need it, or something similar... Or just use the wide angle and the 70-200.
Good luck! Stay warm! |
|
Eric Francis, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 3:08 PM on 02.05.09 |
->> Mike,
I'm going to have to ask you to show your work. Admittedly, I'm not a math whiz, but I don't think the math is right. |
|
Mike Isler, Photographer
 |
New York | NY | US | Posted: 4:14 PM on 02.05.09 |
->> Isaac- It's not that cold... he's going in Dec-Jan. That's summer down there. Average summer temperatures around coastal parts of Antarctica are about 20-35F. I was in Antarctica in Dec '96, and had no troubles with my equipment. (Well, not MY trouble, but the ship I took down there in '96 actually sank in late '07, in a dramatic fashion).
Nic, one thing to keep in mind is that your daily forays to and from the ship will be via Zodiac, to landing areas without piers and such. You'll want adequate weather protection, and pack accordingly so it's not too difficult to hop out of a rigid inflatable boat into ankle deep water as you get to land. I'd be wary of loading up a full backpack with a 400/2.8 or a 600. I think the 400/4 might be a good ticket for long glass (as Chris said), along with a 1.4x TC. I'd definitely have polarizers, too...and you might want to look into a drop-in polarizer for the long glass. There's a lot of snow and other bright shiny things you'll want help with the glare from. |
|
Mike Morelock, Photographer
|
Greenwood | AR | USA | Posted: 6:54 PM on 02.05.09 |
->> First I googled something like 50d 5d2 pixel density. The first link is
"If Canon's 5D2 scaled-up the 50D pixel density, then 38.88MP"
This seemed hard to believe, so I check on DPreview's camera reviews. They list 4.5mp/cm2 for 50d and 2.4mp/cm2 for 5d2.
The 5d2 sensor is 8.64cm2 so that does indeed work out to 38.88mp. |
|
Eric Francis, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 7:22 PM on 02.05.09 |
->> Mike,
Here's the math I am working off of....
50D=15mp
5DII=21mp
Like I said, I'm no math whiz or tech-geek. Even if the 50D has more pixels/cm, I'd still rather have the bigger pixels. If pixel packing was the magic bullet for photo, we'd all be working with point and shoots. |
|
Nic Hume, Photographer
|
-- | -- | Varied. | Posted: 7:25 PM on 02.05.09 |
->> I just wanted to toss a quick post up to say thanks to everyone for all their input so far (please keep it coming!)...
I think tentatively, that I'm leaning towards a 400/5.6 simply for the portability AND because it takes 77mm screw-on filters, so I can use my existing polarizer on it... Luminous Landscape has an excellent review of the lens, and it kicks the snot out of the 100-400 sharpness-wise, at least based on the LL sample pics. (It's also much, much more cost-effective than most other options. It's ~ $1100, vs. $5400 for a 400/f4 !)
It's obviously a long way off, and I haven't exactly made my mind up yet, but that's the direction I'm leaning in right now... (I'll likely post something to Luminous Landscape as well, though it'll be a day or two before I get around to it... )
NOW all I need to do is stroll through three more continents on my way to Antarctica and I'm set :p ... Hmmm... ;)
--Nic |
|
Daryl Peveto, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Ventura | CA | US | Posted: 2:03 AM on 02.06.09 |
->> Nic,
There seems to be plenty of advice here, but since I did basically the same trek your taking last year, I thought I would mention my experience. I took with me:
Canon 5D
35mm f1.4
45mm tilt shift
50mm f1.2
85mm f1.2
70-200 f2.8
The temperature was fine, it being summer time. South of the circle is sunny 24 hours. We had great weather - a lot of sunshine and blue skies. The few days it was cloudy, I did not have a problem with the light or feel that I needed a flash. Most wildlife and sea life gets close, so I tended to use wider lenses. We hiked around a lot and kayaked some. I was surprised by how comfortable the wildlife seemed to be with me.
There were a few moments when I would have killed for a 600mm. If you are going long, rent one of these. Using a 50D or a 1.4 extender with a 300 will probably not be of much use. The situations where I needed long glass - emperor penguins from the bough of the ship - I really needed long glass.
I am not sure if you have any interest, but I also wish that I had brought an HD video camera so that I could have shot stock. I learned after I got back that footage relating to global warming sells well. I remember being in a zodiac just hanging out in a bay for a few hours watching a giant glacier crash down in front of me. It would have made great video.
Also, the cold really zapped my batteries fast. Bring plenty and charge them often. I hope this is of some help.
Daryl |
|
Nic Hume, Photographer
|
-- | -- | Varied. | Posted: 3:05 AM on 02.06.09 |
->> Daryl et al,
I'm pretty new to the video field and have never really done any pro video work before, just dabbled, in a very amateur way with clips and such...
NOW I've got a brand-spanking-new 5D Mk II, which shoots 1080HD video.
Would anyone care to share thoughts on the suitability of a Mk II to produce sellable video clips. I've got zilch experience with this.
Will the audio cut it?
Would the audio cut it with an external mic?
How about AF (or lack thereof) issues?
I don't think I'll have the space to pack an "extra" HD cam, so I guess I'm asking if I can get away with shooting it with my 5D or if I'll be wasting my time trying?
-Nic
Hrm. I think I may have just hijacked my own thread... |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
 |
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 10:17 AM on 02.06.09 |
| ->> One thing I read at luminous landscape 25 percent of the 5d mk 11 died on there trip there recently that was 6 out of 24.It made me decide to keep my 1ds mk111 for the time being. get some 1d equipment . The problem was the humidity. |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
SB-900 TTL AF Shoe Mount Speedlight
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $499.95 |
Notes:
The SB-900 i-TTL Speedlight leads the Nikon Creative Lighting System delivering the portability, power and versatility to support any photographer's creative lighting imagination. SportsShooter.com users should call 866-726-9463 to get the special SportsShooter price.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
