[nanhi]

India’s leading newspaper Times of India and travel company Yatra.com organised a one day safari to the Turahalli Forest Reserve near Bangalore – US $ 13.50 inclusive of Guide, breakfast, lunch and fruit juices.
The group of 21 identified the different bird, butterfly and camouflaged reptile species, and learnt how to photograph them.

Some interesting take homes from the safari: a) most said the quality of photos depended on the price of the cameras and lenses used; b) it was a one day fun escapade from the humdrum of life and a glimpse into natures beauty, the hills and exotic wildlife; c) learnt 70 to 90 % of wild life photographic skills from the guide Mr. VS. Bayar; d) the group comprised of retirees, professors, techies, doctors, corporate employees and few wild life photogs – aged between 70 & 26.

Unfortunately I missed the event, being tasked to meet a prospective groom for my niece.

[hcc]

Thank you for sharing.

... a) most said the quality of photos depended on the price of the cameras and lenses used; ...

I would disagree with the first part (price of camera is irrelevant), but could agree with the latter: with lenses, you get what you pay for, However ultimately the quality of the photos depends really upon the photographer, not its gear.

[Giklab]

most said the quality of photos depended on the price of the cameras and lenses used

learnt 70 to 90 % of wild life photographic skills from the guide Mr. VS. Bayar

Well that explains that. Note "most".

[bwDraco]

This is one of the few shooting situations where you genuinely need high-end equipment to get the best images. It combines the difficulties of sports photography with extreme conditions, very long distances (this is why they use 400mm and often 600mm lenses) and fast-moving animals that push the limits of autofocus (and the photographer's skill), well beyond what would normally be encountered on, say, a basketball court or soccer field.

For everyday shooting, your gear doesn't matter much (although it can make the job easier), but for wildlife photography, your gear makes a much bigger difference.

[nanhi]

Dear hcc & Giklab Sirs, I most certainly agree with you in a kind of Yes & No affirmation.
I remember having taken some of the best photos with a box camera - a British Ensign Full View Super. So I do agree the Photographer's skills especially composition is the # 1 in importance.

But cameras and lenses are getting technically so advanced that they inspire, encourage and edge you to take some stunning photographs.
Then the 3rd element is Photographic Software like Photoshop, Lightroom etc that further heightens your photographic endeavors to perfection - like a Plastic Surgeon.
And the 4th element are Programs like Photoephemeris that you lets you plan your Travel shoots prior to visiting the place - in 3D, with sun positions. shadows, rotate & tilt for optimal composition, moon phases and % illumination, astronomical twilight etc.

"http://photoephemeris.com/tpe-for-desktop"

I know I cannot force you to get convinced, but in my hearts of hearts as a Techie myself I know this is the bare truth.
Just my 2 cents Sir.
Regards.

---------- Post added 01-25-16 at 10:36 PM ----------

This is one of the few shooting situations where you genuinely need high-end equipment to get the best images. It combines the difficulties of sports photography with extreme conditions, very long distances (this is why they use 400mm and often 600mm lenses) and fast-moving animals that push the limits of autofocus (and the photographer's skill), well beyond what would normally be encountered on, say, a basketball court or soccer field.
For everyday shooting, your gear doesn't matter much (although it can make the job easier), but for wildlife photography, your gear makes a much bigger difference.

bwDraco Sir, and some more - like the fear of the wild, barren landscape, unknown trails, water holes, the extreme heat or cold. All these make a Wildlife Photographer;s life torturous and perhaps adventurous too.
I see you have hit the nail stronger than me. And I speak from experience in the extreme cold of the Canadian Tundra shooting Polar Bear and the exploits of the Inuit Tribe where you cannot even fire the shutter - your fingers just tremble. Forget about not having simply the best gear, for an ordinary DSLR & Lens would die in 30 seconds or condensation kill the motherboard or the battery just die.
Thank you Sir.
Regards.

[BrianR]

"Wildlife photography" should not be synonymous with "the photography of flighty things from several fields away".

By camping at food sources, you can have a great deal of enjoyment and success vs butterflies with just about any lens that can focus reasonably close. The "camouflaged reptile species" and any other critter that relies on cryptic colouration can often be approached to the point where you can reach out and touch them. If you have your heart set on photographing eagles out on ice flows 100m away, then yes you need the honking big and expensive equipment, but there is no shortage of beautiful photographs of interesting subjects from nature you can make with a very modest expenditure.

[Giklab]

I wanted to point out that if the participants got most of their knowledge from the guide then that's the constant and the gear is the differentiator.
And +1 to what Draco wrote.

[BrianR]

I wanted to point out that if the participants got most of their knowledge from the guide then that's the constant and the gear is the differentiator.

User error is another differentiator.

[ffking]

For everyday shooting, your gear doesn't matter much (although it can make the job easier), but for wildlife photography, your gear makes a much bigger difference.

totally right - it's all about reach and sharpness - composition is important, but anybody with any level of competence can get a reasonable shot - the only real skill aspect is timing, but that's of limited value without the right equipment

[mohb]

totally right - it's all about reach and sharpness - composition is important, but anybody with any level of competence can get a reasonable shot - the only real skill aspect is timing, but that's of limited value without the right equipment

So why do the 'birders' on here who use more or the less the same equipment display a large variation in quality? This is not a criticism of any of them (I occasionally have a go) The basic truth is that some people have 'the eye' whilst others don't.

[luftfluss]

Eh, the last couple of years I've shot larger wildlife almost exclusively with 200mm & 300mm Taks, and somehow they get printed/published and sold/donated.

Some people rely on their equipment, some people rely on themselves.

[bwDraco]

Of course, it takes skill to make the most of your equipment. A Canon EOS-1D X and EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM lens ($16,100 combined, as of this writing) are meaningless without the appropriate skill to make the most of it. There's no question about it.

You could get by with an EOS Rebel T6i and a cheap EF 75-300mm (or the equivalent in your camera system of choice, e.g. K-S2 with DA 55-300mm), and yes, a skilled photographer can get some solid shots with this combination, but if you have even some experience doing wildlife photography, the gear—primarily your lenses—can quickly become the main limiting factor. There's a reason pros spend tens of thousands of dollars on equipment.

My experience with wildlife photography tells me that 250mm on APS-C is not enough, not by a long shot. This is when you want to start spending big bucks on the "big gun" lenses (e.g. D FA 150-450mm).

[luftfluss]

Of course, it takes skill to make the most of your equipment. A Canon EOS-1D X and EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM lens ($16,100 combined, as of this writing) are meaningless without the appropriate skill to make the most of it. There's no question about it.

You could get by with an EOS Rebel T6i and a cheap EF 75-300mm (or the equivalent in your camera system of choice, e.g. K-S2 with DA 55-300mm), and yes, a skilled photographer can get some solid shots with this combination, but if you have even some experience doing wildlife photography, the gear—primarily your lenses—can quickly become the main limiting factor. There's a reason pros spend tens of thousands of dollars on equipment.

My experience with wildlife photography tells me that 250mm on APS-C is not enough, not by a long shot. This is when you want to start spending big bucks on the "big gun" lenses (e.g. D FA 150-450mm).

I'd generally prefer to figure out how to get closer before spending more money. Not that I wouldn't mind a DFA 150-450.

If you are shooting large terrestrial wildlife or waterfowl, 200 - 300mm is often enough.

Here's a bear I tracked through a field one evening. Shot with a Tak 200/3.5, no crop:

[nanhi]

I'd generally prefer to figure out how to get closer before spending more money. Not that I wouldn't mind a DFA 150-450.
If you are shooting large terrestrial wildlife or waterfowl, 200 - 300mm is often enough.
Here's a bear I tracked through a field one evening. Shot with a Tak 200/3.5, no crop:

Dear Luftfluss Sir, that that photo of the black bear is honestly very good, but it is surely not picture post card quality. It would still qualify as a good snapshot.

Our two and a half year old grand daughter likes wild animals, so we have taken her to some of the best zoos and wild life safaris - not the real African one but a simulated safari in Canada.
I used a K-5 IIs and the HD 55-300 WR. Looking at some of the photos you wouldn't be able to tell if it was a zoo or a "fake" safari. I avoided the fences or concrete lined pools in some of the photos to give an "authentic" safari look. Yet they remained good snap shots like yours - not worth displaying here.

Regards.

[luftfluss]

Dear Luftfluss Sir, that that photo of the black bear is honestly very good, but it is surely not picture post card quality. It would still qualify as a good snapshot.

Our two and a half year old grand daughter likes wild animals, so we have taken her to some of the best zoos and wild life safaris - not the real African one but a simulated safari in Canada.
I used a K-5 IIs and the HD 55-300 WR. Looking at some of the photos you wouldn't be able to tell if it was a zoo or a "fake" safari. I avoided the fences or concrete lined pools in some of the photos to give an "authentic" safari look. Yet they remained good snap shots like yours - not worth displaying here.

Regards.

Hello Nanhi, the point of me posting this shot of the bear was to demonstrate that a 500mm lens is not required to shoot certain kinds of wildlife. Obviously, a shot like that on a cloudy evening is not a "picture post card quality" photo.

Of course, shooting in a zoo or "fake" safari is not shooting wildlife at all.