Yes, I know it’s a terrible pun but I couldn’t resist it. Quite seriously, though, how to capture my favourite flying friends successfully on pixels wasn’t immediately straightforward so I thought it worth sharing a few opinions.
First of all, I should point out that I was a relatively late convert from film photography to digital photography – I was a classic, hard-to-convince traditionalist. I have to say that I cannot imagine having been able to do with ISO 50 slide film what we now do with the more flexible digital format.
I still prefer a DSLR camera with exchangeable lenses but I’ve seen some excellent results produced using the so-called bridge cameras. Whatever, I regard a viewfinder camera as being absolutely essential to see what you’re getting. I believe compact cameras to be hopeless for this kind of photography – light reflecting off the rear screen makes life almost impossibly difficult.
My original Odo hunting lens was a “consumer” (i.e. not professional quality) 70-300mm f4-5.6 zoom lens. Unsurprisingly, it was always used at the 300mm setting. At its closest focus distance of about 1.5m/5ft, it produced good images. Carol now uses the pro-grade equivalent, a Canon EF 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS lens and, with a minimum focus distance of 1.5m/5ft, it is superb.
As a generally useful wildlife lens (birds as well as Odos), I upgraded to the professional grade Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS lens – better glass but my closest focus distance went out to 1.8m/6ft. Particularly for damselflies, that isn’t really close enough so I tend to mount a close-focus ring (31mm) which gets me back to a minimum of about 4ft.
Both approaches work but, to specialize in Odos, I’d recommend a 300mm lens, either a zoom (to include other uses) or a prime lens for nature. I now have the Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM lens which is a little easier to control, focusses closer so produces a similar sized image and maintains autofocus with the 1.4X extender (making an effective 420mm F5.6 lens).
Following some excellent results from Carol’s Canon 100mm f2.8 L IS macro lens (bought largely for plants), I’ve now added a Sigma 150mm EX macro. It’s good for the smaller damselflies but with any macro you have to get close, particularly at 100mm. I wanted a slightly longer lens and chose the Sigma 150mm which will take the 1.4X extender (not yet purchased). A macro makes a very useful additional lens but, IMHO, is not suitable as the only lens.
Odos are small critters with very fine detail. The sharper the lens, the better. These days, almost any camera has enough mega-pixels to reproduce fine detail at A4 size. Our older cameras were “only” 10 mega-pixels. Bolting a cheaper lens on a more expensive camera body won’t improve things much; a sharper lens on a regular body will. Given “spare” cash burning a hole in your pocket, I would always recommend upgrading your lens before your camera body - you’ll get bigger bang for your buck, as our transatlantic friends say.
If you’ve already got the good glass, by all means upgrade the camera body as well. I now use a Canon EOS 7D while Carol uses a Canon EOS 550D, both nominally 18 mega-pixel.
As stated above, you need to get quite close, say 1.5m/5ft, to capture small critters well on pixels. Small, winged critters are easily startled and scared off so it helps if you approach stealthily, avoid sudden/sharp movements and wear sombre clothing. As can be seen from this shot of a Black Darter perched calmly on Carol’s pink casquette, bright colours aren’t always a problem, though.
I don’t try to get as close as I’d like to be for the first click of the shutter. Since I am initially interested in identification, I start taking shots from further away. Then I’m free to attempt to shorten the distance and, if I do scare away a jumpy subject, all is not lost. This also helps to slow down my approach.
With a few id. shots in the bag, I can try and get something more artistic.
A good picture for identification purposes is not necessarily the same as an “artistic” picture. Taking suitable pictures for identification purposes can require a knowledge of distinguishing features which may be visible from the top, from the side, or even from beneath. Until you’ve an idea of what the subject might be, that’s difficult. Fortunately with digital, you’re only burning up re-useable pixels so you can click away with gay abandon from various angles.
A couple of characteristics help to make a visually appealing Odo photograph. These include the reasonably obvious, usual good portrait practice of an uncluttered/blurred background. Working close to the subject with a long lens, the background is often blurred anyway but varying your line-up to get a cleaner background can help.
Less obvious, perhaps, is your shooting angle. Shooting from a low angle to get on eye-level with your subject usually produces a more appealing result. I think this is true of wildlife photography in general. Here’s a couple of examples; both shots are Western Clubtails with uncluttered backgrounds but the eye-level shot has much more impact, IMHO.
Of course, not all locations allow for a low shooting angle but, when possible, it helps.
Depth of Field, ISO, Aperture
Working close with telephoto lenses tends to produce a DoF about as thick as a cigarette paper. I know I want the background blurred but it would be nice to get the critter in focus. Enter: the main advantage of modern digital camera bodies – the ability to use higher ISO speeds successfully.
In bright conditions, with our cameras at least, ISO 400 works well and I find 800 acceptable for less bright conditions, though it does tend to need some noise reduction clean-up. These generally make f8 and f11 apertures practical. That won’t get dragonfly wing tips in focus shot from the side but it gives a fighting chance with the abdomen, thorax and eyes if you get reasonably perpendicular to your subject.
With the cigarette paper DoF, any wobbling/rocking back and forth on your part whilst taking the shot is apt to throw your subject out of focus. Even with auto-focus, you may wobble too close for the lenses minimum focal distance.
Whilst a tripod could be too cumbersome and too difficult/too slow to line up, I find a monopod to be manoeuvrable enough to be a practical proposition whilst keeping me more stable. I use it almost invariably (except, of course, for in-flight shots).
Carol prefers not to resort to a monopod – she seems to be able to hand-hold much more steadily than me. I’d like to suggest that’s because she drinks less alcohol but that would be untrue.