i went to the "BG wildlife photographer of the year exhibition" in london yesterday. this is a pretty big thing here in the UK. as every year stunning photographs, though last year i was more impressed.

one thing caught my eyes: ALL pictures were taken on fujichrome. NO ONE used kodak. isn't that weird? and: nearly 2/3 of pictures were taken with canon eos. the rest with nikon and very few with more exotic cameras. no Leica here. i didn't expect someone would go out with a m6/35cron combo to chase lions. but why is noone using the R system? this was a competition for amateurs and pros alike.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), January 21, 2002

Answers

Hi Stefan, I don't know about you but to call EOS 1v's and F5's not "exotic" cameras is rather strange! Leica M rangefinders are truly fantastic but to compare the limited R system to Canon's (especially) or Nikon's incredibly advanced and comprehensive pro SLR systems is impossible. Remember for Pro's (and would be Pro's) these are tools for the job, just a means to an end.

I cannot speak for Leica R optics but Canon L series lenses are stunning both in build, features and optics. As for bodies - a £350 EOS 30 with 4fps built in, AF on par with the EOS 1v and every other feature you could possibly need is a far superior buy to an R8.

Sorry, but as much as I love my M I am also a big fan of Canon SLR's!

Similarly with film, Velvia and Provia rule the roost it would seem.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 21, 2002.

1. Many professionals preferred to focus manually, i.e. to use zone focussing or follow-focussing, for moving subjects. Both aren't ideal for unpredictably moving subjects, and by the mid-1990s AF systems were able to handle these satisfactorily. So why not use them?

2. The fast Telyts are recent additions; some years ago there weren't any fast tele lenses in the Leica lineup, and you look what you can get now, not what might be available in five years, when you choose your system.

3. You don't need excellent performance wide open for landscape photography.

4. Nature photography equipment is alwys expensive--but it still makes a difference whether you have to shell out 20 or 21 kilo€€€.

5. Leica has a reputation for poor reliability under tough climatic conditions.

The "exotic cameras" you mention were probably medium or large format tools such as the Pentax 67 or a Toyo. Wrt to Fuji predominance: on the one hand, Velvia saturation is unique; OTOH, Sensia is cheaper than Ektachrome.

Let's face it: we are the exotic ones in photography. Some day you'll find a Canon 600mm IS + 2x TC pointed at you, toting your M6, by a wildlife photographer who's hunting the truly exotic.

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), January 21, 2002.

with exotics i meant the odd hasselblad, fuji 617 and pentax 67II (spelled 6711 in the explanation). and of course the nikonos, V and RS. not much canon underwater.

what really struck me, is the shift from nikon to canon. it might be coincidence, but three years ago nikon dominated the field. now canon seems to take over.

BTW: i didn't only read the technical data, some of the pictures were really beautiful. if you are around south kensington, go to the natural histiry museum and have a look. avoid rainy sundays if you have problems with 10.000 screaming kids

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), January 21, 2002.

"5. Leica has a reputation for poor reliability under tough climatic conditions."

This is an interesting comment, because Leicaphiles will generally claim the opposite, but it reflects my own experience. Maybe dry heat and cold are OK for the Leica, but as soon as they get wet you're in trouble, IME. I'm usually in India for the monsoon and have learned to be very very careful about exposing my cameras to the rain, although the problems I had were mainly with the R6.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 21, 2002.

Why call the jap stuff advanced camera's? These engineers are trying to bring a lot of features to take away thinking, so they become snapshot camera's. If you want that, you can buy real excelent compact camera's for at least half the price. If you want think ahead, you don't use these features.

I once had a minolta in my hands, which had 11 or so spots which you could use to automatic focus and measure light. Before I could set those I would have been long ready with pointing my current R4s to the two spots required and take the pic. Also I had to be real carefull not to loose the setting. I had some pic's turn out way different than I expected because the camera decided it needed another e.g. apperture that I would have choosen. It sometimes even refused to take a pic for some reason(e.g. nog enough light). Hey, I like to be in control, I'm the one taking pictures. I prefer a mistake over a picture not taken.

All the "P"rogram settings make that I can't predict what will come out of my camera. I had this Minolta to try which had all the bells on it for a short time, until I found out that I started using it mainly on manual or A-spot (centre) setting and that it had bad contrast, mainly in the corners. Then I realized it is much better to invest in lenses than in bodies. So returned it after a few weeks and bought me a "cheap" 2nd hand Leica R4s body for which the high quality 2nd-hand lenses are relatively affordable and just as good if not better than any modern 'jap' lens.

Also you have to realize that the type of camera you take you pics with is irrelevant. The art is what the photographer can do with it (and it's limmitations). Mentioning the camera used with your work is to me a kind of show-off. It does not add any value to the work. With the taking of pictures there are a lot of variables of which the body is the least important (in 99.9% of all cases).

Reinier (PS I would even protect a water-proof camera against the rain :-))

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), January 21, 2002.

Not having a single Leica entrant is very surprising: Leica has been catering for wildlife photographers for decades (remember those shoulder stock Telyts for R and Visoflex ?).

In the current R range as well, Leica offers the right focal lengths and best of breed performance for high quality wildlife pictures.

But it does not have the right price, especially when it comes down to "advanced amateur" gear (300 mm f4, 400mmf4.5 or f5.6, telezooms). The IS feature can also be a bonus for wildlife features, and I understand why one would opt for those stabilised long lenses rather than for Nikon's less advanced feature set for example.

Tropicalised EOS 1 + sturdy weatherproof USM L lenses are hard to beat...

I find offensive the usage of the "jap" qualifier in our mails, and dislike the generalisation stating that Japanese engineers "are trying to bring a lot of features to take away thinking". What they are in fact doing is maximising success rate for the vast majority of photographers and offering photographers more control options than ever before.

This is so with Minolta bodies for example, so radically criticised by Reinier. One example: the recent Minolta 7 offers instant analysis of EV range of any given scene through an easy to read matrix accessible from a giant integrated LCD screen: a dream for people who like to tweak exposures (and who remember the basics of the Zone System). And this is only one of a zillion features that we Leicaists can only fantasize on, offered at less than half the price of my magnificent R8.

We do prefer simplicity, and that is our choice. But, if I was into wildlife photography competitions, I would also invest in equipment that would maximise my chances of success. The eventual extra "glow" of my R lenses, if such an extra glow really exists, does not weigh anything if I prove too slow to get the perfect shot...

Not at all surprised by the Fujichrome triumph at the exhibition. Velvia, Provia 100 and Provia 400 are the best options on today's market. Especially with KII vanishing from any practical scene.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), January 21, 2002.

This is a non-argument.

Leica M's are tools that adapt best to people photography. No one is going to be chasing down an Oriole with a Leica M/ 135 combination... unless your the invisible man. Leica R's are manual focus thus eliminating the option for the pro to use the excellent AF systems in pro level SLR's these days. Also, the price of a 300 F2.8 comparable to the Nikon or Canon offerings in Leica R mount is quite prohibitive.

BTW: I was watching a local Cantonese news broadcast some weeks ago and heard that Chow Yun Fat (the Asian actor) has a big sister who has undertaken a life project to photograph dragonflies. Apparently, she has recieved many accolades and even published a book.

Anyone heard about this? I'd like to know more...

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 21, 2002.

I suspect that the high usage of Canon equipment is due to Canon's stabilization lenses coupled with their autofocus capabilities. For wildlife photography both capabilities are valuable and increase the number of "keepers."

-Nick

-- Nicholas Wybolt (nwybolt@earthlink.net), January 21, 2002.

An EV measurement is indeed usefull. But only as long as it allows me to decide what I do with it. (You probably mean the d'image 7, which is digital and thus allows these kind of things more easy, but has lots of other problems (e.g. low light conditions and battery usage))

That's the point, our azian friends ;-) have for long been trying to take away thinking or added features that would take longer to set than a photographer who used his mind could do with a fully manual camera. (Press button A 7 times, barf)

If you put your camera to P, you don't have any control over the picture (DOF etc) and you can't vizualize it before (which is the main basis of using the zone system). You may get real nice shots, but that is also possible with a compact camera (I have a huge enlargement of a street in Brussels at night, made with a throw-away camera).

Once more, it is not the camera that makes the picture but you. If you know how your camera is going to respond, your the one that decide what pictures come out. There is the real nice picture of a girl with an eagle on photo.net. The major problem with is its background which is too clearly present. Clearly the result of an automatic camera. If the photographer would have choosen a wider aperture, the backgroud would have been blurred and the picture even 10 times better.

So think before you shoot

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), January 21, 2002.

You find that all types of photography have an 'industry standard'.For example:-

Sports=Canon Eos1

Photojournalism/documentary=Leica M6

Portrait=Hasselblad

Underwater=Nikonos

Press/news=Nikon D1/Canon Eos1 D

I know that someone will argue and say this isn't the case,but they are the industry standards.When people start out they see what the professionals are using and assume that that is what they need.This is shown to be the case when it comes to hiring or leasing gear.I hardly ever use lenses longer than 300mm,if I need a 400mm or 600mm I rent one.You can only rent Canon or Nikon at 90% of the pro dealers- no Pentax,Minolta,Leica,etc.

-- Phill Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), January 21, 2002.

Phill, photojournalism/documentary - Leica M? Only when I look in the mirror! I think Canon has the market there as well.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 21, 2002.

I talking photojournalism as in photo-essay,social documentary,Magnum type photojouralism.Not photojournalism as in Press,newspaper,spotnews AP,sygma type photojournalism.(which according to my degree tutor from a few years back isn't technically photojournalism......).

-- Phill Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), January 21, 2002.

I see it like this:-

photographer who grabs photo's of car crashes,film stars,politicians kissing babies,etc=press photographer.

photographer who spends years with African tribe or the mountain people of Bolivia,documenting their lives or goes inside a Chinese prison to expose the cruel conditions=Photojournalist.

-- Phill Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), January 21, 2002.

Just to stir the pot a bit, I think anyone who doesn't use an M6/35 Cron combo (or, maybe even a 24mm Elmarit-M) to shoot lions is a wimp. Where's the "get the confidence of your subject" spirit in shooting these cats with a long tele? Up-close and personal is the way to capture the character of the cat! Plus, at that range, you can tell who she ate for breakfast. (lol)

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), January 21, 2002.

Interesting definitions, Phil. What you consider a "photojournalist" I would call a "documentary photographer". But then again, all these terms are so malleable.

-- Richard Le (rvle@yahoo.com), January 21, 2002.

Phil's list pretty much agrees with the breakdown among ASMP members herebouts (Oregon) except that the photojournalists/documentarians tend to use Nikon F100s, for the better selection than Canon of fast primes. M6s, when present, tend to be supplementary. Nature photographers who do any substantial amount of macro work also prefer Nikon. But Canon's grip onm the sports and wild animal shooters, loosened a bit by the F5, tightened again when they got the jump on IS..

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), January 21, 2002.

Yes in the U.S maybe,but I'm talking about the U.K and Europe.I know that alot of American pro's use Minolta,in the UK I don't know any pro's who use Minolta.In a group of 50 press photographers you will ONLY see Nikon(D1,F5 and the odd F100) and Canon(Eos)with no exception.I went to a photojournalism/documentary seminar and out of about 25 photographers at least 20 used M6/M4p as their primary cameras.

Now this is my honest experience of what I have seen over the past few years.I do think that the Americans have a different idea of what a photojournalist is.I did a 3 year degree course in photojournalism/documentary photography and imaging.I don't remember anything about how to photograph Cathrine Zeta Jones from a step ladder or tips on bribing police at murder scenes.......:0)

-- Phill Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), January 21, 2002.

Phil is going for those darn americans again :-)

Hey, it doesn't matter what camera you have, as long as your happy with it the results you produce (and not your camera)

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), January 21, 2002.

Phil: You are mistaken that a large number of american pros use Minolta; hardly anybody does. Anyway, the market here is not so much the U.S. but the Pacific Rim, and the area of coverage for freelancers based here includes most of south Asia. So it's natural a documentarian operating in this arena, and who has to carry his own gear, someone who operates like Steve McCurry, would choose a system based on a fairly lightweight Japanese slr. Furthermore, Sept 11 has speeded up the conversion to digital of freelancers in general, not just the daily press. People want their images to withstand whatever x-ray equipment airports install. There's a big marketing window opening up -it will be interesting to see if anyone besides C&N tries to go thriough it.....

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), January 21, 2002.

I'm surprised, but if you say so. Good for Leica, then.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 21, 2002.

ReinierV,you said it-who cares? I say it to about 10 people a week "it's not the fishing-rod that catches the fish...."

Let's just leave it at that shall we?

So where is this site based? I thought it was east-coast USA.

-- Phill Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), January 21, 2002.

To respond to the original question: my work is in yacht-racing photography, which shares many needs with nature photography. For film,Fuji Velvia and Provia have a much better color balance outdoors in varying light IMHO (overcast, sunny, dawn/dusk) than Kodak films. Magazines that I've worked with recommend that photographers use Fuji film because of the on-the-water color quality. E-6 processing is more practical for photographers working with a deadline and on a budget.

For cameras, Canon has moved in on Nikon because of two key features: IS (image stabilization) and "retina-directed focus" or what-ever-you- call-it. Nikon has been criticized for not developing IS sooner, but the one lens that they developed (VR AF 80-400 f/4) goes directly after the nature/sports market. If Nikon hadn't come out with the VR lens, I would have sold my F-100 and lenses for the EOS with IS, etc. I agree with the comments that the best camera is the one that gets the job done for that photographer. If you look at the cameras that were used by photographers who have won the Pulitzer Prize since WWII, the breakdown is (roughly) Nikon: 90%; Speed Graphic: 5%; everybody else: 5%. And, heresy-of-heresies: HCB used a Zeiss/Ikon lens modified for his LTM during WWII because (I'm assuming) it was the best combination for him at the time. Cheers!

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), January 21, 2002.

Phil: Like so many american institutions, this site is dispersed to survive atomic attack. The server is in Cambridge, Mass -or it it? The brains of the operation are in Alaska, but move to an undisclosed location in time of emergency (when the fish are biting). Most of the equipment is owned by a guy in south Florida and the libido by a guy in Nashville who apparently never drinks in the same bar two nights in a row. Everybody would agree with your statement about fishing rods, yet all here are obsessed with one brand of rod :> So as you can see, even our wits are dispersed..

-- david kelly (dmkedir@aol.com), January 21, 2002.

Ralph- The Mohave Rattlesnake has 2 types of toxin-- hemo & neuro, but the Western Diamondback only has the hemotoxin. The Mohave is 20 times as toxic-- on par with the Cobra. There is a den of them near here (in Arizona) and in a couple months, the new babies will be slithering their stuff. Now that would be a good test of the new 24 Elmarit-M! BTW, the Mohave is extremely aggressive: they attack! The W. Diamondback stands its ground, but the Mohave firmly believes that "the best defense is a good offense"! Bring that 24 over and I'll document it all with my 135 Apo-Telyt-M! The heck with the lions! ;-)

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), January 22, 2002.

The results are indeed interesting, as I too am a surprised there was was not one Leica long lens photographer in the lot. But there is no doubt about it that Leica are very poor at putting their case over and telling the world what they have available. By any standards Leica have some superb optics available for wildlife and I am pretty sure that they are more than a match for L or best Nikon glass, but let's face it - can you find a dealer who can actually show you this glass if you want to see it? I don't know one. All of it has to be brought in by special order which means usually paying for it up front, or at least paying for a deposit in advance. Whereas at B & H you can get a look at long N and C glass as they have them in stock. This has got to be part of the problem. To be a Leica wildlife photographer you have to work hard to get a chance to look at the system. Leica are also expensive and they do not have anything like the network of international service agents available. It is no wonder that people stick to what they can get hold of and know.

The simple fact is that I just do not know whether the Leica APO module lens set is worth the extra money and to find out would be very difficult. It is not at all suprising that most wildlife photographers go with the "easy" option. After all no one is saying that Canon or Nikon have poor lenses.

I am less suprised about Fuji film. I too find Fuji slide film superior in general to the Kodak E6 equivalents. I am not sure I would shoot Kodachrome (much as I like it for general use) over Provia F, for example, as it is a stop slower and is not so easily scanned.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 22, 2002.