H4D-40 with 300mm & 1.7x for Wildlife?

[whyshoot]

Hi all,

I am a newbie in both this forum & the Hasselblad system.

Question is : Anyone done some serious wildlife (distance shooting) with the 300mm & 1.7 extender to
get a real close-up of the wildlife?

Recently I was on a Photo Expedition trip to the Inside Passage to Alaska with National Geographic.

95% of the shooters were Canon, Nikon and Olympus with long lenses. I had the H4D-40 and 150mm (poor me) and
the spare camera- Leica-V-lux 2 (max. 24 x optical zoom -equivalent to 600mm). Actually I was prepared for model shoot
after the trip with the portable lighting kit. Didn't prepare for this trip.

We were shooting from the ship to land - bears, eagles, mountain goats...etc. The other shooters had good close-up of course.

I had to crop a lot to get in close.

So, would I be able to use the 300mm & 1.7x and get real close-up to show the others what the Hassy is all about?

Thanks

[Derek Jecxz]

Like this non-cropped (300mm + 1.7x)?



If you want close up photographs of wild animals, with medium format camera gear, you either have to get extremely close, as I did above, or use 35mm gear with 400mm-600mm lenses.

Kind regards,
Derek Jecxz
www.jecxz.com

[ette]

Derek. OMG that is gorgeous. You are my New Hero

[whyshoot]

Thanks Derek for the info.

I am trying to avoid the 35mm if possible and just keep to the Hassy.

I know the moment the trigger is squeezed the image quality is there.

Eventually, I hope Hassy would do a longer lens for wildlife because with level of optic quality
I would sacrifice speed over color, resolution and depth.

Taking just the 35mm-90mm zoom and a longer lens and a portable lighting kit would make global travel
much easier. You know you got good tools. All you need is the selection of subject and it will be in the bag!

Cheers

[Derek Jecxz]

It is extremely difficult to use MF gear to make meaningful photographs of wildlife, to put it bluntly, it is the wrong tool. It is analogous to your dentist using a hacksaw to remove a cavity, it just doesn't make sense. I can relate, I moved to Hasselblad from Canon, but I wanted to expand my creativity, not look back at what I used to do with Canon. There is nothing wrong with carrying a small case with a Canon or Nikon and a 600mm lens just for wildlife; do everything else with Hasselblad.

In the alternative, and I would not ordinarily make this offer, I'd be willing to travel with you to photograph bears and lions. While you get really close with your H and 150mm, while they're eating you, I'll photograph it all with my HTS and 28mm. 

Kind regards,
Derek

[whyshoot]

Yes I do understand the concept of the right tool. and you are so right about it but simplifying the gear would be great especially if you
got that shot in the bag with the MF gear instead of the 35mm. The visual quality in technical aspects will be so evident and you don't get to
repeat shots.

And thanks for that's for the great behind-the-scenes shots. I am sure Nat Geo would love it. 

I will try the MF gear - 35mm-90mm and 300mm with the 1.7x extender for wildlife. Sports - it's a bit different.

So one more trip to shoot the wildlife before the big decision. If I really need that one kit from the 35mm family then I will do it for the wild things & sports.
Then it's the Canon vs Nikon battle.

Currently I do use the M9 for street photography and teaching purposes along with the V-lux 2 and X1 to give my shoulders a break.

I am trying to keep away from Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Sony IF I can - due to the fact that they are introducing new products every year. Just too common.
Nothing faulty about them - they are excellent brands in technology and all.  Just adopting something exclusive and be happy about it.