Teleconverters - Using the HPX250 for wildlife

[Mike Warren]

Does anyone use the HPX250 for wildlife, particularly small animals and birds?

The reach is pretty good, but I think it would still need a teleconverter. There are a couple of things I'm concerned about:

Are there any teleconverters available that retain the image quality of the 250? I would also need at least a bit of zoom without quality degradation to go from full shots of an animal to close-ups. The full zoom range wouldn't be needed, just about the longest 25% or so.

Does the case flex and cause unstable images? I've seen quite a bit of footage from the 250 and the AC160/130 and noticed a bit of shakiness at maximum zoom. Surely most of them would have been shot with a decent tripod? Even very small movements are going to be accentuated with a teleconverter.

[Bruce196]

Will the X2 digital setting give you better quality than a teleconverter? There is web site that shows a siberian tiger on X2 and it looks good, as does all his HPX250 material. I think the slightly shaky telephoto shots that can be found on other web video tests are purely down to shooting discipline. On high magnification you cannot even be touching the camera setup as your heartbeat will show up.

http://filmmakingnaturally.com/panasonic-ag-hpx250-digital-zoom/

[n8ture]

The digital zoom at 2X isn't too bad. That's my test in the link above.
You have to realize that you're shooting the equivalent of a 616mm lens in 35mm still camera terms. If a butterfly farts close to the camera you're going to have some movement. I've been known to dump sand bags on the camera to try and stabilize it a little but at that reach you're going to get some motion if you have a wind or even if you walk around the ground next to the tripod while you're filming. I figured that one out when I was doing time-lapse stuff and couldn't figure out why at certain times the footage would shake a little. Well, that was from the times my fat a$$ would walk up and check to see how much battery time I had left. And I'm using a good Miller carbon fiber tripod.

I've never used a TC except for once when I did a test with the original HVX200 and it sucked. I think the digital zoom would be about as good or better at 2X. Any more and it starts breaking down pretty good.

Back in the day of film 35mm film cameras a Nat Geo magazine photographer I know used almost exclusively his 200-400mm zoom lens for wildlife. He'd use a 600mm f4 from time to time but the 200-400mm was his workhorse.

The best advice I can give since I pretty much only shoot nature and wildlife is to know your subject and just put in the time. Here's a shot I did on the 170 which only has a 13X zoom (http://www.silverphoenixllc.com/phoenixblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Spider2.jpg) That was a pretty small spider. For more skittish animals you need a hide or find a spot where they are acclimated to people. There comes a point where more reach isn't going to do you any good. You start shooting through too much air, you magnify the camera movement etc.

[rzr219]

That's my test in the link above.

That is your footage, I love it. After watching your test footage awhile ago I bought a 250. What did you shoot most of yours with 720p or 1080p?

Regards,
Robert

[Mike Warren]

Thank you both for your replies. Maybe I need to work on my stalking technique, but there seems to be a limit of about 50M, where no matter how slowly I creep up, most birds will decide I've got too close and fly off.

[n8ture]

Robert, I pretty much shoot everything right now at 1080p. Can't wait for when they get P2 to record 1080p/60p They stick that and AVC-Ultra into a 250 body and that will be a little piece of heaven on earth for me. :)

Mike, a lot of bird filmmakers I know use a feeding station and a blind of some sort. I have both a dome spring loaded type blind as well as a "bag" blind that I just throw over myself when I want to be more portable. You'd be surprised at the results you get. Find a deer trail, throw a bag blind over you and your gear and wait. Birds can't count but they're smart enough to know if they see you go in the blind and not come out that someone is in there. With really skittish birds like great blue herons it's nice to have someone come with you and you both go into the blind then the other person leaves. The birds think you have left and go back to their business.

But you're best bet is to film near a feeding station. You can set up a branch in the flight path of the birds so that they will land on that on their way to the feeders. You can even do that from your house if you cover your window and cut out a hole for the camera lens.

Wildlife filmmaking takes a bit of luck and a ton of patience. The best thing is to let the animals come to you. I sat down in a field in Devil's Tower because I saw a herd of pronghorn nearby. After a few hours they eventually surrounded me and were so close I could hear the grass being ripped out as they grazed.

But I don't think a TC is the way to go even if they make one for the 250. Just get out in the field, use a blind if needed, read up on the wildlife you want to film so that you can predict what they are going to do. Like if you see a bird poop, chances are it's about to take off. But then you need to know how will the bird take off. If it's in a tree will it drop down before it takes off or will it go up? If you know what the bird will do, you can anticipate how to pre-frame the shot.

Anyway, I kinda hijacked this thread into a wildlife filmmaking tutorial instead of talking about a TC for the 250. Sorry about that.

[Mike Warren]

Can't wait for when they get P2 to record 1080p/60p
That's why I'm still holding off on buying a camera. I love the codec on the 250, but 1080p60 on the 160 is a real draw. I'm lucky in that I don't need a camera, so I can procrastinate and hope something that ticks all my boxes is released. I'm actually shooting at the moment with a slightly modified (http://mike-warren.net/panasonic-hdc-sd90-modification/) consumer camera, and menu flipping to change focus and aperture is very frustrating (amongst many other limitations), so I don't know how much longer I can hold off.

I'm also a bit concerned about how the 250 holds focus on a fast zoom out. I would almost never use it, but I've seen several 160 videos where the focus has shifted on a zoom out at maximum power zoom speed. It corrects itself, but not before ruining the shot. The other issue that really bothers me is the missing creep zoom, but I'm confident I can modify the camera to do that. Maybe the mechanical zoom lever is smooth enough, but I'm not expecting that at this price point. Unfortunately, there is nowhere near me that I can put my hands on any of these cameras.


Mike, a lot of bird filmmakers I know use a feeding station and a blind of some sort.

I've been looking at portable blinds online, but most of the birds around my area are water birds, so I doubt a feeding station will work. Last Saturday I had a typical experience. I could see 3 cormorants feeding and sunning themselves on some rocks in the river. From the road, at full zoom (slightly longer than the 250), I could fit all three birds in about 70% of the frame. In order to get close enough to crop into one bird I needed to get much closer. I spent about an hour wading through the long grasses on the far side of the river, getting slower and slower as I approached. I couldn't see the birds, but I'm sure they knew I was there. When I was finally able to see them through the grass I was about 50M away. There were several trees, some rocks and the river between me and them. I froze and looked the other way, and a few seconds later heard a flutter. I snuck a look and saw that 2 of them had flown. Just then, the third one took off.



Find a deer trail, throw a bag blind over you and your gear and wait.

I'd love to find a deer trail, but there are no deer in tropical Australia. :) In fact, a lot of the wildlife around here is nocturnal.


With really skittish birds like great blue herons it's nice to have someone come with you and you both go into the blind then the other person leaves. The birds think you have left and go back to their business.

That's a good idea. I'll give that a go, thanks.


Wildlife filmmaking takes a bit of luck and a ton of patience.

And that's part of the challenge that interests me, but it can get frustrating when you just miss getting good shots time after time. On our way home at 1pm on Saturday - we'd been up since 4am and I'd finished filming for the day - we stopped at an area known for tree kangaroos. We've been there looking for them about 20 times so far without catching more than a distant glimpse, so I didn't expect to find anything, and there was a mother and baby, quite low in a tree. I set up the camera and started filming, gradually moving to a better position. I finally got a good angle, and less than a minute later my battery went flat. At least I got something, but soon after that they became more active and I would have got some really interesting shots, but all I could do was get out my still camera.


I sat down in a field in Devil's Tower because I saw a herd of pronghorn nearby. After a few hours they eventually surrounded me and were so close I could hear the grass being ripped out as they grazed.

That would have been wonderful.


But I don't think a TC is the way to go even if they make one for the 250.

Does sound like I might just need more practice. I've been photographing wildlife since 2005, but a 500mm lens on an APC sensor can bring me in quite close for stills, especially with cropping.


Anyway, I kinda hijacked this thread into a wildlife filmmaking tutorial instead of talking about a TC for the 250. Sorry about that.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm happy about that. Thanks. :)

[n8ture]

Hey Mike,
For water birds I know people that use an inner tube float blind that looks like a beaver lodge. Course, in Australia that might be a bad thing to be floating in a tube blind kicking some flippers in the water. :)
Here in Iowa we have a lot of Jon boats set up as duck blinds that make good filming platforms too. I've never done the inner tube blind cause I'm too scared to be in the water with the 250. But you get a great water level shot using them.

A lot of the wildlife here in Iowa is nocturnal too. But I usually rely on people stirring up deer and such cause there's no real wilderness in Iowa. So seems like wildlife is constantly on the move. I usually like to sit and wait instead of stalking because I think wildlife here gets enough pressure and I don't need to add to it.

If I had a nickel for every missed shot I could purchase a good sized country! The one thing I've really learned by filming nature and wildlife is to just enjoy the moment. There are so many times that I don't even lift the camera because I know I'm not going to get the shot and probably spook the animal. So I just marvel at the wonder of nature. Some of my favorite moments have never been recorded to video.

I've developed a checklist to minimize things going wrong because of me. LIke I will always change a battery early instead of trying to milk a few more minutes out of it. A lot of times when I'm hiking, I leave the camera on. But I also take 6-8 batteries with me out in the field. Same thing with P2 cards. It starts getting down to a few minutes left and I'm changing locations, I'll put in a fresh P2 card so I don't come across something amazing and have to fumble to put in a new card screwing up the shot.

I got serious about wildlife back in '84. The best thing for me was that I didn't have the $'s for expensive equipment. My big lens was a 300f2.8 with a 1.4 TC So like a 420mm lens was the most reach I had. So I learned to go to places like Yellowstone where if you're still and calm you can have a coyote walk right up to you. So not having the big 600's and 800's made me work harder to get those shots.

As I grow older I find myself backing up. It's not as important getting portrait shots anymore. Now it's more about the wildlife in it's environment.

I would love to come to Australia and film sometime. It's certainly on my bucket list.

But everything I know comes from trial and error and lots of practice.
Another good thing is to find people who know where things are and earn their trust and never betray it. I can tell you a great story about a master gardener and how I earned his trust and how it paid off for me as well as making a life long friend. But if people trust you, they will get you access to things you would never be able to film otherwise.

A guy emailed me about a pileated woodpecker nest. I've never even seen one in Iowa before but this guy has seen my work and knows how I do things so he has a nest on his property that he is willing to show me.

Anyway, I'm blabbering again. I think the 250's zoom is plenty of reach. Just spend a boatload of time out in the field and practice getting close or being able to wait and let the subject come to you. ( That's kind of my secret to filming in Yellowstone. While people are chasing the grizzly, I set up to where it will be. I get much more natural behavior and I worry less about being killed because the bear comes to me and knows I'm there ) I think Wayne Gretzky said the secret to his success is that he skates to where the puck will be not where it is.

[Mike Warren]

Course, in Australia that might be a bad thing to be floating in a tube blind kicking some flippers in the water. :)
I definitely do not want to be in the water in this area. These (http://mike-warren.net/capturing-the-croc/) monsters are quite common. A dog was attacked at a beach close to town 2 days ago.




I would love to come to Australia and film sometime. It's certainly on my bucket list.

Well, if you ever plan on coming to Cairns, let me know. We have a spare room and would love to show you around the area.



Another good thing is to find people who know where things are and earn their trust and never betray it.
I've been working on that for the last few months, without a great deal of success so far. Hopefully people will talk to other people and I'll eventually get some more contacts.



...being able to wait and let the subject come to you.
That's something I do need to work on. I don't seem to be very good at predicting what places the animals like.

Thanks for all your advice.

[Al MacLeod]

"I've never used a TC except for once when I did a test with the original HVX200 and it sucked."

How come?

[n8ture]

The image was pretty soft. Also when shooting stuff like the moon you had that ( can't remember what you call it ) where one side of the moons edge was green and the other was like red or something. It was pretty bad.

Now that being said, the HVX200's image sucked compared to what the 250 can do. So who knows, maybe a TC on the 250 would be awesome. I'm just going by two things. The TC I used on the 200, which was a Century Optics I believe made the image pretty soft. And the other being that we live in an instant gratification society and people just want to hang some massive canon out a window and get great results without putting out much if any effort.

The thing about nature and wildlife filming is that being there is what it's all about. If you want to be removed from it all and shoot 1/4 mile away then you're in it for a paycheck and not because it's your passion. Now sure somethings you're never going to get close to and you need a massive lens to capture. But why spend the money on a TC when you can just perfect your field techniques and get the same shot without the additional cost?

Who knows how long it's going to take me to get the shot I want of the pileated woodpecker. I'm going to have to set up a blind then slowly move it closer until I get it where I want to be for the shot. A lot can happen in that time. I might not even get the shot. But being out there is what it's all about for me.

[Al MacLeod]

Thanks for the reply. I've come close a couple of times to pulling the trigger and getting the Century Optics. Folks talk about them but you never see any examples or good descriptions of examples.

Pileated woodpecker...is that the one down south that hasn't been seen since like 1930? Deet must be your friend.

[n8ture]

No, that's the Ivory Bill. They now thing the sighting was bogus as they've never seen another once since.
This is a pileated (http://planetbirds.blogspot.com/2010/12/pileated-woodpecker.html). They're a pretty good sized bird.

I can't remember which CO TC I had if it was the 2X or the smaller one. What was it like 1.6X or something. But it's certainly going to degrade the image to a certain extent. The question is will it be better than if you just turned on the digital zoom at 2X? Plus the darn thing was pretty friggin heavy too!!

[Mike Warren]

Even a theoretically perfect teleconverter is going to magnify any softness or chromatic aberration present in the main lens. I've only ever used one, many years ago on my SVHS camera, and it was atrocious, but it was quite a cheap one. I was a bit hopeful that technology had improved, especially since cameras like the 250 now have chromatic aberration compensation, which should at least minimize the CA from the main lens.

[timbook2]

@Kevin: I appreciate your comments. Really nice tips (I really smiled about the "birds cant count" tip) and good luck with the pileated pecker!

[brynsank]

Anyway, I kinda hijacked this thread into a wildlife filmmaking tutorial instead of talking about a TC for the 250. Sorry about that.

OK with me, that was a very interesting little read :)

[brynsank]

when shooting stuff like the moon you had that ( can't remember what you call it ) where one side of the moons edge was green and the other was like red or something. It was pretty bad.


Chromatic aberration. Don't know what brand you were using, but a quality piece of glass should only show a negligible amount.

[Neil Richards]

Just wanted to drop a quick note to Kevin to say how much I liked the nature shots you took with the 250, some really beautiful stuff.

I've had a 250 on loan for a week or two and think it's great - am hoping to now buy a couple of them this week and your films certainly confirmed to me that this is the right choice.

Cheers

Neil

[Al MacLeod]

Chromatic aberration. Don't know what brand you were using, but a quality piece of glass should only show a negligible amount.

Century optics on the HVX200...either 1.6x or 2x. Not cheap.

[brynsank]

Century optics on the HVX200...either 1.6x or 2x. Not cheap.

I've always had great results with Century Optics adapters, but I've only ever used their wide angles, not their tele converters.

[dxl]

get Panasonic to add x1.5 or 1.6 digital zoom to the future update!!!!!!!! canon and sony has it right?

[Mike Warren]

get Panasonic to add x1.5 or 1.6 digital zoom to the future update!!!!!!!! canon and sony has it right?

That would be nice, but with the quality of the codec on the 250, it would probably be just about as good to do the digital zoom in post.

[dxl]

re framing in post will not be as accurate and time consuming
and overall shooting experience and out come will be different.