hello everyone, i am a newbie in wildlife, i have a project during 1.5 year, and this project is about Georgian sheep dog. i need to shooting wild wolf in the forest. i have a question is 80-200 enough or i need longer lens? and th esecond question is about camera is EX3 ok for HD broadcasting company such as for example BBC, national geographic, animal planet and etc.?

thank you

Hi
I have no idear how close you can get to the wolves but if they are wild wolves I would say you would need a longer lens like a Sigma 120-300 mm. Maybe someone in here with experience in filming wolves.

thank for reply

i think we will get about 100meter or less may be 60meter.

A very nice addition would be a nikon 300/4.0 which is about the same size as the 80-200 (so not too big) and gives you that extra tele. Gives very good quality images, in my opinion even better than the 80-200.

The bitrate of 35 mbps of the EX3 is not accepted by the BBC. If you capture on an external device like a nanoflash, the combination is approved by the BBC. If you use at least 50 mbps, or 100 mbps for I-Frame Only codecs. I use the EX3 with nanoflash and it is an excellent combination.

50mbps or more is for BBC and what about national geographic or animal planet? thank you

I don't know about these channels. Maybe someone else does. Also try to search their websites. I did for BBC and they have clearly stated their demands publicly.

what about combination Sony Ex3 and canon 5D markII? :) is it ok or better just with EX3 + nanoflash?

i have one more question, tomorrow morning i am going to buy nikon 80-200 (Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80-200mm-f28-af.htm)) lens, i have a question may be beter to buy new 80-200 (Will Nikon replace the D90 with a new D7000 later this month? | Outlet Photography (http://www.outletphotography.com/nikon-80-200mm-2-8-af-d-lens/)?) i need crop factor about 5.6 or more...

and next question, is it usefull to use this lens with follow focus or may be better use it without FF during filming wildlife.

I think you'll lose auto-focus/follow focus with this lens on an EX3. Have you considered a Nikon 80-400?

Used quite a lot by wildlife video-photographers.


Ron

thank you for reply, but i think that f4.5-5.6 is too slow for sunrise and sunset, i must filming wolve early morning and in the evening. am i right that is is too slow?

Hi
You have to consider those things too. Be shure you have an iris ring on the lens you buy - the one in your link seems to have. Most lenses you buy today do not have an iris ring to manually control the iris ! You have to take of the lens and put it on a nikon camera to set the iris and then try it back on the EX 3 - I would say that this is imposible to work with in the real life.
Adaptimax makes an adapter where you can control the iris with a screw though the side of the adapter - this will work but it is not as easy as having an iris ring.
Remember - nothing is automatic when putting a nikon lens on an adapter on EX3.

Do not go for anything less than 2,8

I am used to use bigger cameraes and when I got my EX 3 and nikon lenses, I could not get used to the focus control as focus works different from brodacast lenses - far and near focus works opposite...
Sigma lenses works as broadcast B4 mount lenses and I had to buy Sigma too, to make it work for me.

I use a Nikon 80-400 zoom with the EX3. Unless it is really dark, the lens works fine at sunrise or sunset.
A 2.8 lens would be really expensive, and I've never heard of a 2.8 telezoom. Mike Tapa (MTS industries) in London makes an adapter for Nikon lenses on the EX3. You can use the manual iris ring on the lens without removing it from the camera. Makes it very easy. 150 Sterling.

What's the quality like Steve? I use an XLH1. Never too keen on my Canon 100-400 particularly at 300-400 and Mike Tapa does an adaptor Nikon-Canon EF.

Currently using (new) Canon 70-300L and Canon 400 F5.6 which nice but would prefer the one zoom lens if quality okay.

Also use a Sigma 500 F4.5 which v good but needs rails.

Hardly ever feel the need for fast lenses as nearly always have to use ND filters to keep lenses a couple of stops away from wide open which seems to give best results for video, noting my fixed 50th second shutter speed.

Ron

thank you guys, i bough nikon 80-200 f2.8, iris ring is outside :) so i can control it by mysef, i am waiting for MTF adapter for nikon lens :) i think i will be work. when i will make some tests i put them here.

Ron,

I hate to say it, as a long-time XLH1 user, but the Sony image is better. I made the switch when my Canon tape drive bit the dust. The EX3 has a broader range of adjustments for gamma, so I am burning out less in the highlights. The EX3 also records at 35mbps as opposed to the XLH1 at 25mbps, which makes some difference as well, and you get real HD instead of the faux HDV of Canon. The biggest problems with the Sony, as opposed to the Canon is a crop factor of 5 instead of 7, and the solid state media. As much as people rave about "I don't have to fool around with tape any more", nothing beats the convenience and security of slipping out the old tape and slipping in a new one. You don't have to worry about did you copy everything before reformatting a card for reuse.

Thanks Steve, I did realise that the EX3 was better than the XLH1 (or XDCAM EX is better than HDV). I stick a nanoFlash on my XLH1 which compensates a bit though I hate all those cables!

I was interested in your opinion of the Nikon 80-400, which if good on an EX3 should be good on a XLH1 albeit with a 50% almost higher crop factor.

I miss tape and I miss editing in iMovie(06) instead of FCP7. I sometimes wonder whether we really had reached the limits of tape with HDV or the manufacturers just wanted to push SS.
Interesting to read on the GH2 forum about some Polish geezer who's managed to tweak AVCHD to produce 100mbps.

Pity Canon won't make a interchangeable lens version of the XF305, with a nice big long super-telephoto option based on their Broadcast lenses.

Ron

Ron,
I haven't used the Nikon 80-400 on an XLH1, and haven't really paid attention to the "softness" issues you read about at 400mm. I generally use it at full 400mm to good effect. It is definitely a cheaper piece of equipment than the Canon 100-400, lighter weight. I prefer Canon's push-pull zoom to the Nikon's twist one. I don't notice any difference in light collecting ability. I shot the Canon mostly at f 5.6 to f 8 and do the same with the Nikon. The Nikon manual iris ring took some getting used to after the Canon setup, but that said, it allows you to turn it and stop between clicks, not just at the designated values (5.6, 8, 11 etc).
This gives very fine control over exposure. One other advantage to the XLH1 is the fact that on the EX3 the only way to adjust shutter speed is to scroll through the viewfinder until you hit the shutter speed, push the button, then scroll again to get what you want. Not great when you are in a hurry.

I've used a 80-200 Nikon and a 100-300 and 50-500 Sigma on a Sony EX3 for a couple of years. While the image can be very good at times (usually when in the F4-8 range and in the middle of the focal lengths), I finally splurged and bought a real 2/3 video lens (Canon 17x7 with 2x) and I'm happy I did.

The image quality is much, much better throughout all iris settings/zoom lengths. Plus, I have the auto features available (e.g., iris) which is nice when the animal is moving (e.g., from prairie into the forest). And the lens, coupled with the EX3, is incredible in low light. Another advantage is the capability to go from wide to extreme tele without changing lens. Also, I can use a remote zoom and focus controller so I'm not having to touch the lens to adjust these settings while filming.

Yes, a 2/3rds lens is a lot of money but the combination of improved image quality plus all the other benefits makes it worthwhile. You can sometimes pick up a used version, or the Fuji equivalent, for under $10k. My 2-cents worth.

I used the Nikon 80-400 for both still photography and for use on a JVC 700. It's sharp out to about 350 then softens, and it's slow. If you have a 80-200 F2.8, which is a great lens, you can also put Nikon 1.4 converter on it for more magnification. You'll lose about one stop of light but gain another .4 of magnification and still have sharpness out to 420mm, better than a 80-400 past 350. Several Mfgs made 1.4 converters for Nikon but only buy a Nikon brand. Just a thought.

I fully agree with Mike, except that a 80-200 with 1.4 converter brings it to 280 and not to 420 (that's what you get with a 300 and 1.4 converter)