I visited the Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition at the Natural
History Museum in London, UK yesterday. The competition received 18,500
entries and is one of the most prestigious in the world.

I was quite intrigued by the rise of winning digital photos. Last year there
was only one (that I can remember) taken on a D1x.

This year there were quite a few (more than a dozen), including the winning
shot, taken with a D60 in an underwater enclosure. But I was most surprised
to see a D1 shot (2.7 Megapixels?) amongst the winners.

http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/wildwin/2004/ad_picnumb.dsml?&picnumb=22

It is as if people have begun to accept lower pixel count photographs as
being good enough for them, even as pixel counts in new cameras continue to
rise. The D1 only becomes acceptable once the digital concept has proved
itself, some five years after the camera's release.

From comparing the 20" back-lit transparent prints, I could seen more
digital artefacts (pixellation, jpeg-like edge problems) in on of the D60
shots of a shark, than on the D1 shot. Although the snow falling reduces the
contrast of the image and makes the comparison hard, the tips of the eagle
in flight's feathers were definitely sharper. I think maybe the legend is
incorrect, and it was a D1x, or the processing of the two images was very
different.

What are people's thoughts? Will nature photography become available to more
people with the coming of compact cameras that can handle telephoto and
macro photography without the need for very expensive lenses and
accessories? (e.g. Panasonic's optically stabilised constant f2.8 36-432mm
(35mm equiv. field of view) 5MP camera)

The consumer digital SLRs I have tried (D70, 20D, D1x) have smaller images
in the their viewfinders than their film counterparts- they tell you much
less about critical focus, and composing is hard because of all the
autofocus sensor markings. Will the electronic viewfinders eventually become
standard?

Most interestingly, will the ever increasing number of pixels slow and stop?
I can't see the need for more than 20MP for most people's work. I can see
more for sensitivity up to very high ISOs without any visible noise. This
would allow nature photographers to use faster shutter speeds and hand-hold
long and slow telephoto lenses.

Ben

PS: If anyone has the book of this year's competition, there is a confusion
between the identity of a skeleton in one of the photos. The mistaken
version appears on the website too:
http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/wildwin/2004/ad_picnumb.dsml?&picnumb=06
It is entitled 'emu skeleton,' but the skull has very obvious molars! The
exhibition has the image entitled "Great grey kangaroo skeleton".