Anyone know anything about cameras around here? What would be a good camera for photographing wildlife? I would maybe like to find a good used camera to save $$$ from buying new. Are there any good places to find a quality used camera? I would like a camera that would be good in low light conditions and capable of adding high quality zoom lenses to get close ups of animals. I really don’t know much about photography at this point other than I always have enjoyed capturing pics of wildlife with my phone camera and really enjoy sharing pics with other people so it has me wanting to step up my game! It seems like it would be a great hobby.

Probably some good ones on eBay

I like canon products


how much willing to spend?

Take a look at the photography page , just below the Classifieds page!

I have zero advice as to what camera to buy or where to buy it, but my experience says to take an absurd amount of pictures, so make sure to get some big memory cards.

Chances are 1 out of 100 of your pictures will be magazine quality. Delete the rest. It seems like there's always a stick or grass in the way, an animal's head is turned wrong, or something is in the picture to take away the "quality". Chances are that by taking a shïtload of pictures, one will turn out really good.

lucky if one out of fifty turns out really good

I’m not a camera person, but my wife dabbles in it. You asked about a camera good for low light. I think, low light has less to do with the camera than it does the lens. That leads to Ribka’s question of “how much are you willing to spend?” The sky is the limit.

If someone wants to move this to the photography page I’m fine with that. Probably best place for it. Not sure why I didn’t post it there anyway? Don’t know what I was thinking ... lol.

If you want to go Canon, shoot me your number because I have some gear you may be interested in.

As far as brand, Canon and Nikon are the two big players, for the most part. Leica is great stuff and their prices reflect that fact. If you're going to be using long focal length lenses for wildlife (almost a necessity) you're going to need a decent tripod. It's just like riflescopes: any movement is magnified. Low light? That means you need "fast" (read expensive) lenses. like any other hobby (think shooting) once you get beyond stuff that's just "good" and "acceptable" it's a real matter of diminishing returns with regard to the price:quality ratio.

One of my favorite places to lurk. Lots of talented folks post there.

Ribka, what camera was used for the photos you posted above?

Tough to beat the Sigma 150-600 for an entry level lens with some reach.
Source a used 1D3 or 4 and you’d be in the game for under $2k.

Ribka - I particularly like that mule deer photo!

Regards, Guy

Picturing nature is a lot of fun indeed

Cool pic, a lot could be done with that pic.

It really boils down to budget and then intended use (lots of hiking or roll the window down).

Mirrorless cameras are becoming more popular than DSLR. We have a whole generation of people who learned photography looking at the screen of a phone, and who don't care about having a viewfinder. Mirrorless cameras are lighter weight, and are less expensive to build. That said, I grew up looking through a viewfinder, and can't abide the mirrorless style. Choosing between those two is the first issue you need to resolve.

Christopher Frost has a YouTube channel where he reviews Canon lenses. If you go with Canon, before you plunk down coin for a lens, be sure to read his review of it. It will save you a ton of grief. You'll probably end up with more invested in lenses that in camera bodies.

Most of the cameras you're likely to consider will have an APS-C, or "cropped" sensor. The sensor is smaller than "standard". If you stick to highly rated lenses, the smaller sensor will put you at no disadvantage for image quality. If you cheap out on glass, the smaller sensor will show the shortcomings. On the plus side, with an APS-C sensor, you multiply the actual focal length of the lens by 1.6 to get the effective focal length, due to the cropping of the image. So your 250mm lens becomes 400mm. The bad news is that it's hard to get a really good very wide angle lens for APS-C.

250mm is probably the shortest focal length that will put you in the game. Longer is better, but weight, size, and especially cost escalate greatly beyond that point. I have a 100-400 which is better, but it stays home a lot because of weight.

If you want a Canon DSLR (which is what I shoot), take a look at the Canon T6i. It has a 24 Mpixel APS-C sensor, which is all you'll need. (The non-i version is only 18). It's an excellent value for money, and has all the features you'll really need.

Christopher Frost highly rates the Canon 55-250mm IS STM lens. I have two of them. They are very sharp, and they are easy to carry. Those can be had on eBay for around $125. I have two, because I found a nice used one on the local classifieds for $79. One goes in my big kit, which is for when I'm serious about something, and the other goes in my little quick kit, which is what I actually usually use the most. BTW, the Canon 70-300mm is a dog.

And yes, it is a lot of fun. We're just about to the point that the bald eagles will return, and I plan to be out at the bird refuge shooting pictures.

My Fuji XT-2 mirrorless has a view finder. Wouldn't use a camera without it.

RickyBobby, A couple of years back I got a deal at Costco, was also about the same price at a local camera shop, on a Nikon D3400 with two lenses, bag, etc.
lenses were Nikor 18-55 and 75-300. Was about $500 at the time, not a bad deal with the two lenses. It takes what I consider decent "wildife" and other types of fotos:









I'm very happy with the results of my purchase. As someone mentioned, there's diminishing returns once one starts getting into the very good to excellent (and pricey stuff). Noticeable to some, not so noticeable to others. But, for someone just starting out, Canon or Nikon kits with a couple of lenses might just be the answer.

I'll let you decide if you want better quality than what I've gotten for the price.

Good luck with it, it's fun sometimes.

Geno

PS, wish I'd looked out my window earlier than I did this morning. Caught the last four of a small herd of antelope going by outside the fence. Could have got some nice shots if I'd had time to get the Nikon.

RickyBobby:

Over the years Cookie has purchased some used cameras. I think B&H has been a good source with their bodies showing little if any sign of use. Their condition calls are spot on, and used gear often comes with a warranty. We have been lucky, however, and not needed any warranty work to date. There are a couple other good used sources out there, but they're not coming to mind at the moment. I don't know if the Camera World boys here do used gear or not. One might quiz them a bit.

One word of warning as to online sales - if one sees a really super deal on possibly even new gear, DO BE AWARE! Many companies will purchase gear manufactured for 3rd world countries that do sell at serious discounts. Even Amazon does this, so check all of their fine print. Those products, however, will rarely come with a factory warranty that's valid in the US. Also, some will break the box apart and sell things like a body cheaply and then hit one hard for lenses, batteries, chargers, cables, and software. Always check on exactly what comes in the box.

About 1/3rd of wildlife efforts involves patience, If one has plenty of that they can do well without magnum gear.

One might consider some of the crop frame bodies as they offer a bit of a multiplier affect on ones lens selection. For instance I think Cookie's Canon 70D is a crop frame with about a 1.6 multiplier effect, I.e. with a 100 mm lens installed, the image is the equivalent of one captured with a 160 mm unit. With a 500 mm on board, it's essentially an 800 mm. The 100-400 becomes a 160 to 640. These are great for wildlife that are subject specific. Not good though if one needs a serious wide angle shot. Those into landscapes will typically purchase a full frame body for big all encompassing pictures.

Cookie's passion is big game and at times she complains of too much lens when she can only back down to 100 mm. Here's a link to some of her efforts in the past couple weeks. She's committed to Canon gear and loves good spirited banter with her Nikon buddies. Their claim is "if one ever goes black, he'll never go back."
Cookie's recent deer shots

Nikon and Canon are the major players. Ones brand decision mostly involves a marriage to one or the other and a commitment to lenses. That is mostly where the cash goes and that other 2/3rds of success probably involves glass. Something in the 100-300 or 100-400 range offers a lot of flexibility at not an extreme cost to a starter. If one gets serious, then prime lenses in the 500-600mm range, but that's getting into the cosigner realm where few hobbyists tend to venture.

One can pick up some rather inexpensive but big off brand lenses (Sigma/Tamaron). Serious folks tend to avoid those though, as they are typically limiting in the early/late low light periods.

It's certainly been a great hobby for Cookie, and a reason for her to spend 3 to 4 months in the field every year. She probably burns more fuel now with her photography efforts than I do with my hunting/fishing trips.

Have a good one, best of luck, and do keep us up on your doings.


One hint for now: It's all about the eye. Focus on the eye, and one often scores a good one.

Without an excessive 5 figure budget, my suggestion would be an APS-C body like the Canon 90D or Nikon D500, and a zoom like the Tamron or Sigma 150-600, or 200-500 Nikon.

The lens are FAR more important than the camera body. If starting out again would purchase a 70-200F2.8 and a 100-400F5.6 with both the 1.4 and 2X converters to start. IS lens are a huge plus. I managed to make a living as a wildlife photographer for 20 years and would rate the importance of the equipment in the following order:
1. Lens
2. Tripod
3. Camera body

Snowwolfe, how much should I expect to pay for the lenses you mentioned?

For printing big pictures, like 36"+, it seems a 24+ megapixel is suggested. Anyone know if this seems about right? Trying to find a fall colors picture for our house is difficult, and very expensive if you find one. Hoping to take an image of our fall camping-hunting area vs a generic fall color wall hanger.

Very good images posted here, envious.

Thanks
Allen

I been out of touch for a few years but my guess is $1k to 1.5k for each. Not sure what converters cost. Aftermarket lens such as Tokina Sigma etc are worth checking into. But if you stay with the same brand lens and bodies there are not any compatibility issues years down the road as far as lens working on different bodies. I was burnt about 10 years ago with aftermarket lens not working on a newer Canon body and the lens manufacturer told me tuff.

Anyone here have any experience with the Nikon P900 or P1000? I like the idea of an all-in-one type camera for my 1st camera and the super zoom capabilities of these. Thinking it could speed my learning curve some and also simplify having to carry a bunch of extra gear.

I shoot a Canon EOS 5D MK III and love it. My primary wildlife lens is their EF 100-400 is ii. It does a wonderful job.

Sigma now makes some lenses that are unequaled in performance. Their 35mm f1.4 is not to be beaten. Their 17-55mm f2.8 is an excellent performer. The 18-35mm f1.8 is an outstanding performer. Fortunately for us, Sigma has gotten serious about higher end lenses in the past few years.

In the Canon world, for wildlife, the best two long lenses I have found are by Canon: 55-250mm IS STM (amazing performance for money at $125 used), and the EF 100-400 IS II USM at around $1500. Both lenses produce images at the edge of the resolution of a 24 Mpixel APS-C sensor.

Focal length doublers cost you 2 f stops and give marginal results on full frame cameras and poor results on APS-C cameras.

If you're thinking super zoom out to 600, listen carefully to Frost's review.

For around $350, you can get a T6i body, and for another $125 you can get the 55-250. That is a very respectable starting point.

Add in the Neewer fiberglass tripod and you're on the air. Once you get a taste of it, plan on hocking a couple of nice rifles to get additional lenses.

A lot depends on what your goal is, if you want nice pictures to hang in your house, or sell, how big do you want to blow them up? That drives the pixel needs. Any "decent" lense will give you enough for a good 8x10 or 11x14. If you want to go bigger and keep clear quality the price may jump

you can tell your wife knows what she is doing in that pic

that's a good lense

I would look at the Sony RX10 Mk IV before those Nikons. I think you will really want a DSLR for some lens flexibility and larger sensors.

I'm more of a birder. Canon 7DII, Canon 100-400 II, 1.4x tel extender and a good tripod will get you started.

An old photographer buddy once said, "you date camera bodies, but you marry the lenses".