Trying to get a camera

TheEthiopianWolf03

TheEthiopianWolf03

Well-Known Member
I'm new to zoo and wildlife photography and all photos that I took were taken on my iphone. I plan on getting an actual camera but I don't know which camera I should get. I also don't know which lens I should get with my camera. My price range is under $1,000 for both camera and lens. So what should I get? Or at least what does everyone else use for photography?
 
TheEthiopianWolf03 said:
I'm new to zoo and wildlife photography and all photos that I took were taken on my iphone. I plan on getting an actual camera but I don't know which camera I should get. I also don't know which lens I should get with my camera. My price range is under $1,000 for both camera and lens. So what should I get? Or at least what does everyone else use for photography?
Click to expand...
I use a Nikon D5200, but this one may not be available any longer. There will be another similar model. I also use a Nikon 200mm lens. Not the best camera, but gives quite reasonable results. Should be within your budget.
.
 
I've seen plenty of really nice photos with a Nikon D5300 and a Nikon 70-300 lens. I don't know about US prices, but that combination would be just about £1000
 
Last edited:
I use:
  • A pair of Nikon D7100 bodies
  • A Nikon GP-1 that geotags the files
  • A Nikon WU-1a Wireless Mobile Adapter
  • AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
  • AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR
  • AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G

I am looking to add:

  • A Sigma 150-600mm F/5-6.3 DG HSM
  • And maybe upgrade one of the bodies to a D7200
 
TheEthiopianWolf03 said:
I found a Nikon D5300 kit with a 70-300mm lens. It’s around $700. Would this work for good quality photos?
Click to expand...
Should be OK. The 300mm lens is also OK, but sometimes a bit long if you get fairly close to the subject. For flying or fast moving things it is hard to get decent focus quickly, with a longer lens. I have one but seldom use it.
 
TheEthiopianWolf03 said:
I found a Nikon D5300 kit with a 70-300mm lens. It’s around $700. Would this work for good quality photos?
Click to expand...

Photography can be very expensive if you want to get good photographs of everything in the zoo, but I think that would be a good start, although it does have it's limits. If you want to take photos in doors too, then you could buy a 'wider' lens as well, under 70mm, but if you already have a smart phone with a camera, then it might do just as good a job.
 
Is the choice of Nikon or Canon all just a matter of preference, or do different brands really have different strengths for zoo photography?
 
beccasunbear said:
Is the choice of Nikon or Canon all just a matter of preference, or do different brands really have different strengths for zoo photography?
Click to expand...
There are other brands too and like cars, computers etc, they have varying strengths and weaknesses, but none are specific to 'zoo' photography.
 
Brands do have strengths and weaknesses, but overall there's nothing one can do that the others can't. However sometimes it is easier or there is more choice - eg canon and nikon have the greater range of new own brand and 3rd party lenses for their systems.

I would say at present Nikon is the better choice in terms of their ISO performance which is significantly better than Canons, esp with restoring detail in darker conditions.
However Canon has a powerful range of mid-level longer focal length lenses - 300mm f4, 100-400mm, 400mm f5.6 etc... Which makes them popular with wildife and nature photographers in general.



I would say for your budget a standard entry level camera body and a 70-300mm lens would do you well. At that rough price level the 70-300mm will be decent in quality. Sure there are better lenses (optically speaking) but they will cost and when you are starting out sometimes its better to have a good, but not top rate tool which is more affordable to learn with and so that you can better find out what works for you before spending larger amounts.


For most zoo photography 70-300mm is going to work well for your needs. I have fond memories of mine which I used with a dirt cheap tripod (those aluminium ones that are light as anything and cheaply made, but which work decently well at giving some support).

Some 70-300mm (Eg Sigma 70-300mm APO) have a "macro" mode which is really close up not full macro, but its good enough for butterflies, dragonflies and flowers. Gives a bit more versatility.

I can't recommend a specific 70-300mm as I've not been in the market for one in a long while, but Canon, Sigma, Nikon, Tamron or Tokina would be good solid brands to pick from to suit your budget.
 
Last edited:
I’m feeding all of this back to my other half! He used to use Canon for years and is now thinking of trying Nikon instead.
 
beccasunbear said:
I’m feeding all of this back to my other half! He used to use Canon for years and is now thinking of trying Nikon instead.
Click to expand...
Best thing to do is go into the shop and handle a few models. Some people can say from years experience of both brands (and others) which they prefer, while others just pick a preference because of what they read without really experience the competitor(s). I've only stuck with Nikon in my relatively short time playing with this hobby, because it was what an employer I was with provided us.
I still have a Sigma 70-300 with the macro switch, which is a cheap option and struggles in poor light. I had the more expensive Tamron 70-300 Di, which many believe is as good as the equivalent Nikon. At some point I will probably buy the Nikon 70-300 VrII rather than a replacement Tamron, as I think I have seen better detail in photos taken with that combination (with the D7000), although as lintworm alluded to, the actual photographer could be the difference.
 
He previously had a Canon 7D with a L Series 70-200mm, and was very disappointed with the camera. Prior to that, he had a 50D which he thought was much better. He used to get real camera envy over his colleagues’ Nikons, though, and so I think he’s pretty much definitely ready to make the change. He currently has his eye on a few different cameras, depending on how much he eventually decides it’s worth spending. It’s quite early days right now.
 
overread said:
Brands do have strengths and weaknesses, but overall there's nothing one can do that the others can't. However sometimes it is easier or there is more choice - eg canon and nikon have the greater range of new own brand and 3rd party lenses for their systems.

I would say at present Nikon is the better choice in terms of their ISO performance which is significantly better than Canons, esp with restoring detail in darker conditions.
However Canon has a powerful range of mid-level longer focal length lenses - 300mm f4, 100-400mm, 400mm f5.6 etc... Which makes them popular with wildife and nature photographers in general.



I would say for your budget a standard entry level camera body and a 70-300mm lens would do you well. At that rough price level the 70-300mm will be decent in quality. Sure there are better lenses (optically speaking) but they will cost and when you are starting out sometimes its better to have a good, but not top rate tool which is more affordable to learn with and so that you can better find out what works for you before spending larger amounts.


For most zoo photography 70-300mm is going to work well for your needs. I have fond memories of mine which I used with a dirt cheap tripod (those aluminium ones that are light as anything and cheaply made, but which work decently well at giving some support).

Some 70-300mm (Eg Sigma 70-300mm APO) have a "macro" mode which is really close up not full macro, but its good enough for butterflies, dragonflies and flowers. Gives a bit more versatility.

I can't recommend a specific 70-300mm as I've not been in the market for one in a long while, but Canon, Sigma, Nikon, Tamron or Tokina would be good solid brands to pick from to suit your budget.
Click to expand...
I have found that the 18-200mm Nikon lens has the advantage over a 300mm of being easy to use without a tripod. Photographing wild species with a 300mm lens, or larger, using a tripod,is great as long as the subject stays still, but using the 200mm makes it easier to follow a moving object. With most digital cameras the image can easily be enlarged. Even the 200mm lens is tricky when getting shots of flying birds.
 
beccasunbear said:
He previously had a Canon 7D with a L Series 70-200mm, and was very disappointed with the camera. Prior to that, he had a 50D which he thought was much better.
Click to expand...

A 7D with a 70-200mmL should produce some fantastic photos, however I shifted from a 400D to a 7D and one big thing I noticed is that at 100% view (the view often used for sharpening and noise removal) the 7D could often look worse unless the shot was perfect. The reason is that the 7D was larger in megapixels so at 100% view it was far larger than the 400D. For me 60% on the 7D is where I view for generally checking sharpness as its closer to what I'm used too.

There is also a smaller chance of calibration issues - in general everything is made within tolerances not to exact values. So its possible to get a camera and lens at opposite ends of the tolerance scale. Neither is broken, but when put together their combined effect is less than it should be - although this issue is normally more apparent on superzooms (eg the 100-400mm type lenses) which are far more complicated and often have a wider tolerance band (although the newer superzooms from Canon and many 3rd parties have improved a lot over earlier models and its far less of an issue today)

Terry Thomas said:
I have found that the 18-200mm Nikon lens has the advantage over a 300mm of being easy to use without a tripod. Photographing wild species with a 300mm lens, or larger, using a tripod,is great as long as the subject stays still, but using the 200mm makes it easier to follow a moving object. With most digital cameras the image can easily be enlarged. Even the 200mm lens is tricky when getting shots of flying birds.
Click to expand...

It's all about personal standards and needs and also situation. Most would go for longer lenses with wildlife as they want a closer in shot; are often far back from the subject; and don't want to heavily crop their photos.
But at the same time this isn't the only approach and with higher MP Cameras it is possible to crop good shots much more than in the past - especially if your display is online which is often very forgiving and might only need 1000pixels on the longest side for good display.
 
overread said:
A 7D with a 70-200mmL should produce some fantastic photos, however I shifted from a 400D to a 7D and one big thing I noticed is that at 100% view (the view often used for sharpening and noise removal) the 7D could often look worse unless the shot was perfect. The reason is that the 7D was larger in megapixels so at 100% view it was far larger than the 400D. For me 60% on the 7D is where I view for generally checking sharpness as its closer to what I'm used too.
Click to expand...

Interesting to hear. I think that this camera just wasn’t right for his needs at the time, photographing Ballroom dancers moving at speed in potentially quite dark environments. It was very hard to get a perfect shot with this camera in those conditions.
 
Odd the 7D should have had good enough AF if paired with a good 70-200mm; though for indoor action in very low light chances are the 5D III would have been superior (since larger sensors have improved low light performance and since the 5D III gained a similar AF system).

That said if low light work is a major part of what he's doing then Nikon currently has the significant edge with their ISO sensor technology that they got off Sony.
 
My 2c -
  • I would always encourage people to buy things second hand from a good retailer. All of the good camera / lens brands build pretty tough equipment and will give you many years of use.
  • I would also encourage you to have a look at a bridge camera or something similar. Though I love DSLR cameras, I don't think they are a good starting point coming straight from a camera phone and I would encourage you to have a play with one. Something like the Canon Powershot G series would work well, giving you access to the manual and semi-manual modes that you will find useful for zootography (they are also cheaper!)

I'm a Canon user, so I can't really comment on other manufacturers (though I use Sigma lenses a lot). If you wanted to get a DSLR, as a starter combination I would look at the Canon EOS Rebel T3i (a 600d here in the UK) with the Canon 55-250mm STM IS. This gives you a nice camera (released around 7 years ago) with a movable screen, manual modes, HD video recording, and a 3.7fps shooting speed. The lens is the best lens I've ever used for zootography under £300, being light with a flexible zoom range (250mm vs 300mm makes only a very small difference, you'll barely notice it) but with a really quick, near silent autofocus, image stabilisation, and an 80cm minimum focus, which I'm not sure if any 70-300mm lens can match.

beccasunbear said:
Interesting to hear. I think that this camera just wasn’t right for his needs at the time, photographing Ballroom dancers moving at speed in potentially quite dark environments. It was very hard to get a perfect shot with this camera in those conditions.
Click to expand...

I'm quite surprised to hear about your boyfriend's preference for the 50d over the 7d. I use both, having bought the 50d as a second lens to lug around, and in my experience there is nothing that the 50d does better than the 7d. In particular, having a much better AF system in the 7d (with the ability to change AF zones, and changing focus speeds to better match specific lenses) makes it in my eyes a godsend for shooting fast moving subjects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top