How important is the camera body

[Nanakamado]

Well, I propose some loose and lighthearted discussion thread.

How important is the camera body in wildlife photography?

Many wildlife photographers are saying that You should always invest in lenses. But I feel it's not always true. Maybe if You already have a good, older body, and want to add wildlife to Your other photography genres. And there was of course great post by @Steve "does gear matter".

But I feel it is very misleading for people with entry-level cameras. I don't know how it is in richer countries like US, UK, or Canada but here in Poland prices of anything better than entry-level are absurd for someone just starting with photography (even though one may argue, that gear prices will always be absurd for non-photographers). Did You guys start with a higher trier body, or something entry-level?

I think it's quite absurd to buy lenses for 5000$ and attach them to D3XXX or even D5XXX. I think that would be absurd even for my Sigma 100-400 which is less than 1000$. Especially when one can buy a used D500 for less than 1000$ or a used D7200 for less than 500$.

And the difference is big. Before I bought my D500 I tested D810. First time with the new camera, bad weather, and seagulls in the white sky. And I managed to catch sharp pics. With the camera, I had the first time in my hands. And I thought that I really suck at panning and BIF. My red squirrel (from the critique section, and even more so a few more from Instagram) this photo would be impossible without D500.

Of course, a good photographer will get great photos with everything (like what @sdentrem showed lastly on his Instagram with M50 or Duade Paton with 40D in the last video) but the thing is when You for the first time think about new lenses or body for wildlife You are most probably not a good photographer yet. So you will lose many more good photos.

Lately, I went to scout some wildlife sanctuary near my house and made 350 photos, but all of them were bad. But I checked them and I learned what I did wrong in most cases. With my old D5300, I was never sure if it was me, the camera, or the lenses that were responsible for bad photos.

What do You think? Are lenses more important, or do You need at least an enthusiast level body for lenses to become more important?

 

[Tibor Hrnko]

It is IMO exactly as you stated it:

Of course, a good photographer will get great photos with everything...

...but both a camera and lens compensate the technical shortfalls of a photographer.

How about stating as a general rule - camera and lens should be comparable in quality for a balanced combination.

 

[StefanSC]

If you ask the camera companies, they'll tell you that both are equally important... and if you buy their latest and greatest body and lens your images will improve a lot . Until they release the next latest and greatest when what you bought is obsolete and you must buy again

Personally, my mantra has been:

From the most important to the least important when it comes to WL photography:

Improve the photographer!
Increase the time spend in the field!
Improve the lenses!
Improve the camera!

 

[fcotterill]

If one can afford the costs, buy what you believe to be the optimum camera. The camera is as essential as the lens. But a poor lens often has bigger impacts on image quality than the camera, within reason.

I think the oft quoted dichotomy, Date the Bodies, Marry the Glass, has sense.It doesn't mean the camera is less important. Rather if anything, it describes how it's better to keep decent quality lenses for much longer compared to changing to improved cameras. The high costs of Telephotos magnify the fiscal gradient of this dictum. [edited]

Cameras continue to improve fairly fast in cutting edge features. Compare the state of technology in 2004, 2009, 2014, 2019 to today's Pro and Prosumer cameras.

My preferred macro lens dates from the late 1990s, and my 55 f2.8AiS Micro Nikkor captures excellent photos on my D850 today as it did in 1988. There are better modern macro lenses but this doesn't make my older lenses incapable. There are several telephoto Nikkors made 10 -15 years ago that are still excellent optics.... The series of 300 f2.8 Nikkors up to and including the first copies made of the 300 f2.8G VRII are good examples, so are the heavier G model exotics.

Despite all the above about higher end gear, primary skills are essential, and one never stops learning...

 

[hrv]

A lens is a lens and you pay for quality.
A good lens on a low-end body will still be able to produce a better picture than a lesser lens. (due to sharpness, f-stop, etc.)

A camera is a whole different thing.
Photographing with auto settings for everything rarely gives you the result you are after. Yet all more consumer focussed bodies have that auto setting, because a lot of people are most comfortable letting the camera decide everything for them.

One major step is learning how to get better pictures while you take control of more settings like ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed. Many start controlling one of those and then slowly move on to controlling more down the line once they fully understand what circumstances require what settings.
All of this can be done on a "cheap" body. No need for a fancy one.

What does a more fancy body then provide a good (as well as a mediocre) photographer?

• Better sensor - less noise at higher ISO
• Higher frame rate - have more poses to choose from, more chance of the perfect shot
• Faster AF
• etc.

Typically the higher-end bodies have features that make specific tasks a little easier. But they will do little good if the photographer doesn't know how to use a camera beyond pushing the shutter button.

The short story here is that you can absolutely create great photos with simple bodies. But we typically all sink as much money into our hobby as we are comfortable with.

 

[jeffnles1]

The following is my personal opinion. Others may differ and that's OK.

I started in photography in the late 1970's. I've been through film, to the early days of digital when us film shooters would say "digital will never replace film" to fully immersed in digital photography and my most recent change just a few weeks ago is into the world of mirrorless digital photography.

In the film days, as long as the camera body had a reasonably accurate meter (we all carried hand held meters too), had good light sealing, and had a reasonably accurate shutter, the camera body didn't do much other than hold the lenses and film. Yes, more complex than that but the lenses captured the light and focused it onto the film. Good lenses and the right film for your photo style were more important than the body although the body did make some difference but it wasn't as great as today.

Fast forward to digital cameras and the camera body becomes not only the body but the sensors become the "film" (in the most basic of terms). The body had become more integral with the process than in days gone by. Sensors and how that sensor and onboard technology interprets the light is important and how the autofocus system works is important. I will say I find manual focus on a mirrorless camera superior to manual focus on a DSLR. I find myself using using manual focus especially on things like macro/close focus or when I'm capturing an image of something that has a busy background.

In the realm of digital photography, I would say camera body and lenses play an equal role. However, it is still up to the photographer to leverage these tools to produce a great or even good image. Regardless of camera type used, a great photo will always be a great photo and a bad photo will always be a bad photo. The tools (camera body and lenses and accessories) provide us with the means to capture images but it is the artistic eye of the photographer, the vision of the photographer and the style of the photographer that will make an image worth looking at.

I look at this question much the way I look at guitars. I am a guitar player. A great guitarist can make beautiful music with the most inexpensive of instruments. However, when that same guitarist picks up a top shelf custom guitar magic can happen. Additionally, if I were given the same guitar as the top tier guitarist and I played it day and night for the next 5 years, I still would not make the same magic. I play OK but nobody will ever say "wow, Jeff is better than Eric Clapton.."

I see cameras the same way. A creative talented pro can make a great image with the most inexpensive of cameras. they have the eye and artistic talent. However, they will generally choose top shelf camera gear to apply their craft.

The good news is most of us will be well served by the beginner camera bodies and a collection of top shelf lenses. I doubt if more than a handful of people here actually make a living with their cameras or routinely show up in the winners circle of major photo contests or on the cover of National Geographic. I believe there are a few such folks who read this forum and they are quite humble about it but reading between the lines of their posts, we have some folks here who are pretty well known. Most of us, well, we just love to capture images.

 

[fcotterill]

just read this message signature over on dpr
"There are plenty of cameras at work, but most of them without any brains or knowledge to work them."
Ferdinand Hurter, 1844 – 1898

 

[Doug Herr]

I found that a it's very helpful to use a camera body that can recognize the subject as well as I can. Fighting the AF system is not productive.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

While I agree with the sentement - great tools certainly help. And based on my recent experience using the latest gear "makes taking great action possible".

5+ years ago I took the best Nikon gear I could buy to Africa and took great photos; but now here in 2023 I am back in africa again - this time with a pair of Z9 and the best z-lenses I could buy and the results are simply fantastic. A vast improvement over the images taken with a D5, D500 and D810.

45.7mp 20 fps and incredible AF; plus 8K 60fps video almost instantly available are just a few of the benefits from a Z9.

One wonders what will change in the next 5 years.

When shooting wildlife action -- particularly big cats - one still needs to find great subjects, stalk and position for a good shot, wait, wait, wait and then use the great gear to capture what one can. The current best tools make the capturing of images easier -- but the real challenge is still in finding subjects and positioning oneself for success, then waiting for the behaviours you want to capture to happen.

I certainly do not ever want AI to take a photo for me -- but I do welcome better and better AF and on those occasions when it helps even higher FPS using full lossless RAW.

 

[fcotterill]

Looking back over the past 2 decades, Autofocus has advanced remarkably - improving even on the excellent D5 AF "engine". How much further it'll improve is interesting to contemplate. Ultimately, however, ILC performance depends on human reactions and stamina in the stadium and outdoors.

PreCapture is a one likely area where we'll see further improvements that benefit the 'Action' genres

Low Light imaging took a leap forward with the Nikon D3, and again with the D4 and D5. However it appears the slope of the improvement has slowed up on sensors; judging by Nikon they have improved their 45mp sensor family noticeably but it's not as much as previously with respect to lowlight performance compared to the D850.

While I agree with the sentement - great tools certainly help. And based on my recent experience using the latest gear "makes taking great action possible".

5+ years ago I took the best Nikon gear I could buy to Africa and took great photos; but now here in 2023 I am back in africa again - this time with a pair of Z9 and the best z-lenses I could buy and the results are simply fantastic. A vast improvement over the images taken with a D5, D500 and D810.

45.7mp 20 fps and incredible AF; plus 8K 60fps video almost instantly available are just a few of the benefits from a Z9.

One wonders what will change in the next 5 years.

When shooting wildlife action -- particularly big cats - one still needs to find great subjects, stalk and position for a good shot, wait, wait, wait and then use the great gear to capture what one can. The current best tools make the capturing of images easier -- but the real challenge is still in finding subjects and positioning oneself for success, then waiting for the behaviours you want to capture to happen.

I certainly do not ever want AI to take a photo for me -- but I do welcome better and better AF and on those occasions when it helps even higher FPS using full lossless RAW.

 

[EricBowles]

The camera is essentially a computer that captures information from the lens. The life of a computer or smartphone these days is usually 3-4 years or so - and beyond that point you start to see problems that are resolved with newer devices. It's not that the old device can't do the job - but there is a difference.

There are some major steps forward in performance. The Nikon D3 launched a return to full frame, and with it a major step in ISO performance. This was a change that showed up in images, and subsequent cameras had much greater emphasis on noise at higher ISO's. The D5/D500 featured dual processors for improved focus and faster processing. The recent innovation shows up in the A1, R3, and Z9 - all with major improvements in focus using AI based subject recognition and incremental improvements due to processor speed. The Z9 has eliminated the shutter and uses a dual readout from the sensor - two major steps forward. These technologies all had a meaningful and immediate impact that carries forward into future bodies.

There are a lot of other features that are helpful, but most don't have the impact of pushing you to a new camera.

Over this time, you can use the same lenses. There are ongoing improvements in design, optical coatings, and lens operation, but all of these improvements are incremental and involve small improvements.

 

[Nanakamado]

From the most important to the least important when it comes to WL photography:

Improve the photographer!
Increase the time spend in the field!
Improve the lenses!
Improve the camera!

And here I dare too disagry, beacuse with my former "basic" gear which was D5300 and Tamron 70-300 there were times when I preffered to take binoculars with me instead of camera. I was not satisfied with my photos, so why should I waste my time.

Now with D500 I can easier improve, beacuse body is so good that I can see all my mistakes. I spend more time in the field, beacuse every time I'm out even if I'm not satisfied with photos I get knowledge of my weak areas.

 

[StefanSC]

I am curious what exactly prevented you from seeying your mistakes when you were using the D5300? And in which manner the D500 makes it easier to improve your images?

It's been a moment since i've used entry level cameras and I might have An overly optimistic view of them...

 

[Nanakamado]

I am curious what exactly prevented you from seeying your mistakes when you were using the D5300? And in which manner the D500 makes it easier to improve your images?

It's been a moment since i've used entry level cameras and I might have An overly optimistic view of them...

My main problems were: de facto not working AF-C. Regardless of how much I tried, I had no luck with BIF or anything moving fast. Problems with dense foliage AF was crazy and sometimes even without problematic situations AF was not reliable. With D500 I know that when conditions are hard and I cannot make a well-focused shot, then it's an impossible shot. And when BIF is not in focus I'm sure that I made a mistake.

Saying all this I love my D5300 (even though I will probably sell it) and my longing for wildlife photography was the only reason I needed something better. D5300 was great for portraits, some "artsy" stuff, or travel photography. With BiF etc. I feel that it was limiting me. Now D500 is probably a body that I will never outgrow

And I have to admit that lens matters. When buying D5300 we decided on the body only and Sigma 17-50/2,8 EX instead of the kit. Those lenses are so much better than the kit, and they are probably the reason why I and my wife are still doing photography.


@EricBowles
as I agree with the "It's not that the old device can't do the job" sentence I have a few points.

First of all, I strongly disagree with the 3-4 years electronic lifespan. It's probably true with low-end gear, but for example: When my low-end smartphone was almost dead after 5 years, we decided to buy a new one for my wife, and I got her smartphone 7-year-old flagship (I have a tendency to destroy my phone). It's still good. And if the battery won't fail it should be good for the next 2-3 years.

In January after almost 11 years, I build a new PC, the old one with two updates on the road (small - more ram, and big - GPU seven years ago) was still good for low-end gaming, amateur photo processing, and office work. The main reason for getting a new one was me getting a bit into video and much lesser power consumption of newer PC components. Especially under load.

And in terms of cameras changing from D5 or D6 to Z9? It means you have enough money, or you need it as a pro. But changing D3XXX or D5XXX for D500, D810, or even D7200 is probably an even bigger step up. And they all cost a fraction of what the current flagship costs. Good used D500 cost is the same as entry-level Z50. And for wildlife is probably much better than Z50.

So older devices can do the job, and it is sometimes even better to buy older but better devices than newer and same class, or worse.

 

[DRM]

I started at the low end, body and glass, and worked my way up with both. I never made a huge leap in one vs the other, body vs glass or glass vs body.

IBIS, AF speed and accuracy, frame rate, the ability to see real time exposure in the EVF, a silent shutter, and the ability to customize the camera are the biggest changes I see day in and day out looking back over the upgrades I‘ve made in bodies.

Corner/edge sharpness, VR, build quality, AF speed, silent motors, and customizable buttons and rings are the biggest changes I see day in and day out in my upgrade of glass.

For me, my upgrades weren’t made to enable me to capture “sharper” images of the subjects I shoot, since I’ve always been able to do that. I upgraded to capture images of the subjects in more interesting and unique poses and in a wider variety of situations than what I previously was able to. My eye would often see things the camera/lens would miss. Now the camera/lens is capturing things my eye doesn’t catch. That has been the benefit of upgrading both bodies and glass.

 

[fcotterill]

Fyi

Some Common DSLR/Z Questions I Get | Thom Hogan

 

[Charles Loy]

How important is the camera body in wildlife photography?

Very important, without the camera (lens too) you can't make a wildlife photo.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I think the answer is different depending on the experience level of the photographer. I am not speaking of talent here or the photographer's "eye". I think that the amount of photography that a photographer does is the deciding factor.

What I find as an occasional photographer is that many processes that have become ingrained in a professional are no so second nature to me. After any layoff it seems that I must relearn skill I thought I had mastered. This experience leads me to believe a newer, more state-of-the art camera makes a big difference to me.

When I transitioned from a D7200/Sigma 150-600C to a D-500/500pf I found something simple like GRP autofocus made a world of difference. I had one programmable button which switched between GRP and SF. With the D-500 it appeared that AUTO ISO was accurate enough so all I manipulated was shutter speed as the 500pf was always @ F/5.6. No zoom to worry about, the 500pf was the right lens or it wasn't and only 1 button and one dial to switch between BIF and stationery. The bottom line was that I became proficient with that specific setup and took good pictures.

I am leaving in early April for the Alligator Farm and will take exactly one lens, the 100-400 on my OM-1. Why? I have developed a specific methodology that is superior to my D-500/500pf. In most cases I can shoot in ALL focus area with TRK (tracking) OFF and Subject ID ON. This results in better focus than the GRP of the D-500. I didn't get better. The camera did. I now pay more attention to exposure. Why? The histogram is right there in the viewfinder, and I have two programmable buttons for Plus and minus EXP Comp. I can do this because it is easier on the OM-1. I didn't get better, the camera did.

There is no doubt that Steve could get better pictures with the D-500/500pf than I can with the OM-1/100-400 but I can't.

So I traded an older DSLR for a newer STACKED BSI mirrorless camera but the 100-400 lens is a degrade from the 500pf in terms of quality but the tradeoff of better camera, less lens results in better pictures-for ME.

Tom

 

[Len Shepherd]

A big difference, sometimes overlooked, is that higher megapixel cameras achieve higher image resolution with every lens used on that body.

There are trade-offs with higher MP bodies, though in bright sunlight at low iSOs these differences tend to be effectively quite small.

Higher resolving lenses also achieve higher image resolution on every body they are attached to.

As others have commented - for moving subject - AF subject tracking has significantly improved over recent years.

My advice is threefold!

Finding wildlife doing what is wanted in good light I consider the primary requirement.

Field craft as in getting reasonably close to your subject I consider the second most important requirement.

Last I consider is buying the best equipment you can afford for what you want to photograph.
A common rule of thumb in photography is that a 20% increase in performance cost 100% more.

 

[fcotterill]

The modern AF systems with very high frame rates have big advantages for action events, provided the photographer maintains correct framing AND presses all the right controls at the right times. (I hate to think how many times my fingers miss the correct sequence in my fumbling as frozen thumbs!)

To be honest, in this example with the Nikon Z9 I missed focus on several frames following this sequence, as the bird veered away to change course across me, but I just managed to reframe the hawk to get some more decent images before it vanished into the canopy behind me. This is the dark morph, which is significantly more common in the SW Cape, where the darker plumage has been demonstrated to be adaptive to hunting success [more images in this post].

This example illustrates how the Z9 tracking briefly lost focus on this Black Sparrowhawk flying towards me, which turned slightly to fly behind the post (I'd forgotten about in the heat of the action). This sequence was taken at 20 fps: Custom Area 5*3 with 3D On. The unbroken HE* RAW sequence were captured within 1/4 second - all show the same second on the time stamps.

The raptor had just failed to catch a guinea fowl in a big open field, where it was mobbed immediately by 3 Pied Crows (out of frame); so it was in rapid retreat to the riparian woodland. For the record, this sequence further confirms there is no noticeable penalties pairing the ZTC14 with the 400 f4.5S Nikkor on the Z9

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[glsmith9823]

Well, I propose some loose and lighthearted discussion thread.

How important is the camera body in wildlife photography?

Many wildlife photographers are saying that You should always invest in lenses. But I feel it's not always true. Maybe if You already have a good, older body, and want to add wildlife to Your other photography genres. And there was of course great post by @Steve "does gear matter".

But I feel it is very misleading for people with entry-level cameras. I don't know how it is in richer countries like US, UK, or Canada but here in Poland prices of anything better than entry-level are absurd for someone just starting with photography (even though one may argue, that gear prices will always be absurd for non-photographers). Did You guys start with a higher trier body, or something entry-level?

I think it's quite absurd to buy lenses for 5000$ and attach them to D3XXX or even D5XXX. I think that would be absurd even for my Sigma 100-400 which is less than 1000$. Especially when one can buy a used D500 for less than 1000$ or a used D7200 for less than 500$.

And the difference is big. Before I bought my D500 I tested D810. First time with the new camera, bad weather, and seagulls in the white sky. And I managed to catch sharp pics. With the camera, I had the first time in my hands. And I thought that I really suck at panning and BIF. My red squirrel (from the critique section, and even more so a few more from Instagram) this photo would be impossible without D500.

Of course, a good photographer will get great photos with everything (like what @sdentrem showed lastly on his Instagram with M50 or Duade Paton with 40D in the last video) but the thing is when You for the first time think about new lenses or body for wildlife You are most probably not a good photographer yet. So you will lose many more good photos.

Lately, I went to scout some wildlife sanctuary near my house and made 350 photos, but all of them were bad. But I checked them and I learned what I did wrong in most cases. With my old D5300, I was never sure if it was me, the camera, or the lenses that were responsible for bad photos.

What do You think? Are lenses more important, or do You need at least an enthusiast level body for lenses to become more important?

The camera body & camera lens are only extensions of what you see through your eye & mind. I wasnt sure photography would be a hobby/passion I would want to stay with & thus went inexpensive....starting with an SLR, migrating to a DSLR a few years after they came out when initial bugs worked out, prices stabilized....Now I am looking at mirrorless & out side of capturing more images & lighter weight....I'm staying where I'm at for the time...Photography is not about being able to do video with my camera.....I let my brain & eye decide what I want to shoot & constantly work on the composition....everything else falls into place...I can still shoot excellent images with my Nikon 4004 or my Polaroid.

 

[EricBowles]

A big difference, sometimes overlooked, is that higher megapixel cameras achieve higher image resolution with every lens used on that body.

There are trade-offs with higher MP bodies, though in bright sunlight at low iSOs these differences tend to be effectively quite small.

Higher resolving lenses also achieve higher image resolution on every body they are attached to.

As others have commented - for moving subject - AF subject tracking has significantly improved over recent years.

My advice is threefold!

Finding wildlife doing what is wanted in good light I consider the primary requirement.

Field craft as in getting reasonably close to your subject I consider the second most important requirement.

Last I consider is buying the best equipment you can afford for what you want to photograph.
A common rule of thumb in photography is that a 20% increase in performance cost 100% more.

Hi Len - great to see you over here. Looking forward to your thoughts and contributiuons.

 

[MikePapple]

For landscapes or perched birds/ stationary critters a less expensive camera will work. For birds-in-flight you need a more expensive body with subject tracking.

 

[nikonkelly]

I started shooting in 1968 with a old Argus C3. About a year later I moved up to a Pentax Spotmatic IIa and I shot that for about 15 years... and then I sold everything... wife, then kids, and I couldn't afford it. Then at Christmas of 1999 I got an Olympus c700 a cheap point and shoot. After 3 different models of the C7xx I finally in 2005 went to Nikon with a D70. six months later I bought a D200, then 6 years later I moved to a D7000 (biggest mistake I have ever made in photography as it was a huge step down in ability)then 18 months later got a D800, then when the D850 came out I had my name on the list. Then was given a Z7 and I hated it as it was not a BIF camera, but I learned and it did it ever shoot a mean landscape! All of that said, I was buying as good of lenses along the way as I could afford, but with each step up in camera, and the lenses that I had at that time, my images improved almost daily. Then once I bought the D850, I started really getting the much better glass... the 300 PF, 200-500 mm, 500 mm PF, and with a great camera these great lenses made a huge difference in my images. I had some great images with the cheap stuff, but I was always longing for a lens that would get me that eagle or osprey up close. I wanted a wide angle lens that would make that landscape image just come to life... and I think that I have gotten to that point in my work... no I am not perfect. I still screw up... but I get some pretty nice awards for my work. Best of show, 1st place, some great prize money, some nice equipment, and what was it that got me there:

Shoot every day, The first 10000 images will be your worst.
Enter every competition, especially at camera club, that you can and listen to what they tell you as to why you did not do better and then incorporate those suggestions into your work.
Join a local photography club and listen and compete... and shoot with some of the people that are other members.
Teach those who are wanting to learn... the more you teach, the better you will get. You will grow as you share.
Move up with your body as you can, and do the same with lenses. And if you can buy the just replaced lens, (old model) you will save a ton, and then practice some more.
I think that this is what will make most people become their best and in the least amount of time!

It is not the equipment, it is the computer six inches behind the camera! And when you stop learning... it is time to give up your photography.

Just my most un-humble opinion!

 

[Anjin San]

Lenses are more important than body…but you do need a body that has the capabilities…FPS, AF, etc…that you need for your style. But as some guy named Steve says…the 80/4 rule is most important. OTOH…I’ve seen excellent shots…and taken some…with a D7500 and Nikor 18-30p lens…but it’s a matter a lot of the time of right place, right time…and the better body increases your keepers…but I would still put lenses ahead of body as long as it is a good enough body.