Beginner wildlife photography kit

[sh1209]

I have two full frame, Sony bodies and decided recently to purchase a smaller APSC body for travel. I decided to go with the A6700 Sony and absolutely love that little camera. If you had that camera and a 100–400 or 200–600 you could shoot just about anything you wanted. You should be able to find either of those lenses used at a very reasonable price. The camera is extremely capable and also does focus bracketing if you’re into macro photography. Honestly, I’ve been grabbing this camera lately over my A1 or A7RV for insect photography.

 

[NickKount]

Thanks

 

[PhotoLover]

I've been challenging myself lately to shoot using a D7200, an old 300mm f4 and the 1.4x TC. What I got isn't top level (https://bcgforums.com/threads/european-bee-eaters-2024-edition.35493/) but I think plenty of beginners would be happy with those shots.

And shooting with that set-up has really brought to light how much the fieldcraft and knowledge of where to find subjects, how to approach them and how to edit your files matters in getting a decent image and how little the gear matters.

So if I was a wildlife beginner with 2k euros in my pocket, I'd seriously spend 1k on the set-up above and the rest on workshops, on camo equipment and good outdoors shoes and on beer for local wildlife photographers to get them to show me the best spots to find subjects .

Because at the end of the day, a slip and fall can trash any camera and lens but the know-how you get from in the field experience, nobody can take it away from you.

A couple of mild disagreements ...

First, those photos are excellent, not just ones a beginner would be happy with!

But now we get into nuances .... the D7200 and the sharp 300 f4 will give you very good image quality. Add the TC and you've got an okay for birding 420 or so reach.

That said, I instantly became a better wildlife photographer when put the 500 pf on my camera versus the 100-400 I was using previously as my main wildlife lens. Partly because the AF is better on that lens, partly because it is a faster lens, .... and partly because it has more reach. For some situations I take the hit on AF and attach the 1.4 converter to the 500 pf.

Second, the D7200 is definitely not as good as some options for things like BIF. If I was going the used dSLR route, I'd pop for a D7500 over the D7200 because the AF is better and it has a higher burst rate -- both important when doing subjects in motion (the D500 is a little better, but more expensive).

Getting closer is a really good idea, but sometimes it is either impossible (the critter is across a pond) or impractical (I'm out birding this morning and I don't have time to take two hours and wait ... though often that is what it takes. ... but I'm not always out on an all day birding expedition).

I guess the things to think about here are:

1. What is your budget (as stated)
2. What is the upgrade path? (as I mentioned before)
3. Are very fast subjects like BIF interesting, or is it mostly perched birds, etc?

And the OP is getting lots of opinions! My Nikon bias is showing, but I'd tend to buy used dSLRs (D7500, D500, etc) and used F mount lenses that work well on Nikon mirrorless, then later upgrade to the Z8 or Z9 body. But since that is my plan, obviously I like it

It is important to think of the upgrade path, unless you are willing (which is not a terrible plan) to buy a setup, then get rid of it and buy an entirely new one. Used dSLRs are cheap now, but they will continue to drop in price, so an investment in that technology is an investment in a rapidly depreciating asset (which is okay with me).

I will say that if you are into birding, you will always want more reach, and I don't care how good you are at sneaking up on wildlife.

 

[StefanSC]

Thank you, @PhotoLover.

I agree that the D7500 is better and it gets you Group-AF that can make life much easier in many situations. Looking at MPB prices, I think it's even better value for money than the D500 (750 euros vs 1250 euros for a "like new" one).

I kind of went "What's the cheapest you can go and still have a viable wildlife kit" ... any lower than this and you are starting to make some critical compromises.

And I wanted to underline that too much thinking about gear is not really productive. Sometimes is best to just pick something up and go out shooting and enjoying the nature.

 

[Ralph]

Hello! I have read all of your replies and I thank you for that. I have found a canon ef-400mm f5.6 uused for 900 euros (in Greece). Also a canon eos r6 used for 1200 euros. Last but not least, There is an option for a sigma ef-150-600 new for 1000 euros and a canon r10 for the same price.

And here is my question : Which camera and lens combination should I get? The r6 with the sigma 150-600 or the r10 with the 400 f5.6?
Note that the photography subject that I am most focused on is bird photography.
Thank in advance!!!

If your subject is mostly birds you’re going to want at a minimum, a 500mm. Under certain situations the 400mm will do but you are going to want more.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I ain't buying a D-7500/150-600 Sigma as opposed to a R7/150-600 Sigma.

I agree that GRP AF is critical for birds BUT Canon's Subject ID for birds is better and 32.4mp is helpful. If you are worried about rolling shutter in electronic shutter mode simply shoot the R7 with the mechanical shutter.

Please explain to me why a D7500 is better than a Canon R7. I don't get it.

Tom
PS: Yes I shot a D7200/150-600 Sigma so I also prefer Nikon to Canon but there seems to be no comparison between the cameras.

 

[PhotoLover]

Thank you, @PhotoLover.

I agree that the D7500 is better and it gets you Group-AF that can make life much easier in many situations. Looking at MPB prices, I think it's even better value for money than the D500 (750 euros vs 1250 euros for a "like new" one).

I kind of went "What's the cheapest you can go and still have a viable wildlife kit" ... any lower than this and you are starting to make some critical compromises.

And I wanted to underline that too much thinking about gear is not really productive. Sometimes is best to just pick something up and go out shooting and enjoying the nature.

The D7500 is probably a better value for the money than the D500. The main reason I use my D500 more than the D7500 is mostly the higher burst rate AND the ability to switch from group AF to single point focus with the press of a button (otherwise the controls on the D7500 are better -- the U1/U2 is much nicer than the stupid banks on the D500). The D500s better AF is not so much better I notice that much difference .. maybe a little when off the center AF points. Well, I do like the higher-res screen on the D500.

I agree that thinking too much about gear is counter-productive. But .... the 500 pf was a game changer for me with its sharpness wide open, fast AF and good reach. Plus it was light enough to carry around all day. I tried the 200-500 and the Tamron 150-600 and the former was really heavy and the latter didn't have near as good a hit rate for me (though I liked and still like its little brother, Tamron the 100-400).

You want enough gear for it to get out of your way. What point that is varies for different people, but it is quite important if you are really into wildlife photography.

 

[StefanSC]

Please explain to me why a D7500 is better than a Canon R7. I don't get it.

Canon R7 seems to have some pulsating AF-C issues with the Sigma 150-600mm C which can lead to missed shots. Not so much it's unusable but more of an ongoing nuisance.

Also, it means using rather heavy lens on a small body with an adapter in-between.

And finally, the D7500 is 600 euros less than the R7 at reputable used gear dealers which, on a budget, can go a long way.

 

[NickKount]

I ain't buying a D-7500/150-600 Sigma as opposed to a R7/150-600 Sigma.

I agree that GRP AF is critical for birds BUT Canon's Subject ID for birds is better and 32.4mp is helpful. If you are worried about rolling shutter in electronic shutter mode simply shoot the R7 with the mechanical shutter.

Please explain to me why a D7500 is better than a Canon R7. I don't get it.

Tom
PS: Yes I shot a D7200/150-600 Sigma so I also prefer Nikon to Canon but there seems to be no comparison between the cameras.

I totally agree!

 

[Tom Reynolds]

On MPB the OM-1 mark 1 is available for $1200. Many OM-1 mark 1 owners are swapping to a mark 2 so good used cameras are currently available. The relevant lens is the Olympus 100-400 which is available on MPB for $1100. I think that meets or come close to a E2000 budget.

What do you get for the extra euros compared to a Nikon D-750 and a Sigma 150-600?
1-You have a state-of-the-art mirrorless camera which has an excellent wysiwyg electronic viewfinder with a histogram in the upper left corner.
2-The camera will focus anywhere in the frame. You are not limited to the center focus points as with the D-7500
3-The camera, in subject ID: bird, will focus on the eye, if visible and will track the bird all across the frame. In contrast the D-7200 has GRP AF which will focus on what is closest. To focus the eye you will need to switch to SP AF, via a button, and still keep the bird in the center of the frame and the SP on the eye (I was rarely able to do this).
4-The camera has stacked sensor which is state-of-the-art. With this lens the camera will continually refocus on the bird/eye and capture images at 25 f/s. In contrast the D-7500 has limited f/s.
5-The camera has the best pre-release capability available anywhere. I used to score 25 frames (1 sec) in the buffer with a half-press. If I did full-press those frames would be written to the card along with another 75 frames if I so desired. If I did not full-press those frames would not be written to the card. (The Painted Bunting, posted previously in this thread, was done in this manner. With the D-7500/150-600 no way you get shots like this.

And Last but certainly not least the OM-1/100-400 combo weighs in at 4 pounds. and is quite compact and easily hand-holdable. In contrast the D-7500/150-600 is 6 pounds. The lens much longer fully extended and not easily (at least for me) hand-holdable (I used a monopod.)

What you give up:
The D-750 is a DX (1.5 crop) so you get 900mm effective reach. The OM-1 is a m43 (2.0 crop) so you get 800mm effective reach. Both cameras have 20MP sensors.

Understand that I did personally shoot a D-7200/150-600 sigma contemporary for a couple of years before switching to a D-500/500pf then ultimately to an OM-1 mark 1 with the Olympus 100-400 lens a couple of years ago.

I still have a couple of pictures taken with the D-7200/15-600 sigma on the wall. They are very nice but can't hold a candle to the D-500/500pf images on the wall but are about the same IQ as the OM-1/100-400 I have on the wall but with the D-7200 the eye was not the focus point very often while with the OM-1/100-400 it almost always was-and this matters. Another difference is that the OM-1/100-400 shots are birds in specific poses that I picked out of multiple images captured while the D-7200/150-600 images were typically one-of-a kind.

Regards,
Tom

 

[StefanSC]

@Tom Reynolds :

Keep in mind that the OP is in Europe, and here an OM-1 and 100-400mm on mpb is about 2600 euros ... If the OP can up his budget to that or if he can find someone to get them from the US mpb and bring it to him in Greece, that set-up will out-shoot anything short of a Z8 and 180-600mm.

That being said, as an OM-1 user, I must say you are overselling it a bit .

1) The exposure measure system in Nikon DSLRs is so good that most of the time it gets it to within 1/3 stop from adequate exposure.
2) A D7500/D7200 have AF points pretty much anywhere where you would want to place a subject in the frame. A D500 has even better coverage.
3) The Bird detection system is great in plenty of cases.
But it can be fooled by plenty of things, it has a mind of it's own if there are multiple birds in frame and goes all over the place if there are obstacles between you and the subject or if the subject is partially obscured.
4) Limited fps can be a blessing as well ... I'm getting frustrated lately by how many similar looking images I have to go through from the OM-1 (I know, first world problem ). And if you limit the fps on the OM-1 you give up one of it's major selling points, the blackout free EVF...
5) The OM-1 is packed with awesome features with situational usage and that can make it a bit unwieldy and overwhelming for a beginner when it comes to using it.

Also, as a note, the Sigma 150-600mm C is a bit sharper than the Oly 100-400mm and both being f6.3 at the long end, the DSLR will have an image quality advantage.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

5) The OM-1 is packed with awesome features with situational usage and that can make it a bit unwieldy and overwhelming for a beginner when it comes to using it.

Also, as a note, the Sigma 150-600mm C is a bit sharper than the Oly 100-400mm and both being f6.3 at the long end, the DSLR will have an image quality advantage.

I agree with your first point. I found my Nikon Camera combos D-7200/D-500 much simpler to use. The camera is less sensitive to proper exposure so I could adjust in post. With the OM-1, I needed correct exposure while shooting in order for the subject ID: bird to work properly. I must say however, that once I mastered shooting in AUTO ISO and changing the EXP COMP with a button and the rear command dial, virtually all the problems you listed with Subject ID getting fooled went away.

I did not find my Sigma 150-600C sharper than any of my Olympus 100-400 lenses but I did find that having the eye as the primary focus point seemed to make the 100-400 images SEEM sharper.

Finally, E2600 may not be doable. If so maybe a used Nikon combo is best putting 600 euros in the bank

 

[NickKount]

Hello guys, I finally made a decision! I bought a canon r10, with the 18-150 kit lens, with 2 batteries and the ef-rf adapter USED for 900 euros. Because of my pollen alergy, I cant go in the field and shoot so I will be photographing portaits, landscapes, architecture etc wth the kit lens until I get well.
Thank you for your feedback
Nick