Wildlife photography camera recs.( Ordered )

Leupold VX-5HD

Get a Fujifilm XT5 with appropriate lenses.

its APS-C format but high MP, and incredible quality.

Find a used z7 body now that the z7ii is out. 70-200. You’ll have enough mp to crop down.

For this subject matter and budget, I’d recommend a used Sony a6600 paired with a used Tamron 18–300mm f/3.5–6.3for these reasons. The a6600 has Real-time Eye AF for animals meaning the predicitve AF for this camera will snap the photo when the eye is in focus (this can't be overstated enough for wilflife photography). It also has 11 fps continuous shooting, and in-body image stabilization (IBIS), making it ideal for capturing fast-moving wildlife handheld. The Tamron 18–300mm lens provides an incredibly versatile zoom range (27–450mm equivalent on APS-C) with Vibration Compensation, allowing you to photograph both close-up and distant subjects without changing lenses. This combination creates a true one-lens solution, which is perfect for wildlife photography because it reduces the need to carry multiple lenses, speeds up response time for fleeting moments, and is lightweight and portable (the a6600 is a mirrorless camera and is smaller and lighter than traditional DSLRs.) FWIW, both the camera and lens are weather sealed.

For wildlife photography, APS-C cameras can be advantageous over full-frame because their smaller sensor effectively “crops” the image, giving you more reach from the same lens. This is called the crop factor—for Sony APS-C cameras like the a6600, it’s 1.5×, meaning a 300mm lens behaves like a 450mm lens on a full-frame camera. This extra reach makes it easier to fill the frame with distant wildlife without buying ultra-telephoto lenses, keeping your kit lighter and more affordable.

All the other camears mentioned are great, but are infirior to the combination above for the following reasons. The Fujifilm X-T5 can struggle with wildlife because of autofocus system limitations and lens ecosystem constraints. Being a DSLR, the Canon 7D with 100–400mm is heavier and less portable and you'll have to buy another "kit lens" to get to the ranges above. Additionally, the Nikon Z7 is a full frame camera and with 70–200mm doesn’t have 1/2 the reach of the Sony far enough without cropping or teleconverters. And yes, it has more MP's but 24 mps is more than enough. You can print poster size and bigger with 24mp. There is a hidden downside to more MP's and that's storage. Uncompressed raw files out of the Z7 can be up to 120 MB per image. Cmpare this to a 24 MP uncompressed raw file which come in at around 34 MP's. So that roughly 4 times more photos on a single card. And don't forget about writing those images to a memory card. If shooting in bursts (and you'll want to shoot in bursts) you'll have to get the fastest memory card available to keep your camera from buffering.

I'm includign the links for the sony and tamron on MPB a used camera site. I've used them before and the gear I've gotten from them has been rated higher than what they describe. This items used are right in your budget. MPB has the best prices on the used market and come with a 6 month warranty if i recall correctly (check that before buying). I would not hesitate to buy anything from them. All of their photos are of the actual item you are buying.

Sony a6600 Mirrorless Camera Body (Used)

Tamron 18–300mm f/3.5–6.3 Di III-A VC VXD Lens (Used)

Tamron 18–300mm f/3.5–6.3 Di III-A VC VXD Lens (New)
ETA: Here's a Reddit post (yes, I know) on the same setup I'm suggesting.

Sony a6600 & Tamron 18-300mm

For photography when you travel, it is hard to beat Micro Four Thirds cameras. The sensor size is also very friendly to telephoto photography. For example, you can get an Olympus E-PL10 for under $500 used and an Olympus 50-200 SWD lens for under $350 leaving you over $600 in your budget for a travel zoom to cover wide angle for landscape photography.

The Oly 50-200 is tack sharp at all focal lengths and the body image stabilization will help with those wildlife shots.

The camera and lens sizes in the M43 world are going to be nearly half the size of comparable full-frame and APS-C SLRs and also smaller than the mirrorless cameras in those formats. I find it very easy to pack my camera without needing the separate camera bag that I used for my Canon full-frame equipment.

Another option for staying under budget is to rent the equipment for the trip from Lensrentals.com. It's a pretty easy process and will let you try out equipment for this trip before you commit to buy anything.

quote:

---

Only thing I can tell you is that the lens is way more important than the camera body.

---

Then go with Fuji, they dont make a bad lens.

Any lens they sell will have higher quality than entry level Canon/Nikon/Sony

quote:

---

While Fuji lenses are will regarded, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.

---

The entire lineup is stellar. Even the XC lenses get you better than "kit lens" quality images.

quote:

---

But for wildlife photography m4/3 cameras are less than ideal. This is because their smaller sensors, while the 2x crop factor that give you more reach with lenses, they also come with a smaller pixel pitch. Pixel pitch is basically the size of each individual photosite on the sensor, or a smaller the area to gather light. These smaller photosites leads to reduced sharpness (due to diffraction effects appearing sooner), less dynamic range and higher noise at high ISO. That's why I said for wildlife (and sport) shooting, mirrorless APS-C cameras are the sweet spot between price, size, crop factor (at 1.5) and image quality.

---

It's a typical knock from people who don't use them. Diffraction starts to become apparent around f/8-f/11. In most circumstances, you shoot wildlife with wide open apertures where pixel pitch (or pixel density) leads to higer resolution which is especially helpful in bird photography and distant subjects. That's because you are putting more pixels on the small subject at the same focal length than with a full frame camera. Additionally, where the M43 size benefit really shines is in lenses now that full frame and APS-C bodies have become more compact in mirrorless models. So, not only is an M43 50-200 lens tack sharp, it is also smaller than a 50-200 mm lens in larger formats and gives you a narrower field of view, comparable to 100-400mm in full-frame.

Thanks so much for the great thoughts all. I am not set on anything yet , but am leaning on a mirrorless camera. I will continue to research and listen to opinions and suggestions . Looking at YouTube and online , the Canon R 8 is rated well for wildlife entry level. I am not going to rush my decision so appreciate all ideas.