re: Wildlife photography camera recs.( Ordered )

quote:

---

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.

---

That camera with the Tamron 18-300 I mentioned above or the similar specked Sigma 18-300 would be an excellent beginner setup for wildlife. Just make sure you get them in the Cannon mirrorless mount. That combo should be right at the top end of your budget.

ETA: Tamron might not make that in the RF mount.

They make it but it's new so it might be tricky to find.

quote:

---

True, but isn’t that true for all the manufacturers lineups beyond their basic lenses?

---

Pretty much, but even the cheapest Fuji lenses will have very good I.Q.

For that budget, I would contact KEH camera and discuss a used Canon 7D mk 2. Then I would look for a Sigma 150 to 600 contemporary lens and a 50 mm lens. This should get you into decent photos at your budget.

Used is better than new

For 1500, get a Nikon D850 used in Mint condition off ebay.

The. Spend another 1000 on some excellent used glass.

Look at Japanese stores/sellers in ebay because they take better care of their equipment.

You don't need a mirrorless camera for this. The D850 is the best all around canera Nikon ever made and 45mp, so perfect for cropping.

Probably have to get a zoom for $600-900, probably something like a 200-500 5.6.

Thats the best budget wildlife rig you can get into for that price.

Not sure I will go mirrorless , but many recommend for beginners shooting wildlife. Ease of use and value are sited as positives.

quote:

---

I did find the Tamron on a few sites for The RF mount, but showing to be coming soon. Between that lens , the Sigma 18-300 and the Canon 100-400 which would be better for wildlife photography ?

---

Of those lenses, only the Canon 100-400 is a full frame lens and the only one that would take full advantage of the larger sensor in the R8. On Canon RF full-frame mirrorless cameras, if you mount an RF-S (APS-C) lens, the camera will automatically switch into a 1.6× crop mode. This means your 24 MP R8 instantly behaves like it has about 10 MP because the camera only uses the central APS-C portion of the sensor.

FWIW, I shot a "local" Mtb race this weekend (It was over 2 hours from my house) and got this one. IMHO, shooting sports is very similar to wildlife photography given the lenses you have to use and the subjects always being in motion. This one is straight out of the camera with zero processing...



Camera: Sony A900 (My 16 year old workhorse)
FL 200mm (Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 Apo Ex Dg HSM)
F stop 7.1
Shutter 1/800 (Shutter priority mode)
ISO 400

quote:

---

Thanks , I have a lot to learn

---

You're welcome.

I've been shooting for close to 50 years and I'm still learning. Although I'd say the learning curve is a lot shallower than it was when I started. The difference is the instantaneous feedback our cameras give us now. You click the shutter and you see the image you're getting. If you need to change a setting, you know in that moment. Additionally, modern post processing techniques can save even terribly imaged photos. One word of advice. Don't trust the thumbnail sized image on your camera's LCD screen. Zoom in on a few images to make sure there aren't issues with the image that you can't see on the small screen.

Once upon a time, when I had my own B&W dark room, you had to take the images, 24-36 at a time, go home, process the negatives, and then print them looking at a negative image on an enlarger. There were no notes on the images as to the camera settings (why shutter speed, aperture, lens combination) you used unless you wrote it down in a note pad. And focus was manual. Even today, I find shooting sports today that about 20% of my shots go in the recycle bin due to missed focus or other technical issue (improper framing, etc). I have no idea how got decent photos shooting High School Football 40+ years ago, manually focusing with ISO 800 B&W film and TERRIBLE zoom lenses.

Be happy you're picking up the hobby today.

You should look into the R7 as well. I'd consider it "comparable" to the 7D mk ii, just in the newer, better RF line.

In line with my first comment, here are some photos that were shot with a 7D2.

Tailing bonefish. 70-200 2.8L ii





Koa. 24-70 2.8L ii



Madisonville Lighthouse. 24-70 28.L ii



Bahamas. 24-70 28.L ii