Camera Recommendations

[Beccatrix]

I'd like a nice camera for wildlife. Any recommendations before Black Friday would be greatly appreciated!

We have the animals on the homestead. We're also going to the western Amazon and the Galapagos in a few months, and have a lot of travel in the next 2 years. Ideally something that could also handle snorkeling, but we'll have our GoPro. Our budget is around 3K. I really miss having a "pro" camera; I haven't had anything since film days, and arthritis makes anything too heavy or long difficult.

 

[The-White-Elephant]

I'd like a nice camera for wildlife. Any recommendations before Black Friday would be greatly appreciated!

We have the animals on the homestead. We're also going to the western Amazon and the Galapagos in a few months, and have a lot of travel in the next 2 years. Ideally something that could also handle snorkeling, but we'll have our GoPro. Our budget is around 3K. I really miss having a "pro" camera; I haven't had anything since film days, and arthritis makes anything too heavy or long difficult.

I would suggest a Sony A6000

 

[mdees88]

I'd like a nice camera for wildlife. Any recommendations before Black Friday would be greatly appreciated!

We have the animals on the homestead. We're also going to the western Amazon and the Galapagos in a few months, and have a lot of travel in the next 2 years. Ideally something that could also handle snorkeling, but we'll have our GoPro. Our budget is around 3K. I really miss having a "pro" camera; I haven't had anything since film days, and arthritis makes anything too heavy or long difficult.

Lot's of options on the market. Are you partial to any particular brand? Canon, Nikon, and Sony are typically the three most common and all are very good. Just curious, but are you familiar with shutter speed, aperture, and ISO at all or are you mainly planning on shooting in AUTO?

I'm fairly certain you are looking for an interchangeable lens camera like a DSLR or Mirrorless, and not a compact point and shoot or bridge camera. A $3K budget can get you some very good quality equipment. It can actually get you even better equipment if you do not mind buying used.

Photographing wildlife can be quite demanding, especially if your talking about photographing smaller animals like birds (compared to taking pictures of tame animals on your farm). The smallest lens I typically recommend for wildlife is 400mm. 500mm is even more ideal. It really depends on how close you can get to what you are wanting to shoot. If the animals are rather tame or if you do not want a super close up (portrait) shots where they fill the frame, you might could get away with a shorter lens.

I'm a Canon shooter so that's what I feel best to speak about. Since you mention arthritis and not wanting a very large setup. I think the RF 100-400 lens would be a very good option and it is a great value lens. The only other lens that would meet your needs is the RF 100-500 but it is $3K by itself.

DSLR's are becoming a thing of the past, Mirrorless is the future. You can get good deals on older DSLR's but the new mirrorless cameras offer a lot of benefits over DSLR's, the biggest being animal eye detect autofocus.

So as far as cameras go, I think the best camera that will keep you right around your budget is the new R6ii (unfortunately it has not been released yet and is supposed to be released by the end of the year but that's not guaranteed). The R6II will be a worthwhile upgrade to the R6, but if you need a camera now, a Canon R6 would be a good choice. Either the R6 or R6II paired with the RF100-400 would be a very small light setup. As long as you are not trying to get close up portraits of small birds it should work quite well. The biggest con of the R6 is the 20mp full frame sensor. It's a great sensor but 20mp doesn't allow you to crop much. The R6ii will be 24mp which is better. But 400mm on a 20mp full frame sensor is not really a lot of reach, but it certainly could be enough if you can get close to your subject or if you are not expecting to get super close up portrait shots.

Now for even less money you could get a Canon R7 (has an APS-c sensor) and be all in for a little over $2k. This will offer you significantly more reach (32mp aps-c sensor vs 20mp FF sensor on R6) which will turn your 400mm lens into a 560mm lens. The extra reach can be very beneficial but the full frame R6 is a better camera in my opinion, and the R6ii will be even better than it. So, it's kind of a tough decision.

If I were to buy a brand new camera (and needed it now) I would probably buy the R7, then down the road if you wanted to upgrade to a full frame camera I would get the R6II. The R7 has some small quirks that most average people would probably never notice but it is more than capable of yielding very good results, and I think you get a lot of camera for the price.

I have shot 400mm on a Canon 80D and an R7 and found that it works quite well for me (once I realized how close I actually need to be to get good pics... you have to get close). I currently shoot an RF 100-500 on a Canon R5 and it's ideal for over 90% of what I do.

In most cases, I think the majority of your money should be spent on lens/lenses, but I think the rf 100-400 is an excellent lens at it's price point. Plus it is very light, compact, and sharp.

I would not hesitate to buy a Sony or Nikon camera either. The most important decision is buying a good quality lens. You just need to make sure the one you get is adequately sharp so you can get good results...

 

[Beccatrix]

Lot's of options on the market. Are you partial to any particular brand? Canon, Nikon, and Sony are typically the three most common and all are very good. Just curious, but are you familiar with shutter speed, aperture, and ISO at all or are you mainly planning on shooting in AUTO?

I'm fairly certain you are looking for an interchangeable lens camera like a DSLR or Mirrorless, and not a compact point and shoot or bridge camera. A $3K budget can get you some very good quality equipment. It can actually get you even better equipment if you do not mind buying used.

Photographing wildlife can be quite demanding on equipment, especially if your talking about photographing smaller animals like birds (compared to taking pictures of tame animals on your farm). The smallest lens I typically recommend for wildlife is 400mm. 500mm is even more ideal. It really depends on how close you can get to what you are wanting to shoot. If the animals are rather tame or if you do not want a super close up (portrait) shots where they fill the frame, you might could get away with a shorter lens.

I'm a Canon shooter so that's what I feel best to speak about. Since you mention arthritis and not wanting a very large setup. I think the RF 100-400 lens would be a very good option and it is a great value lens. The only other lens that would meet your needs is the RF 100-500 but it is $3K by itself.

DSLR's are becoming a thing of the past, Mirrorless is the future. You can get good deals on older DSLR's but the new mirrorless cameras offer a lot of benefits over DSLR's, the biggest being animal eye detect autofocus.

So as far as cameras go, I think the best camera that will keep you right around your budget is the new R6ii (unfortunately it has not been released yet and is supposed to be released by the end of the year but that's not guaranteed). The R6II will be a worthwhile upgrade to the R6, but if you need a camera now, I would recommend buying a used Canon R6. Either the R6 or R6II paired with the RF100-400 would be a very small light setup. As long as you are not trying to get close up portraits of small birds it should work quite well. The biggest con of the R6 is the 20mp full frame sensor. It's a great sensor but 20mp doesn't allow you to crop much. The R6ii will be 24mp which is better. But 400mm on a 20mp full frame sensor is not really a lot of reach, but it certainly could be enough.

Now for even less money you could get a Canon R7 (has an APS-c sensor) and be all in for a little over $2k. This will offer you quite a bit more reach (32mp aps-c sensor vs 20mp FF sensor on R6) which will turn your 400mm lens into a 560mm lens. The extra reach can be VERY beneficial but the full frame R6 is a better camera in my opinion, and the R6ii will be even better than it. So, it's kind of a tough decision.

If I were to buy a brand new camera I would probably buy the R7, then down the road if you wanted to upgrade to a full frame camera I would get the R6II. The R7 has some small quirks that most average people would probably never notice but it is more than capable of getting very good results, and I think it is worth the price.

I have shot 400mm on a Canon 80D and an R7 and found that it works quite well for me (once I realized how close I actually need to be to get good pics... you have to get close). I currently shoot an RF 100-500 on a Canon R5 and it's ideal for over 90% of what I do.

In most cases, I think the majority of your money should be spent on lens/lenses, but I think the rf 100-400 is an excellent lens at it's price point. Plus it is very light, compact, and sharp.

I would not hesitate to buy a Sony or Nikon camera either. The most important decision is buying a good quality lens. You just need to make sure the one you get is adequately sharp so you can get good results...

Thanks so much! It's been 17 years since I've had a nice camera, and it was film!

After chatting with a lot of people and reading reviews, I ended up pre ordering the EOS R6 Mark II RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens Kit. I also picked up 2 extra batteries and the battery grip. I'd appreciate any recommendations on carrying cases and straps!

I do like birding; we have a lot of large marsh birds nearby. We have the poultry and pets, and traveling. I wonder if we'll still need a spotting scope for the rainforest to shoot through?

 

[mdees88]

Thanks so much! It's been 17 years since I've had a nice camera, and it was film!

After chatting with a lot of people and reading reviews, I ended up pre ordering the EOS R6 Mark II RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens Kit. I also picked up 2 extra batteries and the battery grip. I'd appreciate any recommendations on carrying cases and straps!

I do like birding; we have a lot of large marsh birds nearby. We have the poultry and pets, and traveling. I wonder if we'll still need a spotting scope for the rainforest to shoot through?

Congratulations! I think you made an excellent choice. That is a great lens too. It will work very well for pretty much all general use including landscapes, and portraits. I know you just dropped a bunch of coin but for $500 that rf 100-400 would make a great additional lens that would complement the 24-105 very well. It is very small and light for a 400mm lens. The biggest con is it's not a very fast lens meaning it doesn't have a large aperture and will not do as well in low light, but that's the trade off for it being a small, lightweight, affordable lens. Of course, you can always try the 24-105 first and see if you want more reach, but I'm almost certain you will for wildlife.

Peak design makes some straps that are very nice. They easily connect and disconnect from the camera. I use a lowepro protactic 450aw ii backpack. It's probably much bigger than what you're looking for but it works well for holding my 2 bodies, 3 lenses and extra gear. I use a pelican case in the boat. I'm sure that are much better looking, smaller options that will work for travelling.

I definitely recommend getting the pro grade SD UHS-II/cf express type b card reader. It is always highly recommended. It will do CFExpress type B cards too if you ever end up upgrading to an R5 or something else.
https://www.amazon.com/ProGrade-Digital-Dual-Slot-Reader-CFast/dp/B07BTNX82Y

I primarily shoot birds, raptors and shorebirds mostly. Waterfowl are probably my favorite but I haven't had a lot of opportunities to shoot them. Never tried shooting through a spotting scope before. I think having a 400mm lens could possible alleviate that need but 400mm is probably nowhere near the reach of a spotting scope, though I imagine the image quality will be much better.

Be sure to check out the wildlife photography thread here and post some pics up once you get new camera. https://www.backyardchickens.com/threads/wildlife-photography.1367815/

I wrote a little article on how to improve at wildlife photography too, if you are interested. I've actually improved a lot since writing that but there is still some very good info in there.
https://www.backyardchickens.com/threads/wildlife-photography.1367815/page-9#post-22691023

If you have any more questions feel free to ask!

Matt

 

[Beccatrix]

Congratulations! I think you made an excellent choice. That is a great lens too. It will work very well for pretty much all general use including landscapes, and portraits. I know you just dropped a bunch of coin but for $500 that rf 100-400 would make a great additional lens that would complement the 24-105 very well. It is very small and light for a 400mm lens. The biggest con is it's not a very fast lens meaning it doesn't have a large aperture and will not do as well in low light, but that's the trade off for it being a small, lightweight, affordable lens. Of course, you can always try the 24-105 first and see if you want more reach, but I'm almost certain you will for wildlife.

Peak design makes some straps that are very nice. They easily connect and disconnect from the camera. I use a lowepro protactic 450aw ii backpack. It's probably much bigger than what you're looking for but it works well for holding my 2 bodies, 3 lenses and extra gear. I use a pelican case in the boat. I'm sure that are much better looking, smaller options that will work for travelling.

I definitely recommend getting the pro grade SD UHS-II/cf express type b card reader. It is always highly recommended. It will do CFExpress type B cards too if you ever end up upgrading to an R5 or something else.
https://www.amazon.com/ProGrade-Digital-Dual-Slot-Reader-CFast/dp/B07BTNX82Y

I primarily shoot birds, raptors and shorebirds mostly. Waterfowl are probably my favorite but I haven't had a lot of opportunities to shoot them. Never tried shooting through a spotting scope before. I think having a 400mm lens could possible alleviate that need but 400mm is probably nowhere near the reach of a spotting scope, though I imagine the image quality will be much better.

Be sure to check out the wildlife photography thread here and post some pics up once you get new camera. https://www.backyardchickens.com/threads/wildlife-photography.1367815/

I wrote a little article on how to improve at wildlife photography too, if you are interested. I've actually improved a lot since writing that but there is still some very good info in there.
https://www.backyardchickens.com/threads/wildlife-photography.1367815/page-9#post-22691023

If you have any more questions feel free to ask!

Matt

This is all amazing! Thank you so much! Any thoughts on a Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary?

 

[mdees88]

This is all amazing! Thank you so much! Any thoughts on a Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary?

That's definitely a good budget option and 600mm is a lot of reach. It's very big and quite heavy though, make sure you handle one in your local camera shop before you buy it. I know it had some slight focus issues on the Canon R7 (it would pulse) but I'm not sure if it had issues with the R6 or not. It might be worth waiting until the R6ii comes out and someone could test it on that camera to make sure it works properly. Besides that issue, the 150-600 is the best way to get 600mm of reach without breaking the bank.

If you are okay with that size of lens, I would also recommend looking at a used Canon EF 100-400 IS II. They can be found for around $1500 used. It is a little smaller and lighter than the sigma and is a very sharp lens. It will work much better than the RF 100-400 in low light because it has a larger aperture. You only want version II though, not version I. I would actually recommend this lens over the RF100-400 but it is bigger and heavier which is why I didn't recommend it earlier. You would also need the $100 EF-EOS R adapter to use this lens since it was made for a DSLR. The EF lenses work perfectly on mirrorless cameras though, so no need to worry about the adapter causing any issues.

I'm a stickler for sharp photos. From my research several years ago, the sigma was just slightly less sharp than the canon ef 100-400 IS II, so I decided on the Canon. In real world use, you might not even be able to tell the difference between the two. It is important to know that third party lens typically do not autofocus as fast or quite accurately as the camera manufacturers lenses.

I do have to mention, if you're okay with completely blowing your budget, the RF 100-500 is the best wildlife lens available for your camera, hands down. It's smaller and lighter than both the ef100-400 IS II and the sigma. Plus it's slightly sharper than both of them too. I still have my ef 100-400 IS II because it's such a great lens but the rf 100-500 stays glued to my R5. My picks for a wildlife lens would be in this order.... rf100-500, ef 100-400 IS II, sigma 150-600, and then an RF 100-400 if size/weight is the biggest concern (but the rf100-400 is not in the same league as the ef100-400 or the rf 100-500, and I've never actually used the sigma myself).

 

[Beccatrix]

That's definitely a good budget option and 600mm is a lot of reach. It's very big and quite heavy though, make sure you handle one in your local camera shop before you buy it. I know it had some slight focus issues on the Canon R7 (it would pulse) but I'm not sure if it had issues with the R6 or not. It might be worth waiting until the R6ii comes out and someone could test it on that camera to make sure it works properly. Besides that issue, the 150-600 is the best way to get 600mm of reach without breaking the bank.

If you are okay with that size of lens, I would also recommend looking at a used Canon EF 100-400 IS II. They can be found for around $1500 used. It is a little smaller and lighter than the sigma and is a very sharp lens. It will work much better than the RF 100-400 in low light because it has a larger aperture. You only want version II though, not version I. I would actually recommend this lens over the RF100-400 but it is bigger and heavier which is why I didn't recommend it earlier. You would also need the $100 EF-EOS R adapter to use this lens since it was made for a DSLR. The EF lenses work perfectly on mirrorless cameras though, so no need to worry about the adapter causing any issues.

I'm a stickler for sharp photos. From my research several years ago, the sigma was just slightly less sharp than the canon ef 100-400 IS II, so I decided on the Canon. In real world use, you might not even be able to tell the difference between the two. It is important to know that third party lens typically do not autofocus as fast or quite accurately as the camera manufacturers lenses.

I do have to mention, if you're okay with completely blowing your budget, the RF 100-500 is the best wildlife lens available for your camera, hands down. It's smaller and lighter than both the ef100-400 IS II and the sigma. Plus it's slightly sharper than both of them too. I still have my ef 100-400 IS II because it's such a great lens but the rf 100-500 stays glued to my R5. My picks for a wildlife lens would be in this order.... rf100-500, ef 100-400 IS II, sigma 150-600, and then an RF 100-400 if size/weight is the biggest concern (but the rf100-400 is not in the same league as the ef100-400 or the rf 100-500, and I've never actually used the sigma myself).

Thanks!! I think, with budgetary restrictions (especially with the need for a tripod, bags, covers, etc) the RF100-400 will be my best option. I watched quite a few YouTube videosand read reviews, and it seems that the RF100-400 takes some decent wildlife pictures I'll be happy with until I can afford something bigger! I'll lose some of the reach, but I think I'd be frustrated with the tech issues on the Sigma.

 

[mdees88]

Thanks!! I think, with budgetary restrictions (especially with the need for a tripod, bags, covers, etc) the RF100-400 will be my best option. I watched quite a few YouTube videosand read reviews, and it seems that the RF100-400 takes some decent wildlife pictures I'll be happy with until I can afford something bigger! I'll lose some of the reach, but I think I'd be frustrated with the tech issues on the Sigma.

It really is a great lens for the money, and it's very sharp. The good news is, lenses hold their value very well. You'll have no issue selling it in the future if you ever want to upgrade.

 

[azurbanclucker]

Peak design makes some straps that are very nice. They easily connect and disconnect from the camera. I use a lowepro protactic 450aw ii backpack. It's probably much bigger than what you're looking for but it works well for holding my 2 bodies, 3 lenses and extra gear. I use a pelican case in the boat. I'm sure that are much better looking, smaller options that will work for travelling.


Matt

+1 on both of these. Peak straps are durable, user friendly, and comfortable for long periods in the field. And I have 3 different lowepro bags depending on what I'm doing. Mine are all discontinued models but they're all 10+ years old and in great shape. When they wear out, I'll replace them with more lowepro gear.