Best wildlife photography setup price to performance ratio

[Rhett Quigley]

I have made a few posts recently about lenses, I tried to narrow it down. The Nikon D500 is a bit too expensive for me, so I would consider the Nikon D7200/D7500 or for the Canon side, the 7d Mark II/80D and maybe a used 7D because of how cheap you can get one used (under $400). So if I went the 7D and 400mm f5.6l (both used) route it would cost roughly $1000-1100 and if I swap the 7D for a 7d Mark II used it would be a total of around $1600. If I went the Nikon route it would cost around $1700 used. I like a good price to performance ratio (much like gaming PC's) so would the cheapest 7D route be not that much worse? I hear the Nikon 200-500 has good image stabilization (400mm f5.6l has none) which equates to low iso photos = less noise = better looking photos. Some say the 200-500 is not as sharp as the 400mm f5.6l, but I would think it is a small difference. Nikon also has no AF filter on their bodies. I intend on taking photos of birds while I go birding, (I currently have a t3i plus a 55-250mm stm, very entry level). If someone has a better option please list it.

[Rhett Quigley]

My profile picture was taken with my t3i and the 55-250stm I mentioned. I got really close to the Chestnut-sided Warbler so it looks really good, I hear that many mediocre lenses can give really good results when you get close.

[fatboyslimerr]

Why not go mirrorless? Unless you plan to do a lot of low light photography where the extra sensor size will help, you don't need the extra shallowness of depth of field from a full frame sensor if using zoom lenses. Something like a Lumix G9 or Sony equivalent and a big bright lens. I know Leica have just released a 200mm (400mm full frame equivalent) F/2.8 as well as a 50-200 (100-400mm full frame) F/2.8-4.0 that offer exceptional sharpness and with lens and body stabilization you should be fine up to 1/10 shutter speed. 

 

Mirrorless is the future imo. 

[Rhett Quigley]

11 minutes ago, fatboyslimerr said:

Why not go mirrorless? Unless you plan to do a lot of low light photography where the extra sensor size will help, you don't need the extra shallowness of depth of field from a full frame sensor if using zoom lenses. Something like a Lumix G9 or Sony equivalent and a big bright lens. I know Leica have just released a 200mm (400mm full frame equivalent) F/2.8 as well as a 50-200 (100-400mm full frame) F/2.8-4.0 that offer exceptional sharpness and with lens and body stabilization you should be fine up to 1/10 shutter speed. 

 

Mirrorless is the future imo. 

Sounds interesting, I will look into it.

[Radium_Angel]

16 minutes ago, fatboyslimerr said:

Why not go mirrorless? Unless you plan to do a lot of low light photography where the extra sensor size will help, you don't need the extra shallowness of depth of field from a full frame sensor if using zoom lenses. Something like a Lumix G9 or Sony equivalent and a big bright lens. I know Leica have just released a 200mm (400mm full frame equivalent) F/2.8 as well as a 50-200 (100-400mm full frame) F/2.8-4.0 that offer exceptional sharpness and with lens and body stabilization you should be fine up to 1/10 shutter speed. 

 

Mirrorless is the future imo. 

You will never, ever, get a 1/10 of a second shutter speed sharp image with a zoom, the motion of the wildlife, if nothing else, will see to that.

A fast zoom (constant f/2.8) is a must, not only for light gathering, because not all animals hang out in the middle of the day. Noise (or lack thereof) in high ISO is where the full frames shine

Mirrorless isn't the future. It's an interesting concept that has its place, just as MF and LF cameras do, but the be-all-end-all? Hardly. Look at the selection of lenses and their availability. 

[xQubeZx]

Both @Radium_Angel and @fatboyslimerr got some half assed advices. 

 

The first question, what is your budget, like the max you will be willing to pay. Secondly, do you have any old lenses you will keep? Personally I’d preffer to go the mirrorless route for a few reasons, however I will not go into those as sadly I don’t think your budget fits any lenses for wildlife. Mirrorless are still lacking some lenses even though Sony really got some awesome stuff now. But getting good tele lenses are still expensive. With either Canon or Nikon there are plenty of used ones. For Sony you are lucky to find a 70-200 f/4 under $1000 used. Seems like once someone buys it they won’t let go. 

 

But hypothetically if you had a large budget I’d get a Sony A9 or A7r iii together with the 70-200 f/2.8 + tele converter and adapt some canon or sigma glass for the moment. Only cheaper Sony body worth getting for wildlife is the A6500. I’d argue the A9 is the best camera for wildlife because it got blackout free burst shooting and really fast tracking AF, if there were more good tele lenses. 

 

I’m not that into panasonic or fuji but I know fuji also lacks in longer tele lenses and they got even worse support for adapting and third partie lens manufactures. Panasonic almost goes away directly for its m4/3 sensor imo. It works good in daylight but as soon as it gets a bit dark its hopeless compared to the others. 

 

If you go Nikon, a used D7200 is very cheap and almost the same specs as a D7500, dual SD cards too which they removed on the D7500. Then get a used 70-200 f/2.8 tamron and sigma may have very good values, especially used. The Sigma 150-600 could work too, a bit slow but it got insane reach. It depends a bit on what you will shoot really. 

 

If you go Canon do not get the 7D, at least a 7D mark ii or a 80D. Lens wise I’d go with the same as above. A 70-200 f/2.8 for most and then one longer lens. 

 

The reason I’m pushing on newver bodies is because for wildlife good low light sensitivity helps a lot. I’d keep away from FF in your budget though as the lenses will be too expensive if you want long reach. In all kits mentioned above you could include a fast wide angle prime id you are lucky to get up close with an animal or just want to get a different perspective. 

[fatboyslimerr]

@xQubeZx seems like you don't have great knowledge of mirrorless and lens choices? No need to be so derogatory. 

On MFT you can invest in Leica lenses and upgrade the body as you see fit. Image processors are pretty powerful for reducing noise in-camera on modern mirrorless. Full frame won't keep the advantage for long. 

[Rhett Quigley]

2 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

Both @Radium_Angel and @fatboyslimerr got some half assed advices. 

 

The first question, what is your budget, like the max you will be willing to pay. Secondly, do you have any old lenses you will keep? Personally I’d preffer to go the mirrorless route for a few reasons, however I will not go into those as sadly I don’t think your budget fits any lenses for wildlife. Mirrorless are still lacking some lenses even though Sony really got some awesome stuff now. But getting good tele lenses are still expensive. With either Canon or Nikon there are plenty of used ones. For Sony you are lucky to find a 70-200 f/4 under $1000 used. Seems like once someone buys it they won’t let go. 

 

But hypothetically if you had a large budget I’d get a Sony A9 or A7r iii together with the 70-200 f/2.8 + tele converter and adapt some canon or sigma glass for the moment. Only cheaper Sony body worth getting for wildlife is the A6500. I’d argue the A9 is the best camera for wildlife because it got blackout free burst shooting and really fast tracking AF, if there were more good tele lenses. 

 

I’m not that into panasonic or fuji but I know fuji also lacks in longer tele lenses and they got even worse support for adapting and third partie lens manufactures. Panasonic almost goes away directly for its m4/3 sensor imo. It works good in daylight but as soon as it gets a bit dark its hopeless compared to the others. 

 

If you go Nikon, a used D7200 is very cheap and almost the same specs as a D7500, dual SD cards too which they removed on the D7500. Then get a used 70-200 f/2.8 tamron and sigma may have very good values, especially used. The Sigma 150-600 could work too, a bit slow but it got insane reach. It depends a bit on what you will shoot really. 

 

If you go Canon do not get the 7D, at least a 7D mark ii or a 80D. Lens wise I’d go with the same as above. A 70-200 f/2.8 for most and then one longer lens. 

 

The reason I’m pushing on newver bodies is because for wildlife good low light sensitivity helps a lot. I’d keep away from FF in your budget though as the lenses will be too expensive if you want long reach. In all kits mentioned above you could include a fast wide angle prime id you are lucky to get up close with an animal or just want to get a different perspective. 

I would say the max I would want to pay is $2000 for both body and lens.

[cc143]

No don't go mirrorless, battery is crap, its awkward to hold, especially with the longer glass you will need for birding, and lets not forget, the mft sensors mostly are crap in high isos, so you wont' be able to get fast shutter speeds. Also, lens cost is much lower and the glass exists and is tried and tested. 

 

Also, its more reliable and durable, more weather resistant etc. (there's more where these come from, but this debate is getting pretty old.)

 

That 200-500 is just a great zoom, with no actual equivalent on the Canon side, but do keep in mind there's stuff like the tamron and sigma 100-400, 150-600 etc. 

 

Between the d7200 and 7dii id go with the 7dii, just because of the AF system and ridiculous continuous burst rate, but keep in mind that, if the d500 was an option, it would be a clear winner and that the 7d3 is supposedly due, so the 7d2 might fall further by the end of the year. 

 

@xQubeZx no it isn't the best camera for birding (the a9), if anything, due to the lack of long native glass.

 

[xQubeZx]

7 hours ago, cc143 said:

No don't go mirrorless, battery is crap, its awkward to hold, especially with the longer glass you will need for birding, and lets not forget, the mft sensors mostly are crap in high isos, so you wont' be able to get fast shutter speeds. Also, lens cost is much lower and the glass exists and is tried and tested. 

 

Also, its more reliable and durable, more weather resistant etc. (there's more where these come from, but this debate is getting pretty old.)

 

That 200-500 is just a great zoom, with no actual equivalent on the Canon side, but do keep in mind there's stuff like the tamron and sigma 100-400, 150-600 etc. 

 

Between the d7200 and 7dii id go with the 7dii, just because of the AF system and ridiculous continuous burst rate, but keep in mind that, if the d500 was an option, it would be a clear winner and that the 7d3 is supposedly due, so the 7d2 might fall further by the end of the year. 

 

@xQubeZx no it isn't the best camera for birding (the a9), if anything, due to the lack of long native glass.

 

I said I personally would consider it to be that, IF there was long native glass. The blackout free 20fps burst and top of the line AF is not something many DSLR’s compare with. (D5 and 1Dx ii) Forgot to mentioned the silent shooting too, so you don’t disturb or scare away the animals. 

 

And @fatboyslimerr if you read what I wrote I did not reccomend a mirrorless for him. I however explained why one would not be a good option for him. I own a mirrorless and have tried several different bodies and got some first hand experience. I think mirrorless are the future because they got features a DSLR never can achieve. And yes, there is a bit lack of lenses right now. But with the introduction of Sigma’s ART series to Sony E it really shows they are serious and more lenses will come soon. And the lenses missing are only speciality lenses. 

 

Secondly I don’t know why you are so hung up on Leica lenses for mft, are you talking real Leica lenses or just the ones where they basically just sold the right to name them Leica? mft still has very poor ISO performance compared to Fuji’s and Sony’s sensors. Someday they may be equal but it won’t really be next year or the year after that. 

 

However, as I said above. I reccomend OP to get a 7D mark ii or D7200 (as the D500 was out of budget and I don’t consider the D7500 worth the almost duble cost). Lenses is personal but you cant go wrong with a 70-200 f/2.8 for starters. 

[Radium_Angel]

14 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

Both @Radium_Angel and @fatboyslimerr got some half assed advices. 

 

The first question, what is your budget, like the max you will be willing to pay. Secondly, do you have any old lenses you will keep? Personally I’d preffer to go the mirrorless route for a few reasons, however I will not go into those as sadly I don’t think your budget fits any lenses for wildlife. Mirrorless are still lacking some lenses even though Sony really got some awesome stuff now. But getting good tele lenses are still expensive. With either Canon or Nikon there are plenty of used ones. For Sony you are lucky to find a 70-200 f/4 under $1000 used. Seems like once someone buys it they won’t let go. 

 

But hypothetically if you had a large budget I’d get a Sony A9 or A7r iii together with the 70-200 f/2.8 + tele converter and adapt some canon or sigma glass for the moment. Only cheaper Sony body worth getting for wildlife is the A6500. I’d argue the A9 is the best camera for wildlife because it got blackout free burst shooting and really fast tracking AF, if there were more good tele lenses. 

 

I’m not that into panasonic or fuji but I know fuji also lacks in longer tele lenses and they got even worse support for adapting and third partie lens manufactures. Panasonic almost goes away directly for its m4/3 sensor imo. It works good in daylight but as soon as it gets a bit dark its hopeless compared to the others. 

 

If you go Nikon, a used D7200 is very cheap and almost the same specs as a D7500, dual SD cards too which they removed on the D7500. Then get a used 70-200 f/2.8 tamron and sigma may have very good values, especially used. The Sigma 150-600 could work too, a bit slow but it got insane reach. It depends a bit on what you will shoot really. 

 

If you go Canon do not get the 7D, at least a 7D mark ii or a 80D. Lens wise I’d go with the same as above. A 70-200 f/2.8 for most and then one longer lens. 

 

The reason I’m pushing on newver bodies is because for wildlife good low light sensitivity helps a lot. I’d keep away from FF in your budget though as the lenses will be too expensive if you want long reach. In all kits mentioned above you could include a fast wide angle prime id you are lucky to get up close with an animal or just want to get a different perspective. 

Where was my advice wrong?

 

and 2k for body AND lens? Yikes. I've got a studio portrait lens that was 3k alone...nevermind the body.

At 2k, glass is far more important than body, buy a used D7000 for 300$ and spend the rest of the glass, you'll need it. 

[xQubeZx]

36 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

Where was my advice wrong?

 

and 2k for body AND lens? Yikes. I've got a studio portrait lens that was 3k alone...nevermind the body.

At 2k, glass is far more important than body, buy a used D7000 for 300$ and spend the rest of the glass, you'll need it. 

I would not say most you said was wrong. More that it barley wasn’t any advice at all. He asked for a camera + lens combo suggestion. Saying get a f/2.8 zoom is not super helpful to some beginners. And on a side note, I do not agree about mirrorless not being the future. What do DSLR’s have for advantage? Only things I know are optical viewfinder (depending on who you ask if its a plus or not) and large lens selections after years and years of development. Sony’s E mount are working hard to release new lenses so they can be up to par to Nikon and Canon. I really don’t see anyrhing saying mirrorless isn’t the future. Maybe not super soon. But someday. 

 

But I agree about spending more on the lens in a 2k budget. But a used D7200 goes for ~500 and that leaves 1500 for a used lens or two. And the D7200 body is a large improvment over a D7000, especially in burst shooting and AF. 

[Radium_Angel]

1 hour ago, xQubeZx said:

Sony’s E mount are working hard to release new lenses so they can be up to par to Nikon and Canon. I really don’t see anyrhing saying mirrorless isn’t the future. Maybe not super soon. But someday. 

You assume standard FF cameras are an evolutionary dead end. I disagree.

1 hour ago, xQubeZx said:

Saying get a f/2.8 zoom is not super helpful to some beginners

On the contrary. If you are looking at dropping 2k for just about anything, it pays to research first. And understanding *why* a fast zoom is critical to wildlife work is part and parcel to doing that kind of work.  Having a camera with a low-noise high ISO capability is also critical, for reasons I outlined above. And my D2x, for just one example, has a silent mode on it, to the point it's on par with my Oly OM-D EM-5 mirrorless.

 

Lens selection for dSLRs is also another advantage. Nikon lenses go back to 1959 and the vast majority of them work with my D7000, and virtually *all* of them work with my D2x and *all* of them work with my F3HP. Having that kind of back-catalogue of choices is pretty darned handy. When I shot wildlife for Nat Geo (yes, that Nat Geo) I used a camera that could take abuse in the wild, being dropped, rain, dust, trekking through the mountains in search of black bear birthing, I needed a camera and lens combo that simply didn't exist in the mirrorless world.

 

On the flip side, shooting a 48 hour concert with dozens of bands on the venue, the D2x plus my 70-200 f/2.8 was murder on my shoulders, so I went with the mirrorless for a weekend. It was okay, but I was always afraid it was going to get damaged by the mosh pits, a fear I didn't have with a solid body like the D2x. Low light performance was an issue with lock on (the Oly liked to hunt a lot when things got dark) but daylight was fine.

 

The point about wildlife photography however, is the low light ability and handling abuse. This assumes the OP is doing more than shooting birds out his back window, in which case a mirrorless might do just fine

[cc143]

Correct me if I'm wrong, (I don't have a great knowledge of the leica system), but arent most lenses manual focus?

 

@xQubeZx your logic is false, Mirrorless systems having a future and dslrs having a future are not 2 mutually exclusive events. There are advantages to both. My issue with your statement, and most of the peoples who claim mirrorless is the way forward is that they also insist dslrs are a thing of the past. I don't see why that is the case. 

 

Don't forget that the 7d2 and 1dx2 share an AF system, just as the d5 and d500. so I don't see how the a9's system is comparable to the d5 and 1dx2 and not the other 2. And on a side note, I have tried the a7riii, the ergonomics are better than the a7ii, but still horrendous. I wouldn't want to have to use the thing with a hefty 24-70, let alone a huge telephoto.  

 

Everyone, get in topic. Yes you may have a 15k lens for all I care thats not what OP is looking for. And yes, glass is mostly more important, that doesn't mean that an action photographer should go for a 300mm f/2.8 on a used 550d because thats the body they can afford when buying the best glass around, that is moronic. You make do with what you have and optimise what you buy given your budget. 

 

OP, as I said above, the 7dii and d7200 are probably your best options. BUT, I do believe, you should consider spending a bit more for a used d500, just due to the speed and buffer depth. 

[Rhett Quigley]

I'm going cheap lol, What I really want is more reach. The logic then would be to go for the highest zoom like a tamron 150-600. People say it is not very sharp, but many people say its good, flickr pictures of many songbirds look good, and the difference is probably small. I can find a used tamron for around $700 or less. A 7D is about the same as a t3i in image quality, you would be getting a better autofocus system and more frames per second, not a big deal. I could spend tons of money for little benefit in image quality, not worth it. I guess this is the best bang for buck.

[Radium_Angel]

1 hour ago, Rhett Quigley said:

People say it is not very sharp, but many people say its good

It's because the 150-600 has highly variable quality control. Sometimes you get lucky, most of the time not. The longer the reach, the more compromises are built-in, unless money is no object. There is a reason the sharpest lenses in the world are primes...

[Rhett Quigley]

3 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

It's because the 150-600 has highly variable quality control. Sometimes you get lucky, most of the time not. The longer the reach, the more compromises are built-in, unless money is no object. There is a reason the sharpest lenses in the world are primes...

Ok, watching this video made me consider the canon 400mm prime. Despite the shorter focal length the lens is sharper when cropped according to this video. 10:28 mark.

 

 

 

 

[Radium_Angel]

1 hour ago, Rhett Quigley said:

Ok, watching this video made me consider the canon 400mm prime. Despite the shorter focal length the lens is sharper when cropped according to this video. 10:28 mark.

 

 

 

 

If you can afford the 400 prime, then you are golden.

That's a 10k$ lens....

[Rhett Quigley]

12 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

If you can afford the 400 prime, then you are golden.

That's a 10k$ lens....

I meant the 400mm f5.6l

[Radium_Angel]

8 minutes ago, Rhett Quigley said:

I meant the 400mm f5.6l

5.6???

 

Where's the fun in that? Might as well you a reflex lens at 1/10th the cost, it's only a 1/2 stop more loss of light...

(partially kidding, reflex lenses are a bitch to use well)