Choosing a Camera - (Also posted in ‘Photos’)

[5pointer]

Hi all,

Just a quick question for any of you that occasionally like to substitute a rifle for a camera when you’re out after deer.

I’m thinking of purchasing a camera for the sole purpose of deer/wildlife photography. I’m not terrible at taking a decent picture, (I feel, anyway!), but I’m a long way from being anything close to professional and certainly can’t say that I know my way around some of the seriously advanced pieces of kit that are out there.

I’m just curious what some of you may use yourselves, the pros and cons in your experience and any recommendations that you might have. I’ve had a bit of good fortune lately so I have some flexibility regarding the cost of things but but would rather just make sure I end up with the best thing for the job.

Something that can take really good quality photos, that’s quiet to use and that has/can be fitted with a lens suitable for subjects both fairly close and further away.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

5pointer

PS - I’ve already posted this in the ‘Photos’ section but just wanted to ensure it was in the right place.

 

[Mickeydredd]

Any Canon DSLR really, choice is down to budget - loads of body and lens options with Canon. The glass is more important than the body to be honest so you must invest in decent lenses.

I have the 70D plus the 100-400mm lens which provides me with anything I need. It has wifi which is really good for setting shots up by a feeder and clicking away from a distance. It is maybe a medium range camera at best but takes good enough pics for me - a couple of examples below.

I don't bother, but a lot of decent photos are made very good on the laptop......

 

[Richie092]

What he said. Bit like your stalking kit really, buy a basic body from a top manufacturer and spend all your money on the glass. The Canon L series lenses really are very good.

 

[Thetownie]

We went for Bridge Camera, and the 4 year old can use if great to and a pictures in focus.

CANON PowerShot SX540 HS Bridge Camera.

Hope this helps

 

[ChesterP]

Another Canon 70D user here and very pleased with it:

 

[JAYB]

I now use micro four thirds cameras, lightweight with an excellent selection of lenses that work for both of the main players, Panasonic and Olympus.



John

 

[5pointer]

Thanks for all the replies!
It certainly gives me me some food for thought moving forward, will have look at some of the suggestions over the weekend and go from there.

5pointer.

 

[old keeper]

I've been using a Canon G11 for a few years now, it's brilliant! I'm no photographer but it produces truly good pics. Not too big and very easy and forgiving to use.

 

[ChesterP]

For your purposes 5pointer, the make matters less than:

1) what you're prepared to carry with you - a compact, bridge or rangefinder type camera takes up less room but are less versatile and more limited in lens choices;
2) fit and functionality

All the main players have developed sensor tech that allows for superb results these days. For moving animals, cameras with in built image stabilisation have a distinct edge...why? Because with longer telephoto lenses or large range zooms used more typically for the sort of wild life photography you're after, image stabilisation is a distinct advantage for sharp pictures.

Canon have lenses with IS built into the lens as do Nikon. Other makers use in-camera IS. So why are Canon and Nikon different? IS used to be very expensive to achieve in body so Canon and Nikon kept camera costs down by incorporating the tech in the lenses. However this may be important to the OP.....effective image stabilisation is difficult to achieve for longer telephoto lengths "in-body" which is another reason that Canon and Nikon continue to use in-lens IS (Nikon call their version VR or Vibration Reduction but it does the same thing).

That may narrow your choices down a lot!

Both are the top two leading makers offering a massive array of lenses and accessories. The bottom line is that what they handle like and feel like in the hand is way more important that whether you end up with brand "X". I like the Canon control layout...it just feels intuitive to me and they fit my large hands well, so I stick with Canon. I happen to think that Nikon produce the better budget to mid range cameras and lenses though so you pays your money and makes your choice.

 

[andychas]

Hi all,

Just a quick question for any of you that occasionally like to substitute a rifle for a camera when you’re out after deer.

I’m thinking of purchasing a camera for the sole purpose of deer/wildlife photography.

I think this is going to be down to your budget tbh.
Im a lifelong canon user and wholeheartedly agree with the idea of investing in glass from a quality/longevity perspective but it has to be good glass and thats expensive. camera bodies change and update fairly frequently and are upgradeable of course so you can start off with a basic model and work up, taking good pictures on an APS-C sensor in a canon 400D til you feel the need and want to take advantage of a full frame sensor on a 6D or 5Dmkiv.
(400 D approx £300, 5Dmkiv approx £2500)
dont bother with kit lenses that come with a camera, they are a waste of time and money if you're after pin sharp wildlife shots. It used to be the case that even high end zoom lenses were a compromise in quality over "prime" lenses, but thats not as much of an issue these days with the top end lenses.

Your ideal lens shopping list would be something like this
24-105mm f4L IS II general lens (approx £1000)
70-200mm f2.8L IS II medium telephoto lens, great for lots of lovely portraits and for close ups on subjects that are happy to stand close (like Park Deer) (approx £2000)
If you're serious about getting decent close ups of wildlife you'll need a lens a lot longer than 200mm, look at 400 or above, like this for example
400mm f4 DO IS II (approx £6000) though pro wildlife photographers will be on one of the 600 or 800mm lenses (£10k-£12k) for really big close ups.

you'll also want a macro lens
100mm f2.8L IS Macro - great for those big close ups of bugs etc, and lovely for portraits of people (approx £900)

and a couple of standard primes are useful for landscapes, people etc like a 50mm and a 35mm (approx £1300 & £1600 respectively)
you'll also need a decent tripod (approx £400), possibly a 2x extender (£300) enough SD cards to record all the shots you'll take (£100 plus) and obviously a decent bag to carry it all in (£200).

Oh and you'd better make sure your computer is able to handle and develop the larger raw image files too (Adobe Lightroom is a minimum, there are others but iPhoto isn't one)

Unsurprisingly and even with deals you can very quickly be looking well over £10k for a set of kit that will get you extremely high quality images (which incidentally are pretty much worthless on the open wildlife photo market unless you become a major player in that field). You can of course build up your lens collection as required and over time to spread the cost and of course you will be able to find good deals shopping around.

Alternatively, if you're starting out and its just going to be for you, friends, family etc. (whilst still being able to enter competitions,get published if thats your dream) you can save yourself a lot of time, money and effort by getting one of the bridge cameras,
The RX10mkIV from Sony High Speed Camera | 4K Pro Optical Zoom Camera | DSC-RX10M4 | Sony UK
is an extraordinarily capable camera, with a very good quality Zeiss zoom lens 24-600mm (not as good as the L series canons granted)
takes great quality video, and is very reasonable at approx £1700.

Trust me, unless you are a pro or selling (more accurately trying to) the pictures, you won't see the difference. Theres an old quote from a very famous photographer who, when asked by a student what was the best camera, replied "the one you have with you". Like with anything else, having top end kit doesn't make you a brilliant photographer, but you can learn how to compose, expose for and get in the right place to get great shots by studying the great photographers and practice practice practice.

good luck with it, its a very satisfying hobby and great fun!
cheers
Andy

 

[Loki]

Hi

I would suggest that once decisions have been made an interation through some pre-owned camera shops will help in keeping well within budget.

Not unlike preowned stalking kit but without the 'kudos' of new.......with patience many excellent and fit for purpose items can be acquired.

L

 

[caorach]

Canon take a very strong anti shooting position with posters in their offices proudly announcing that they will not make or allow anything they make to be used in sport optics. They are also literally years behind Sony in sensor technology.

The best camera for any photo is the one you have with you so worth thinking about a small but quality camera. I use a Sony rx100 and you will go a long way to beat it but certainly Panasonic are now using the Sony sensor. Nikon are also buying in Sony sensors for their high end stuff but I don't know if they use them down the range.

I'd buy something small that will always be in your pocket and I'd be careful who I gave my cash to before I ended up sponsoring some anti campaigner.

 

[Millerich]

I have a Sony DSLR and a load of associated kit sitting doing nothing, if you’re interested in that type of camera. I’ve put of selling it all so far, to avoid the eBay idiots.

 

[JAYB]

I think you will find that both Panasonic and Olympus have stabilisation systems in both body and lenses, and in some cases they work in tandem and allow handheld shots to be taken at unbelievable shutter speeds. All this though is not doing you a lot of good, go to a camera shop and see what feels good in the hand to you and will it do what you want it to do.

John

 

[McKenzie]

Hello 5pointer.

I'm a professional photographer (not wildlife) & 95% of my work is from a tripod so I can use big cameras for the highest possible resolution. The camera I pick up when I'm mobile & hand-holding is a Nikon D750; it is full frame & is just exceptional in low light/high iso situations, as you might find with deer photography. I far prefer Nikon cameras as they produce neutral, accurate colours & the newest lenses have amazing image stabilisation & edge to edge sharpness when wide open (allowing the maximum amount of light in, which is what you will want for deer). I picked up the new 70-200 a few months ago & I've never seen anything like it at F2.8.

I think that the D750 either is, or is about to become a non-current model so there should be real bargains to be had. I've seen a review of it against the newest high-resolution body and at high iso there was no difference, with perhaps the edge going to the D750. At low iso the newer camera was better but that's not what you need anyway.

The D750 body is very light, although the shutter isn't the quietest around,

As mentioned above, buy the best lenses you can afford as they will always be good but the bodies will be replaced through wear & tear or technological advances.

Feel free to pm me,

John

Hi all,

Just a quick question for any of you that occasionally like to substitute a rifle for a camera when you’re out after deer.

I’m thinking of purchasing a camera for the sole purpose of deer/wildlife photography. I’m not terrible at taking a decent picture, (I feel, anyway!), but I’m a long way from being anything close to professional and certainly can’t say that I know my way around some of the seriously advanced pieces of kit that are out there.

I’m just curious what some of you may use yourselves, the pros and cons in your experience and any recommendations that you might have. I’ve had a bit of good fortune lately so I have some flexibility regarding the cost of things but but would rather just make sure I end up with the best thing for the job.

Something that can take really good quality photos, that’s quiet to use and that has/can be fitted with a lens suitable for subjects both fairly close and further away.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

5pointer

PS - I’ve already posted this in the ‘Photos’ section but just wanted to ensure it was in the right place.

 

[John Gryphon]

One thing to think about is that the lower level digital cameras with the 'super X power range' are not much chop at all in poor light conditions. Little tiny lenses that carry 20 or 30 x in reality are good in nice bright conditions.

I use my Canon F2.8 300 mm and a 100-400 Canon which is so versatile although not in the f2.8 low light class.
The F2.8 300 is BIG,its heavy also but I have carried it for miles and taken a lot of stalking pics with it however for the average keen bloke the 100-400 is a truly fantastic lens,great reach and hooked up to the Canon 7D 11 it is indeed a ripping lens.
I would recco it to any Canon user and even on lesser Canons it is superb. I still use it on a Canon 600 D and it still makes for great pics at times.

600D and 100-400 used for the wild sambar hind photo.I took it on a solid hill during a 'walk in' overnight camp hunt. Hand held ,no pod.
The reach of the 100-400 is excellent and the detail can be bloody good at times.

Canon F2.8 300mm in early sunlight. On the 7D 11 also hand held.

 

[kenbro]

If only carrying one telephoto lens, which range would you choose.
This for general photography, wildlife/seaside etc.
Thanks,Ken.
PS. I only have one lens, and that’s a 18-200 and sometimes it seems a bit short.

 

[McKenzie]

Although I'm very attached to my 70-200 I feel that you would be wanting to extend that range somewhat for wildlife. Whilst up to a 400mm range might be desirable I suspect that anything past 300mm is going to be pretty serious to carry around.

 

[McKenzie]

These deer shots are probably faked! Anteater in prize-winning wildlife photo is stuffed, say judges | Art and design | The Guardian

One thing to think about is that the lower level digital cameras with the 'super X power range' are not much chop at all in poor light conditions. Little tiny lenses that carry 20 or 30 x in reality are good in nice bright conditions.

I use my Canon F2.8 300 mm and a 100-400 Canon which is so versatile although not in the f2.8 low light class.
The F2.8 300 is BIG,its heavy also but I have carried it for miles and taken a lot of stalking pics with it however for the average keen bloke the 100-400 is a truly fantastic lens,great reach and hooked up to the Canon 7D 11 it is indeed a ripping lens.
I would recco it to any Canon user and even on lesser Canons it is superb. I still use it on a Canon 600 D and it still makes for great pics at times.

600D and 100-400 used for the wild sambar hind photo.I took it on a solid hill during a 'walk in' overnight camp hunt. Hand held ,no pod.
The reach of the 100-400 is excellent and the detail can be bloody good at times.

Canon F2.8 300mm in early sunlight. On the 7D 11 also hand held.

 

[John Gryphon]

I would put a lot more real photos up except for the out of line replies.