Ok guys for the most part I'm new to photography.  I have an old canon rebel xs with the 18-55mm and 75-300mm lens that came as a package about 12yrs ago.  That's my experience.  It has been a good camera.  I'm wanting to get into it a little more with a telescoping lens to photograph wildlife.  I find that I have as much fun photographing and videoing deer as I do hunting them.  I assume I should go with Nikon or Canon.  I read all the debates and doubt I'll see a difference between the two.  I wanting to cap my budget at $2000 for a lens and body.  I know this isn't much compared to others but it should be a big step up to me.  Any suggestions on what camera model or what lense to get?
  Thanks

For this budget, I think DSLR is the best route. The Sony A9 is the only mirrorless I'd consider for wildlife and it still has to deal with EVF lag.

That said, for wildlife I would recommend a crop body like the Nikon D7xxx series. Used D7200 or even D500 bodies can be found for ~$500-$700. Pair that with a used Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 for ~$1000, and you have a bit left over for another lens (say, a 18-55mm DX or 16-80mm DX). The Sigma 150-600mm also seems to get a good deal of affection from some wildlife photographers.

The Canon equivalents would be the 80D or 90D and a 100-400mm lens (or that Sigma 150-600 in EF mount).

All these options will give you 6-10 frames per second and a fast autofocus in the lens.

I had started another thread a couple of days ago about the buying a Lumix G9 to replace my older Olympus.  So far I am thoroughly impressed.

You might be able to sneak in just under $2000 with used Lumix G9 (used about $600-700/new about $1000) and the Panasonic Leica Lumix 100-400 mm (used around 1100-1300).  

The former is a very capable body and the Pana/Lumix lens is supposed to be excellent by all accounts.  I am shooting a much cheaper 75-300 mm Olympus zoom (around $500 now) but I am going to upgrade to the Panasonic 100-400 once my wallet recovers from purchasing the G9 body and the 9-18mm wide zoom I also picked up a day later.  In addition to giving me an additional effective 200 mm of zoom the Panasonic lens is also internally stabilized and works in tandem with the in body stabilization to let you get by without a tripod in decent light even at maximum zoom.  My current Olympus zoom is certainly adequate, although not as sharp and without the in-lens stabilization system.  

The G9 is micro 4/3 which means that you have double the focal length of the lens.  This effectively gives you a 800mm lens equivalent which will let you reach out quite a bit.  

The downside is that you will be giving up some ISO, aperture range and pixels over the alternatives.  The upside is that micro 4/3 glass it is far lighter, smaller and cheaper than anything you can buy with similar magnification for a larger format sensor.  

Here is a short review on using that combination for wildlife photography.

https://camerajabber.com/photographing-wildlife-panasonic-lumix-g9/

Here are two representative shots at maximum zoom from my 75-300 Olympus on a E-M5 Olympus body just to give you some idea of the magnification (this combination cost me about $1000 seven years ago).  

Attached File


Attached File


If you want to know how close we were this shot will give you an idea of the distance as well as what most of the photographers with deep pockets were shooting.  I am the guy (well just the arm and hand) standing on the right side in the blue shell with the puny little lens (about 1/3 of which is the hood).  I think that Canon lens the guy kneeling is using is about $9,000 retail if I am identifying it correctly from the catalog but someone that shoots Canon can probably tell you immediately.  

Attached File

I'll second thre crop-sensor and a long lens.  My rig is now a D500 and the Nikon 200-500, before that I had (still have) a D7100 and the (now sold) Tamron 150-600.

D7100 and the Tamron:

Osprey with Bass by FredMan, on Flickr

D500 and the Nikon 200-500:

Hover by FredMan, on Flickr

This.  If you bide your time, you could grab a refurbished D7500 and a 200-500mm f/5.6 with about $200 leftover for memory cards, a monopod (the 200-500mm is heavy), and so on.  Nikon has been having some big refurb sales every other month or so.  I think the D7500 was $700 and 200-500mm f/5.6 was $1100.

Btw, the 200-500mm f/5.6 is amazing glass.  Earlier this spring I had some visitors in my yard, including the majestic møøse.  A Møøse once bit my sister...  

Although I mostly use it for aircraft and sports.

You can get a brand new Canon EOS RP mirrorless with RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM lens for $1500 right now.

Probably going to need at least a 70-200mm lens though. The RF 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM lens is $2600.

Canon did just release a 600mm and 800mm F11 lenses in the RF line that are $700 and $900 each which seem to work well for long distance mid day shooting.

Like I said I'm still learning but what would be the big advantage if any getting a mirror less camera.  Pros and cons?

Smaller, lighter, better imaging sensor since they are newer technology. Usually better lowlight performance too. And they usually have a silent mode that doesn't produce a click sound if you want to remain stealth. Better video performance.  It's where the industry is going.

Downside is that batteries don't last as long since the display is always on, either the screen or the EVF. They also don't have as big a selection of lenses yet since it's newer technology.

The future is mirrorless and I expect my next body will be mirrorless.

In the meantime, "smaller and lighter" in the full frame world applies only to the body. Physics dictate that the lenses will not shrink by much just because of a shorter flange distance to the sensor and the lens - especially for fast glass - is where the weight will remain. Moving to smaller sensor platforms (e.g., micro 4/3 [MFT], APS-C) like the Panasonic Lumix G9 or Fujifilm XT-4 allows much smaller lenses that come with significant weight savings over full-frame counterparts.

Mirrorless does not provide automatic improvements in low-light/high ISO performance. The size and density of photosites on the sensor is the major factor in this regard. Software in the camera may then apply noise reduction algorithms to further improve perceived performance, but that applies to both DSLR and mirrorless platforms. A given sensor will have the same low-light performance regardless whether a mirror is in front of it.

Truly silent shooting is a feature largely owned by mirrorless. Later model DSLRs may have this (and usually only in LiveView mode at that), but it's much less common.

Another factor for consideration in mirrorless bodies is the lag between when the subject moves and that change appears in the EVF/rear display. This has seen a lot of improvement over the years (see the Sony A9), but it's still impossible to match the "speed" of the optical viewfinders on DSLRs. This is something that can be mitigated rather easily by training yourself to watch only the action in the EVF (rather than keeping both eyes open) and judge when to trigger the shutter only from that perspective.

That said, there are definite advantages to an EVF. Just a couple include true WYSIWYG exposure, far more focus points, and far more options for non-image information (e.g., histogram, exposure "blinkies", etc.). EVFs have also advanced to the point that the human eye is unlikely to notice a difference in image quality between a given scene viewed through an EVF and an OVF.

Shutter lag is another factor to measure - and is another one that many later models of mirrorless has rendered essentially moot. If you're looking at older used cameras, be sure to research this "feature".

None of this is meant to throw shade on mirrorless platforms. As I said, mirrorless is the future and I fully expect my next body to be mirrorless.

However, I recommend that potential buyers evaluate a given camera based on performance, lens availability, ergonomics, and perhaps even aesthetics and how well it meets the photographer's needs without regard to whether it has a mirror. For example, I've heard from multiple photographers that can't get comfortable holding MFT cameras (ergonomics). Similarly, I've known others that have sold off all their DSLR bodies and lenses for MFT systems because they could no longer hold the heavier systems steady enough for their needs.

OP you just need to figure out your priorities.  Do you want the absolutely best image quality like FredMan or North Polar's pics (which are simply outstanding in both cases)?  If so then you should probably go with one of the Nikon or Canon systems they recommended.  The downside of those is that they will be bigger, heavier and more expensive (especially if you want to reach out past 200-300mm).  Pros are entirely willing to deal with those downsides to get the best possible image.   The result speak for themselves but a lot of that is the skill of the photographer both with the camera and in post so don't expect miracles.  

Someone like myself who is a casual photographer is willing to trade some of that awesome image quality for portability and convenience.  A camera kit you leave at home isn't much good.  With micro 4/3 I can carry a body, wide zoom (9-18), 20 mm prime, 14-42 kit lens,  75-300 zoom and a bunch of filters in a belt pack bag I can shove under the seat in front of me in an airliner. I can also haul all of that all day long on the trail along with my backpack with almost no effort.  

However, even if I had the same skill level (which I don't) my images will never be quite as good as those shooting with larger sensors and better glass.  

As for your question regarding mirrorless (which can range from full size to micro 4/3 sensors) I agree with tknogeek.  The viewfinders are really, really good now.  Over 3 million pixels with refresh rates of 120 fps are pretty common.   They also give you a huge amount of information (focus and exposure peaking, etc.) and a lot of screen customization.  These days I would not hesitate to go mirrorless as you are not giving up very much and you are gaining a lot. The mirrorless cameras often also double as very capable video rigs.  Although I just picked it up and haven't done anything with it my Lumix G9 will shoot 4K video at 60 FPS which isn't too shabby.

I was apprehensive about moving to a mirrorless at first. The Canon EOS RP is the least expensive full frame mirrorless camera on the market. It was $999 when I bought it a month and a half ago. And now, I'm going to jump in feet first. I can't see myself actually buying a real DSLR again. Next on my list is a Canon M50 (or two) to use for video conferencing and-tele teaching work for my wife, and probably an EOS R6 to use for video and low light work.

After that I'll get a movie camera like the Black Magic Pocket Cinema 6K.

But, for me video is more important than photography and photos are a nice add on.

And the new RF series of full frame mirrorless lenses from Canon are a good bit smaller and lighter than their older counter EF counter parts.

As an example: the new Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens (for their mirrorless system) is 5.75" long when collapsed and 2.35lbs.

The older Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM lens for their older DSLR system is 7.83" long when collapsed and 3.26lbs.

I'm with the geek in that I suspect my next body is going to be a mirrorless.  With the current models out there, if I was buying today, it's be a Sony, one of the a7 or a9 lines.

The big hit for me is the investment I have in Nikon lenses; sure there's adapters but they're never going to be as good as native.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking "That's a good photo, you must have a good camera, so if I buy an expensive camera I will be able to take photos like that."

It is possible (even easy) to take really shitty photos with the most expensive equipment, so you may or may not be able to duplicate what you see published.

There is a hell of a lot more to photography than equipment, and nature photography offers some of the greatest challenges.

Thanks guys for all the replies. Helps me get an idea but other rigs people are running. For whatever reason I keep finding myself looking at the cannons. Especially the 90D.  Since it is a 1.6x crop sensor that means a 600 mm lens would get me 960 mm of magnification? I understand why that was recommended for wildlife obviously you get more zoom for your money. With this in mind do I lose any quality or should I say much quality that it is noticeable on a crop sensor.  Also is the video options worth it or very useful in these cameras

Why not try renting first?

No. It's not magnification. It's just cropping the image down to a narrower field of view. I.e. you will have less stuff in your image than if it was a full frame image sensor.

Also, a 600mm lense will be hella expensive. Probably $3,000 for just the lens. Unless you buy one of the new Canon EF 600 lenses, which only work on their R series mirrorless cameras. But they are only f/11 lenses. Not a great spec.

I would seriously suggest looking at the Canon RP. I think it will fit your needs and budget and give you room to add some nice lenses later on.

The 90D with the Sigma 150-600mm f/5.6-6.3 lens would be a great kit for wildlife. You are correct that the field of view would be equivalent to 960mm on a full frame sensor and there is no loss in quality from using that lens on a crop body versus a full frame body.

I have used my DSLR for video several times and it works great. Just be aware that shooting video has a different workflow and limitations (e.g., shutter speed vs. Frame rate, continuous light vs. strobe, etc.).

You are going to have a hard time beating a used Nikon D500 plus 200-500 f/5.6 for an affordable and high-performing wildlife combo.

You can buy a used Tamron 150-600 for under $1,000.

I wholeheartedly concur, that's my current setup.  Also works well for astrophotography (you won't get nebulae, but you can shoot the sun, moon, comets, satellites, etc).

This. I took this photo with a Nikon 5300 and Sigma C 150-600mm, which most would call extreme budget.

Attached File

This is great guys I'm learning alot.  I'm hoping to make a purchase on or around black Friday.  Need to save a little more money and figured that be a good time for a deal.  I'm learning alot from you all and appreciate it.  Until then I plan on just messing with my old rebel xs.  Still plenty for me to learn from it.  
  Now onto tripods.  What's a good field tripod.  I've got some quality tripods but they are all for shooting platforms and not cameras.  
  Thanks

Tripods can end up getting expensive fast.  Mine is around $5-600 depending what I have attached at any given point.  That said, you can do a pretty solid setup for $200 or less.

Best advice I can say is to decide what kind of QD system you want for it first.  Manfrotto/Bogen RC2 are the easiest to use and pretty much near idiot proof.  Arca Swiss is the gold standard that everything goes by, but other than heads that you manually have to turn a thumbscrew to tighten the camera/lens in place, it gets expensive fast.  

Personally, I haul a monopod around more than a tripod for wildlife unless I know I’ll be set up in one place for a while.  A whole lot lighter as well.

With that budget you would be better off with a "superzoom" all in one camera than a DSLR.  They are designed to take good pictures hand held at full zoom.  They have a smaller sensor than most DSLR or MILC cameras but can still have high resolution.  Your only compromise will be high ISO performance.

Get a Nikon 200-500. Will work surprisingly well, Then D7100 or better.

I never considered anything mirrorless, but if they make one that feels like a regular DSLR i might. Those mirrorless cameras i handled don't fit the hands right.

I STRONGLY encourage you to look into RRS or Kirk ARCA plates.  They stay on the camera all the time and provide extra bump protection.  They provide a much more user-friendly camera-pod interface than Manfrotto's proprietary plates, and don't even get me started on using the thumb screw to directly attach the camera to the tripod.

The way I look at it, I've typically got a $2,000 body and a $1,000 lens on the tripod, why cheap out?

RRS has been machining QD receivers into their plates the past few years, makes it super simple to use a rifle sling as a camera sling.

D500 + RRS Plate + MS3 Sling by FredMan, on Flickr

D500 + RRS Plate + MS3 Sling by FredMan, on Flickr

As for the tripod itself, I'm using a Manfrotto 290 tripod with a Manfrotto ARCA-compatible ball head and then a Manfrotto MVMXPROA4US monopod with a Pergear TH3 Pro bal head (Thanks for the recommendation, NP!).

The tripod was about $150 and the monopod was about $120.  I really like Manfrotto pods., just not too keen on their proprietary plates.

I'm in love with my Nikon 200-500 f/4.  Sold off the Tamron 150-600 once I got it.

I recently got back into photography after selling all of my Sony/Minolta DSLR gear years ago and just giving up on the hobby. I've been using my 8-year old Canon Powershot SX40 point & shoot. I've been able to get some decent moon shots using my very sturdy Manfrotto tripod.

I recently picked-up a basic Canon Rebel T7 kit with the short and medium range lenses. It's a good start, but I've already grabbed the 17-55 F2.8 IS USM, 70-210L F4 IS USM, and a 50 F1.8 prime. Those three lenses are on the way from ebay sellers. Eventually I plan to get the 400mm F4-5.6 L lense for wildlife (along with my 70-210L F4). But first I'll be upgrading my body already to an EOS 90D. I need the weather sealing I've decided. The Rebel will be relegated to secondary duties. I had the Rebel out in a nature park for a couple of days this week in rain/snow and was paranoid about the lack of weather protection. I don't want a full frame or mirrorless body, just want to stick with the cropped sensor format.

P.S. If I wanted to keep it simple and just get a robust, very capable (and HUGE) point & shoot and just forget about the gear whoring, I'd grab a Nikon Coolpix 950 and a monopod and just get out there and shoot the shit out of it. That 2000mm zoom is friggin awesome. I played with one at Best Buy and the zooming I was doing across the store was insane. If I hadn't picked up the Rebel the day before, I probably would've avoided going down the DSLR rabbit hole again and just grabbed that and forgot about all of the research and buying shit and just gone out and taken pictures.

Just ordered a Sigma 150-600mm F4-5.6 Contemporary today for shooting wildlife. Watched a ton of reviews and it seems like pretty much the next best thing to a $13K Canon 600mm, at $12K less.

Awesome! Missed this pic before. That's exactly the kind of pic that I want to get. I saw a ton of great pics using that lens, so that's why I ordered one. I'm stoked to get it.

All of the reviews that I watched favored the Sigma 150-600 C ($899 new or cheaper... just got mine for $812) over the Tamron. A lot of pro wildlife/nature photographers who could justify lenses like the Canon 600mm for $13K are using the Sigma. It's pretty much THE value superzoom to have in Canon, Nikon, or Sony mounts from my extensive research so far.

Missed this one too. That's exactly the kit that I'll have by the end of the week (90D and Sigma 150-600). My T7 and 70-200L F4 will be relegated to backup/other duties at that time).

In my experience so far, the 70-200 glass just doesn't cut it for wildlife work unless you're at the zoo. Just can't get close enough. Have tried to sneak up on a lot of deer and various waterfowl, going out for hours each day in this early MT winter, and have only come home to delete nearly everything. Still love my 70-200 and it will no doubt be one of my favorite lenses over the long haul, but not for wildlife.

That's an occasional part of wildlife photography with any lens lol. I shoot with a 500 f4 on a D850 or D500 and still have days where I get nothing that I'm happy with. I've gotten a few good true wildlife shots with my 70-200 f2.8, but it's pretty rare and most have been pretty wide environmental shots rather than portraits. I typically carry it mounted to my second body in case something gets too close to use the 500mm on or it presents itself with a nice backdrop.

I've been self-teaching photography for the last year or so.  My current camera is a Nikon p1000 all-in-one, with a 135x zoom.  The quality isn't the same as a DSLR, but by tweaking the settings you can get a lot out of it.  I picked up mine on keh.com for around $650 used. Attached File
Attached File

Attached File

Attached File
Attached File

Yup, that's exactly what I was telling the wife when we were out hiking the other day and I was trying to get some waterfowl shots... take a few hundred pics and hope you get maybe a handful (if that) that you don't select for delete. That reminds me... gotta go through my last batch.

Those are some great shots! Love that moon and raptor's head. I was wringing my hands hard over a P950 or P1000 before I decided to go whole hog Canon DSLR. An all-in-one would sure be a lot less hassle. Just grab the camera and head out.

Browning Strike Force Pro XD

Attached File


Attached File

More thoughts on that budget... you could get a Tamron 150-600 G2, and spend the rest on the nicest Canon crop body you can afford with what's left.

You'll still be able to use your existing lenses and the Tamron is a good wildlife lens.

Been in the backcountry almost every day for the past 2-3 months. All I've carried for the past month is my Canon 90D and Canon 100-400 Mk II lens. My 70-200L F/2.8 IS, 700-200L F4 IS, and Sigma 150-600 C don't get used anymore. The 100-400 II is just SO damn awesome. LOVE IT! Doesn't even bother me that I give up 200mm to the Sigma, because the Canon's IQ is sharper, so even if I crop my 32MP camera, it's still a superior shot. I was sending pics to my brother (a former Canon pro shooter) and he said he could see the difference between the moon shots that I had been sending that I shot with the Sigma, and the ones that I was shooting with the new Canon.

I've now put about 15K shots through the Canon zoom. I need to dig a few shots up and post them here. I specialize in raptors mostly, but love shooting any/all of nature. I've actually had four of my nature shots featured on the local news weathercast, three of them in the last 7 days. There are many times where I go to zoom back and can't get a wide enough shot to get what I want all in the frame... and if I happen to be backed-up against one of the cliffs that I shoot birds from, then I don't get the shot that I want. But the trade-off is worth it. Such a freakin awesome piece of glass. I could easily live with my 90D superglued to the 100-400. I had been pondering 300 and 400mm primes, and dreaming of 500, 600, and 800mm primes, but all of that has been over since I got the 1000-400. The only other lens that I care about is my 17-55 F/2.8... just for shooting candids of my dog and granddaughter around the house. But I can shoot wildlife, sunsets, the moon, and even macros with the 100-400.

I'm just about to pick up a mint EF 1.4x II extender as well. Wrung my hands over whether to get a III version, but the they go for so much more and it sounds like the difference in IQ between the two is small (as opposed to the major difference in IQ between the 2x II versus III versions). I ponder getting a 2x, and may eventually. But really the only use I would see in having the 2x (where I have to give-up AF) is moon shots, which are the only thing that I really shoot in MF.

D800e, Nikkor 300mm f/4


Nikon D300, Tamron 90mm

I chose a Pentax K-3. It's not a full frame camera but I can use modern lenses as well as older M42 screw mount lenses from the 60's with a cheap adapter.
Here's a couple photos using a 80-320mm auto film era lens that works on digital as well.





I also like to carry my Canon SX60 bridge camera for those longer shots. Has a 65x optical zoom.

@NorthPolar and @FredMan, I have a question on the Nikon cameras. I currently have a d3400, and I was looking to upgrade to a nicer system. I usually shoot wildlife and landscapes. I've already decided to pair it with a Nikon 200-500, but reading the posts above has raised the question of what body I want to go with. I was leaning toward finding a used d750. How would using the crop function built into the camera compare with using a dedicated crop sensor camera like the d500 or d7500?

The crop function just basically cuts off anything but what's in the image box that shows up in the viewfinder.  So you'd be losing that % of the frame for a perceived boost in zoom.  That said, it severely kicks your resolution in the balls.  The D750 in DX mode brings it down to around 10-11mp.

Personally, the only reason I went to fx from dx was because I needed to push as far as I could get on wide/ultrawide shots.  If you shoot longer, staying with DX is the way to go IMO, especially since you'll be using the sharpest parts of FX lenses.  You can still get some incredibly good ultrawide lenses that will put you at nearly as wide as a FX camera as well.  Hell, I'm hoping to buy a D500 before the airshows this summer.  Keep the 200-500 on the D500 and use the D850 for wide/ultrawide.

If you're really planning on lots of long shots, then a DX body is really the way to go, and if you're going to go there you may as well go ALL the way there and get a D500 body.

It's been said before, but never hurts to say it again.  DX bodies are preferred for long lens photography becasue they give you an effective reach boost over a full frame at the same focal length.  The 1.5 crop factor of DX bodies means that your 500mm lens is effectively covering the same field of view as a 750mm would on an FX body.

For FX bodies (and I'll just not even mention the D6 ) the top to bottom hierarchy is more or less
D850
D750
D610

The same list for DX bodies is
D500
D7500
D5600
D3500

It's about a $500 difference between the D7500 and the D500, but it's $500 well spent.  Stroingly avoid the D5xxx and D3xxx bodies; they're on a smaller form factor, don't have front/rear command dials and other dedicated buttons, and you'll need to hunt thorugh menus to change settings instead of pushing a button and/or spinning a dial.  That makes HUGE usability differences.

I'll also second NP's comment about using FX lenses on a DX body; you're using the best part of the lens that way.  If you do find you want to go wide the (relatively) inexpensive Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 will give you the equivalent of about 17-30 on a full frame sensor.  Wider than that and I reach for the GoPro at 3mm.

Thanks guys. Looks like I'll be on the hunt for a D500.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Nikon has another 10-20% off refurb sale here soon.