Posted: 12/5/2013 1:25:20 PM EDT
| I want to start taking some wildlife photos on trips and I'm looking for a camera body in the $1000 price range. Recommendations? |
|
Quoted: None After I purchase a body I will purchase the lenses that will best fit my uses. Keep in mind that bodies come and go and depreciate rapidly. Lenses (and the eye behind the camera) are where image quality comes from, not the body. And lenses don't really depreciate. What I mean by that is that you'll be wayy better off spending $800 on a lens and $250 on a body than if you'd spent $1000 on a body and $400 on a lens. Landscape and wildlife don't require any cutting edge technologies. And if you're primarily doing something else and just taking photos on the side, I'd keep weight/size in mind. |
|
Quoted: Most of what I shoot with be landscapes and wildlife photos. What is crop frame and is there any reason it wouldn't be ideal for my use? Digital sensors (the equivalent of film) come in the original crop frame (DX which is smaller than 35mm) or full frame (FX) which is the same size as 35mm. A crop sensor is like taking your TV and covering the edges in tape. The image is smaller, but at a higher magnification. So a picture taken with a 50mm lens looks more like 85mm if you were using an FX. FX will cost more. They will have a bigger viewfinder to look through. Either one will work. |
|
Quoted:
I want to start taking some wildlife photos on trips and I'm looking for a camera body in the $1000 price range. Recommendations? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/735002-REG/Nikon_25468_D7000_DSLR_Camera_Body.html |
|
It's going to be daunting at first. Something in the 18-55mm range works well for landscapes. 180mm+ for wildlife. You can go with something like an 18-200mm which is a "walk-around" lens. Jack of all trades and master of none. Big and bulky, but all in one. You can go with kit lenses (ones that would come with the body in the same box)--usually something like an 18-55 and a 55-200. One of those will be decent and one just meh. The built quality of them is approaching disposable though. Or you can spend some bucks and get a pro lens like a 17-55mm. They're big and expensive. Definitely more rugged. But there won't be nearly as much to complain about. I'd start by thinking about what I take most pictures of and put more money in that direction. Frankly, the telephoto work is harder, IMO. It's 99% patience and hard work plus some money in blinds, and high-end tripods, etc. So knowing what I know now, I'd put more money into shorter lens and find a long one that is simply adequate. I'd go with an older body (used). I don't know Canon, but something along the lines of a D90. |
|
Quoted:
If I buy a 70D or 7100 is there any reason I would have to upgrade the body in the near future? Need, no. The camera will be good for many years to come. Technology will march on, tempting you to WANT to upgrade. Gear Acquisition Syndrome is a nasty disease. |
|
Quoted:
If I buy a 70D or 7100 is there any reason I would have to upgrade the body in the near future? No. That body would last you for decades, so long as it doesn't break. I'm a huge fan of used camera gear. Bodies depreciate faster than cars. Lenses tend to hold value. |
|
Quoted:
If you want to buy new, $1000 puts you at the top of the crop frame bodies. (Nikon D7100/Canon 70D) Not really. The 1Dx (as it appears to, at least for the time eliminated the 1ds series.) is full frame but something like a Mk IV is APS-H. Glass is more important then bodies and well. |
|
Quoted:
Not really. The 1Dx (as it appears to, at least for the time eliminated the 1ds series.) is full frame but something like a Mk IV is APS-H. Quoted:
Quoted:
If you want to buy new, $1000 puts you at the top of the crop frame bodies. (Nikon D7100/Canon 70D) Not really. The 1Dx (as it appears to, at least for the time eliminated the 1ds series.) is full frame but something like a Mk IV is APS-H. Gonna have to explain that, I'm confused now. |
|
For Canon cameras the rebel series up to the 7d are 1.6 crop factors.
Before the introduction of the 1DX Canon had the 1Ds series which were there full frame professional cameras. Along side the 1Ds series was the non s models such as the 1d Mark III and Mark IV, these non 'S' 1D bodies had an APS-H sized sensor giving you a 1.3 crop factor. Really a moot point that they are no longer produced though! |
|
Quoted:
I was looking at the Canon 6D which looks like it can be had used for quite a bit less than new. Am I correct that this is a full frame camera? Any reason not to get this over the equivalent Nikon product? The Canon 6D is full frame. At a quick glance, the Nikon D600/D610 would be the competitor. You cannot go wrong with either one (Nikon or Canon). Your best bet is to get to a camera store and see which one feels better in your hands for size, weight, shape, button placement, etc. You will like one set of ergonomics over the other; buy that one. That said, I prefer Nikon. |
|
You could consider Micro 4/3.
There are a couple advantages - focal length when compared to full frame DSLRs is about double. So what you see with a 50mm lens on u4/3 would be what you'd see with a 100mm lens on a full frame. That effective extra reach would be good for wildlife, since you'll usually be far away. Another advantage is that you can use older manual lenses easily. The adapters are cheap and widely available. I have a couple Minolta lenses that my dad bought in the lat 60's and they work great. You could pick up a used Olympus EM-5 for less than a grand, and it's a great camera. |
|
Quoted:
No. That body would last you for decades, so long as it doesn't break. I'm a huge fan of used camera gear. Bodies depreciate faster than cars. Lenses tend to hold value. Quoted:
Quoted:
If I buy a 70D or 7100 is there any reason I would have to upgrade the body in the near future? No. That body would last you for decades, so long as it doesn't break. I'm a huge fan of used camera gear. Bodies depreciate faster than cars. Lenses tend to hold value. I have a Nikon D40X, predecessor to the D3xxx series, and I have shot 175,000 photos through mine, and still works great. |
|
Quoted:
Most of what I shoot with be landscapes and wildlife photos. What is crop frame and is there any reason it wouldn't be ideal for my use? My primary photog interests are landscape and wildlife too. After a lot of research, I'm about to get the D7100. Check out the Tokina 11-16mm wide-angle lens too; it's supposed to be one of the best DX-format landscape lenses. |
|
I am a canon guy. I impulse bought a T5i rebel the day before we left for a 7 day cruise in the Bermuda Triangle.
I upgraded from an older rebel. I got some great pics with it. I have since moved up to the 70D. I have some excellent EF-S lenses (crop sensor) and I can't afford to move up to full frame. Unless you are shooting for money, the T5i is fine. Amazing even. I bought the 70D for the phase detection AF for video. It is sweet. |
| Remember you are buying into a lens system. You might upgrade your body every couple of years but lenses are basically for a lifetime. The real money will be spent on lenses. If you go nikon, I would recommend the 7100 (even 7000 is you get a deal). IF you want nikon full frame the D610 (or get a deal on the d600, google the dust issue first, I have an original D600, dust comes, I just clean the sensor, other then that awesome body) |
|
Quoted:
Most of what I shoot with be landscapes and wildlife photos. What is crop frame and is there any reason it wouldn't be ideal for my use? Most DSLR terminology relates to Full Frame sensors. Full frame sensors are 35mm sensors - the same physical size as 35mm film. Some of the advantages of a full frame sensor are that the size allows for large photosites - larger individual pixels. Often this means you'll get better low light performance. Image quality can be better, but lots of sensors nowadays are pretty much on par with them. "Crop factor" comes in when you compare a photo shot with a full frame sensor and the same image shot with a smaller sensor - both with a lens of the same focal length. compared to a FF sensor, a smaller sensor will produce a picture that looks more zoomed in, or 'cropped' from what the FF sensor sees. This is why I brought up what I did above - you pretty much get better effective zoom from shorter focal lengths on a crop frame (APS-C or u4:3). With a crop frame sensor and good glass, you can get better zoom at shorter focal lengths. A 150mm lens on my EM-5 is comparable to a FF with a 300mm lens. That long glass for FF cameras is EXPENSIVE!! |