Roughly how much to set up from scratch?
Discussion
We live amongst some lovely scenery and wildlife, often I don't have to go much further than my own yard before something comes into view which is worth a shot.
This evening I came out to this:
A few minutes later two owls were sat right on the tops of two trees to the right there, I took my phone out to set myself up for a fall, took a few steps forward and of course they both flew off!
Anyhow, onto the question; what would be a ballpark figure to set myself up with a decent camera with a good (long) lens and anything else I might need?
Admittedly I would have to learn how to use it, would initially be 'all the gear, no idea' and would look into going on a photography course or something.
This evening I came out to this:
A few minutes later two owls were sat right on the tops of two trees to the right there, I took my phone out to set myself up for a fall, took a few steps forward and of course they both flew off!
Anyhow, onto the question; what would be a ballpark figure to set myself up with a decent camera with a good (long) lens and anything else I might need?
Admittedly I would have to learn how to use it, would initially be 'all the gear, no idea' and would look into going on a photography course or something.
Evoluzione said:
Anyhow, onto the question; what would be a ballpark figure to set myself up with a decent camera with a good (long) lens and anything else I might need?
Others will be able to help, but shotting flying widelife in the dark is something you 100% need all the gear before you can even get any idea of how to compose/light an opportunity. Am normally 100% for camera phones these days, but shooting owls in the dark, you will need something like this I suspect.https://store.canon.co.uk/canon-ef-400mm-f-2-8l-is...
la::3045C005&gclid=Cj0KCQjwk5ibBhDqARIsACzmgLRdCNXwK44J1QlNEgqpX1agMIg1S99gY6tYD-WOc4srJnDeMyeAPXoaAvUAEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.dsThere is a cheaper f5.6 version, but in the dark you need something fast, very fast. You than need to couple that with a camera body that does decent AF. Back when I was half interested in DSLRs 5Ds were the entry level to getting good flying wildlife shots, but the lens will be biggest cost.
Even going down the used route I suspect you need £5k+ worth of gear if you want to go getting portrait shots of owls in a real world setting.
Edited by gangzoom on Sunday 6th November 06:55
Looks like in daylight the much cheaper 100-400 f4 lens will do a decent job......
https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lens...
....but if you want that owl at dusk shot, you need the gear, this reviews even has an owl shot!! As I've said am all for camera phones these days, but for the usage OP wants, this lens is the lens
.
https://focus-review.com/en/review-canon-ef-400mm-...
https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lens...
....but if you want that owl at dusk shot, you need the gear, this reviews even has an owl shot!! As I've said am all for camera phones these days, but for the usage OP wants, this lens is the lens
.https://focus-review.com/en/review-canon-ef-400mm-...
Obviously it depends on the subject distance, but nervous owls will usually be too far away even for a 400mm lens on an APS-C sensor. Many casual snappers are shocked at how long a lens they need to photograph garden birds thirty feet away. Ok, owls are larger, but if they’re thirty yards or so away, you’ll be disappointed and have expensive glass not being used. Maybe hiding in the undergrowth with camouflage gear on would help you to get closer, but in the end you need to learn how to be a photographer first, and that can take a while.
From my point in life, I’d want about £6k+ just for camera body and one lens to be anything like serious about wild bird photography.
From my point in life, I’d want about £6k+ just for camera body and one lens to be anything like serious about wild bird photography.
Edited by Tony1963 on Sunday 6th November 08:32
Edited by Tony1963 on Sunday 6th November 08:33
Photography is one of those hobbies where you can throw huge amounts of money at it, and still be disappointed with the results. It's amazing sometimes how some people can get incredible photographs with relatively modest gear, but a lot of talent/imagination.
Of course, having decent gear will tip the scales in your favour, and get you shots you wouldnt otherwise manage.
Theres so much choice around these days, it really is a great time to get into photography. if you are just starting from scratch, I'd be looking at either Canon or Sony. But as ever it all depends on budget. You'll need to decide if you're happy buying pre-owned gear (the likes of MPB, Wex, Park have a good selection, with warranty). Or if you'd rather have new, which of course ups the budget.
For camera body, I'd recommend mirrorless. For a long lens, nothing shorter than 400mm. But you'll easily find, that no matter how long your lens is, it's never long enough. Thats where a camera body with a high mega pixel count will help, as you'll be able to crop the photo.
If it were me, I'd be looking very closely at either the new Canon R6 II with 100-500mm lens. Once you've got a shorter lens and other bits, you're looking at around £6,000. As a very good alternative, I'd also look at Sony A7 IV and 200-600mm lens. With others bits, it would be around £4500.
Of course, if those are out of budget, you could still get perfectly acceptable results if you picked up a used Canon 80D and 100-400mm lens for under £1k.
Of course, having decent gear will tip the scales in your favour, and get you shots you wouldnt otherwise manage.
Theres so much choice around these days, it really is a great time to get into photography. if you are just starting from scratch, I'd be looking at either Canon or Sony. But as ever it all depends on budget. You'll need to decide if you're happy buying pre-owned gear (the likes of MPB, Wex, Park have a good selection, with warranty). Or if you'd rather have new, which of course ups the budget.
For camera body, I'd recommend mirrorless. For a long lens, nothing shorter than 400mm. But you'll easily find, that no matter how long your lens is, it's never long enough. Thats where a camera body with a high mega pixel count will help, as you'll be able to crop the photo.
If it were me, I'd be looking very closely at either the new Canon R6 II with 100-500mm lens. Once you've got a shorter lens and other bits, you're looking at around £6,000. As a very good alternative, I'd also look at Sony A7 IV and 200-600mm lens. With others bits, it would be around £4500.
Of course, if those are out of budget, you could still get perfectly acceptable results if you picked up a used Canon 80D and 100-400mm lens for under £1k.
Yes, I was going to post yesterday, my figure was £2,000 made up like this:
Used Tamron 150-600mm £600
Used Nikon D750 £800
Tripod and/or monopod £100
Nikon 24-120mm f/4 £400
I only know about Nikon cameras, alternative Nikons around that budget would be:
D500 - Crop sensor sports camera
Z6 - Mirrorless but needs pricey memory cards and the battery life isn't as good as a DSLR
D810 - Never owned one, but very high pixel count so more croppable. Noise performance perhaps not as good as the other three though.
The second lens is because you'll want to photograph other stuff.
Ultimately though, as others have said, photographing birds in low light is about the worst possible example for requiring good/expensive kit to get anything like decent results. If you'd said landscapes you can do wonderful work for a fifth of the price, or less.
Used Tamron 150-600mm £600
Used Nikon D750 £800
Tripod and/or monopod £100
Nikon 24-120mm f/4 £400
I only know about Nikon cameras, alternative Nikons around that budget would be:
D500 - Crop sensor sports camera
Z6 - Mirrorless but needs pricey memory cards and the battery life isn't as good as a DSLR
D810 - Never owned one, but very high pixel count so more croppable. Noise performance perhaps not as good as the other three though.
The second lens is because you'll want to photograph other stuff.
Ultimately though, as others have said, photographing birds in low light is about the worst possible example for requiring good/expensive kit to get anything like decent results. If you'd said landscapes you can do wonderful work for a fifth of the price, or less.
You don’t need to spend that much. You could go with a decent mirrorless body like the Fuji XT200 for about £750, then add a couple of their XF lenses. 100-400mm would be a good suggestion, and you can pick them up for about £900. No reason to spend £6k on kit you’ll most likely never get value from.
If you are serious about shooting wildlife, then you will need superfast autofocus and as much 'reach' as you can find!
I would be looking for a good second hand body and lens, which would need to be supported by a 'good' monopod, or prefreably tripod.
I only shoot wildlife and use a Nikon D500 and Nikon 500f4 prime (often with 1.4 teleconverter attached, which gives 700mm), always mounted on my Gitzo 5543 tripod.
Seconhand: D500 (crop sensor) around £1000
Secondhand: 500f4 'G' prime lens £2500-3000
Secondhand: Gitzo '5 series' tripod £300-400
The problem with buying anything less than this set up, would mean that within 12 mths, you would be looking to upgrade!
I have also used the latest Nikon Z9 at £5k+, but in my opinion, the D500 is still the better choice for wildlife and especially, birds in flight.
Having said all that, if your budget will not stretch that far, then I would go for a secondhand Nikon D500, with Nikon 200-500 f5.6 zoom for around £2k, which will still get you some great results.......it's exactly what I started with!
https://imageweaver.blogspot.com/
I would be looking for a good second hand body and lens, which would need to be supported by a 'good' monopod, or prefreably tripod.
I only shoot wildlife and use a Nikon D500 and Nikon 500f4 prime (often with 1.4 teleconverter attached, which gives 700mm), always mounted on my Gitzo 5543 tripod.
Seconhand: D500 (crop sensor) around £1000
Secondhand: 500f4 'G' prime lens £2500-3000
Secondhand: Gitzo '5 series' tripod £300-400
The problem with buying anything less than this set up, would mean that within 12 mths, you would be looking to upgrade!
I have also used the latest Nikon Z9 at £5k+, but in my opinion, the D500 is still the better choice for wildlife and especially, birds in flight.
Having said all that, if your budget will not stretch that far, then I would go for a secondhand Nikon D500, with Nikon 200-500 f5.6 zoom for around £2k, which will still get you some great results.......it's exactly what I started with!
https://imageweaver.blogspot.com/
Turtle Shed said:
Yes, I was going to post yesterday, my figure was £2,000 made up like this:
Used Tamron 150-600mm £600
Used Nikon D750 £800
Tripod and/or monopod £100
Nikon 24-120mm f/4 £400
I only know about Nikon cameras, alternative Nikons around that budget would be:
D500 - Crop sensor sports camera
The D750 is full frame ('FX'); if you have a crop sensor ('DX') camera like the D500 then the 'reach' of a long lens will immediately be 50% more.Used Tamron 150-600mm £600
Used Nikon D750 £800
Tripod and/or monopod £100
Nikon 24-120mm f/4 £400
I only know about Nikon cameras, alternative Nikons around that budget would be:
D500 - Crop sensor sports camera
I use a D500 and don't view it as a 'sports' camera; it just has 10fps if you need it (I never have).
As Evoluzione says, buying the kit will be the easy bit
Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 6th November 10:36
wormus said:
You don’t need to spend that much. You could go with a decent mirrorless body like the Fuji XT200 for about £750, then add a couple of their XF lenses. 100-400mm would be a good suggestion, and you can pick them up for about £900. No reason to spend £6k on kit you’ll most likely never get value from.
That's f5.6 at 400mm, is that really quick enough for shotting owls that are ready to fly in the dark?I know nothing about th XT200, but is the AF accurate enough at 400mm in the dark?
Whilst it's not all about gear, shooting wild life at night up a tree is going to need very very good gear to get shots that's close to been 'good'.
Simpo Two said:
As Evoluzione says, buying the kit will be the easy bit
No it won't be, i'm a Northerner 
But yes, you're right and thanks all for the pointers.
Don't concentrate on the one pic, I just used it as a very recent example, my post is born of frustration (It would make a good song that would) of living amongst all of this, but not being able to show it to people on blogs etc.
I think I would have gone low so the trees and the owls were backlit by the sky and concentrated on the shot being a silhouette.
My photographer friend says not to use flashes with Owls btw, at least he doesn't do it as he's worried about what it does to their eyes.
It sounds expensive and I think I would buy some used kit if I went ahead with it, probably best to find some kind of course first though.
As Simpo Two says a crop sensor (APSC or M4/3) will give you better equivalent reach vs a full frame lens - but it does come with a cost of a few less stops of light.
I shoot mainly with 100-400mm on M4/3 for wildlife (Lumix G9), and whilst not ideal in very low light it can still do a good job.
For me though the key element of photography is the feel you have with the camera, It is the physical interface between the real world and the electronics/optics. Most of the features across the main brands are largely all good enough - give or take.
Try going to a physical shop like Wex, Park etc. and spend some time handling the cameras and trying out the menus systems, and the ergonomics of the camera buttons and switches.
Have a budget in mind and prepare to have a fixed upper limit that you will not go over. £2K will get you a very good system, but you could easily do it for less.
Then get the system that feels best in your hands, has approx 400mm lens, and fits within (ish) your budget. Don't rule out second hand either, some good bargains can be had at the likes of Wex and MPB.
And then get some training it will make the most difference. Most of all enjoy it.
Or, money no object - Nikon Z9 with 600mm prime with built in TC
I shoot mainly with 100-400mm on M4/3 for wildlife (Lumix G9), and whilst not ideal in very low light it can still do a good job.
For me though the key element of photography is the feel you have with the camera, It is the physical interface between the real world and the electronics/optics. Most of the features across the main brands are largely all good enough - give or take.
Try going to a physical shop like Wex, Park etc. and spend some time handling the cameras and trying out the menus systems, and the ergonomics of the camera buttons and switches.
Have a budget in mind and prepare to have a fixed upper limit that you will not go over. £2K will get you a very good system, but you could easily do it for less.
Then get the system that feels best in your hands, has approx 400mm lens, and fits within (ish) your budget. Don't rule out second hand either, some good bargains can be had at the likes of Wex and MPB.
And then get some training it will make the most difference. Most of all enjoy it.
Or, money no object - Nikon Z9 with 600mm prime with built in TC
Evoluzione said:
Don't concentrate on the one pic, I just used it as a very recent example, my post is born of frustration (It would make a good song that would) of living amongst all of this, but not being able to show it to people on blogs etc.
I think I would have gone low so the trees and the owls were backlit by the sky and concentrated on the shot being a silhouette.
My photographer friend says not to use flashes with Owls btw, at least he doesn't do it as he's worried about what it does to their eyes.
It sounds expensive and I think I would buy some used kit if I went ahead with it, probably best to find some kind of course first though.
The 'owl at long distance at night' is the photographic equivalent of doing the Ring in <10 minutes, so it's good that was an extreme example I think I would have gone low so the trees and the owls were backlit by the sky and concentrated on the shot being a silhouette.
My photographer friend says not to use flashes with Owls btw, at least he doesn't do it as he's worried about what it does to their eyes.
It sounds expensive and I think I would buy some used kit if I went ahead with it, probably best to find some kind of course first though.
I like your approach and also the fact that you're thinking about what you want to achieve. It is then just a matter of reverse engineering the image in your mind so that, with suitable mastery of your camera, you can capture it
Defo go with s/h kit. You may give up and want to sell it, or you may thrive in your new hobby and want to upgrade.
Photography to me is the ultimate mix of science and art. Being more of a scientific bod I believe that knowing how a camera works, and what lenses do, is the first step. Then you can apply them to the task. I wrote an 'Idiot's Guide' many years ago which I can e-mail you if interested. It explains all the stuff the manual doesn't.
A lot of the mirrorless stuff, Fuji etc are better at high ISO than DSLR's IIRC, that would save you having to need superfast glass in twilight.
Also, shoot RAW and PP......
Agree on the post that says you need huge length for garden birds. I shot small birds in a hide, and used a 300m plus 1.4 tc to fill the frame, and tgese are only 10 feet away.
Also, shoot RAW and PP......
Agree on the post that says you need huge length for garden birds. I shot small birds in a hide, and used a 300m plus 1.4 tc to fill the frame, and tgese are only 10 feet away.
Putting snapping owls in the dark to one side for a moment, you could have a look at this video from 9 years ago, which talks about technique and proves you can still take stunning pics without breaking the bank... but you will have to take tons more pics for a keeper...
https://youtu.be/Hbli8lh9Pcw
They do quite a lot of vids about wildlife snapping, here's another 32...
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwIVS3_dKVp...
If you have the budget for top end (Canon Nikon Sony), mirrorless and fast lenses you will have a higher hit rate with animal eye AF and bird eye AF, tracking and in body stabilisation if you want to hand hold long lenses. But that upwards of £4K without a lens... So S/H is the way to go...
What does your photographer mate use, can't he help and advise, let you have a go on his kit? As already mention, go and play with the different brands in the hand...
https://youtu.be/Hbli8lh9Pcw
They do quite a lot of vids about wildlife snapping, here's another 32...
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwIVS3_dKVp...
If you have the budget for top end (Canon Nikon Sony), mirrorless and fast lenses you will have a higher hit rate with animal eye AF and bird eye AF, tracking and in body stabilisation if you want to hand hold long lenses. But that upwards of £4K without a lens... So S/H is the way to go...
What does your photographer mate use, can't he help and advise, let you have a go on his kit? As already mention, go and play with the different brands in the hand...
Maybe no good for low light shots, but when HDEW have the Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM for £720, new, I know which route I’d be taking. For that price I’d not care about the shortcomings, and you can even stack extenders with it. Built in image stab too.
https://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/canon-rf-800mm-f11-i...
https://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/canon-rf-800mm-f11-i...
Evoluzione said:
My photographer friend says not to use flashes with Owls btw, at least he doesn't do it as he's worried about what it does to their eyes.
FWIW : Flash doesn't bother or harm an owl's eyes. I was a bit worried about using flash when on an Owl experience, as the site owner pointed out ... to them, it's no different to lightning.Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff