Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
If you shoot wildlife is it the camera or the lens?
Page <prev 2 of 8 next> last>>
Mar 3, 2021 00:26:22   #
Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal
 
It's the artist.
I'm a tech. I can take very good pictures.
Not too many pretty ones, tho.
BUT just in case someone thinks I oughta answer the original question- get the lens.

Reply
Mar 3, 2021 05:24:46   #
User ID
 
Curmudgeon wrote:
If it is the photographer that makes the shot but the camera or lens that takes the shot.

All your camera equipment has been destroyed in a flood and your insurance doesn't cover "acts of God".
Casper the Friendly Ghost offers you two options:

1. A camera of your choice, not to exceed $7,000 and one lens not to exceed $2500
or;
2. A camera of your choice, not to exceed $2500 and one lens not to exceed $7000.

No dodging around here, Casper is only offering two choices
If it is the photographer that i makes /i the sh... (show quote)

At the stated price range, door number one. Reason is that $2500 is more than enough for a top tier lens. A $7000 lens can only look better in a test lab, never in real use. OTOH a $7000 body can have a high rez stacked sensor plus some exciting performance features. (Sony a1 for me.)

I’m ignoring that bodies depreciate so much faster than lenses. Casper says I hafta keep this rig until the next act of god destroys it. So no resale concerns.
_____________________________


At much lower $$ range I might choose door number two, or just be undecided, cuz a $1900 lens may very well look better than a $700 lens in real use (but not always). In my experience, your question is NOT scalable $$wise.

Reply
Mar 3, 2021 05:25:59   #
cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania
 
At those extremes, I'd go with #2
because:
After a quick look on B&H, a Nikon 500 PF is $3500, A D780 is $2300..... so I can't get a D850, and the 500 PF
Nor can I get the 500f4 ($10,296.95)

Reply
 
 
Mar 3, 2021 05:38:31   #
User ID
 
cmc4214 wrote:
At those extremes, I'd go with #2

I can see you lusting for that new Nikon 58mm f:00.95 ! (Or some other similar mega bauble)

While I cannot imagine myself in your shoes, I nevertheless would say to you “Do it. Life is a oneway trip” :-)

Reply
Mar 3, 2021 06:00:49   #
49bentley
 
User ID wrote:
I can see you lusting for that new Nikon 58mm f:00.95 ! (Or some other similar mega bauble)

While I cannot imagine myself in your shoes, I nevertheless would say to you “Do it. Life is a oneway trip” :-)


IMO. Get the best glass you can. Then worry about the camera. The best camera with poor glass will give you poor pictures all the time. Good glass will give you better pictures. Good glass is always good glass. You can always upgrade the body in the future (even with a used camera). Cameras constantly get upgraded, but a good lense doesn't change quality very often (mostly weight).

Reply
Mar 3, 2021 06:08:38   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Curmudgeon wrote:
If it is the photographer that makes the shot but the camera or lens that takes the shot.

All your camera equipment has been destroyed in a flood and your insurance doesn't cover "acts of God".
Casper the Friendly Ghost offers you two options:

1. A camera of your choice, not to exceed $7,000 and one lens not to exceed $2500
or;
2. A camera of your choice, not to exceed $2500 and one lens not to exceed $7000.

No dodging around here, Casper is only offering two choices
If it is the photographer that i makes /i the sh... (show quote)


#2 but I would expand the lens budget to include a good used prime, and likely buy a used 36 mp camera to help me get there. While OK lenses can be gotten for considerably less and in some cases provide excellent image quality, there really is no substitute for an 400mm F2.8 or a 500mm or 600mm F4. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never shot with a really good lens, and cannot fully lappreciate the compromises involved in using lower quality "value priced" lenses.

Reply
Mar 3, 2021 06:50:59   #
Capn_Dave
 
I shoot mostly critters. To me you question poses a conundrum. The best results are early in the morning and late in the evening and some luck. So yes its the artist knowing when and how to shoot. However to achieve the best and easiest results you need fast lenses and a camera with a high speed shutter and good low light capability. Can it be done without all the fancy equipment, of course. That is when luck plays a big part. To capture that moment in time when the birds beak just touches the water as it goes after it's prey takes a lot of frames per second or luck. I don't have a lot of luck. I am the kind of person that when his ship comes in is at the train station. All in all the equipment is just like a hammer. The easiest way to get the job done is a a fancy hammer like an air gun. The rest is up to you

Reply
 
 
Mar 3, 2021 07:04:44   #
SS319
 
I am going to say #1 Above $5000, your getting into 50MP sensor,7-8 stops of OS+IBIS or shooting ISO 100 at 1/8000 seconds with a 1000mm lens plus you get TOL Animal Eye Focus Tracking. Add in a long lens at $2500

With the 50MP sensor, you can 50% crop to gain more lens length equiv. (a Sigma Sport 150 - 600 will easily reach to 1000 - 1200mm.

Reply
Mar 3, 2021 07:34:05   #
Dossile
 
Option #2 buys some great gear.

Reply
Mar 3, 2021 07:34:35   #
ELNikkor
 
If you've already got a 70-300 and D7200, you've already gotten a lot of photos out to 450mm equivalent. Are you looking for more reach? Can't improve on the D7200 for only $700 these days. You would be looking for going beyond 300mm with minimal redundancy; leaving the Nikon 200-500 as your long-range monster. Might need to subsidize that $700 a bit, and buy refurbished, but that would seem to be your best option.

Reply
Mar 3, 2021 07:39:12   #
Robert1 Loc: Davie, FL
 
#2.

Reply
 
 
Mar 3, 2021 07:46:34   #
Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast
 
Curmudgeon wrote:
If it is the photographer that makes the shot but the camera or lens that takes the shot.

All your camera equipment has been destroyed in a flood and your insurance doesn't cover "acts of God".
Casper the Friendly Ghost offers you two options:

1. A camera of your choice, not to exceed $7,000 and one lens not to exceed $2500
or;
2. A camera of your choice, not to exceed $2500 and one lens not to exceed $7000.

No dodging around here, Casper is only offering two choices
If it is the photographer that i makes /i the sh... (show quote)


What do they say most often; "buy the best glass you can."

Reply
Mar 3, 2021 08:02:56   #
Ourspolair
 
Me 2! (And you'd have some change, I think...)

Reply
Mar 3, 2021 08:08:56   #
uhaas2009
 
Yes and no, with my Nikon 810 I go birding, my 7100 I wouldn’t. The 810 is way stronger, faster in focusing vs 7100( it’s still possible to get birding done with it)
I had to learn how to set up my 810 and learn the prober focus and settings. Look up Jason Odell

Reply
Mar 3, 2021 08:09:45   #
Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina
 
This is along my thinking too. Though I might go for the 800 f/11 to for birding...

Strodav wrote:
If I had $9500 to spend I'd go with a Canon R5 kit with a 24-105mm f/4 at $5000 then add a 600mm f/11 for birding at $700. That leaves me $3800 for some more glass. Let's see, hmmm, what glass would I get for $3800? Probably a portrait lens, a macro, a nifty fifty and still have some money left over.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.