If you shoot wildlife is it the camera or the lens?
Mar 7, 2021 07:32:01 #
Mar 7, 2021 08:14:09 #
curmudgeon:
lens is to me more important, but the camera itself can do things you may need. It should never be overlooked. Still, given your restrictions I would go $2500 for a good used body and spend the much larger amount on the longest reach and highest quality lens w/in that price bracket. This exercise is especially applicable because you are talking bird/wildlife photography. How ever, if I was doing a different type of photography, say landscape, I might feel a different solution to your hypothetical is in order. Still, with almost any type of photography the lens wins. With careful use the lens should last almost forever; it is unlikely the body ever will. Your hypothetical is made more easy by the fairly reasonable $$ you allot. Cut the dollars enough and possibly different conclusions might be reached.
We have many members whose finances may be tight. It can be fun to dream. My first camera came from a yard sale. Cost me all of $3.00! I had more fun with that fixed-lens 2 1/4” Zeiss Ikon and learned more using it than just about any camera I have ever had. Most contributors here likely have similar memories.
I think you have fine equipment and am sure you have learned many ways to get the most out of your equipment. It sounds like you have been shooting for quite some time. Enjoy.
lens is to me more important, but the camera itself can do things you may need. It should never be overlooked. Still, given your restrictions I would go $2500 for a good used body and spend the much larger amount on the longest reach and highest quality lens w/in that price bracket. This exercise is especially applicable because you are talking bird/wildlife photography. How ever, if I was doing a different type of photography, say landscape, I might feel a different solution to your hypothetical is in order. Still, with almost any type of photography the lens wins. With careful use the lens should last almost forever; it is unlikely the body ever will. Your hypothetical is made more easy by the fairly reasonable $$ you allot. Cut the dollars enough and possibly different conclusions might be reached.
We have many members whose finances may be tight. It can be fun to dream. My first camera came from a yard sale. Cost me all of $3.00! I had more fun with that fixed-lens 2 1/4” Zeiss Ikon and learned more using it than just about any camera I have ever had. Most contributors here likely have similar memories.
I think you have fine equipment and am sure you have learned many ways to get the most out of your equipment. It sounds like you have been shooting for quite some time. Enjoy.
Mar 7, 2021 12:39:07 #
FeddieFotos
Loc: Ardmore PA (from Dominican Republic)
I do not have any of the equipment mentioned above, not the budget. I have learned to use what I have. Nikon 3400, 70-300 mm, 18-55 mm, 40 mm micro. I shoot often and plenty, at least one or 2 are winners, using my humble equipment. I like "muscle" my favorite are Pontiac GTO(of course) Camaro 327 (60's), and more,. The list Is endless..L.O.L.
Mar 19, 2021 22:21:47 #
quixdraw wrote:
Simply, the equipment has to have the functional ability to meet the photographer's skills. Your proposed budget is outside of reasonable for many who have worked all their lives and saved. Yes, at the extremes, given equivalent ability, the best gear probably wins.
Mar 24, 2021 20:37:31 #
Jul 26, 2021 14:12:31 #
There are no Black and White photographs; only 256; 16,384; or 268,435,456 shades of gray. You did not specify what type of photography you are into, how you process, how you display, and how much you intend to charge for each of your photographs. If you are married, you should spend $2500 for camera and lenses and $7000 for new carpet; If you're not married, what does it matter - buy the best technology you can comprehend and the finest pieces of glass to go with it. Break the bank - who cares?
As for me, my printing is done on Kodak 8X10 photo paper using a Pixma 9000 series, so an Under 2K EOS R with EF Glass suffices for me.
In today's world, it is still true that no amount of technology can overcome bad glass; however, it is equally true that bad technology will take high quality glass to mediocre. Sufficient Technology will make moderate glass glisten. An R5 with a RF 70-200 f:2.8 with a 1:4EX will cover a lot of life for under the $7000 number.
As for me, my printing is done on Kodak 8X10 photo paper using a Pixma 9000 series, so an Under 2K EOS R with EF Glass suffices for me.
In today's world, it is still true that no amount of technology can overcome bad glass; however, it is equally true that bad technology will take high quality glass to mediocre. Sufficient Technology will make moderate glass glisten. An R5 with a RF 70-200 f:2.8 with a 1:4EX will cover a lot of life for under the $7000 number.
Jul 26, 2021 14:41:36 #
Appy
Loc: Flint Hills (Ks)
I have become a believer that lens is the most important as all the top camera companies produce a good product. I'd go with #2 although I doubt I would spend nearly that much. I currently shoot a D7200 with a 4 lens collection that includes a Sigma 150-600mm C lens. I'm happy with that for now.
Jul 26, 2021 14:59:36 #
Budget of $9,500
Nikon D6 and Nikon 200 - 500mm F5.6 zoom approximately $8000
Nikon D850 and Nikon 70- 200mm F2.8 and Nikon 200 - 500mm F5.6 approximately $8,000
Nikon D6 and Nikon 200 - 500mm F5.6 zoom approximately $8000
Nikon D850 and Nikon 70- 200mm F2.8 and Nikon 200 - 500mm F5.6 approximately $8,000
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.