If you had £3000-$4500 to spend, what would you get?

Brigsy

Hi,

If you had the above amount of cash to spend (Happy days!) and were looking for a good all round set up with a slant towards stalking moving wildlife, what would you get? (If you had a solid background with dslr, looking to move on) (Also thinking about starting shooting for stock)

Body
Lenses
Flash
Tripod

Second hand must be included I suspect!

Any thoughts?

Photoskipper

considering to get the 100-400 L to fill the gap of the 70-200 F2.8 IS and the 500F4. The 100-400 seems good for carry around wildlife lens. It is longer than the 70-200 and much lighter the 500F4.

ziggy53

What size are the wildlife?
How far away will you typically shoot?
How fast are they moving?
What are typical lighting conditions?
How much equipment would you consider carrying?
Are you looking for personal satisfaction or marketable prints?
Do you have "any" current equipment that can be used or is this starting from scratch?

Art Scott

eITHER d700 (X2) USED OR D300S (x2) do not want video or SD slot but they are included
+Nikon 700-200 + Sigma 170-500 . Good tripod (Giottos 4 section ) and monopod (again Giottos P-Pod)......
Lowe Pro 75 AW (x2.....1 for each cam and lens combo)....Military webbed pistol belt with suspenders.....pretty much how I go hunting now,
D300(x2) + 70-200 + Sigma 50-500 is my wildlife set up...even at the Zoo..............

Brigsy

In reply to ziggy: mainly birds but if I see mammals out and about that's a bonus. Not really a BIF freak but will have a go. Normally go for the perched or grounded. Hoping to market (stock as well) and enlarge the shots at some stage. Hope this helps.

ziggy53

For small birds and quick moving mammals, and at your budget, you will probably have to use a combination of equipment and hunter's technique to get what you want.

In Canon a 7D will get you good focus speed in good light with the best lenses. I like both PhotoSkipper's and Art's suggestions so I'll just echo the Canon EF 100-400mm, f4.5-5.6L IS USM and Sigma 50-500mm, f4-6.3 EX DG HSM as being very good and very versatile ranges. I don't know that they would allow images that would compete with the majority of successful bird photographers but at least you can get pretty good results.

If you plan on wanting to capture the more elusive birds even the Canon EF 400mm, f5.6L USM might be indicated to get you that little extra sharpness of a prime that you might need for cropping.

I would recommend bringing a flash and a "Better Beamer" to give it some reach. It's a very handy device for adding some fill light to the subject.

For a tripod and head, I'll defer you to others' opinion as I am still sorting that out for myself.

Using good stalking and hunting technique should allow you to get closer to the subjects, once you learn their habitats and haunts.

Another method I often recommend for folks just starting out with birding is the combination of a bird sanctuary/feeder and shooting "blind" that brings the birds close to your position and allows shooting at closer proximity with shorter focal length lenses without scaring the birds away. This method can also give you a more predictable background and perch orientation.

swintonphoto

Olympus E-3, E-620, Zuiko 14-35mm f2, Zuiko 35-100mm f2, FL-36R and/or FL-50R flashes

kdog

swintonphoto wrote: »

Olympus E-3, E-620, Zuiko 14-35mm f2, Zuiko 35-100mm f2, FL-36R and/or FL-50R flashes

A 100mm lens would be woefully inadequate for shooting birds. In fact, I don't believe I've ever seen a birder shoot with Olympus because they don't have the long lens lineup.

squirl033

7D and 100-400L would take up about $3200 of that budget. just to round out the tool kit, maybe 2 24-105L for a "walkabout" lens...

squirl033

kdog wrote: »

A 100mm lens would be woefully inadequate for shooting birds. In fact, I don't believe I've ever seen a birder shoot with Olympus because they don't have the long lens lineup.

the Oly bodies use the 4/3 system, so the 35-100 would be equivalent to a 70-200. stilll nowhere near enough for birds, but not as short as you think...

chrisjohnson

I played with a Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM a few weeks ago and it was great, even in late evening light and handheld.

I used it on a 40D to good effect, but I suppose a 7D would be even better.

Brigsy

ziggy53 wrote: »

I don't know that they would allow images that would compete with the majority of successful bird photographers but at least you can get pretty good results.

What sort of set up do good photographers use then? Hoping to spend well and have a pretty sorted set up.

Trying to avoid looking at my images and thinking 'Well that's pretty good', looking to go for the wow factor.

Thanks so far people.

Art Scott

Brigsy wrote: »

What sort of set up do good photographers use then? Hoping to spend well and have a pretty sorted set up.

Trying to avoid looking at my images and thinking 'Well that's pretty good', looking to go for the wow factor.

Thanks so far people.

Good photographers use theset up's mentioned above......once they start making money then they of course, if shooting canon go to the to the "L" lenses - I am not fdamiliar with what canon offers but think all the top pro lenses are "L" lenses .....with nikon it is just the top line fast lenses...some of both camps do shoot other brands of lenses if the camera mfg'er does not make what they want......I can get fantastic shots from my 50-500.....it is useless in real low light but so is any other f6.3 lens.....
Here is what I think you need to do.......get the best 70-200 can afford, whether it be from a camera manufacturer or from someone like Sigma ( ihave shot Sigma for over 25 yrs and love their top line lenses that I have used (24-70 f2.8 &70-200f2.8) [these were my only lenses for over 20 yrs, well not the 24-70 but it's predecessor the 28-70, then a little over 6yrs ago I upgraded to the 24-70].....any way add to that a Sigma 150-500 and that will start you off in a great way to wildlife shooting great shoots......the reason I did not recommend the 50-500 is that is already, for the most part, covered with the 70-200..........if you decide to go with sigma for both lenses there is a matched 2x converter that will work with both if you decide that you need it..........Mastering these 2 lenses will take some time.......
Also the "good" photogs use good tripods and some use Gimbel heads especially for Birds in Flight....for other nature/ wildlife shooting a gimbel is not necessary or I have not found it to be necessary....I do just fine with my Bogen 322rc2 ball head........................

The one thing is to purchase the BEST you can afford at the start.........

ziggy53

Brigsy wrote: »

What sort of set up do good photographers use then? Hoping to spend well and have a pretty sorted set up.

Trying to avoid looking at my images and thinking 'Well that's pretty good', looking to go for the wow factor.

Thanks so far people.

If you are want to compete with the top bird photographers plan on a budget of around $40,000USD and plan on taking $10,000-$20,000 worth with you on each trip and maybe $10,000-$12,000 of that on your shoulder.

The best would include (in Canon):

A couple of 1D MKIV bodies. This would be minimum. The top dogs have much more.

EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM (or the EF 300mm, f4L IS USM)
... and ...
EF 500mm f/4L IS USM and/or EF 600mm f/4L IS USM
... and ...
EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM - Not practical to carry far, but needed for some instances.
... and ...
EF 70-200mm, f2.8L IS USM - Sometimes this is the right lens for big birds that you can get fairly close with lures and treats, or where you can get close to their natural feeding grounds.
... and ...
EF 100-400mm, f4.5-5.6L IS USM - When you have good light and you want to rapidly transition from singular to group images of the birds.

Additionally you will want some more "standard" focal length lenses to capture some of the scenery and surrounding area to help tell the "story" of your principle images.

Toss in some teleconverters (the EF 1.4x II and EF 2.0x II) and a couple of tripods (sometimes you will use 2 tripods at the same time, one for the lens and one for the body), several heads and a good gimbal head, several flashes and the Better Beamer, a whole mess of bags, some camera covers, filters, tons of extra batteries and memory cards, etc.

Some of these items are good candidates for rental, at least until you can justify the purchase.

You could also look at older used equipment like 1D MKII/MKIIN bodies and older lenses like the EF 500mm, f4.5L USM. As long as you don't need extreme image sizes the 8MPix of the 1D II series works nicely to 8" x 10" or so prints, sometimes larger.

Brigsy

ziggy53 wrote: »

If you are want to compete with the top bird photographers plan on a budget of around $40,000USD and plan on taking $10,000-$20,000 worth with you on each trip and maybe $10,000-$12,000 of that on your shoulder.

The best would include (in Canon):

A couple of 1D MKIV bodies. This would be minimum. The top dogs have much more.

EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM (or the EF 300mm, f4L IS USM)
... and ...
EF 500mm f/4L IS USM and/or EF 600mm f/4L IS USM
... and ...
EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM - Not practical to carry far, but needed for some instances.
... and ...
EF 70-200mm, f2.8L IS USM - Sometimes this is the right lens for big birds that you can get fairly close with lures and treats, or where you can get close to their natural feeding grounds.
... and ...
EF 100-400mm, f4.5-5.6L IS USM - When you have good light and you want to rapidly transition from singular to group images of the birds.

Additionally you will want some more "standard" focal length lenses to capture some of the scenery and surrounding area to help tell the "story" of your principle images.

Toss in some teleconverters (the EF 1.4x II and EF 2.0x II) and a couple of tripods (sometimes you will use 2 tripods at the same time, one for the lens and one for the body), several heads and a good gimbal head, several flashes and the Better Beamer, a whole mess of bags, some camera covers, filters, tons of extra batteries and memory cards, etc.

Some of these items are good candidates for rental, at least until you can justify the purchase.

You could also look at older used equipment like 1D MKII/MKIIN bodies and older lenses like the EF 500mm, f4.5L USM. As long as you don't need extreme image sizes the 8MPix of the 1D II series works nicely to 8" x 10" or so prints, sometimes larger.

Ouch!

ziggy53

Brigsy wrote: »

Ouch!

I researched the same thing some time ago for myself, but you have to really "love" the quest of shooting birds. It's a tough market to break into.

I really do recommend trying the combination of bird feeder* and bird sanctuary along with a shooter's blind. If you can get the critters to come to you, it saves a lot on the cost of extremely long lenses.

---

* When I say bird feeder I don't mean a commercial feeder like you would purchase. A feeder in this case might be anything that allows the desired birds to roost and feed while affording you the opportunity of a shot. You provide the appropriate lure and see what shows up to feed.

Sometimes just an elevated source of water near some food spread on the ground will do (or vice-versa with the water and food). The point is to find what works for the birds you want to attract. Be creative and think photogenic.

Very nice information here:

http://www.wildbirdsforever.com/pg000004.html

Likewise the shooter's blind doesn't have to be a commercial unit, although I do think there are very practical and reasonably affordable units available.

Brigsy

Thanks mate. Really appreciate the help. I have a hide (blind) that packs down ok, just have to get the guts up to use it! I keep thinking that someone is going to come along and beat me up when I can't see them coming, or is that just the UK for you.

Also, you have to do some origami on it when it's time to head home and I might end up trying to stuff it in the car fully erected.....Sorry Officer!

ziggy53

Brigsy wrote: »

... I might end up trying to stuff it in the car fully erected.....Sorry Officer!

Just "please" get some pictures if that happens.

Qarik

from a nikon POV for birding.

package 1: full frame and 400mm at f/5.6
D700 = $2300
80-400mm 4.5-5.6 VR $1700
tripod?

package 2: crop sensor and 450mm at f/4 or 600mm at f/5.6
D300s = $1500
70-200mm VR2 = $2300 or VR1 for $1600
1.4TC or 2.0TC = $350-$500
tripod?

dislamer: I have never shot wildlife haha..this is what I would buy though if I did.

NikonsandVstroms

squirl033 wrote: »

the Oly bodies use the 4/3 system, so the 35-100 would be equivalent to a 70-200. stilll nowhere near enough for birds, but not as short as you think...

And at F2 you could toss on a teleconverter and not lose much.

fldspringer

kdog wrote: »

A 100mm lens would be woefully inadequate for shooting birds. In fact, I don't believe I've ever seen a birder shoot with Olympus because they don't have the long lens lineup.

50-200 (EFL 100-400mm) f2.8-3.5

With EC-14 converter 70-283mm (EFL 140-566mm) f4-4.9

there it the 70-300 (EFL up to 600mm)

I have an extraordinary 300mm f2.8 with the EC-20 converter for 600mm f5.6 (EFL 1200mm) as shown below:

both full width square crops

CanonRebelz

Canon 7D
24-70 F2.8 L
50mm f 1.4? (1.2 if it would fit in that range)

Brigsy

Thanks, I have been looking at a book of the Wildlife photographer of the year album Portfolio 19 and have taken a quick poll of cameras that took the shots. The overwhelming majority were taken with the 1dmk 3 or the Nikon D300. I like the features of the 1dmk3 but am a little concerned about the 10.1 Megapixels. The images shot with it are stunning but would this file size be any good for reasonable size prints or upsizing for stock requirements. Using an equation I found somewhere a 21x10 inch print would have a 185ppi. I don't know what that looks like in reality?

kdog

Rather than looking at what cameras were used, you should be looking at which lenses were used. The lens is everything in wildlife, and the specific camera body is quite secondary. And honestly, most of the lenses required to do stock photography based on wildlife are out of your stated budget. Also, as a reality check, the folks that make a business out of selling wildlife images have been in the business for many years. As a newcomer to the business, and judging from the questions you're asking, you've got a long road ahead of yourself to compete.

You should hang out in the Dgrin wildlife forum to see what wildlife photography is all about.

Brigsy

Well aware that I won't be able to compete. That is not my aim. Got a job I am happy doing ta. Just plan on submitting the 1 in 100 decent shots I get from whatever subject matter I am shooting! Already studied the lenses used and can't afford them so was looking at something I might be able to start with.

Any thoughts on my question? I guess from the tone of the last post I am being annoying. If so that is not my intention.

fldspringer

Brigsy wrote: »

Well aware that I won't be able to compete. That is not my aim. Got a job I am happy doing ta. Just plan on submitting the 1 in 100 decent shots I get from whatever subject matter I am shooting! Already studied the lenses used and can't afford them so was looking at something I might be able to start with.

Any thoughts on my question? I guess from the tone of the last post I am being annoying. If so that is not my intention.

If you want to start playing with wildlife photos, I'd say you want around 400mm on a Nikon or Canon crop camera.

The D300 is an excellent camera and its auto focus is top notch. Nikons long glass isn't cheap, however. Maybe something like the 100-300 Sigma and a teleconverter might make a decent wildlife setup.

The Canon 7D and 100-400L would be the first combo that I think of with Canon. On second thought I think I'd do the 400 f5.6L instead. The auto focus is good, and there's lots of pixels for cropping.

I run Olympus and 300mm would give about the same reach as 400mm with the others. The 50-200 and EC-14 makes a decent setup. The 70-300 offers the reach, but softens a bit as it gets toward the long end. Current Oly DSLR's are not as advanced in the autofocus. I'd say fine for stationary stuff, but moving subjects are a bit tougher.

Here's 50-200/EC-14 converter shots.

Brigsy

Thanks mate. Appreciate it.

kdog

fldspringer wrote: »

The Canon 7D and 100-400L would be the first combo that I think of with Canon. On second thought I think I'd do the 400 f5.6L instead.

I'd get the 100-400 first as the zoom range is incredibly useful. Plus it has image stabilization, whereas the 400 F5.6 does not. So, it's extremely difficult to get good results in low light with that lens without resorting to super high ISOs. At F6.3 or smaller apertures, you cannot tell the difference between the two lenses (at 400mm obviously). I look at the 400 F5.6 as a fairly specialized lens for these reasons. I had both, and sold the 400 5.6, so there you go. But I have a 500 F4 as well.

kdog

Brigsy wrote: »

Well aware that I won't be able to compete. That is not my aim. Got a job I am happy doing ta. Just plan on submitting the 1 in 100 decent shots I get from whatever subject matter I am shooting! Already studied the lenses used and can't afford them so was looking at something I might be able to start with.

Any thoughts on my question? I guess from the tone of the last post I am being annoying. If so that is not my intention.

You're not being annoying at all. But it sounded like you are worried that the Canon 1DMIII doesn't have enough pixels to blow up your wildlife pictures large enough for stock photography. I'm just saying NOT to base your purchasing criteria on that, because realistically you won't be selling any wildlife pictures for a very long time. If and when you do get good enough to worry about those issues, you can always upgrade if you find something lacking.

See my previous post for a specific recommendation. Basically, the Canon 7D and 100-400 lens would be an excellent place to start. And it would still leave enough in the budget for the incredible EF-S 17-55 IS general purpose zoom.

Brigsy

Thanks very much. Appreciate the advice.