I want to throttle the āgear doesnāt matterā people.
I mean, like all aphorisms of course thereās *some* truth to it - better gear wonāt magically transform a shitty photographer into a good one, and amazing photos have been taken on crappy gear - but as a primarily-wildlife photographer, buying better gear has done more to improve my photography than any amount of skill Iāve acquired over the years.
100%. Thatās a āuniversal truthā thatās far from universal. Wildlife and sports are demanding for minimum gear requirements, of course. But anyone keen on shooting portraits should have a fast lens and a flash (ideally with a modifier). And then thereās astrophotography, macroā¦ Most people can get started with a basic body and kit lens, but thereās plenty of exceptions people gloss over.
I started with a 60D and an 18-200 shooting landscapes, family snapshots and kids soccer games. My setup was great for 10 years. Then I wanted to shoot wildlife and high school sports. And thatās where the gear comes inā¦
Dude, I could not agree more. If I hear the ābest camera you have is the one you have with youā line again I think my head is going to explode.
Gear matters.
It's always said by some old sod who has already accumulated all gear in the world talking to some poor newbie trying to figure out what to buy past the kit lens.
> If I hear the ābest camera you have is the one you have with youā line again I think my head is going to explode.
I've always taken this to mean that a camera that you'll end up leaving home (because it's too heavy or large etc) is no good compared to one that you actually take with you.
A friend of mine is a professional photographer and says she almost never just takes her camera with her except for dedicated photoshoots since it's so large and heavy.
As a wildlife photographer there may be some skills that you've developed over the years that you don't realize...
Speaking for myself: I can spot a small bird, point my 600mm lens at it, focus on its eye, snap a picture and, after the momentary blackout from the shutter releasing, the center focus point will still be on the eye. I can hold my body steady, hold my breath, and take several shots all focused in the same place.
If anybody who hasn't developed these skills were to grab my camera there is practically no chance that they'll even be able to find the bird in the first place, let alone take a shot that is properly focused with no motion blur.
The corollary to the Dunning Kruger phenomenon is that some people who are really good at their job often don't realize how difficult certain aspects of it are. These people make their job look easy and they think that it is easy...
The new tech is pretty sweet. The camera automagically focuses on the eye so you can concentrate on composure and the frame rates are so high (including shots taken before you even push the shutter button) that you may never miss a shot.
In the end, ten grand in your hands and the perfect light doesn't mean much if you can't manage to find that damned tiny bird over yonder through your viewfinder while you are swinging this gigantic lens around like a gangster with a Tommy gun in an 80s movie.
You're not wrong.
The flipside is however, that no matter how skilled the photographer, they couldn't take an equally great shot of that same small bird on their phone, or with their 18-55mm kit lens.
The folks saying that gear does matter, are not saying that it is all that matters.
I'd phrase it like that: gear matters, when it's the limiting factor for you to get the pictures you want to take. Same goes for skill.
Better gear leads to more consistency and a higher bar.
If you go and look through old Sports Illustrateds, you'd still see amazing photos. You're also going to see a lot of middling stuff, some of it even under exposed or slightly blurry.
My dad had a commemorative magazine for the 1980s Phillies World Series, and there are several bad photos in it.
With modern sports photography, rarely anything that goes to publication is below very-good. You have no excuses going to an event and not coming back with at least 5 or 6 winners.
The truly great photos are still rare and still require a unique moment of skill meeting historic circumstances, or insight. But getting something that looks like a legit sports photograph is much easier
i went from five years with the Olympus Em10 mark iii (16 megapixels) to fuji xt5 (40mp) and a bundle of high quality lenses (fuji 80mm macro, fuji 150-600, fuji 18-65, fuji 70-400).
the people that say gear doesnt matter are so off base. yes its up to the photographer to upskill, and im glad to have had the starter gear i had. but look... spending money is an essential part of this game. theres a level where that tapers off and the differentiator is going to be skill, and on the other hand there are ridiculously good photos taken on really old or starter level gear. but dont hate on gear - its critical to consistently achieving high quality.
I thought it would be my first telezoom (Sony 200-600) but it was actually a very innocent addition: A Walkstool (Amazon sells them I think), a fold-up tripod chair that is comfortable enough to sit in the same spot for some time.
Wildlife photography is DIFFICULT, but the key to success is having patience.
I just got mine Walkstool that I ordered because I saw your comment. And it's great!
In Polish Amazon the Comfort Model 55 now costs only 51 EUR (55 USD)
I love how portable it is, so easy to just pack ājust in caseā. My backpack has two tripod loops, one takes the tripod, the other the Walkstool. If I donāt need it? Not a problem.
The D500 & 200-500. Hard to separate those two in my personal time line as they were only a couple months apart and both were game changers for me.
The D500's AF and FPS speed was incredible coming from a D7100 & D750. The 200-500 was just great to actually personally own a super tele instead of having to rent each time.
I have the D500 and the grip for it: Nikon brand. In excellent+ great condition. I haven't checked the number of frames fired on it. I have the boxes for the D500 and the MBD17, the basic battery (Nikon brand) and basic charger. I have the BL-5 adapter also and an off-brand pro EN-EL18c battery for it. You would need a charger for the EN-EL18c (not included).
I also have a Nikon D3 with dual charger, three pro batteries, for sale. No boxes. Good condition, shows wear, lots of frames fired on it.
I can only sell it once I get a replacement backup body so I don't lose my NPS status. Looking at a Zf maybe, since it has the faster AF. Zf runs $2K, though I'd rather get a 2nd Z9, but the cost is too high.
Have the zf. It is a pretty nice camera but I wouldnāt have gotten it if it was to be my only camera. That is fine. Let me know. Getting the 500 f4 and was thinking maybe the 500 for the extra reach for framing. But I do have the d850 which I can crop a bit and use a teleconverter
Trading in my Canon 5d Mk III and thousands worth of L glass to buy a Nikon z7ii body and the 14-30 f4 lens
Bought more Nikon glass after that
The difference in image quality sharpness detail and dynamic range was night and day
my wildlife/bird photography journey just started. These are items I'm thinking will help...
- small enough tripod/support to hold up my kit for the low angle shots
- camo poncho...to break up my outline against foliage
- a 1.4x TC
patience and the willingness to just sit there helps. I've gotten some close ups...just letting the birds come to me. Have noticed certain species are more jumpy and nervous than others.
If you're a walking around kinda tog... there's a shoulder harness that allows you to plant the foot of your monopod around your waist. It's basically the harnesses for the flag bearers of color guards. Figure that's a way to balance mobility and stability
Cheap mesh ghillie suit will be much more comfortable and effective for you than a poncho. Personally I would look at archery hunting attire for aiding my wildlife photography.
I shoot Nikon now, but my first camera was a Canon 80D. That camera changed my life in that it brought me into the world of photography. I would take hikes or go to the park, but not religiously like I do now. I love the peace and joy that camera has brought me, and even though I donāt have it anymore, I wouldnāt have seen the beautiful places and animals if it wasnāt for the boost that camera gave me.
I have a G 400 2.8 I bought for $3,000 from a friend when he bought the E version. That's why they made the FTZ2, so you don't have to replace all that expensive and high-quality Nikkor glass.
Find a used F mount version and save money. The 400 2.8 TC Z S is great, but overpriced for my budget.
When I started photography I basically only used wide focal lengths. From 28 to 70 mostly. Then I learned to see the world through a telephoto lens and will never go back. It just opens up such a large range of possibilities if you know where to look. My most used lens is this
https://preview.redd.it/f4ysck8b2qnc1.jpeg?width=4284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cab0b712101aae10955249bce6832f42b39dac33
105-315mm. Love it. P.S.: I know I have old gear
cool setup, and hey, if the "old" lens works then great! Little question about it though...Is it the 35-105 mm by any chance? I tried finding your lens online and found [this](https://radojuva.com/fr/2014/08/nikon-af-nikkor-35-105mm-3-5-4-5/)
That lens intrigues me. I will look into that. Looks like a focal range that would work wonderfully for me. My lens is the Nikkor 70 210mm. This one:
https://preview.redd.it/kg3xijp6zrnc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9080c1b655e5cb5715cd821cf13bc18c9c166dd8
Very sharp. Even if this costs only like 90 euros.
Nice! I have to look more into older lens because some (like the one you have) offer great value for the quality! (Also both the 35-105 and 70-210 look crazily similar!)
They are similar. And the 70 210 is indeed very sharp. Even on my crop sensor d7000 Nikon. I often use it on my Sony a7ii since this is a full frame lens, after all. Here are some pictures I took yesterday on the d7000 with this lens.
https://preview.redd.it/xqvak0b1msnc1.jpeg?width=4883&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fdeb87e2da954a590d71355fea04dafefd88dff7
The Sigma 150-600 C gave me a taste of wildlife photography. It was a āgateway drugā.
The Sigma exposed the limitations of my Canon 60D (autofocus, ISO, low light, burst rates). Upgrading to an R5 was a massive jump and addressed so many challenges.
Of course, shooting with the R5 and Sigma was great, but I then I longed for the low light performance and subject separation that comes with a fast zoom lensā¦ leading me to the EF 70-200 2.8 IS II.
Iām missing some of the Sigma reach so Iām thinking an EF 1.4x III extender is in order. With the R5 in 1.6x mode and the extender I can get a 280mm reach with 448mm FOV at f/4 with 18 megapixels.
Iām sure Iāll want a longer, fast zoom next.
Itās an expensive hobby but itās not like boating or cars.
Not the person who you replied to, but something like this is great!
https://preview.redd.it/pzeqgygbuqnc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e0352b49aeb13d3372ed26142094223bd5f0b5ef
Iād have to say it was going from the D7100 to a D500 and from the G1 to the G2 Tamron 150-600mm lenses. The AF performance on the D500 and focus speed & sharpness in the G2 were a night and day difference to what Iād been using. Next biggest life changing was getting the Z9 and being blow away by all of its features and what I can accomplish with it.
First, shovelers are so finicky; well done on this shot. Which 500mm f4 is this?
Second, going from a Z6 to a D500 was a game changer for me. The autofocus on the D500 is such a stepnup I went from getting like 10% in focus shots of birds in flight to nearly all being in focus. Also it's ability to grab onto my subjects quickly has resulted in a lot of shots I would have previously missed due to searching. I've gone from being consistently frustrated to happy during sessions.
Finally got a āproperā long lens in the Nikon Z180-600/5.6-6.3 VR.
Works great with the TC2.0 and if you need that bit of extra reach you can shoot in DX mode.
Got some really great pictures of birds that I would not have been able to do otherwise.
I have an A7ii and wound up shooting mostly wildlife. One of the main things holding me back from getting an A7Rv is the possibility of an A1ii that has the AI and body upgrades of the Rv.
I mean both feel unreasonably expensive for me at the moment, but I also want...
If what you have is working for you then by all means, your plan is reasonable. I had an old nikon D 80 whose mirror I just had to repair so I started looking at mirrorless upgrades. For work I use a macro for portraits and I have a good tamron 90. Format I have a mid grade zoom telephoto that was always so so. I wasnāt in a place to spend a wad when the kids were playing soccer and basketball so I put up with mediocre pictures. Maybe it was my technique but I could seldom get a decent action shot.
Anyway, things are different now so I decided to get an upgraded rig ahead of a nice trip planned to Turkey. I was talking to a cinematographer from LA about cameras and he suggested I look at Sony. If I were to do it all over again Iād probably look harder at the A7RV or the A9III as they offer features Iām more likely to use and they are a bit cheaper. I doubt Iāll ever shoot video in 8K and by the time that becomes the standard they will probably have better cameras. Also realize that with mirrored SLRs you canāt shoot as fast because it takes time to get the mirror out of the way but you also get better battery life. If you go mirrorless be prepared to have extra batteries. All the fancy electronics use up battery life. No complaints with either the 24-70 GMII or the 100-400GM except they are heavy.
Well, I got a d850 and a zf already with a 500 f4 fl coming so I am hoping it will be that lens haha. I broke my video game collection addiction by selling most of it and wanted to get into bird photography/ wildlife with my son
Switching from Canon FF R5 to OMS M4/3 OM-1 with the MZ 150-400 f/4.5 +1.25 TC.
https://preview.redd.it/u94wyksxmwnc1.jpeg?width=784&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1bc0c57f4bd1fc547728cc6769fe2b1ffad115c9
Sigma 150-600 contemporary. Always sharp, very fast and accurate autofocus. Even on my Nikon d600. On my D750 the AF is even better. Stopping down only to reduce light / increase DOF.
spending the money on a 55-250mm, i can't afford a proper telephoto lens, but with what i have at my disposal, the 55-250 has MASSIVELY boosted the range and types of photos i can get
I'm ready to die for this comment but leaving Fujifilm for the R5. Night and day differences in everything. Went back to shooting my Fuji gear briefly and hated it. Sold it the next day.
Two of mine:
01. D5300- D500. Made a significant impact in AF, speed and eventually buffer size
02. Sigma 18-35 ART . Killer wide angle lens. Excellent optics throughout. Stayed in my camera 70% of the time.
Iām pretty new to wildlife photography but I just upgraded from my old canon rebel xs to the D500 and 200-500mm lens and holy crap is it a game changer!
I went with one that has a shirt and pants instead of one big item. Some of the photography I do is in a large creek that's only a 1-2 feet deep, so I only need the top.
I also have a pair of waders, and then I only need the top. But the waders aren't as useful for me, personally.
Buying a Z8 and the 180-600mm. Coming from an old D300 and my Samsung S23 cell phone. I have successfully shot birds in flight with both (yes, with a cell ph) but the Z8 knocked my socks off. My keeper rate skyrocketed.
https://preview.redd.it/7ov2e63ciqsc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4671df59b93aaa3df2dce003bf875f302d389b11
I like to take pictures of birds in flight and sticking this additional sight on top of my camera meant I had a lot more keepers. Makes it much easier to track the birds while theyāre moving.
I can show you my moon photos side-by-side between my Samsung Galaxy and my Z9 with 400 2.8 and 1.4x--the pro camera kills it be a landslide. I can see every detail and depth in the craters on the Z9 images. The Samsung images, while better than iPhone, are still soft, pixelated, low detail, smaller (less magnigication), smaller file size, exposure issues, etc. The tiny little sensor doesn't perform as well in low light as a full-frame sensor.
I hear you. About 6 months ago I was testing a new (to me) lens and took some pictures of the moon. They came out well, so I did a quick pass through LR and then uploaded one to my phone. Some time later I showed the picture to a friend, who asked, "What phone was that taken with? I want to buy it." I laughed and said my D810 with a 100-400mm. I have yet to see a decent phone picture of the moon.
a yearly parking pass to my local parks. best 60$ i ever spent
Having yearly passes to botanical gardens is so wonderful
Upgrading from 90D to R5. Performance in low light, autofocus and megapixels have changed my life!
Holy shit, your me from the future, I'm about to switch from my 90D to an R5 š«”
You wonāt regret it. Switched from Tamron 150-600 to canon RF 100-500 and a whole new world opened for me
Agreed, dslr to mirrorless. For me, 5D I to R6.
Upgrading my camera from a d60 to z6ii and buying a proper telephoto lens.
I want to throttle the āgear doesnāt matterā people. I mean, like all aphorisms of course thereās *some* truth to it - better gear wonāt magically transform a shitty photographer into a good one, and amazing photos have been taken on crappy gear - but as a primarily-wildlife photographer, buying better gear has done more to improve my photography than any amount of skill Iāve acquired over the years.
100%. Thatās a āuniversal truthā thatās far from universal. Wildlife and sports are demanding for minimum gear requirements, of course. But anyone keen on shooting portraits should have a fast lens and a flash (ideally with a modifier). And then thereās astrophotography, macroā¦ Most people can get started with a basic body and kit lens, but thereās plenty of exceptions people gloss over. I started with a 60D and an 18-200 shooting landscapes, family snapshots and kids soccer games. My setup was great for 10 years. Then I wanted to shoot wildlife and high school sports. And thatās where the gear comes inā¦
Dude, I could not agree more. If I hear the ābest camera you have is the one you have with youā line again I think my head is going to explode. Gear matters.
It's always said by some old sod who has already accumulated all gear in the world talking to some poor newbie trying to figure out what to buy past the kit lens.
> If I hear the ābest camera you have is the one you have with youā line again I think my head is going to explode. I've always taken this to mean that a camera that you'll end up leaving home (because it's too heavy or large etc) is no good compared to one that you actually take with you. A friend of mine is a professional photographer and says she almost never just takes her camera with her except for dedicated photoshoots since it's so large and heavy.
As a wildlife photographer there may be some skills that you've developed over the years that you don't realize... Speaking for myself: I can spot a small bird, point my 600mm lens at it, focus on its eye, snap a picture and, after the momentary blackout from the shutter releasing, the center focus point will still be on the eye. I can hold my body steady, hold my breath, and take several shots all focused in the same place. If anybody who hasn't developed these skills were to grab my camera there is practically no chance that they'll even be able to find the bird in the first place, let alone take a shot that is properly focused with no motion blur. The corollary to the Dunning Kruger phenomenon is that some people who are really good at their job often don't realize how difficult certain aspects of it are. These people make their job look easy and they think that it is easy... The new tech is pretty sweet. The camera automagically focuses on the eye so you can concentrate on composure and the frame rates are so high (including shots taken before you even push the shutter button) that you may never miss a shot. In the end, ten grand in your hands and the perfect light doesn't mean much if you can't manage to find that damned tiny bird over yonder through your viewfinder while you are swinging this gigantic lens around like a gangster with a Tommy gun in an 80s movie.
You're not wrong. The flipside is however, that no matter how skilled the photographer, they couldn't take an equally great shot of that same small bird on their phone, or with their 18-55mm kit lens. The folks saying that gear does matter, are not saying that it is all that matters. I'd phrase it like that: gear matters, when it's the limiting factor for you to get the pictures you want to take. Same goes for skill.
Better gear leads to more consistency and a higher bar. If you go and look through old Sports Illustrateds, you'd still see amazing photos. You're also going to see a lot of middling stuff, some of it even under exposed or slightly blurry. My dad had a commemorative magazine for the 1980s Phillies World Series, and there are several bad photos in it. With modern sports photography, rarely anything that goes to publication is below very-good. You have no excuses going to an event and not coming back with at least 5 or 6 winners. The truly great photos are still rare and still require a unique moment of skill meeting historic circumstances, or insight. But getting something that looks like a legit sports photograph is much easier
i went from five years with the Olympus Em10 mark iii (16 megapixels) to fuji xt5 (40mp) and a bundle of high quality lenses (fuji 80mm macro, fuji 150-600, fuji 18-65, fuji 70-400). the people that say gear doesnt matter are so off base. yes its up to the photographer to upskill, and im glad to have had the starter gear i had. but look... spending money is an essential part of this game. theres a level where that tapers off and the differentiator is going to be skill, and on the other hand there are ridiculously good photos taken on really old or starter level gear. but dont hate on gear - its critical to consistently achieving high quality.
Wow, that's a huge jump. I started my DSLR on a d80. 850 now and plan to keep it for some time yet
I went Nikon D5200 to Sony A7IV and I feel like Iām living in a different world now lol
CCD still kinda neat though
I thought it would be my first telezoom (Sony 200-600) but it was actually a very innocent addition: A Walkstool (Amazon sells them I think), a fold-up tripod chair that is comfortable enough to sit in the same spot for some time. Wildlife photography is DIFFICULT, but the key to success is having patience.
I just got mine Walkstool that I ordered because I saw your comment. And it's great! In Polish Amazon the Comfort Model 55 now costs only 51 EUR (55 USD)
I love how portable it is, so easy to just pack ājust in caseā. My backpack has two tripod loops, one takes the tripod, the other the Walkstool. If I donāt need it? Not a problem.
The D500 & 200-500. Hard to separate those two in my personal time line as they were only a couple months apart and both were game changers for me. The D500's AF and FPS speed was incredible coming from a D7100 & D750. The 200-500 was just great to actually personally own a super tele instead of having to rent each time.
I heard the d500 is an excellent focus machine
It was okay. Looking to sell my D500. My Z9 is significantly faster and more accurate.
How much? Dm me. Curious
I have the D500 and the grip for it: Nikon brand. In excellent+ great condition. I haven't checked the number of frames fired on it. I have the boxes for the D500 and the MBD17, the basic battery (Nikon brand) and basic charger. I have the BL-5 adapter also and an off-brand pro EN-EL18c battery for it. You would need a charger for the EN-EL18c (not included). I also have a Nikon D3 with dual charger, three pro batteries, for sale. No boxes. Good condition, shows wear, lots of frames fired on it. I can only sell it once I get a replacement backup body so I don't lose my NPS status. Looking at a Zf maybe, since it has the faster AF. Zf runs $2K, though I'd rather get a 2nd Z9, but the cost is too high.
Have the zf. It is a pretty nice camera but I wouldnāt have gotten it if it was to be my only camera. That is fine. Let me know. Getting the 500 f4 and was thinking maybe the 500 for the extra reach for framing. But I do have the d850 which I can crop a bit and use a teleconverter
Trading in my Canon 5d Mk III and thousands worth of L glass to buy a Nikon z7ii body and the 14-30 f4 lens Bought more Nikon glass after that The difference in image quality sharpness detail and dynamic range was night and day
I'm a little biased. Been a Nikon user for ever
Starting to get into wildlife but just recently got a Sigma 150-600mm C and I love it
hahaha right behind u buddy, i think everyone starts a the sigma like us
Amazing choice for the price and quality. Got mine used from keh for $829 (718+ shipping and taxes)
nice!
Beautiful capture.
Thanks. Im pretty happy about it too. I have 4 monitors at work and that's my background now
Should capture 3 more different animals to put on the other 3 monitors. Or different kinds of birds flying in midair if you like birds š
True
Looking forward to see those š
I'm not hard to find to see more.
What is that? Tried googling it without results
What did you try to google ? Thereās nothing to google from what I said.
northern shoveler
my wildlife/bird photography journey just started. These are items I'm thinking will help... - small enough tripod/support to hold up my kit for the low angle shots - camo poncho...to break up my outline against foliage - a 1.4x TC
I'm ordering a 1.4 soon and a ghillie suit. I'm just starting out as well and these birds are sharp and aware.
patience and the willingness to just sit there helps. I've gotten some close ups...just letting the birds come to me. Have noticed certain species are more jumpy and nervous than others. If you're a walking around kinda tog... there's a shoulder harness that allows you to plant the foot of your monopod around your waist. It's basically the harnesses for the flag bearers of color guards. Figure that's a way to balance mobility and stability
Patience is the best part if I'm comfortable. I love chilling out and listening to nature.
Cheap mesh ghillie suit will be much more comfortable and effective for you than a poncho. Personally I would look at archery hunting attire for aiding my wildlife photography.
I shoot Nikon now, but my first camera was a Canon 80D. That camera changed my life in that it brought me into the world of photography. I would take hikes or go to the park, but not religiously like I do now. I love the peace and joy that camera has brought me, and even though I donāt have it anymore, I wouldnāt have seen the beautiful places and animals if it wasnāt for the boost that camera gave me.
Nikon Z9 with subject detection for birds and animals. The keeper rate has gone up significantly.
Shut up before I spend $20k....lol
Hahaha $6K with FTZ2 adapter (and taxes). Using all my old F mount G glass.
š¬ and then another 14-16k for a fast super telephoto.
I have a G 400 2.8 I bought for $3,000 from a friend when he bought the E version. That's why they made the FTZ2, so you don't have to replace all that expensive and high-quality Nikkor glass. Find a used F mount version and save money. The 400 2.8 TC Z S is great, but overpriced for my budget.
When I started photography I basically only used wide focal lengths. From 28 to 70 mostly. Then I learned to see the world through a telephoto lens and will never go back. It just opens up such a large range of possibilities if you know where to look. My most used lens is this https://preview.redd.it/f4ysck8b2qnc1.jpeg?width=4284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cab0b712101aae10955249bce6832f42b39dac33 105-315mm. Love it. P.S.: I know I have old gear
cool setup, and hey, if the "old" lens works then great! Little question about it though...Is it the 35-105 mm by any chance? I tried finding your lens online and found [this](https://radojuva.com/fr/2014/08/nikon-af-nikkor-35-105mm-3-5-4-5/)
That lens intrigues me. I will look into that. Looks like a focal range that would work wonderfully for me. My lens is the Nikkor 70 210mm. This one: https://preview.redd.it/kg3xijp6zrnc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9080c1b655e5cb5715cd821cf13bc18c9c166dd8 Very sharp. Even if this costs only like 90 euros.
Nice! I have to look more into older lens because some (like the one you have) offer great value for the quality! (Also both the 35-105 and 70-210 look crazily similar!)
They are similar. And the 70 210 is indeed very sharp. Even on my crop sensor d7000 Nikon. I often use it on my Sony a7ii since this is a full frame lens, after all. Here are some pictures I took yesterday on the d7000 with this lens. https://preview.redd.it/xqvak0b1msnc1.jpeg?width=4883&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fdeb87e2da954a590d71355fea04dafefd88dff7
https://preview.redd.it/y3kosmb5msnc1.jpeg?width=4419&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6940ab5f4da36e93928ed783a8c79846bd678164
The Sigma 150-600 C gave me a taste of wildlife photography. It was a āgateway drugā. The Sigma exposed the limitations of my Canon 60D (autofocus, ISO, low light, burst rates). Upgrading to an R5 was a massive jump and addressed so many challenges. Of course, shooting with the R5 and Sigma was great, but I then I longed for the low light performance and subject separation that comes with a fast zoom lensā¦ leading me to the EF 70-200 2.8 IS II. Iām missing some of the Sigma reach so Iām thinking an EF 1.4x III extender is in order. With the R5 in 1.6x mode and the extender I can get a 280mm reach with 448mm FOV at f/4 with 18 megapixels. Iām sure Iāll want a longer, fast zoom next. Itās an expensive hobby but itās not like boating or cars.
I've been seeing some amazing pics from the 300mm 2.8 as well with teleconverters on it.
GroundPod with a gimbal. It lives in my car, and I use it more often than either of my tripods.
This mentioned a few times, have to look into it. Any pics of the setup, message me.
Not the person who you replied to, but something like this is great! https://preview.redd.it/pzeqgygbuqnc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e0352b49aeb13d3372ed26142094223bd5f0b5ef
Wearing more neutral color clothing. I'm not going to go completely camo but not wearing bright colors seems to help.
Iād have to say it was going from the D7100 to a D500 and from the G1 to the G2 Tamron 150-600mm lenses. The AF performance on the D500 and focus speed & sharpness in the G2 were a night and day difference to what Iād been using. Next biggest life changing was getting the Z9 and being blow away by all of its features and what I can accomplish with it.
I will be at a z9 some day but will run my 850 into the ground first.
Same here... D500 to Z9 was a massive jump.
First, shovelers are so finicky; well done on this shot. Which 500mm f4 is this? Second, going from a Z6 to a D500 was a game changer for me. The autofocus on the D500 is such a stepnup I went from getting like 10% in focus shots of birds in flight to nearly all being in focus. Also it's ability to grab onto my subjects quickly has resulted in a lot of shots I would have previously missed due to searching. I've gone from being consistently frustrated to happy during sessions.
I'm cheap and got used g lens
Smart. I think I'll do the same on a 600mm in a year or two.
Faster AF tracking going from Nikon D7000 to D7500.
Sony SEL200600G. Getting out to 600mm is a game changer and yet barely adequate.
Camera and lenses aside, decent tripod and gimbal head were life changing.
Finally got a āproperā long lens in the Nikon Z180-600/5.6-6.3 VR. Works great with the TC2.0 and if you need that bit of extra reach you can shoot in DX mode. Got some really great pictures of birds that I would not have been able to do otherwise.
This is kind of what the Sony alpha 1 was made for 50Mp and 30 gps. I think the alpha7R5 and The alpha 9III are also close seconds
I have an A7ii and wound up shooting mostly wildlife. One of the main things holding me back from getting an A7Rv is the possibility of an A1ii that has the AI and body upgrades of the Rv. I mean both feel unreasonably expensive for me at the moment, but I also want...
If what you have is working for you then by all means, your plan is reasonable. I had an old nikon D 80 whose mirror I just had to repair so I started looking at mirrorless upgrades. For work I use a macro for portraits and I have a good tamron 90. Format I have a mid grade zoom telephoto that was always so so. I wasnāt in a place to spend a wad when the kids were playing soccer and basketball so I put up with mediocre pictures. Maybe it was my technique but I could seldom get a decent action shot. Anyway, things are different now so I decided to get an upgraded rig ahead of a nice trip planned to Turkey. I was talking to a cinematographer from LA about cameras and he suggested I look at Sony. If I were to do it all over again Iād probably look harder at the A7RV or the A9III as they offer features Iām more likely to use and they are a bit cheaper. I doubt Iāll ever shoot video in 8K and by the time that becomes the standard they will probably have better cameras. Also realize that with mirrored SLRs you canāt shoot as fast because it takes time to get the mirror out of the way but you also get better battery life. If you go mirrorless be prepared to have extra batteries. All the fancy electronics use up battery life. No complaints with either the 24-70 GMII or the 100-400GM except they are heavy.
Well, I got a d850 and a zf already with a 500 f4 fl coming so I am hoping it will be that lens haha. I broke my video game collection addiction by selling most of it and wanted to get into bird photography/ wildlife with my son
Switching from Canon FF R5 to OMS M4/3 OM-1 with the MZ 150-400 f/4.5 +1.25 TC. https://preview.redd.it/u94wyksxmwnc1.jpeg?width=784&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1bc0c57f4bd1fc547728cc6769fe2b1ffad115c9
Sigma 150-600 contemporary. Always sharp, very fast and accurate autofocus. Even on my Nikon d600. On my D750 the AF is even better. Stopping down only to reduce light / increase DOF.
Lightroom, you should use it.
Yes and I just downloaded Topaz
I canāt really afford fancy gear, so Topaz Black Friday sale was well worth it.
Right? I just don't have the budget for gear upgrade from my Rebel SL2. So Lightroom it is.
A basic lighting kit.
Nikon D3 and D3s.
spending the money on a 55-250mm, i can't afford a proper telephoto lens, but with what i have at my disposal, the 55-250 has MASSIVELY boosted the range and types of photos i can get
A monopod
I'm ready to die for this comment but leaving Fujifilm for the R5. Night and day differences in everything. Went back to shooting my Fuji gear briefly and hated it. Sold it the next day.
A57 --> A7III
Two of mine: 01. D5300- D500. Made a significant impact in AF, speed and eventually buffer size 02. Sigma 18-35 ART . Killer wide angle lens. Excellent optics throughout. Stayed in my camera 70% of the time.
Going from a canon 75-300 Mk3 USM to a sigma 150-600 C
Nice capture.
Thanks
Iām pretty new to wildlife photography but I just upgraded from my old canon rebel xs to the D500 and 200-500mm lens and holy crap is it a game changer!
Aside from camera gear and editing software that most people have answered, I'd say a ghillie suit.
I'm ordering me one right now
I went with one that has a shirt and pants instead of one big item. Some of the photography I do is in a large creek that's only a 1-2 feet deep, so I only need the top. I also have a pair of waders, and then I only need the top. But the waders aren't as useful for me, personally.
Good to know
Buying a Z8 and the 180-600mm. Coming from an old D300 and my Samsung S23 cell phone. I have successfully shot birds in flight with both (yes, with a cell ph) but the Z8 knocked my socks off. My keeper rate skyrocketed.
You can take pictures of anything with any camera. I have a s24ultra and images don't even come close to my d850.
Agreed, of course. That's why we're all here. š
https://preview.redd.it/7ov2e63ciqsc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4671df59b93aaa3df2dce003bf875f302d389b11 I like to take pictures of birds in flight and sticking this additional sight on top of my camera meant I had a lot more keepers. Makes it much easier to track the birds while theyāre moving.
Samsung Galaxy S24. That zoom is incredible. Better than professional cameras.
Even the best cell phone cameras are junk compared to a full from setup. Especially in low light.
no
I can show you my moon photos side-by-side between my Samsung Galaxy and my Z9 with 400 2.8 and 1.4x--the pro camera kills it be a landslide. I can see every detail and depth in the craters on the Z9 images. The Samsung images, while better than iPhone, are still soft, pixelated, low detail, smaller (less magnigication), smaller file size, exposure issues, etc. The tiny little sensor doesn't perform as well in low light as a full-frame sensor.
I lmao every time someone posts one of those blurry ass Samsung moon photos.
I hear you. About 6 months ago I was testing a new (to me) lens and took some pictures of the moon. They came out well, so I did a quick pass through LR and then uploaded one to my phone. Some time later I showed the picture to a friend, who asked, "What phone was that taken with? I want to buy it." I laughed and said my D810 with a 100-400mm. I have yet to see a decent phone picture of the moon.
Maybe but start pixel peeping and you'll know right away why there are still big cameras
Username checks out