Cost to be able to take pictures of wildlife with a telephoto lens and a digital camera?

[NNN0LHI]

Owls, hawks and such mostly. Is there any reasonably priced way to accomplish this? Or are we talking big money to be able to do it?

Just need to know if this is out of my league or not? I suspect it is.

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Don

[teamster633]

1. Reasonably priced is a relative term but,

I'd say the ante for that particular game would be around $2400. An enthusiast grade DSLR will set you back ~$1200. It will have a auto focus system fast enough to accurately track moving subjects. For another $1200 you can get a fast (f/2.8) telephoto zoom in the 70-200mm range. Assuming that you will occasionally want to shoot other subjects, this will give you a little versatility and, will give you enough reach to get into the game (just). Alternately, you could buy a f/5.6 prime @400mm for about the same cost. It would be much better suited to the subjects you mention but, would have little other use for general photography. These prices are based on current Canon prices. I can't comment on other product lines having been a Canon user for over 25 years.

[ManiacJoe]

7. That is a good, realistic answer.

The newer Canon prices may be a bit higher than that shown. Nikon prices tend to be a bit higher than the Canon prices.

The Nikon D7000 and the new VR 70-200mm II or 300mm f/4 would be a good place to start on the Nikon side. Even with these starter packages, you will be looking to upgrade later to longer lenses, or so they say. :-)

This all assumes you are serious about the hobby of bird photography. You can try lower-grade equipment, which can work OK if you can get close enough; unfortunately, you can almost never get close enough.

[Celebration]

2. As usual, it depends

My favorite subject is wildlife, but I still consider myself a new photographer, and I have not felt motivated to upgrade my equipment from the more advanced, extreme zoom point and shoot, which will run you less than five hundred bucks.

I'll tell you why, and it is more of a lifestyle thing. I love to walk when I am outside. I don't like the idea of setting up and waiting for the wildlife to come to me. I also hate carrying things around, such as big lenses and tripods. I also get out in the boat a lot, and a boat and a tripod, or even monopod don't mix.

My favorite subject is birds! I have been making do with a Canon point and shoot with a 19x zoom lens.

I can't really say that I love my Canon, though. It is just okay. I'm getting ready to buy another point and shoot that is really cheap that zooms to 26x. I will probably need a monopod for the more extreme zoom on that, even with image stabilization. The camera I am thinking about buying is reslly cheap, and would be really looked down on here. ;)

Recently I posted some hawk pictures, and I panned a pretty good heron, and there are some more birds and stuff scattered in here. You be the judge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=280&topic_id=76869

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=280&topic_id=77497

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=280&topic_id=78438

[NNN0LHI]

3. If you don't want to post the name of that reasonably cheap one you like PM me please

Those are some really beautiful pictures. That is what I want to be able to do if possible. I too would not be a set-up type person as I like walking.

Thanks for the info and pictures.

Don

[Celebration]

5. eh, it is a Kodak

Here it is on Amazon...........

http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-EasyShare-Z981-Schneider-Kreuznach-Stabilized/dp/B0031RGGFM/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I16778I19J225Q&colid=32Q05L3HH6RNV

My first digital camera was a Kodak and I loved the quality of the photos. I rarely had to do any editing like I do with my Canon. Be sure to read the Amazon reviews of this carefully before you decide to try it, because there are some negatives. The one that disturbs me the most is that the quality of the shell is cheap, apparently. I know exactly what they mean, because I bought my hubby a Kodak like my first camera, but it had changed, and just *seemed* cheap.

I thought the first positive review of this camera was kind of funny. People look down on Kodaks. But my experience is that the quality of the photos are really, really good--better than my Canon. Compare the reviews of this camera to the other point and shoots with the more extreme zooms before you decide. It's really too bad that Kodak is now selling them with a cheap exterior.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Is that all I would need to take photos like you posted above?

Fingers crossed here.

Thanks.

Don

[Celebration]

12. keep in mind

I haven't tried this camera. But my goal would be that this would be better than my present camera since it is a larger optical zoom. Of course I will have to keep my hand very still, or use a monopod, or lean up against a post or tree. Other than that, even if you do walk around, in a park or place where there is wildlife, you do need a lot of patience and a bit of luck as well. The pictures of the hawk that I took were really "lucky" because it happened to be near my car, and only a few yards away. And, to really get clear flying bird pictures, you have to pan them (unless they are coming toward you) to get clear pictures. It does take some practice. You will also learn the habits of the wildlife and where they live. Even so, there will be surprises every time you get out there.

But I would recommend this hobby to anyone, especially if you have a good place to go where there are some birds and other wildlife. The more you get out and practice the better you get, and the more "luck" you will have. I do take photos of things other than wildlife, but I love to be outside in nature, walking around (not in a blind!), so that works for me. It is almost less about the photography, and more about just having to pay attention to the natural environment.

In any case I would definitely recommend starting out with one of the lower priced options. You know why? You will be able to tell if you enjoy this enough to plunk down more money. And everyone can use a good point and shoot, no matter how advanced they become. Again, I would spend the money on better equipment if I thought it fit my personal habits. It isn't the money that is stopping me. I just think I would grab my point and shoot and leave the other stuff in the closet. You see, I like to take photos at the same time as I get exercise. But as you can see I am pretty much in a minority here. I just barely belong in the Photography Group.

Be sure to look at all the point and shoots in the article that Alfredo linked. I actually might look at some of the others with 26x optical lenses. It looks like Fujifilm has a 30x so I might take a look at the reviews on that. I would like something with more zoom than I currently have. That is the main reason why I am looking to switch. The Canon I have makes the pictures look a little blah in low light situations though, and that was not true of my first Kodak.

Another investment I am about to make is Photoshop. Right now I am using various free editing programs.

[maheanuu]

17. Have you tried Gimp?

I have been a Gimp user for years, and find that it and a stitching program are about all I need any more.

I am in total agreement about using a more reasonable priced camera before plunking down the change on the creme de la creme.

[alfredo]

8. The best camera is the one you carry with you. dpreview

has a good comparison of pocket zooms. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q110superzoomgroup/ You can jump to the results page.

The Nikon P7000 looks great. It has the ugly/beautiful thing about it like the Canon G series.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikonp7000/

[Celebration]

13. thank you n/t

[alfredo]

14. Note the location of the function button. I can see my ring finger hitting it.

[Celebration]

15. there's something wrong with every single camera

You just have to decide what you can live with and what you can't. I like to read all the Amazon reviews. People will give the maximum number of stars and still list a lot of stuff wrong with the cameras. I'll probably decided between the Fujifilm and the Kodak. I'm done with Canon for awhile. Maybe I'll get a Nikon DSLR at some point down the road.

[alfredo]

16. DSLR's are a bit heavy for me. I might go 4/3.

So far my Canon G10 has been a solid camera.

Do keep the Nikon in mind. It looks pretty good. It specs well. Look at the Lumix LX5 too.

I want perfection for $199.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

4. Do you now see owls and hawks

regularly? If not, you won't see them with a camera, no matter what you spend.

Why digital? Do you have deadlines? Film cameras are dirt cheap now. And development costs have come down, especially when you consider the cost of an equivalent dslr rig. How much film can you process for 5k?

I am not trying to be a dick here. I hope it does not come off that way. I believe more and more the camera is meaningless to the process of taking photos, only a tool.

People drive me nuts when they see my photos and say, "wow, you must have a great camera" I know they mean it to be a compliment... how come they never say. "wow, you interpreted the light just right here, or "man, you got close to that beast.

/rant off

[Celebration]

6. here is my experience

Having a camera made me see more wildlife. Whereas I didn't notice the birds much before, they attracted my attention after I had a camera. I never knew Shelby Farms had bluebirds until I bought a camera! I had only noticed one blue heron at Shelby Farms before I had a camera. I had never seen a green heron in my life, that I knew of, before I had a camera.

I could go on and on. Having a camera changes the way we look at the world. That is my experience.

Also, I have to say, my opinion is that getting a film camera to shoot wildlife is a terrible idea. Birds can move really, really fast. It is hard to pan them and get good pictures. It is a huge challenge to get photos of wildlife moving. There are just way too many throwaway photos to use a film camera. They may be cheap but the processing costs would eat up the savings really quickly.

[bluedigger]

9. I have a friend who has been getting some great stuff with average equipment.

By average, I mean good but not professional. She started out with a Nikon D60 and has recently upgraded to a D90, and uses a 300 telephoto lens (I think). The secret to her success is that she built a blind and shoots with a tripod. She waits hours out in the blind. Patience, patience, patience. She has great shots of everything from birds to a bobcat. But, yeah, I agree with the others that you need at least a $1000-2000.

[Celebration]

10. waiting for hours in a blind?

Wow, she really has to be dedicated! I'm sure she gets some fantastic shots.

Goes to show you why I am very happily not a pro!!