DSLR or Mirrorless for Wildlife

[wiiaphoto]

In the old days of film cameras, I had a Minolta that I used for wildlife when I was backpacking. Often, most shots come when I'm in a forest where there are layers of objects between me and what I want to capture. I had my Minolta set on automatic except for manual focus so I could be sure the object I'm interested in was in focus. It worked out well for me.

Nowadays, I have my smartphone, a Galaxy S10, which is not working out for me. For instance, in the picture attached, I was trying to get a clear picture of the deer but the camera kept focusing on layers of tree branches or bushes in front of it no mater what I did.

I'd like to mirrorless camera that I can set on automatic, except for manual focus, so when an animal appears I can grab the camera, focus it, and take the picture. Weight and size are an issue as I take my pictures while backpacking. I also want video capability. I missed two opportunities to clearly capture a rattlesnake and don't want to continue going home with nothing but blurry pictures.

I'm looking for something basic such as a SONY 6000 or 6100 or maybe a Canon M50, EOS 6, or EOS 6 Mark II. Would any of these work? The simple truth is I am not experience in photography, don't know what to look for, and was hoping to get some direction of an appropriate mirrorless for my situation from the depth of experienced users here.

 

[Space Face]

I'd have thought using AF would be infinitely better than using MF for most wildlife scenarios, particularly for moving subjects or subjects that are likely to move. Some of today's cameras and lenses have super fast AF systems that can snap on to your subject almost instantly, way quicker than trying to manually focus in my experience.

 

[wiiaphoto]

In the picture above, the deer was motionless when I took the picture. Then, it bounded away in the blink of eye and was gone. I tried using the "focus box" on my S10 but it was too large to get squarely on the deer's head. Obviously, as we can see from the picture, the S10 focused on the greenery in the foreground.

Would AF on a digital camera be able to get the deer clearly if it was not moving?

 

[Space Face]

In the picture above, the deer was motionless when I took the picture. Then, it bounded away in the blink of eye and was gone. I tried using the "focus box" on my S10 but it was too large to get squarely on the deer's head. Obviously, as we can see from the picture, the S10 focused on the greenery in the foreground.

Would an AF be able to get the deer clearly if it was not moving?

Absolutely. You can use a variety of single or multiple focus points to focus on the area of the subject you want. This is especially useful when shooting through foreground obstructions.

 

[Strodav]

The best resource for wildlife / birding information hands down is Steve Perry at backcountrygallery.com Read through his site before you buy. What you are looking for is an aps-c camera body, but there are some good FF bodies as well, with the best AF system you can afford. An AF system with animal eye tracking is what birders are flocking to (pun intended) right now. Low light capability is a plus, which helps with dark birds / animals in shadow and you want high frames per second capability. 6fps is bare minimum, but 10fps and higher is more like it. As important as the camera is the lens. You can never have too much reach so an absolute minimum is 300mm, but with an x1.4 teleconverter. The choices most people on a budget look at today are the Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 G2, Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Contemporary or sport, Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6, Sony 200-600mm f/5-6.3, Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, but Canon has just released 600mm and 800mm f/11 primes that are very affordable and they are getting a lot of very good reviews right now, especially mounted on Canon's new R5. Most manufactures have 400mm and 500mm primes that are popular as well.

Good luck.

 

[zombiesniper]

Any mirrorless or DSLR will do better than a phone since in a cluttered environement you can switch to a single AF point.

In the image that you presented I would be able to get a clear shot of the deer. So would any DSLR/mirrorless.

However this still requires you to have a proper shooting technique in order to ensure you are putting the focus point in the right spot and that you are as steady as possible. Shakey waving camera around type of people still get shakey waving camera around type of images. New gear doesn't sort out all problems. The photographer also has to put in the time practicing goot shooting techniques to maximise the cameras chances of capturing the image.

As for what camera/lens, Best you can within your budget.

 

[zombiesniper]

The best resource for wildlife / birding information hands down is Steve Perry at backcountrygallery.com Read through his site before you buy. What you are looking for is an aps-c camera body, but there are some good FF bodies as well, with the best AF system you can afford. An AF system with animal eye tracking is what birders are flocking to (pun intended) right now. Low light capability is a plus, which helps with dark birds / animals in shadow and you want high frames per second capability. 6fps is bare minimum, but 10fps and higher is more like it. As important as the camera is the lens. You can never have too much reach so an absolute minimum is 300mm, but with an x1.4 teleconverter. The choices most people on a budget look at today are the Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 G2, Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Contemporary or sport, Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6, Sony 200-600mm f/5-6.3, Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, but Canon has just released 600mm and 800mm f/11 primes that are very affordable and they are getting a lot of very good reviews right now, especially mounted on Canon's new R5. Most manufactures have 400mm and 500mm primes that are popular as well.

Good luck.

While what you have posted is true. It is also aimed at a different kind of wildlife shooter. The OP is looking for something a little less than a dedicated 10-15lb wildlife rig.

 

[petrochemist]

My DSLR is generally better with long lenses, than my mirrorless bodies - but this is mainly down to which lenses I have. None of my longest lenses give AF on my mirrorless cameras.
In addition my DSLRs would also focus on the branches in a shot like this the AF points aren't small enough to get the deer without the foreground, and AF tends to go for the nearest thing in it's zone.
To get the deer in focus I'd have to resort to moving to get a clearer view or use manual focus. My mirrorless bodies are definitely better when it comes to manual focus.

If I was after a light weight affordable camera for this sort of occasional shooting I think a bridge camera would probably be the way to go. They don't suit my style as I like tinkering to much, but they do have fantastic reach.

 

[Soocom1]

The primary issue here is AF point settings.
And the ability to focus quickly either AF or MF in certain situations.

As previously mentioned, any DSLR or Mirrorless will fill the bill, however!

The real crux is the SPEED of the AF system and the ability to lock and hold.
The Nikon and Canon systems do this just fine.
The Fuji probably does also as well as the Sony mirrorless.
The thing to consider though is this.
When shooting wildlife and as you figured and experienced, critters get spooked. Long reach lenses help immensely. (100-600mm range)
Auto stabilized ICIS, or IS lenses will fit that bill perfectly, but you will put out some money for them.
The real thing you want to focus on is FPS rate and buffer rate. (Frames per Second)
This is how quickly the camera shoots, and how quickly or how many images it can shoot in multi shot mode. Here the more modern cameras will work, or something designed for sports shooting. A high FPS and buffer rate will tell you if you can catch the shots of the animals running in mid stream with all 4 in the air or a bird making a pitch and yaw into prey or some such. Such cameras are also designed to maximize the AF systems in the lenses.

 

[wiiaphoto]

I appreciate everyone's input. thank you. One other factor I will mention. Where I go, everything is under the canopy of trees and the forest is dense. The notion of seeing something 100 yards away will almost never happen.

Most likely, and what I would like to plan around, will be a deer ninja slipping quickly into the brush 25-50 yards away.

 

[BrentC]

What is your price point? If size and weight are an issue I would highly recommend an Olympus.

 

[wiiaphoto]

What is your price point? If size and weight are an issue I would highly recommend an Olympus.

I'd like to keep it no more than $1,100

 

[Soocom1]

What is your price point? If size and weight are an issue I would highly recommend an Olympus.

I'd like to keep it no more than $1,100

That will land you some prittey decent used equipment.

A FF Canon or Nikon and if you shop around find a well kept 100-400 lens.

 

[BrentC]

Thats a tough budget for a wildlife setup. A used EM5 MKIII with 75-300 II lens would be around that price point. Body would be small, light, weather sealed and fast AF. The lens won't be weather sealed though. You could also go with a 14-150 II lens, it is shorter than the other but will give you a one lens setup for most of your needs and its weather sealed .
The AF is fast enough you don't need to use manual focus.

 

[BrentC]

What is your price point? If size and weight are an issue I would highly recommend an Olympus.

I'd like to keep it no more than $1,100

That will land you some prittey decent used equipment.

A FF Canon or Nikon and if you shop around find a well kept 100-400 lens.

He said he needs to carry while backpacking. I assume he wants a smaller setup