Looking to buy first DLSR camera

[TheDuckGuy]

Hey all,

New here. I am looking to purchase my first DSLR before I head out to the midwest for a job. I am an avid wildlife enthusiast, waterfowl hunter, fisherman, etc. I am looking for a camera/lens combination for these purposes, especially birds in flight & at distances. My budget is about $1000 to get started. I am currently looking at a Nikon D3100 & pairing it with a 70-300mm telephoto lens (maybe also Nikon). Any information, pros/cons to the D3100, recommendations for cameras, telephoto lenses, etc, or insight you could give me I would graciously appreciate.

Thanks!

 

[PropilotBW]

If your budget is $1000, have you looked into the D5100? There are some nice features over the 3100. Both are outdated models, so they both are attractive prices. You can get one for $850 with the 18-55 kit lens plus the 55-300 zoom. If you havent already, visit Digital Photography Review to compare models.

 

[Greiver]

I currently use the D3100 and I love it. It's outdated but still a great camera and at a really low price if you look in the right places for what you get. Guide Mode makes it really good for beginners.

 

[Dave01]

If you go canon get a t3i

If you go Nikon get a d3200.

 

[SCraig]

Hey all,

New here. I am looking to purchase my first DSLR before I head out to the midwest for a job. I am an avid wildlife enthusiast, waterfowl hunter, fisherman, etc. I am looking for a camera/lens combination for these purposes, especially birds in flight & at distances. My budget is about $1000 to get started. I am currently looking at a Nikon D3100 & pairing it with a 70-300mm telephoto lens (maybe also Nikon). Any information, pros/cons to the D3100, recommendations for cameras, telephoto lenses, etc, or insight you could give me I would graciously appreciate.

Thanks!

What is your idea of "At Distances"? These Wood Ducks were shot at only 42 meters with a 700mm lens on a crop-sensor camera (Nikon D7000) for a 35mm equivalent focal length of 1,050mm, and it is not a very sharp photograph.

This is what you can expect at about 75 yards with a 300mm lens (straight out of the camera with no editing other than resizing) ...

 

[Dave01]

That 70-300 isn't gonna be fun with autofocus..gonna be slow if your trying to get in flight shots.

 

[SCraig]

That 70-300 isn't gonna be fun with autofocus..gonna be slow if your trying to get in flight shots.

I do it all the time. Works quite well for me.

 

[texkam]

If you go canon get a t3i

I'd go with the latest, the T4i.

Your lens will be your most important purchase; make it a good one.

 

[TheDuckGuy]

If your budget is $1000, have you looked into the D5100? There are some nice features over the 3100. Both are outdated models, so they both are attractive prices. You can get one for $850 with the 18-55 kit lens plus the 55-300 zoom. If you havent already, visit Digital Photography Review to compare models.

That was something I actually failed to mention in my original post, I did see this kit but was somewhat hesitant about going towards a kit. I'm not overly concerned if it's not the "latest and greatest" so to speak. I don't want to shell out a ton of extra money for a camera that'll be obsolete in a couple years, especially since it'll be my first..

 

[TheDuckGuy]

Hey all,

New here. I am looking to purchase my first DSLR before I head out to the midwest for a job. I am an avid wildlife enthusiast, waterfowl hunter, fisherman, etc. I am looking for a camera/lens combination for these purposes, especially birds in flight & at distances. My budget is about $1000 to get started. I am currently looking at a Nikon D3100 & pairing it with a 70-300mm telephoto lens (maybe also Nikon). Any information, pros/cons to the D3100, recommendations for cameras, telephoto lenses, etc, or insight you could give me I would graciously appreciate.

Thanks!

What is your idea of "At Distances"? These Wood Ducks were shot at only 42 meters with a 700mm lens on a crop-sensor camera (Nikon D7000) for a 35mm equivalent focal length of 1,050mm, and it is not a very sharp photograph.

This is what you can expect at about 75 yards with a 300mm lens (straight out of the camera with no editing other than resizing) ...

I see your point. I guess my idea of "at a distance" for my intentions would be at or less than 50 yards (birds on ground, birds in flight, birds decoying while hunting, etc). Probably 15-25 yards would be my typical shooting range for wildlife. What would you recommend then lens wise that wouldn't break the bank?

 

[SCraig]

For 15 to 25 yards the 70-300 would probably work just fine. Add a 1.4x teleconverter to it to increase it to a 98 to 420mm lens. You WILL lose some light with a teleconverter (how much depends on the focal length multiplier) and you will lose some amount of image quality (how much depends on brand and quality), but sometimes the extra reach is worth it.

My first shot of the Wood Ducks was with a 150-500mm lens and a 1.4x teleconverter. It isn't as sharp as my 500mm alone would have been, however I would have had to crop the show with the 500mm alone so much that it would begin to get pixelated. I took that shot both ways and the 500 with the 1.4x TC virtually uncropped was the one that worked best.

Teleconverters are available in 1.4x, 1.7x, and 2.0x length multipliers.

 

[hirejn]

The D3100 is good for starting out. You don't need anything more. More features, speed or file quality won't make any difference if you're not getting perfect exposure and lighting. Once you have outgrown the capabilities of the D3100, then you can worry about spending more on frame rates, file quality and other features. Until then, invest in education. That's not to say equipment isn't important. It pays to get the best lenses you can afford, but don't rely on the equipment itself to get good images. That's up to you. I have a blog about this coming up.

Photographing birds at any distance is difficult, and 300 mm is not enough unless you're up close. Honestly, you'll need at least 600 mm to get anything great, even at a reasonably close range. The wood duck image on my site was taken at 300 mm just a couple of arm lengths from my blind. That's how close you have to be with 300 mm to fill the frame. Joel Nisleit Photography | Scenics | Nesting Wood Duck Pair. That was taken with a D100, BTW. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't get a 300 mm lens. That's a good lens for many wildlife grabs. The key is knowing how to get close to the subject. This is a challenge even for me. To get truly great wildlife images, you have to invest as much time into understanding the subject as you do money in lenses. Even with the blind you're not guaranteed great images. You still have to know when the wood ducks get there, how they behave, how to meter and expose.

 

[TCampbell]

The lenses are more important than the body for what you want to do (not that the body isn't important... but the lenses are more important.)

Birders tend to use lenses that are in the 400mm neighborhood ... give or take. With birds in flight it's difficult to keep them in frame if you go much higher (e.g. at 500 to 600mm the field of view is so narrow that if they get out of the field of view you struggle to get them back in. I have a 300mm lens which is perhaps a bit less than I'd like, but if I use a 2x teleconverter with it (so it's 600mm) it's actually too much in that I struggle to track a bird in flight.

There are lots of zooms that go up to about 300mm for an "affordable" price (I know everybody's budget is different) but there aren't many options after 300mm without buying lenses with steep price tags.

There are guys who do "digi-scoping" (attaching an often budget-priced camera to a spotting scope) but since the camera can't control focus or aperture and you have to manual focus the scope it's not good for "action" or birds in flight. But for birds NOT in flight you can get some amazing shots.

Scott has some good examples... notice the 700mm lens is shooting stationary birds. The 300mm happens to be stationary birds but frankly he could easily have captured birds in flight... but notice these aren't close high detailed shots at 300mm. BTW... cautionary note... 400mm is only a 33% increase from 300mm.

Sigma makes a couple of lenses (150-500mm and 120-400mm) which are in the range of what you want and priced at near the $1000 mark. I have NO IDEA if these lenses are any good not (some of their lenses are amazing... and some of their lenses are junk.)