OK I gotta ask...

[Alex_B]

zoom has nothing to do with magnification by the way.

you want a long lens, not a maximum zoom.

a 500mm prime has no zoom, but still gives you a larger images of that elk than a 6x zoom which goes from 50-300mm.

keep in mind that long lenses usually need a good tripod to be used in anything but the brightest daylight.

 

[christopher walrath]

Yeah, Mav makes a strong point. The best way to shoot wildlife is very simlar to the best way to shoot wildlife. I went hunting with some friends. They and their Mavericks and Mossbergs. Me and my Minoltas and Mamiyas. I was in a deer stand, using scent and calls and the works. I had success before in luring deer, just practice though. They know when you don't have your weapon of choice. I got a fawn. Nice one too. Guys always joke me how mine dressed out at a couple of ounces but I always rejoinder that I still have mine. Where's theirs?

Wanna get close, get a blind, blend in, call game to you, be part of the world you wish to photograph. Not just an observer on the edge.

 

[Nacho]

Well my budget range I was thinking up to $1200 for everything, maybe 1500 if I put it on credit, though I hate credit cards, they get me in trouble.
I think you are right Chris W, I am for sure going to talk with some of the archery buffs around here to get some ideas. Another thought I had, is that I live not far from Great Basin Nat'l Park here in Nevada, and I imagine the critters are not quite as skittish inside the park.

Thanks again for the help!

 

[patrickt]

My brother-in-law shoots birds. He gets closer but they're smaller. He enjoys his Canon S5-IS. A good telephoto can eat your budget.

My suggestion, get one of the super-zoom fixed lens cameras and learn to take pictures. By the time you outgrow it, you'll know more about what you're looking for. The equipment isn't the critical factor. You are.

 

[AUZambo]

That's not quite right. 50m is what the human eye sees yes, but the average point-and-shoot (Which uses the 3X 4X 6X etc measurements) starts at 28mm. So a 300mm lens is really more like 11X zoom.

Believe us, 300mm is a good average zoom to use. Have you ever looked through one?

Also the majority of DSLRs have about a 1.5x crop, making a 300mm lens essentially a 450mm.

If you go with olympus (I think it's olympus...if not then panasonic) you get a 2x crop making the 300mm a 600mm.

 

[Mav]

Well my budget range I was thinking up to $1200 for everything, maybe 1500 if I put it on credit, though I hate credit cards, they get me in trouble.
I think you are right Chris W, I am for sure going to talk with some of the archery buffs around here to get some ideas. Another thought I had, is that I live not far from Great Basin Nat'l Park here in Nevada, and I imagine the critters are not quite as skittish inside the park.

Thanks again for the help!

Do you have a camera body yet? Or does $1200 need to include the body too?

 

[Nacho]

1200 for the whole deal, including body, yeah I know, I am stretching it. :meh:

 

[JustAnEngineer]

Telephoto zoom lenses can get expensive, fast.

I am familiar with the options for Canon. If you started with the new Rebel XSi for $900, you could add the $270 EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens and stay under $1200. If you started with a Rebel XTi for $600, you could add the $540 EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and stay under $1200. I bought one of these a few months ago (before the 55-250 came out). I'd like to get the $1400 EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM to bring the far away critters even closer.

On the Canon dSLR cameras with a 1.6x field of view crop factor, the 300mm lens has the same field of view as a 480mm lens would with a full-frame sensor.

 

[Nacho]

Telephoto zoom lenses can get expensive, fast.

I am familiar with the options for Canon. If you started with the new Rebel XSi for $900, you could add the $270 EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens and stay under $1200. If you started with a Rebel XTi for $600, you could add the $540 EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and stay under $1200. I bought one of these a few months ago (before the 55-250 came out). I'd like to get the $1400 EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM to bring the far away critters even closer.

On the Canon dSLR cameras with a 1.6x field of view crop factor, the 300mm lens has the same field of view as a 480mm lens would with a full-frame sensor.

I was kinda kickin around the same idea, just checking Nikon's pricing, then I will move onto the Canon's. I still have quite a bit of time to figure out what I want exactly, since I don't want to order off the internet until I have actually held the cameras in my hand and dinked with them a bit, and to do that I will have to make a trip to Vegas. That happens... well as little as possible, I hate that place!

 

[Mav]

For $1200 I'd get a cheaper body like a Canon XTi or Nikon D40 and then a 70-300mm stabilized lens to start off with, along with an 18-55 kit lens for normal stuff. If you were willing to go with a used body in order to get a nicer lens, look for a used Rebel XT or XTi and then get the Canon 300mm f/4 IS lens which is outstanding. Most 70-300 zooms are at their weakest image quality wise at 300mm, so if you're shooting wildlife where you're going to be at 300mm almost all the time, it might make more sense to just get a really nice 300mm prime lens. At f/4 it's a stop faster than a 70-300mm zoom at 300mm since they're only f/5.6 at that point. But in reality the 300mm prime is more like 2-3 stops faster because they're razor sharp at maximum aperture of f/4, whereas most 70-300mm zooms would need to be stopped down from f/5.6 to f/8 or even f/11 to get close to the same sharpness. That lets you shoot at a much lower ISO which will improve quality as well. If you're confused on any of the terminology, click the DSLR & Lenses 101 link in my sig Nikon's 300mm f/4 prime is probably as good optically, but still lacks stabilization which means you'd need a monopod or support of some sort for lower light shooting whereas the Canon is far more flexible since it already has IS.

If you think this might turn into something serious, take a close look at the super-tele lineup of the different systems and the prices. Canon super-teles are usually hundreds or even thousands cheaper than Nikon because they make it up on volume from owning the sports market for the past 20+ years.

 

[Nacho]

Thanks much Mav and the rest of you.
I actually checked your links this morning to try to enlighten my thick head about all this, and it really helped. The past few days my brain has acted as a sponge trying to soak up all the info my little peepers have been seeing.
I considered buying a used body, but that doesn't taste good, since it would probably have to be purchased from ebay or something, nahhh. I want it to be brand new, or in my hands if it is used.
I have been wanting to get a good camera for a few weeks now, and after looking at various store websites and camera company websites, I felt like I was trying to read Japanese. Just HUH? Hence why I popped onto this forum.
I am thinking a cheaper camera, a prime lens for the far away critters, but also a lens for the upclose chances I will get on my big hikes I plan on doing. I would be cussing like a sailor, well wait, I am ex-Navy, but anyway, I would be highly upset if while stalking the big elk and deer I missed a good shot of any of the other critters running around this people devoid countryside. Just to give you an idea, the county I reside in has around 10,000 people in it, but it is the size of New Jersey. Pretty spacious! So I will have some serious ground to cover. Hence why this hobby is going to be perfect for me, I love camping, I love exploring new places, and I love taking pictures. :mrgreen:
Just, if you go camping with me, leave your cellphone turned off, if it rings I might have to knock you out and throw the phone in the creek. :lmao:

 

[Mav]

For used equipment, "POTN" is the perfect place for Canon gear, and places like Nikonians or NikonCafe for Nikon. I'd have no problems buying used stuff from places like that but would never ever buy anything off of eBay. CraigsList can be good too.

 

[Phranquey]

First:

Agreeing with Mav, buy a good piece of glass first, along with a used camera. If you want good, detailed pictures, a good camera with a crap lens is sure to make you give up.



Second:

I know some people here that bowhunt, so I might have to get with them for some advice since their ranges are usually 40-80 yards, as long as they don't tell me they sit in a blind all day until something comes along, that sounds about as exciting as watching an episode of The Waltons.

Sorry, Charlie. I'm really not meaning to be a bubble-burster here, but be prepared to watch a LOT of Waltons episodes. In wildlife photography patience is THE name of the game....PERIOD. Do not expect to take a hike in the woods and have animals just sit in front of you posing for pictures. Consider yourself lucky if you get one really good shot in a weeks time, if not a few weeks or a month. I have been into wildlife photography for about 22 years now, and can tell you that, to me, it is one of the most rewarding aspects of photography, but also one of the most frustrating.
My favorite subect is birds, which to get any kind of detail, you must be within 15 to 30 FEET, not yards, with a short range zoom. This potentially means sitting very still in blinds for hours at a time around a nest, hoping that mommy bird comes back sometime soon. When she does, you move very slowly to take the picture, and just as you are about to press the shutter....bye, bye. Literally, if I had a nickel for each time this happened, I would have that 600mm AF-S II VR by now...
Mammals are even more skiddish. But, fortunately, they are a little larger, so they can be photographed from a slightly greater distance.

I'm really sorry if I sound like a sour-puss here. This is just along those pet peeves of "your camera takes nice pictures". I don't know how many times I have heard "Wow, you are lucky to have gotten that shot...." Maybe a little luck had something to do with it, but I like to think the hours of research, field observation, and shear boredom, puctuated with moments of "OMG, there it is", only to have your heart sink when it took off right before you could get the shot, made the difference in my pictures. Just asking that if you are serious, be prepared for this.

 

[Nacho]

Sorry, Charlie. I'm really not meaning to be a bubble-burster here, but be prepared to watch a LOT of Waltons episodes. In wildlife photography patience is THE name of the game....PERIOD.

No problem! I thank you for that.
I have been out and about in the mountains and seen all kinds of animals, mostly on my quad so they are on the move, but hey, if they are moving then I can track them on foot.
I do acknowledge your many years of shooting wildlife, and I think it is great. Yes I am prepared, no I don't expect an animal to sit still and pose for me, hell I can't even get my own dog to sit still for a photo in my own dang house. If it takes weeks or months to get a good shot, hey at least I will be out camping and hiking, and getting away from the world for a couple days at a time. Peace!

Glenn

 

[brileyphotog]

Mav is, as usual, correct.

But if you have the patience, and the know how, you can get very close to a lot of animals. Read an army field manual for snipers...they can be very informative