When I know there is a nocturnal house or an aquarium I always take my 50mm Canon 1.8 with me. Normally I only take the Sigma 100-600 5.6-6.3 and the Canon Macro 100mm 2.8 with me. The Canon is very good for photograph in a terrarium, because the small focus distance, but photograph fishes is disappointing, because there is fast a refraction of light visible on your pictures.
I am shooting with a Nikon D850 and usually 200-500mm lens. A friend of mine recently got a mirrorless Sony camera and has been showing me his stuff and the desire to go mirrorless has certainly been tempting... First I need to win the lottery, haha.
D850 is a great camera. I use the D500 with the same lens, but I hear what you're saying about mirrorless. Thinking of making the move myself. Anyone using mirrorless after switching from DSLR? What are your thoughts?
I moved to mirrorless from an old DSLR setup so it was a ‘what next’ timely replacement if that makes sense - I went APSC format first and then full frame (still use both). Enjoying the mirrorless experience a lot - I like the EVF though I know it can divide opinion. I really like the weight and enjoy the silent shooting on the electronic shutter. It’s very quiet and I definitely notice that stood next to someone who is shooting away like the ‘paps’ these days. The A9 (which is not the latest but it’s still very relevant) was easy enough to find second hand now (I really wanted one for ages and waited for the second hand market to arrive at a place I’d saved for) and has 20fps with no blackout and good battery life. Mine has a shutter count of around 100 as people don’t often use the mechanical shutter. I like the live histogram and I use it a lot more than I had thought I would. The AF and phase tech is excellent - easily tracking horses jumping or birds is really cool. I used to use BBF and I don’t bother any more as it’s easy to acquire focus static or moving and get the picture I like. The weight makes a difference and I find it easier to carry my setup around all day. It’s not that big a difference if you add a grip though. The APSC a6000 had much worse battery life than my A9 or the A7iii I had on the way (again that was second hand and I traded it back for the A9) so needed to carry a spare but it wasn’t the end of the world. The latest APSC ones from all manufacturers have better batteries I believe and on FF it’s fine. It’s still less than a DSLR though. People criticise the Sony ergonomics / size sometimes but I much prefer the feel and the balance. That’s a personal preference thing and some photographers like the big camera feel. Glass makes a huge difference of course and Sony now has a good selection of lenses for the mount (I spend 99% of my photo time on outdoor / wildlife / sports so I’m from a quite specific subset of users I guess) and good support from third parties. All of the big makers have great mirrorless offers (I’m not wedded to Sony and have swapped between systems over the years) so that’s great too. It’s obviously where things are going but there’s still years left in DSLR. I switched as while DSLR are not end of life it seemed a good time to make the move vs buying another. I switched systems at the same time having read all the reviews, gone and looked at the camera in hand in camera shops and considered budget etc. It’s a technical changing of the guard now and mirrorless now does everything it needs to, but DSLRs aren’t dead / over by any means.
It definitely is a nice camera, the only trouble I have is how heavy it is when combined with the lens I use haha. I'm not that strong and it definitely wears me out after a long day of shooting.
It does get a bit smaller with some of the mirrorless cameras; the size of some of the big Pro DLSR cameras is now a bit much for me compared to the A9 I on (pic comparing from camera decision) and one of the reasons I swapped when I had one in hand (the A6000 I started with is even smaller). I notice the weight /size difference on a longer day (I carry my camera on a black rapid cross strap by the lens foot). Picture credit: Nikon D850 vs Sony A9 Detailed Comparison). The 850 is a great bit of kit though, good MP. Clearly this is also comparing Nikon to Sony which I am sure is some sort of heresy (I don't care about brands myself but some people really do!).
I don't have any particular brand loyalty, just the fact that I've got expensive glass in one brand and swapping brands means buying everything new realistically. I have seen really good things out of the Sony mirrorless cameras and your photos are certainly a testament to that. There is some photographers on YouTube I follow that use the A1 and I dream about it lol. Though I know the D850 is also a stellar wildlife camera.
That's a concern of mine. Switch brands when you've invested already in one brands expensive glass. That's why I might stick with the Nikon's mirrorless camera.
True both - I only had a couple of lenses before and if I’d had more or they’d been really good I’d have stayed with one system. I had it a bit easier as I’d got old kit that was aging and decided to really get back into the hobby at the same time. I’d also stick with Sony now as I was able to invest more in the last few years so now have some good glass I wouldn’t want to build up again. I think we are lucky in that all of the major players now have great mirrorless (and other) options! And getting better all the time too. I don’t think you can go far wrong with any of them. And with a camera like the D850 it’s very sound still so not forcing a decision.
Yes, the major players are all investing heavily in mirrorless. It's get to the point, where it becomes about preference and what glass you already own. Good thing about going Sony is that you can get different adapters to use lens from other companies.
Last year, I received a Canon EOS Rebel T7 camera kit last year. Being a birder, I realized I needed a telephoto lens (definitely important in large, tall, walk-through aviaries). My boyfriend bought for me a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III telephoto zoom lens and it was a game changer. When I have to resort to my phone, I have a Google Pixel 5 but I'm planning to upgrade to the Pixel 7 when it comes out. So far, it has done a decent job when I'm in a pinch. For anyone who uses Canon, which model is recommended for "stepping up" from an EOS Rebel T7? A major problem I have (like what I encounter with San Francisco Zoo's South America Tropical Rainforest and Aviary, and I have a feeling that I'll have this problem with San Diego's walkthrough aviaries) is that even at the highest ISO, some of my pictures are still dark, and sometimes when I look through what I've taken, I can barely make out what I shot. I've tried to account for other factors like shutter speed and aperture but even with those accounted for, it still comes out dark. Any advice or camera recommendations?
If you’re shooting at the long end a lot of the time (so 300) to get the shots then the available light is reduced a fair bit indoors at 5.6. Along with indoor lighting which can be a bit flickery you can end up with some darker images. You could try raising the exposure when you shoot (I think there’s an exposure compensation setting in canon though confess I’m not familiar with canon menus sure someone here is though). Or as little red panda mentioned if you have lightroom on your phone you could try compensating in that - perhaps get white balance sorted, raise the exposure using the slider and then adjust brightness and contrast to suit and get the depth of the colours back.The most editable image format is raw though you can brighten jpegs and they are often fine from the camera. Raw gives you more data to mess about with. It’s still not easy to shoot in aviaries unless they have some natural light and a lens at 5.6 doesn’t love low light.
There's only so much you can lower shutter speed without making it impossible to get a non-blurry photo or increase your iso without deteriorating the image. Stuff like that is when you sometimes have to bring in post-processing. I recommend Adobe Photoshop. An adjustment layer with with screen mode can work wonders on an underexposed photo.
Hi, I shoot Canon, and started with a D80 (I'm in UK so maybe a different model number in USA). With my sigma 120-400 lens, I couldn't get above 800 ISO without having a really noisy/dark picture. My D80, and I believe the Rebel T7 have APS-C sensors, which are smaller than full frame, great for focal length, and cropping down, however ,lousy for dim light. (Unless flash is used) When using a 300mm lens with a APC camera, you will get longer focal length than 300mm, depending on what your crop factor is, so it's great for shooting that bird in bright sunshine. But, when the bird is in a dark hedge, the camera can't cope and you have to turn the ISO up, so creating a noisy shot. With full frame, you lose that extra focal length from your glass, and 300mm is 300mm, but you can tweak the ISO up much more and it lets more light into the camera. Basically you have to weigh up what you want, clear shots or more focal length. I picked up an old 2011 Canon 1DX pro, and haven't looked back. It's incredibly heavy, especially with my zoom, but I wouldn't go back to crop sensor now. The 5D mk 4 is a standard full frame wildlife/bird camera. That's the DSLR I'd choose now if I were upgrading from APC. Or if you can afford it, go mirrorless, Canon R6 or R5 have great results for wildlife. Hope this helps. Good luck!
I have a Nikon P100 Coolpix (bridge) and a Nikon D5200 (dslr). I've had my P100 since 2010 and to this day there are still things I'm like "oh that's how that goes". I'm generally not one to read a manual and like to figure out things for myself, so it's a very slow process, haha. My D5200, I bought as a kit (body, lenses, bag, sd card) as it was cheaper and I just wanted something more then the bridge model I already had. It came with an 18-55mm and a 55-300mm. It's a pain, because I usually walk around with the big lens first, and then do a second round with the other one. As I've never really had the funds to get a complete new lens (have been looking at Tamron and Sigma also, but still, too pricey for the amount of times I was using my camera these past few years). Overal, extremely happy with what both my camera's (and I) can do, the colors especially on the P100 are so vibrant, which I personally love.
In a bit of a quandary. Although I like the 200-500mm I bought three and a half years ago, I had often wondered if I should have bought the Tamron 18-400 instead of the big lens and the Nikon 18-300. Both were good prices at the time, with a couple of hundred pounds off of each (not grey imports). Part of the fun of my zoo trips was the driving, but it's really winding me up now, so I started thinking about trading my two Nikons for the Tamron I'd thought about earlier, or even the Tamron 100-400, in order to plan trips further afield. Taking one smaller lens by plane would be cheaper and easier for my long intended trips. Now, while I was on my last day of a recent trip to Beauval and Pairi Daiza (apart from Tolls, I prefer driving through France, or the likes of Belgium) I noticed the 200-500 zoom was sticking a bit. When I got home, it seemed alright so I though maybe a bit of dust had got in there and was now free. Unfortunately, while I was at Chester at the weekend, it just didn't want to go below 400mm at times, but seemed to free itself randomly. Obviously I can't sell it on or trade it in this condition. Looking at the Nikon site, they have initially quoted around £700 to repair it. They're about £1300 new now and I'd be surprised if I got £700 for mine if it wasn't jamming. I took it to one of the Nikon approved repair shops and they said they might still need to send it to Nikon and it could be a long wait. The lens at this point felt like it was jammed solid at 200mm, but when I got home I managed to release it again, but it still sticks when I wind it down past 400mm. So I'm wondering if Nikon repair prices at generally high at the moment due to ongoing problems related to covid (getting parts etc) and are they likely to drop? Do I just keep the lens as an expensive 400-500mm? It really feels okay in this range. Do I send the lens to Nikon and hope they find it's not as damaged as suspected and therefore drop the price, as the website says they do? If they find it would be more expensive, they would charge something like a tenner to return it, hopefully in the same state as it was sent.
I’ve not had a Nikon lens stick but I did have an old canon one that got some dirt in it and tried sliding some paper around the zoom to see if I could free it (didn’t work though people said it had for them but might be worth a try). Given the price of it on balance I would send it off for a repair quote as although you have to pay the postage, if it turned out to be something simple and cheaper it would be worth it. If not you can then resign it to being a stuck long zoom and then consider if you want something shorter as less of an ‘emergency’ thing. I know what you mean about big lenses - I take my 200-600 to big places like YWP / Whipsnade or wetlands but most of the time I take my 100-400 (with or without tc) or 150-500 as they are just so much easier to carry about!
