What camera/lense options for wildlife/bird photos

[ryder]

By the way, Thanks to all for your patience with a beginner. I know some of these questions seem confused since I am having trouble sorting out the things I am finding on the web and on here. I really is overwhelming to a beginner.

Another question I have is "Is it worthwhile to look at used equipment?" And can a person find some good used lenses for a D3000? I am thinking of later after I pay off the camera and save for expanding my kit. Or would a different Nikon camera be better with those thoughts in mind? Having seen some of the prices on better lenses, new seems out of reach for someone who's income is Social Security!!!

[inkista]

This is probably selfish of me, but I'm going to put forward another possible choice.

If the bulk of your photography is going to be for wildlife and birds (especially birds in flight), but you're on a budget, you may want to consider going with a Canon entry-level body instead. Autofocus is a must with birds in flight. And all the Canon EF/EF-S lenses autofocus on all the Canon bodies. The focus motor thing is solely a Nikon issue and only on their entry-level bodies. And while the majority of telephoto zooms on the Nikon side will autofocus (i.e., have an AF-S motor in them), a few key ones don't. The 80-400, and nearly all the primes don't.

A Canon 1000D doesn't cost that much more than a D3000. Trying them both out in a store is also a good idea, since some folks find the Canon entry level body grips uncomfortable. Also, getting a twin-lens kit with a 55-200/55-250 lens is not a bad idea. The good news is that on the Nikon side, you may get a better deal for birding, since the Nikon 55-200 is AF-S, while the Canon 55-250 is not USM.

Olympus is not a choice I'd necessarily make in this arena, only because your lens choices are smaller, and the prices are often a little bit higher. Plus, you can't actually find a lens in their lineup longer than 300mm (without going Sigma), so the highest you can get is a 600mm equivalent and only with a zoom. My 400mm on my crop-body Canon (1.6x) has an effective focal length of 640mm, and because it's a prime, it'll take a 1.4x tc pretty well.

Unfortunately, lens-wise, Canon still has the same issue of the lens you want is probably too expensive to buy, and renting locally at your destination spot is probably still going to be the path you want, and you're probably going to want to find a lens with USM (Canon's name for AF-S) so that it focuses quickly. I do agree that a consumer 70-300 is not going to perform autofocus as quickly as you want it to for birds in flight. But also that even with a lens that autofocuses quickly enough, it can still take a lot of practice, quick reflexes, and the luck of being in the right place at the right time to nail the shot.

Canon might be a better choice here, since they offer a few telephoto and supertelephoto choices Nikon doesn't. My 400mm f/5.6 prime is one lens that has no equivalent on the Nikon lineup. Nikon only offers a VR 70-200 f/2.8. Canon gives you your choice of max. aperture f/4 and with or without stabilization with four different 70-200 lenses, so you only pay for as much lens as you need. There are more midrange choices in telephoto on the Canon side, so for sports/wildlife shooting on a budget, it may work out better for your pocketbook, unless you're happy to save even more money by going with Tamron/Sigma alternatives.

Yes, you can find used Nikon cameras as well as lenses, and that's always a good way to save money, as long as you know you can trust the seller to have accurately described the piece of equipment. In terms of lenses you can use, they have to have a Nikon mount on them. So, no Minolta lenses. Generally speaking, you can't use a lens from another camera brand, but you can use them from third-party manufacturers (like Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, Cosina-Voigtlander, etc.) if they were made in the Nikon mount. [You could physically adapt the mount, but that's a completely different story]. However, you do want to be aware that a lot of lenses prior to 1980 or thereabouts may not have autofocus capability, or aperture control from the body of the camera. So with older lenses, depending on how far you go back, function can be lost.

I'd recommend that if you want to research used equipment prices, that keh.com is a good place to start. They're an online dealer in Atlanta that specializes in selling/buying used equipment. I've purchased from them multiple times and I'm very happy.

[ryder]

Thanks, inkista! You can be selfish anytime!

Seriously, thank you for such a long and detailed answer. I now better understand the situation and will happily look at Canon. I saw them in the store and they were slightly higher than the Nikon and I was not familiar with Canon at all. I have been impressed with the Nikon point and shoots since most folks are amazed at the photos I have been getting lately without a major camera. Of course I have been going out 3-4 times a week for several hours each time and I might only get one or two photos out of 100-150 taken that I am happy with. I am sure that I can get use to another brand, so this is what I have been trying to understand. If I have a better selection of lenses available, then Canon is worth looking into. Back to the shopping!

Thanks again.

[inkista]

Yeah, the thing is "better selection" is in the eye of the beholder. Canon gives you better selection on telephotos and superteles (and possibly tilt-shifts). But if, say, you wanted pancake lenses for street shooting, you want Pentax. If you want an f/2 zoom or tiny cameras, go Olympus. If you want great wide-angle glass, Nikon beats Canon. If you wanted tons of micro-contrast with Zeiss glass--Sony/Minolta is the only mount that's got Zeiss glass that autofocuses. Each brand has more or less survived by having something the other ones don't. And all of them are good.

[ryder]

Like I mentioned before, I am a lone wolf in the woods. I don't take pictures of people too much. Mostly I have been doing landscape/seascape with lots of sky effects. I watch for weather that makes dramatic skies (I use to paint in acrylics on canvas and skies were a favorite of mine). I have lately taken to old barns and tool sheds. Local backroads give me lots of horses that just stand and watch me while I take several shots. I also go to conservation areas and hike or set up blinds and wait, so some are closer than others, but most are at max zoom on my point and shoot (35mm equivalant to 414mm). Your help pointed me in the direction and now it is up to me. Thanks again.

[ryder]

By the way, maybe an article for beginners might be helpful to have up front on this site. Something like your last couple of posts that might give reasons for each brand for certain uses from several authors point of view. The guy who wants to film his kids soccer match needs different camera from someone shooting bugs and they need something different from someone shooting weddings, etc.

Just a thought.