Saving up for new equipment. Recommendations?

Hello!

 

I've seen articles about this question. However, camera equipment is expensive! I'd like to see what you guys think about my specific case before buying new equipment.

 

Last christmas, I was given a basic Camera/Lens kit as a gift containing:

1. A Canon Rebel T6 (Not i)
   
2. A 18-55mm, F/3.5-5.6 lens with Image Stabilization
   
3. A 70-300mm, F/4-5.6 lens without Image Stabilization
   

I'm starting to love wildlife photography and frequently visit nearby forests to photograph birds, or go out at night with a flashlight to take pictures or videos of amphibians, owls, etc. I'm now thinking about upgrading my equipment. So far I've identified several things I would like to improve:

1. The forests nearby are very dense! Light often doesn't creep through the canopy.
   
2. On top of that, they are mostly rainforests, humid forests and often have many clouds. Because of this, I end up with many noisy photos.
   
3. I shake a lot! This doesn't really help when I try to lower the shutter speed to photograph a still subject.
   

I found that most of my problems could probably be solved by having equipment that works better with low light conditions. On one hand, I've seen people with cameras that seem to handle high ISO really well. On the other hand, a lot of people seem to encourage buying large aperture lenses instead.

 

So, as I save up for new equipment, I'm thinking about either getting a new camera, or a new telephoto lens. What do you guys think would be better? Any recommendations?

Have you thought about a tripod? This might be the first thing to buy to improve your image quality.

Have you thought about a tripod? This might be the first thing to buy to improve your image quality.

 

I currently own a monopod, my logic was that I often found myself chasing warblers throughout a trail! But I do often feel I need a tripod, especially at night!

 

Thanks for the feedback!

At night you will ALWAYS need a tripod with those lenses. They are not very fast, especially at the long end, which you will be using a lot in pursuit of birds.

Is your shaking a medical issue?

For some people it is simply learning a better more stable shooting stance, and taking advantage of any nearby object to help stabilize you.

 

A monopod only gives you stability in 1 axis. At slow shutter speeds, you need stability in all 3 axis.

Look for a medium tripod that is light enough to carry, but STABLE. You do not need to spend a LOT of money, but don't get cheap junk either or you will be frustrated at it and have to replace it later. Ideally, you want the tripod with a camera, to put the camera at eye level, WITHOUT extending the center column.

You probably should get a tripod with interchangeable heads, so that you can use either a ball head or a 3-way pan head. I am thinking that a ball head would be more useful for your forest photography that you described.

 

IMHO you are looking at upgrading both the body (to reduce high ISO noise) and the lens(es).

- A body that has decent/good high ISO performance could allow you to use your current lenses better in the low lighting.

- Faster lenses are easier to work in dim lighting conditions.

- Birds could require a longer lens up in the 200-500mm range, and you will likely NEED a tripod. Specific focal length will depend on the size of the bird and the distance from you. But you are fighting the dim light, so you may have to use shorter faster lens(es). I would ask on the Canon section, as there already is a birding thread.

Tripod first, and good steady ones aren't cheap.

Your camera is far from terrible at high ISO, so body upgrades will not bring you as much as you may hope at all. Plus, consider how you post-process your images, as good gain can be made with decent exposed raw files in a good piece of software, and taking sufficient time to learn about that. Avoid judging noise at a 100% magnification of your image, as it will always look noisy; judge it at the resolution you'll use (be it screensize, be it print size).

 

Fast long lenses cost a lot. While I think they're probably the investment you want for the kind of photography you describe, the pricetags are very steep.

Be somewhat realistic; start with analyzing. - To me it sounds your dream kit is currently just a dream and not even in the reach of a decent (new) car's worth of money. I guess your pictures are at f5.6 1/60 sec and something like at least ISO 1600 inside your forest? Or what problem are we disccusing (exposure wise)?

Getting a stabilized telephoto lens should make a whole lot of sense. Anyhow, if your current one is a bit too short for your needs too, we are either stuck with Tamron & Sigma 150-600mm which might gain you 2 f-stops handholdability after compensating for the additional focal length, or if you can get closer than your lens demands to fill the frame there would be the stabilized 70-200mm f2.8s - For close ups the Canon gives better reach than Tamron's or even the Sigma 100-300mm f2.8. A Canon 100-400mm for the same money (as their 70-200 f2.8 )has the reputation to be sharper than the before mentioned 150-600mms. Everything beyond will cost you fortunes like several 1000$$s and also weigh a lot.

I am not sure (failed to look it up) how bad high ISO is in your camera but before you start saving up hoping for a miracle maybe enter a site like dpreview.com and compare what you have and want, figure out how much (or little?) high ISO advantage another camera will really give you. - DxOMark rate the EOS 1200D at ISO 724 and the nastily priced EOS 5d IV at ISO 3000, but half of the latter get either eaten by needing a smaller aperture for the same (absence of) DOF or being forced to use a longer and slower lens on it, since it has a bigger sensor.

 

High ISO handling is relative. - The average picture posted online or going to print went through sharpening and denoising software and also pixel binning.

Fast lenses are no cure all either; they provide less DOF and challenge your AF. For a static subject I'd rather have IS than 2 stops faster aperture (assuming my AF was willing to focus in the given absence of light).

 

Current birding & wildlife midrange budged combo for stills seems to be a Nikon D500 with a 200-500mm f5.6 lens. - About 3500 Euro/$? It is rated (DxO) to ISO 1324 and maybe the VR permitts shooting the long end at 1/125sec. - Check Flickr for other folks' shots and figure out if that is enough low light performance for you. - BTW: Nikons aren't that great for video. - So Sony instead? Their lenses aren't cheap, but an A7sII performs well in low light. OTOH it didn't earn much praise for it's AF, so maybe wait till an A9 S gets released? Or if a Canon cuts your low light cake get one with dual pixel AF for video.

 

In between do your handholding and bearable ISO tests outdoors in the sun. - How low can you go? How much do you benefit from your monopod at the 300mm end?

Also do research and try to read and watch (Youtube) reviews of somewhat interesting gear.

I am not (yet?) into sports & wildlife and for that reason barely at all equipped for those genres. Really capable gear seems to cost a pretty penny and for unknown reasons the manufacturers aren't issuing an enthusiast line of sharp stabilized not ultra fast but lightweight primes that are still somewhat affordable, compared to the f2.8 counterparts.

Trying to shop for a decent used tripod and video head for it is probably the best idea right now. Looking at the performance of my Sigma 70-300mm zooms I 'd recommend getting a good stabilized lens first since those seem to exist. - Concerning high ISO cameras things will most likely get better, but looking at the release pace for technology it might take 3 years for another f-stop if at all.

The problem with slow lenses isn't just hand-holdability or not, it's simply keeping the shutterspeed up, since animals tend to move. So shutterspeeds around 1/60-1/125 are quite likely too slow. Image stabiliser or similar doesn't solve that.

Tripod first, and good steady ones aren't cheap.

 

Actually a few cheap tripods that are made of things like (not identical to) cast iron are steady and relatively cheap, BUT Wouter is all too right that "Good, Steady, and light weight" are very expensive if you insist on all three criteria for tripods, cameras, or what have you.

 

Even cameras in the "amateur" or "beginner" class are capable of work that would have been seen as magic a few years ago. So the issue nowadays is technique for the most part rather than technology.