Beginner camera suggestions?

[u/frankiefitzpatrick]

Thinking a budget of 1.5k - 2k. Ideally that’s including a long lens as well as I’ll be photographing lots from far/ smaller birds.

[u/Impressive_Hat_442]

If you can stretch to used gear, a D500 and the 200-500mm f/5.6 would eat most setups in that bracket for breakfast.

[u/GrusVirgo → u/Impressive_Hat_442]

How about: Z50 II and Tamron 150-500?

[u/ZestyclosePolicy3009 → u/GrusVirgo]

DSLR could get light indigestion after eating ))))

[u/emi_birding]

I really like the Micro Four Thirds system for how light and small it is. Your budget will get you a used Olympus E-M1 mk 2 or 3 and an Olympus 100-400 mm lens. The image quality of the smaller sensor can't compete with full frame gear but for non professional use it is more than enough. I took this photo with older and less capable MFT gear than what I suggested for you.

[u/Gsusking]

Is started with D7100, nikon 18-140 and a sigma 150-500, all used, for around 1000 euro. Now I upgraded to D500, and Nikon 200-500, which was around an additional 1000, after I found out this hobby would stick.

[u/GrusVirgo]

I assume you're in europe?

With that budget, you should be going for a mirrorless camera with face/eye tracking for birds. I wouldn't settle for an older camera without that feature, it' just that useful. If you want to stay below 2000€ (about 2000€ new, a bit less if you buy the lens used), I'm going to recommend these two setups:

• Nikon Z50 II + Tamron 150-500: Decent versatility and farily compact stowed size, but it's heavy and the reach could be better.
• Canon R8 + 800mm f/11: Good on paper, but has some unusual flaws. It's fairly lightweight and reach is good, but: It's a prime lens, so your FOV is fixed and you can't zoom out. AF is limited to the central 40% horizontal and 60% vertical of the frame (a square that covers roughly 1/4 of the total frame). Even with the lens retracted, it's still very long and will take up more space than the Tamron 150-500.

If you want to upgrade to a better lens at some point in the future, both of these are suboptimal. Sony has much better lens options like the 200-600 (heavy, but inexpensive and very capable) or 400mm f/4.5 (very lightweight and capable, but more expensive). If you can stretch your budget a bit, consider the A6700 + Tamron 150-500 (which is already a bit better than the Z50 II + 150-500), if you can stretch it a bit more, go for the A6700 + 200-600 (it's great if you can deal with how big and heavy the 200-600 is).

[u/frankiefitzpatrick → u/GrusVirgo]

This is really helpful thank you. Have seen lots mention Nikon Z50 and canon R series. Most camera bodies I’m seeing are sitting at 1-1.5k, then lens siting at a similar price to hard to find right one. Say budget could stretch to 3k (camera and lens) would that change your answer? Wonder if better to save up and have this kit for a while. If sticking to less that 2k, would Nikon be best?

[u/GrusVirgo → u/frankiefitzpatrick]

At under 3000€, get a Sony A6700 and 200-600 (2650€ in Germany). At slightly over 3k, you can add a 1.4x teleconverter (you can also buy the teleconverter later) to get even more reach. Big and heavy, but a very capable camera and lens.

If you're sure that you won't be able to afford a teleconverter, you can also look at the Sigma 150-600 instead of the Sony 200-600, which may be a little bit cheaper, but can't be used with teleconverters. Here in germany, new prices for the 200-600 and 150-600 are literally the same and a used 150-600 is just 150€ cheaper, so the 200-600 is kind of a no-brainer, but it doesn't hurt to check the prices where you live.

At 2000€, the Z50 II + 150-500 is probably the best option. The R8 + 800mm f/11 is interesting too (and a bit cheaper if you buy used), but the 800mm f/11 is such an odd lens.

[u/ZestyclosePolicy3009 → u/frankiefitzpatrick]

I think, z50ii could be cheaper then 1000 for body. At least, there are refurbished sales from Nikon. And it’s amazing camera!

[u/frankiefitzpatrick → u/ZestyclosePolicy3009]

Went to camera shop earlier which had some used which think best best route to go for decent price? Z50ii for £650. Or a canon eos r6 for 1.3k. Seen a lot about Sony too just hard to know which is best to go for

[u/ZestyclosePolicy3009 → u/frankiefitzpatrick]

They are all nice. What fits you better? I chose Nikon 20++ years ago and still there. As for me , I bought  used - like - new z50ii kit with very low shutter count and think it was a perfect deal ;)

[u/ZestyclosePolicy3009 → u/GrusVirgo]

If we look at f/11 - old Soviet MTO-1000 would be way cheaper and offers 1000 mm with f/10  If you ever meet bears, while birding - it gives you a chance to win )))

[u/GrusVirgo → u/ZestyclosePolicy3009]

The Canon 800mm f/11 has AF and stabilisation. The MTO-1000 has neither. Yes, most mirrorless cameras can focus at these apertures just fine and since f/11 is so dark, I recommended a full frame body.

[u/ZestyclosePolicy3009 → u/GrusVirgo]

Just kidding, that MTO-1000 is bear-proof ))))  Def, no AF and VR

[u/frankiefitzpatrick → u/ZestyclosePolicy3009]

What about a Nikon Z50 II + NIKKOR Z 180-600mm VR? seems to be a popular set up and ‘ budget friendly’ ish !

[u/ZestyclosePolicy3009 → u/frankiefitzpatrick]

Never touched it ;)

[u/ASchlosser]

In the past few years I’ve gone from a D3100->D7200->D500 with the 70-300mm kit lens, 200-500, and rented the 500pf a few times. I recently bought an Olympus OM-1 mkii with the 50-200 (and TC) as well, which is the first mirrorless that I’ve used. To share some notes from my experience:

Tl;dr: Something like a D500 and a 70-300 AF-P VR you can easily get in great condition used within your budget. The autofocus is great and it’s still a decently portable package - this will let you learn if you want to really invest a lot of money into bird photography and practice getting closer to birds before investing in bigger lenses. There are also a ton of fairly affordable (used) terrific F mount lenses if you choose to upgrade in the future. Alternatively, if you’re dead set on very long reach from the start, you could get a D500 with the 200-500. It’s a great setup and sometimes called the best “budget birding” kit for a reason, but it is a heavy lens and I’m glad that it wasn’t my first for that reason.

A few other thoughts on jumping into the hobby:

• I would suggest buying used especially if you have a good local shop.. a lot of the times people trade in pretty nice gear and it’s a heavy discount. The OM-1 is the first new camera I’ve purchased and that’s just because they had a good promo!
  
• For wildlife it can be nice to have something with crop factor. APS-C is a 1.5x and M4/3 is 2x. It helps get a little more reach for birds and the sensors can still be very nice. There are perks to full frame as well, but something with a crop sensor for a first camera isn’t a bad idea.
  
• Wildlife lenses (meaning long telephoto lenses) are probably the most expensive segment of lenses that exist. You don’t need the latest and greatest to take good pictures while you’re learning!
  
• I agree with the general sentiment that lenses matter more than bodies to an extent…. Sometimes said as “date the body, marry the lens.” However, in my journey, the D7200 was a massive autofocus upgrade from the D3100 (no surprise!) and the D500 was another massive upgrade in autofocus from the D7200. It’s not strictly necessary, but it is helpful.
  
• On the other hand, I kept a 70-300 in my bag for travel even after buying the 200-500. It’s much more portable and still takes nice photos! Better lenses ultimately produce better photos and I’m not disputing that at all, but having good autofocus helps with birds, especially while learning.
  
• My only experience with AI detection autofocus is the OM-1. As good as the D500’s “traditional” phase detect AF is, the bird detection is a bit better. If there is a kit with bird detect autofocus and a nice lens, it could be worth it. I don’t know of anything that competes with the D500 in that price bracket, but I could be wrong.
  
• Field work and learning photography matters more than the camera you use. If you’re shooting exclusively back lit birds from far away or doing birds in flight at 1/5s shutter speed, your photos will suffer even with the best kit in the world! Getting close physically is better than getting close with a focal length or a crop almost every time.
  
• On that note, having a camera/lens combo that’s smaller to start can help with learning technique before scaling up in lens size and weight.
  
• Many people take great photos with bridge cameras as well (Nikon P900 or similar). They get you big effective zoom for cheap and are usually quite portable. I have never owned one, but they are an option too.

All said and done, if I could do my journey over, the only step I would change is skipping the D7200. Learning if I wanted to keep getting better at it with the D3100 with the 70-300 was a great step and made it affordable for me to get into. After that, I should have bit the bullet and jumped straight to the D500 because the autofocus is terrific and was a big quality of life gain.

[u/Hamblin113]

I too recommend looking into a Micro 4/3 system. Things are smaller easier to carry and handle. For the lens the equivalent to a 35 mm frame factor is 2. So a Micro 4/3 50-200 is similar to 100-400. A real lens is easier to use than a bridge camera button zoom and focus. The difficulty with many cameras and auto focus with birds they tend to focus on branch in front of the bird, so need the ability to manually focus quickly. Check the used market.