Best camera and lens for outdoor photography

[benbo30]

so im caving on just spending the money on getting a nice camera for outdoor photograhy , every time im out i see alot that i want to take pics of but i dont have a nice enough camera to do it with , so tell me what is good to get im looking at nikons ??

My wife is starting to slowly get into professional photography as well but mainly of my kids and as she gets the hang of it and better at it she will be offering her services , she keeps looking at a $3000 canon mark 3 for doing profesional pics of my kids , as all the times and money she has gone to professional photographers is really adding up in my wallet , seems like every month i have to spend money to get pics of these kids 

She seems like she has it all figured out on what she wants to get so my question would be which is better a nikon or canon and which models for me to do some outdoor photography when i am out in the hills and woods???

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Tagging for updates because I am interested in what the guys say.

[benbo30]

Tagging for updates because I am interested in what the guys say.

yea im not to experienced at photography looks like a few guys on here know what they are doing so id love some input , id just love to share some shots from out in the field with everyone .

[Todd_ID]

so my question would be which is better a nikon or canon and which models for me to do some outdoor photography when i am out in the hills and woods???

Ford or Chevy?  1500, 2500, or 3500 better in the woods?

It's the same debate with about the same price tag when you get to the upper end stuff; brand plays little into it.  I'm not an expert, but I do think that your $3k number you mentioned is best spent buying a good, used $500 body and the rest on glass.  The shots that we all like on here are pretty much all shot with bodies that are several-to-many years old with $3-20K of glass and a high-end tripod.  They are not the snapshots you and I get while wandering around in the woods; they are bowhunting with a camera: it just takes longer to set up for a photo shot than a bow shot, and you need better light.

[benbo30]

the $3K body was for my wife for her "professional shots" as she calls it of the kids , she insists on thats what she needs , i keep telling her to get a cheaper body but she just doesnt understand my point of view , as for me i was planning on getting a cheap body and then spend money on lenses

[DBHAWTHORNE]

so my question would be which is better a nikon or canon and which models for me to do some outdoor photography when i am out in the hills and woods???

Ford or Chevy?  1500, 2500, or 3500 better in the woods?

It's the same debate with about the same price tag when you get to the upper end stuff; brand plays little into it.  I'm not an expert, but I do think that your $3k number you mentioned is best spent buying a good, used $500 body and the rest on glass.  The shots that we all like on here are pretty much all shot with bodies that are several-to-many years old with $3-20K of glass and a high-end tripod.  They are not the snapshots you and I get while wandering around in the woods; they are bowhunting with a camera: it just takes longer to set up for a photo shot than a bow shot, and you need better light.

I have always heard it's more about the glass... So if I take my Nikon D60 10.2MP from 2008 and put good glass on it then it will be capable of taking excellent shots?

[jackelope]

I'd venture a guess that 98% of the  pics you see on here are not taken with a $3k dslr body. Get a good Canon 40d 60d etc or whatever a similar nikon is and spend the big money on glass. No sense on having a $3k body unless you can afford another couple grand in glass. Now if you can spend thousands on a body and thousands on glass just to take pics of your kids then go for it.

[wapiti hunter2]

so im caving on just spending the money on getting a nice camera for outdoor photograhy , every time im out i see alot that i want to take pics of but i dont have a nice enough camera to do it with , so tell me what is good to get im looking at nikons ??

My wife is starting to slowly get into professional photography as well but mainly of my kids and as she gets the hang of it and better at it she will be offering her services , she keeps looking at a $3000 canon mark 3 for doing profesional pics of my kids , as all the times and money she has gone to professional photographers is really adding up in my wallet , seems like every month i have to spend money to get pics of these kids 

She seems like she has it all figured out on what she wants to get so my question would be which is better a nikon or canon and which models for me to do some outdoor photography when i am out in the hills and woods???

 

One great thing about the pro Canon bodies like the MK 3 is that they are water proof.  They are also heavy.  But any good glass is heavy too. You can do well with the older used Canon bodies and can price good ones at B&H Photo Video and Adorama.  Both are very reputable dealers.  You are wise to spend money on Glass.  It is never wasted.

[benbo30]

tell that to my wife she doesnt seem to understand it  i keep trying to tell her that , the 3k body was what she wants for doing professional pics of the kids and what not so we dont have to keep spending money on photographers and then if she enjoys doing it maybe she can offer her services ,

as for me i was just gonna get a decent body for around 500-800 and get good lenses

[Bean Counter]

I have always heard it's more about the glass... So if I take my Nikon D60 10.2MP from 2008 and put good glass on it then it will be capable of taking excellent shots?

Not yes, but heck yes! Its all about the lenses. Nikon, Canon, et all have made a lot of money in the last decade on the so-called 'prosumer' market. Lots of people trading up to get more megapixels  thinking that is the key to a good photo. Wrong. Six megapixels is enough. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm.  To repeat, if you're on a limited budget: get onto Craigslist and find a gently used camera for $400 bucks and spend the rest on lenses.

 For Canon, one of the better lenses out there is the 70-200mm L IS USM. You can either get it with F/4 or F/2.8. The newest edition of the F/2.8 will cost you about $2K new. If you're just getting started and want a decent cheap lens for indoor shots without a flash, I love the F/1.8 50mm, aka the "classic plastic" aka "the nifty fifty." Not the sharpest photos, but I've had some good results.

I have had a Canon 400D with the crop sensor and I may 'upgrade' to a full frame sensor camera, but that will be a used, old 5D. The point is not to get a 'newer' camera with useless crap like video capability or more megapixels, but to upgrade to a full frame sensor. The full frame advantage.

If you live near a Costco, go to the magazine rack and look for the Mag Book entitled "Getting Started in Digital Photography." It costs about $12--yes that's right for a magazine.  Best magazine I've ever purchased. It will teach you the basics of aperture priority vs. shutter priority, how to compose a good shot, ISO settings, etc. It is a GREAT read and worth its cost many times over.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Thanks for the good info BC. 

[smdave]

http://seattle.craigslist.org/est/pho/3545501425.html


http://seattle.craigslist.org/est/pho/3545512286.html

http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/ele/3524880825.html

http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/pho/3507364713.html

[Bean Counter]

Thanks for the good info BC. 

NP--that magazine changed my life! 

Ken Rockwell's site is great, too. Just browse around. I love this one: Should I Upgrade?

[uplandhunter870]

im no expert/pro for sure but i'll reverb whats been said great photos are all about the lens. the higher quality of lens you can afford, get. you dont necessarily need a $3k body.

me id go with a used body with a shutter count under 100k, spend $4-500 on the body (canon xxd series or nikons version of that line) and put the rest towards quality glass.  me i shoot a canon T2i body and decent glass (all i can afford right now) and can get tack sharp photos when i do my part and get the settings correct.

a great source of info on understanding photography is a book called "understanding exposure" by Bryan Peterson, a wealth of knowledge in easy to read and understand format helped me by leaps and bounds

[Wazukie]

I have always heard it's more about the glass... So if I take my Nikon D60 10.2MP from 2008 and put good glass on it then it will be capable of taking excellent shots?

I am a Nikon shooter, the D60 is very capable camera.  One thing to keep in mind when buying a lens for it though is that only AF-s lenses will auto-focus because the D60 does not have a built in focus motor.  I mention this because with Nikon body's, any AF lens will fit, but only the AF-s will auto focus.

Many Nikon Body's have a built in motor.

One advantage to Nikon over Canon, at least in my opinion, is that all the older Nikon lens's can be used on the Nikon body.  Some only manual focus though.  Canon can not do this(At least to my understanding).

The advantage of Canon over Nikon, well I cant think of any 

In all actuality, Canon glass seems to be less expensive than Nikon glass.  Either or would be a great choice.

Just my humble observations.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I have always heard it's more about the glass... So if I take my Nikon D60 10.2MP from 2008 and put good glass on it then it will be capable of taking excellent shots?

I am a Nikon shooter, the D60 is very capable camera.  One thing to keep in mind when buying a lens for it though is that only AF-s lenses will auto-focus because the D60 does not have a built in focus motor.  I mention this because with Nikon body's, any AF lens will fit, but only the AF-s will auto focus.

Many Nikon Body's have a built in motor.

One advantage to Nikon over Canon, at least in my opinion, is that all the older Nikon lens's can be used on the Nikon body.  Some only manual focus though.  Canon can not do this(At least to my understanding).

The advantage of Canon over Nikon, well I cant think of any 

In all actuality, Canon glass seems to be less expensive than Nikon glass.  Either or would be a great choice.

Just my humble observations.

Thanks for the advice Wazukie.... maybe I will upgrade the body to one that accepts an AF-s lenses

[benbo30]

thanks for the advice , keep it coming any advice on which lenses for outdoor and wildlife photography ?? 

[ShaneTyTrey]

Tracking....very interesting

[Wazukie]

thanks for the advice , keep it coming any advice on which lenses for outdoor and wildlife photography ??

For wildlife, I'd say a nice 300 F/4 or faster would do quite nice.  For other outdoor, like landscape and such, a 17-55mm f/2.8 would do nicely.

[huntnnw]

Go to Huntfishnw.com look at the photography thread...great write up there by popeshawn...Lens is the key..u can get a Canon or Nikon body for $300-400 now

[grandpawrichard]

I will echo the statement "Go with the Bet Glass Possible"! 
Both of my cameras are Canon 7D's. They cost new around $1700 or less. All of my lenses are Canon L series lenses now and I love each and everyone of them! : They are all Tack Sharp lenses that produce High Quality photos IF I do my part!

I have been teaching my wife photography for about a year now and her skills have improved drastically, especially after I put a 7D with a 300 mm. IS L series lens in her hands. Neither of us are Professionals, but we both are capable of taking pretty darned good photos when we practice Good Photography Skills.











Dick

[boneaddict]

THere is no best lens.  It depends on the situation.  Weight/size/distance/weather/light.  Too many variables.   Can't go wrong with Nikon or Canon.  I wish I had more lens.   As for bodies, there are give and takes for whichever line you pick.  Put your money in glass as stated.

[benbo30]

Thanks for all the.inputs I appreciate it . Some good.looking.pics there

[JackOfAllTrades]

THere is no best lens.  It depends on the situation.  Weight/size/distance/weather/light.  Too many variables.   Can't go wrong with Nikon or Canon.  I wish I had more lens.   As for bodies, there are give and takes for whichever line you pick.  Put your money in glass as stated.

Spoken from someone that does this nearly every day!     
 
I've been out of the game since ya'll transitioned from film to digital so bear with me, but I would still think that a studio camera is much different than a field camera. Long lens that gather light with short f-stop that assists with depth of field and image stabilization features for handheld situations vs short lens, in solid platform and artificial lighting situations without the need for burst mode shutter speeds or video options. 
 
Reference to the OP, I don't know that there is a 'best for outdoor photography' as the top brands that offer competitive features have followers in each catagory. I've been reading some reviews and it would appear that Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Fuji seem to have the best reviews for bodies and lens. Most of what I've read in relative price points put Nikon and Canon glass on top if you're looking at affordable Asian produced brands.
 
-Steve
 
 

[Tom Reichner]

Go to Huntfishnw.com look at the photography thread...great write up there by popeshawnpaul...Lens is the key..u can get a Canon or Nikon body for $300-400 now

This is excellent advice . . . a lot of really good outdoor & wildlife photographers on that site.

There is no best lens.  It depends on the situation.  Weight/size/distance/weather/light.  Too many variables.   Can't go wrong with Nikon or Canon.  I wish I had more lens.   As for bodies, there are give and takes for whichever line you pick.  Put your money in glass as stated.

Also great advice.  As many others have said, getting a body for a few hundred dollars, and using the ramaining $2500 on lenses, would be a great choice.

If I were in you shoes, considering the wife's desire to take great, professional level portraits of the kids, I would consider the following (all used):

Canon 5D "classic" (the original 5D, full frame camera for budget price, approx $500
          or, a 40D or 50D, for $350 to $450, which would probably be better for wildlife, but would not be quite as good for those all-important family portraits and events

Canon 85mm f1.8 - great portrait lens for around $300+-

Canon 100-400mm zoom - good for all-around wildlife work, around $1200 used, or $1500 - 1600 new.
          or, Canon's 300mm f4 with Image Stabilization, for around $1,000 used
          or, Canon's 400 f5.6 fixed lens, which has no IS, for around $1100 used
          if one of these fixed focal length lenses is bought, it'd be useful to get a 1.4x teleconverter

Canon 24-105mm zoom, the workhorse, all-around zoom lens, for around $700 used; maybe even a bit less
     this lens is most often sold in "kits" with the 5D mark3 body, so many people get the kit, then sell this lens


Wow - I just added up ALL of the things I recommended above, and you could get it all (only picking one of the telephoto lenses) for the same $3000 your wife is thinking about spending for the camera alone!  This would include both a 5D for her family photos and a 40D/50D for your wildlife interests.

I only mention Canon gear because that is what I am familiar with. I am sure Nikon stuff would do just as good of a job - I just don;t know anything about it, so I can't make any recommendations. 

In addition to the camera(s) and lenses, it would be wise to get a sturdy tripod with a good quality ball head, and get used to using it whenever you are shooting with the telephotos . . . in fact, it wouldn't hurt to use it for 85mm family portraits, either.  Your images will be sharper than those that are taken hand held. 

[huntnphool]

Canon 5D mkIII would be great for both you and your wife. If you go with Canon here is a very good thread on lenses.  http://www.huntfishnw.com/index.php?topic=908.msg8690#msg8690

[benbo30]

I think I have decided to go with canon im looking more into the canon 7d mk2 , new looks to be  about $900 for the body

[smdave]

I would stick to the regular 7d for now. 

[quadrafire]

If you are going to do any kid sports (outdoor) the 70-200 IS f4 is awsome and is about the bear minimum that you would want for a wildlife lense. Add a 1.4 converter for the outdoor stuff.
I haven't done it, but I have read that it is pretty good for portraits as well.

[boneaddict]

I went with the 7D.    Built in flash(more utility for family), and shots per second, (shooting my girls sports)  Crop sensor was debatable.  For macro work I'd like to have full sensor.  For wildlife, crop sensor gives you some distance.....   Those were my thoughts.   

[huntnphool]

If you are going to do any kid sports (outdoor) the 70-200 IS f4 is awsome and is about the bear minimum that you would want for a wildlife lense. Add a 1.4 converter for the outdoor stuff.
I haven't done it, but I have read that it is pretty good for portraits as well.

I use mine often for soccer with the kids, it works well for wildlife as well.

[HardCorpsHuntr]

If those girls weren't in soccer uniforms, I would think they were picking up muley shed!

 Great pics.

[grundy53]

Tracking....very interesting

[grandpawrichard]

hey Benbo,
Here's a portrait I took with my Canon 7D and a 400 mm. f/5.6 L series telephoto:



taken in a dark concert hall with just stage lighting illuminating the subject. Photo was also taken Handheld.

Dick

[benbo30]

photo turned out good for the setup . 

[Alpinegus]

  Phool & Grandpa, Awesome pic's... 
I need a better lense, and some lessons. 

[tlbradford]

I agree with huntnfool on the 5d2 and agree with Tom on the 24-105 for an all around starter lens.  For what your wife is doing you probably want a full frame sensor.  I upgraded to the 5d3 because I needed the pro autofocus and high iso capability for a lot of my photography.