Best camera and lens for outdoor photography

[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.