UKH

Looking for some guidance about buying a camera.....

I'd like it for general use....landscape photos mostly but also adaptable for wildlife. I've just had a couple of weeks in the highlands using my phone camera and it is time to get an actual camera....

About 20 metres from my back door I can see a fair amount of birds....owls, kestrel, buzzard and garden/field birds....I'd really like to be able to take some close up pics of these......I'm guessing I would need a zoom lense?

I don't want to spend loads and was thinking of second hand....there seem to be a fair number of Canon EOS 1300's knocking around for anywhere between £250-300....would something like this be a reasonable option?

Any guidance greatly appreciated...

Second hand is the way to go. Photographers as a group are very precious about their kit, and 2nd hand goods from reputable stores/sellers are usually ok. Generally speaking, the camera bodies are all pretty similar and will do a good job; more up-to-date or more spendy to begin with will be better. It's the lenses that will make more of a difference. If you are keen on birding pictures then you need to be thinking of spending more than £300 for a 2nd hand telephoto lens to yield more than a black blob in a picture (300mm lens minimum I would say, for a crop sensor). All imho of course.

You may be able to get a Fuji X series body (XT1 or 2, XE3, XT200) and a secondhand 55-200 lens close to that, or a Canon 7D2 body and a 3rd party or non-L lens for not much more. The 7D2 is a superb wildlife/sports camera. AF performance is key here. I don't know anything about the EOS1300.

Have a look at mpb or Ffordes for secondhand kit. Both are very good to deal with.

Get the 1300 with an 18-55 lens

Buy this

https://www.ffordes.com/p/SH-42-049762/canon-eos/70-210mm-f35-45-usm

which is an OK lens but will give you wildlife capability... 

And this

https://www.ffordes.com/p/SH-42-050440/canon-eos/50mm-f18-ef-ii

Which will give you a lens that is excellent quality at a decent focal length for some landscape details and also a great portrait lens. It's only cheap because it's plastic and very common - it's as good image quality as many £1000 zoom lenses at the 50mm focal length and with a wider aperture so great smooth blurry backgrounds... 

Agree about secondhand. If you buy from a reputable dealer you will be OK.

The unfortunate thing is, as you have probably found out, is there are hundreds of cameras around now. Have a look online for reviews of any you fancy to try to narrow things down.

For wildlife even as close as 20m you will need a big lens. I have a 55-300mm zoom I use on my DSLR. I have just tried it in the back garden(which is very close to 20m in length) and when the lens is at 300mm our garden bench just fits  in from side to side. The bench is a bit over a metre wide. Therefore something like a kestrel sitting on it would make up a very small part of the image.

You can crop photos which effectively is an enlargement but there is likely to be a loss of quality.

Unfortunately big lenses, even zooms, are not cheap.

However, you don't need to buy everything at once.

Dave

For birds you really need as long a lens as you can get/afford/hold. Unless they're pretty tame, 200mm on an APS-C body is probably too short. I'd get at least 300mm - after that it starts to get expensive. I can lend you an old 75-300mm canon lens is you want to try it and see how your get on (I'm in Macc). My preferred (small) wildlife kit is a M4/3 body with a 100-400mm lens (about the same field of view as a 600mm lens on a Canon 1300d), but that lens even second hand is not cheap.

MPB is a good place to go for second hand kit.

Whilst everyone is correct in saying that bird photography is best with a big lens, it is also very possible with any lens if you get creative.. you can arguably create nicer pictures too because you have more control. A set of wireless triggers (if your body doesn't allow you to control it via wifi) and a tripod will yield good results with a little patience for the garden birds, and a lot of patience for the birds of prey!  

But a long lens with good image stabilization makes things so much easier (but not cheaper.... )

I own a Canon 400 2.8, 300 2.8 and my best bird photograph was taken on my remotely triggered wide angle.. so ‘easier’ is only relative to what level of output you want to achieve.

You’d be surprised how ‘easy’ it is to get a professional looking photo of any garden bird with nothing more than an aesthetic branch stood in a pot of earth with some bird food scattered beneath all distanced from the background to give you decent bokeh (even on a cheap lens) compared to standing out in the garden with the 400 shooting every bird that moves and hoping for the best. Obviously this approach is possible with birds of prey but requires significantly more patience and luck, and a bigger lens does then begin to reap its rewards.. Anyway my point was.. yes it’s easier with expensive equipment, that’s why it’s expensive, but it’s not the defining part of good bird photography. Bigger lens ≠ good photography. 

Good point. With a tripod and a wireless trigger you can get some very good shots. It takes patience and there will be lots and lots of disappointment before you nail it.

BTW

1. If you go for this sort of set up make sure you protect your camera while it is on the tripod. Birds will perch on anything and when they perch they poo.

2. If you ever go through an airport with this sort of gear and the security staff ask you what it is, just say, "I can press the button and my camera takes a photo", do not under any circumstances say, "Oh that, it is just a wireless trigger."

Dave

Another 'BTW'...

The above is fine with garden birds and many others, but be careful playing around like this around any protected species (e.g., Kingfishers). 'Disturbance' is illegal and poorly defined which is a dangerous combination!

Thanks Marek...a generous offer and much appreciated....will let you know and I'm just up the road in Kettleshulme but often in Macc...

Having looked at reviews etc I'm thinking of the Nikon d3400 or the Canon d2000 as possibles and there are plenty available....any views?

The other query is that on the second hand camera sites they give a figure indicating how many times the  shutter has been used....some are very low and others in 10's of thousands....is this really significant in terms of wear and tear etc?

Thanks..

You might not be able to put the older and cheaper, although optically good longer lenses on a D3400 - something to check.

Manufacturers usually rate the shutter longevity for at least some of their models in their detailed specifications sheets. Best check out the make and model online that you are thinking about for the shutter life expectancy to enable a reasonable judgement of any particular camera you are interested in. A quick google suggests the Nikon 3400 model was stated to be 100k shutter actuations, but I couldn’t see a spec for the Canon D2000 in the quick search.

An entry model camera maybe would be 20k shutter actuations over it’s life and so a used one with say 10k actuations is (generalisation) half way through it’s expected shutter life. A professional model on the other hand with 10k actuations but built for say 400k actuations is little used in it’s shutter life expectancy.

Shutter life is variable of course in reality; shutters can fail at any number of actuations. The spec rating is not a guarantee by the manufacturer. I’ve read online some pro model cameras were still going strong with double the rated number of shutter actuations expected for the model, but then again I’m sure there are others that fail under the manufacturer’s rating.

I’ve got two 5D Mark 3s that were my workhorses for years, both on over a million clicks on the original shutters and still going strong! 

I checked the manual - just AF-S lenses for auto-focus. 

Not surprised from what I’ve read. Coincidentally, it was also some Canon models I had read about doing well over the rated number and a million was mention by at least one pro photographer for his Canon.

I’m not a wildlife photographer but I dabble and am just returning from a wildlife/landscape photography workshop so a few things I’m in the process of learning

for wildlife 300mm is really the minimum and would be good for wildlife such as deer, carneddau ponies etc, it will also work for some birding photography.

M4/3 have some great lenses and are portable and probably optically the best bang for bucks you can get in the telephoto range.

expectations and reality can be hard to square, good wildlife photos tend to have pin sharp eyes every feather and hair clear and defined, it is extremely hard to achieve this and a lot of lenses will just not achieve this as they are too soft and just don’t hold up too the pro lenses that even many keen amateurs use.

linked to above, lots of nature photos you see will have an element of cropping sometimes quite drastic cropping so the above become even more obvious, a pin sharp photo taken on a good 300mm prime makes a better photo cropped to 12mp than a soft 500mm zoom at full frame 24mp. (A harsh lesson I’m learning)

Autofocus, I’m not someone who has used modern focus tracking but it is phenomenal with camera able to track the eyes of a moving bird

(but this is only available in very expensive cameras)

learn to pre focus etc.

my recommendations would be to look at Panasonic or Olympus M4/3 camera and one of the good quality zooms from MPB.

also whatever the limits of your equipment you’ll still be able to get some good shots, learn and enjoy the outdoors 

A few examples below

https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/u...

https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/u...

Although I agree about the merits of M4/3 and a good sharp tele (I have a G9 & 100-400mm), they quickly get out of what looked like the OP's budget.

Another thing that should be borne in mind is that particularly with birds, there's no substitute to getting close and that's really hard to do for the point of view of patience and legality. The limit for tele lenses is about 800mm on FF or 400mm on M4/3 - beyond that (and often well before), atmospheric disturbance will soften any image. Don't ever underestimate the amount of shear hard work that goes into getting those wonderful images you see from the pros. Earlier today I was trying to get an images of some marsh harriers - about 1m wingspan. To fill even 1/3 of the frame I'd need them to come within 60m of me and that's just not going to happen unless you're in their territory, well hidden and patient. And lucky. I wasn't any of those, but it was fun trying!

Hard work, planning, a lot of patience and time and a bit of luck, not to mention a few gb’s of out of focus, blurry pictures for every passable frame.

I have DSLR stuff and I doubt you'll get good enough gear on that budget. If your'e out on a walking/birding trip, 500 mm would be a minimum. They are pricey and weigh a bit.  My mate has a couple of Nikon Coolpix and I'm surprised how good they are.  The light weight means less camera shake as well.  They double up well for landscape and birding.  Mine doesn't, unless I faff about taking two lenses.  Try borrowing a Coolpix (or similar) of your budget and see what you think.

I use a Sigma 600mm lens, plenty photos on here.  It was £620 second hand.  

As 65 has already said, and as a bit of a Fujifilm fanboy myself, I'd go for a secondhand X series.  The XT1 (about £200 for a good s/h one) is still a cracking camera despite its age and 16mp sensor. You can make it as manual or as auto as you like without diving into complex menus; all the controls that really matter are on the outside of the camera, like the older film cameras. Take a look at MPB for secondhand cameras and lenses:

https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-mirrorle...

Samyang lenses are outstanding in quality, yet relatively cheap - though their manual operation of aperture (and no autofocus) takes some getting used to. I have the 12mm f2 and I kid you not, it is better than the equivalent Zeiss Touit. 

If you shoot RAW, Photoshop is not the best converter for Fuji files because of the 'wormy' artefacts it introduces to image detail.  I use Iridient Developer to convert mine, and it does a fantastic job - no artefacts at all. I believe Capture One is also good for Fuji RAWs. That's all extra cost though..

Would that set up be any good for bird photography though? (Must admit it does  look very good for landscape…)

Having being doing some personal research on 300mm lenses for Nikon cameras, one lens that came up was the Tokina atx 300mm.

Ive used Tokina lenses before and they are excellent value for money. Your requirements would be covered by a Nikon D7200/7100 paired a Tokina 11-16 2.8 (I’ve used this combo and it gives excellent results

this lens will cover your landscape

https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/u...

Pair the D7200/7100 with a 300mm lens and you’ll get the equivalent of 450mm lens which would be great for birding/wildlife

Having being doing some personal research on 300mm lenses for Nikon cameras, one lens that came up was the Tokina atx 300mm.

Ive used Tokina lenses before and they are excellent value for money. Your requirements would be covered by a Nikon D7200/7100 paired with a Tokina 11-16 2.8 (I’ve used this combo and it gives excellent results)

this lens will cover your landscape

https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/u...

Pair the DX D7200/7100 with a 300mm lens and you’ll get the equivalent of 450mm lens which would be great for birding/wildlife

Hmm, 'useful' rather than 'great'. I use a 100-400mm on a M4/3 (so an equivalent of 200-800mm) and I very rarely leave the longest setting when photographing (wild, not garden or semi-socialised) birds. And then often crop.

Other wildlife is of course quite different. I hired a 70-200 (for aps-c) when I went to see some whales and wished I had something like 28-100.

I think with wildlife, you've always got the wrong lens. Or perhaps you just need to get better at choosing the wildlife to fit the lens you have.

I agree that is difficult to settle on the right lens for wildlife, but 450mm equivalent of sharp lens on DX is going to be as great as it’s going to get within budget.

I’ve just traded in a Nikon 200-500mm zoom for a Nikon 300mm PF because the zoom just wasn’t sharp enough, there was no way of getting more reach and preserving sharpness without spending  a great deal more money, I’ll learn to work with the 300mm with wildlife and look at getting a 1.4 TC for more reach. 
the extra reach is why I originally recommended m4/3 for best bangs for buck in the reach stakes.

next best would be a 300mm prime on DX.

I’ll learn to work with the 300mm with wildlife and look at getting a 1.4 TC for more reach. 

I use a 100-400 for most wildlife (though not if I am standing right next to an elephant) often with a x1.4TC. I am beginning to think that the TC is not worth using because results are possibly as good cropping without it and it loses an aperture stop.

options are getting the Nikon 1.4 TC which is pretty good allegedly.

And or possibly getting a  DX body 

wining the lottery and getting this

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-400mm-f2-8-tc-vr-s-review/

Samyang make telephoto lenses, but they don't have autofocus or image stabilisation. This makes bird photography a bit hit and miss, except if the subjects are stationary long enough for you to manually focus. But you can set 'focus traps', like pre-focusing on a bird feeder or food scraps on a more naturalistic tree branch and then take the photo when birds land to eat. Birds in flight are obviously more difficult with a manual lens, but possible with practice.

Fuji's 55-200 zoom is affordable secondhand, and has autofocus and image stabilisation, which can more easily capture wildlife in motion. 

I can vouch for this adapter used with the 70-200 VR (old one) and Nikon Af-S 300 mm on both DX and FX, although now the sensor is larger on the FX (combined with much better focusing) my DX is feeling very left out. 

The 2 x adaptor (only previously suitable for f2.8 lenses except for very new cameras for the focusing to work) is a bit soft and I sold.

I love the idea of the Z cameras, but I am steeling myself not to get sucked into the superlatives as I know I have the kit I need and this is likely to be true for a long time. In some ways it is a bit sad that we have moved away from having a film body for many (perhaps > 20) years, brought on by the obsolesce and fast development of the electronics. How many of us print our pictures at more than A4 and a 6MB/D2H image was fine for that.

I get very good results with my Sigma EX 100-300 f4 zoom on my Pentax DSLR, long since discontinued but they do come up on used market in a variety of mounts

Another vote for Pentax, you can get a lot of bang for your buck with them (in comparison to Nikon/canon) plus film legacy glass fit the digital bodies without a converter. This means you can pick up really good quality 2nd hand legacy glass for a steal sometimes (film lenses are generally a bit heavier though if weight's important to you.) Mind I did cut my teeth on a hand me down k1000 as a kid and never strayed since so am a bit biased! Recent 5-10 years Pentax offerings are also good at weatherproofing from mid range up which is useful in the UK!

Dabbling with cameras should come with a health warning though as it can be addictive and is an expensive habit to feed! 😉 Best to buy a bit over spec as you'll probably want to upgrade quickly if you don't. Also make sure to test drive in a shop before you buy, cameras are a bit like cars I find, it can be very personal, what fits your hand, feels intuitive on layout, etc. Hope you have fun shooting with whatever you get!

Anyway, since I mentioned elephants, this put my big lens envy in perspective.........

If you enjoy what you have and it works for you then stick with it, I had some serious doubts about the Nikon camera I was using previously so moving to the Z system was a relatively straight forward decision  

You can still get led down some expensive dead ends when trying to find what photographic gear works for you.

A bit off topic (sorry OP) – which camera did you not like? I am mainly using a D850 with 105 macro and ring flash for work, but obviously this gets used all over. It is quite heavy, especially with the bigger lenses, but it is very versatile. The detail and colour rendition on haired and glabrous skin is great.

I have an older D500 which is smaller, but this has become my wife's camera mainly. A new system would definitely cause some very raised eyebrows and slight despair from the new D500 owner. 

It was the D810, some issues with shutter shock, back focus etc. great camera when these things weren’t a problem but for a significant part of what I shoot they were a problem.

the D850 does look like the worlds best DSLR

have thought of finding a d500 for nature stuff

Be quick: they've been discontinued.

I have one, and I'm considering getting another while I still can.

XC 50-230mm is cheaper, smaller and lighter, if slower and plasticky. Image results are, apparently, comparable. Worth a look if getting into this and pins sharp in not essential (aka, all of my photography)

If I was getting a do everything camera for mostly day time photos of the landscape/ wildlife I'd get one of the modern Olympus MFT options. Paired with something like the 12-100, this is going to do 99% of your landscapes. I'm sure there must be options at 100-400, which is massive reach on MFT and surely your best bang for buck. The clincher for me would be the ability to handhold with up to 7(?) stops of image stabilization. That will save you going down the tripod black hole.

Then again for 99% landscapes I went Nikon full frame mirrorless and would do again. But I almost always carry a tripod and use it if I'm consciously after a photo.  

Whatever you do get something second hand as decent gear will retain its value. I tell myself my money is invested, not spent. Also get insurance!

Agreed, although I'd suggest Panasonic as an alternative to Olympus.

For video, certainly Panasonic. But for stills and even AF, I feel like Olympus is better. Granted I’m using a bit older cameras as reference (GH4r, GH5 vs Pen something (Possibly E-PL7). The pics seemed better out of the camera (or less work in LR) and even the AF seemed to work well enough. And let’s remember thar GH4 and GH5 were top of the line cameras, where as the PEN was always a mid range one. 

Just as a bit of a follow up, I swapped my Nikon 200-500 zoom for a 300mm f4 PF 

very impressed with the 300mm so much sharper than the zoom in the limited use so far.

I’m a little disappointed in Nikon as they do seem to have some reported quality control issues in their non professional zooms and it appears that I may have been unlucky with getting a “soft “ lens zoom lens.

shame the TC-1.4 telecom better is so expensive 😏

I upgraded from the XC 50-230 to the XF 55-200 when a lug on the plastic mount broke (I superglued it but didn't really trust it). I love the XF with its extra aperture and aperture ring and feel I am getting better results with it, though whether it is actually sharper I'm not sure. Certainly much nicer to use, though the XC was amazing value for money. 

I use one of these as well - lovely lens; use along side a XF 16-55mm (which sadly is not stabilised ... next body hopefully).