What camera do you guys recommend for someone who likes wildlife, landscape, macro, and wants to try astrophotography? The most important two here are wildlife and landscape, but I don’t think there are many cameras that do both really well. Budget is about 1,000 USD.
Canon EOS Rebel T7. Costs less then $500 (I think) and is amazing.
What do you already have?
What cameras feel right to your brain? (I am a Canon person simply because Nikon put everything in really awkward places for my brain. And my partner favours Nikon for similar reasons.)
Are you talking $1000 for camera body alone or body plus lens?
I currently use Canon Powershot SX70 hs. Your second question is interesting, and I didn’t really think of it. I would say body alone.
I’ve been thinking about Canon EOS R10.
I would prefer a DSLR or Mirrorless camera.
I have a Canon Rebel T6! It has jumpstarted my love for nature photography, and it’s my first DSLR. The only thing I dislike about it is that I can’t do focus stacking with it, which is pretty necessary for macro (and I just spent more money on a macro lens when I can’t even do focus stacking???) :(
Anyways, I’m not a photography expert - but - I am an astronomy/astrophotgraphy geek, so I just want to add something. A lot of DSLR astrophotographers have a modification performed on their camera which removes a filter in front of the image sensor. This particular filter blocks out infrared (IR) light. Without that filter, the IR light would enter the sensor and give you extra detail in your astrophoto that would otherwise be invisible to the human eye. But, removing this filter makes your camera practically unuseable for daytime photography!
Definitely go for mirrorless. Not that one necessarily performs better than the other in the field, but the major lens manufacturers all now seem focussed on mirrorless and buying new good quality DSLR compatible lenses is getting harder every day. Whether we like it or not, mirrorless seems to be the future (said by a veteran DSLR user who’s seriously thinking of changing system for precisely this reason, not to mention the weight).
As I have a passion for photographing small and very small things, I do a lot of focus stacking (such fun!) and have NEVER used the focus stacking function in my DSLR. It does need a little practice, but once you get the knack it’s not hard to focus stack images of some 20/30 frames handheld, the usual limit is movement in the subject rather than in the camera/lens. You will need a good focus stacking software though, such as Helicon or Zerene. Have fun .
Sadly HeliconRemote does not support my Rebel T6 :<
I haven’t tried Zerene, though. First I’ve heard of it.
I suppose I could try it without the remote app. I have Canon camera connect. Would this work: using camera connect to remotely take shots, using autofocus to manually take pics at different focus distances? and then using software to stack it all? is that what you meant originally?
sorry to derail the topic a little. I can make this its own topic if need be.
Landscape, macro, astro (milky way?), wildlife (I assume you mean things like birds in flight) are rather different types of photography with different optical requirements. You have two basic choices if you need to cover everything from wide angle to tele: a bridge camera with a significant zoom range, or an interchangeable lens camera (DLSR/mirrorless). A bridge camera often has some compromises – it will probably do many different types of photography reasonably well, but it may not be excellent at all of them (e.g. it may struggle with low light photography),
Since you said you are more interested in an interchangeable lens camera anyway, I would agree that mirrorless rather than DLSR is the way to go unless you’re on a really tight budget and plan to buy everything used (and even then, you can still probably find used older models of current mirrorless offerings). With an interchangeable lens camera, it is the lenses that will primarily determine the photographic limits – not the body. Pretty much all of the major manufacturers sell bodies that are suitable for everything but the most specialized photography needs. So the main parameters to consider are:
- ease of use of the interface, physical size and ergonomics
- available lenses for your desired purposes
- sensor size (smaller sensors will often mean smaller lenses, but have other limitations)
- what special features/functions do you consider necessary: in-body image stabilization (useful for tele), in-camera focus stacking/bracketing (potentially useful for macro), top-of-the-class autofocus, etc
From my macro cameras, I’d strongly recommend the OM system TG-7. Both underwater camera and shockproof, it makes amazing photos once you get used to it
it’s pretty cheap: about $400 - 500, depends on the season
Y’all are so amazing! Thank you guys!
Maybe I’m old school, but I can’t imagine taking macro images (whether single or for focus stacking) either with a remote app or with automatic focussing . All my macro images are taken strictly with manual focussing, in the case of images for focus stacking, slowly moving the camera in/out or adjusting the focus ring to get the number of images you need. You could use a tripod and focus rail, but while that’s OK for static subjects such as lichen, fungi and so on, it’s pretty limited for moving subjects, such as arthropods or plants when there’s even a minimum of wind.
There’s a whole lot of videos on YouTube that can give you ideas on the techniques that suit you best.
First, before we talk cameras – what about file formats? Are you shooting JPG or RAW with your Powershot SX70?
One of be big complaints about the SX70 was ISO noise. (Also chromatic abberation, but that’s another story). It’s pretty bad with noise showing up even at ISO 200. I discovered a few years back that one of the best jumps in quality comes from transferring from JPG to RAW shooting.
RAW has a disadvantage though – if you shoot for it properly, the camera playback ‘view’ will look pretty dull and flat. Maybe even look like a silhouette! You have to TRUST the post editing with RAW shooting more so than what you see in camera, and after a while, you just ‘know’ it’s going to be great.
This is particularly true for image tone. I set all my cameras to -.3 fstop exposure comp to take full advantage of RAW editing’s tonal power. When you shoot JPG, you are letting the camera’s computer decide what is pure highlight and pure black shadow. With RAW, you will find MUCH more detail still there to recover and control in both of those areas.
As for noise, or ‘denoising’, it’s kind of the same. All that ‘invisible’ data inside a RAW file makes it a lot easier for post-shot removal of noise. All of sudden, you’re shooting at ISO numbers you always heard were taboo. Example?
Well, I don’t have a SX70, so I had to find one online (thank you Photographyblog.com) and let’s have a look. Also, to appreciate the subtleties, I cropped all the finals here to an area to match the max forum dimension of 2048x2048. I suggest clicking on them to see them at 100%.
First, when I clicked ‘Open’ a SX70 raw file shot at 1600 ISO in Photoshop, I got this:
There’s that noise problem. So next, I took this file into Adobe CameraRaw and applied a high RAW-based Noise Reduction to it (about 87%, I think) and about 8 seconds later I go:
Then, just to be more confusing, I took that last result, and applied some Topaz SharpenAI to it (I have an older version of Topaz, so the new might be better) and got this:
So it is possible to get better results with your existing camera, if you have the time, and inclination to learn, some RAW editing software. I believe that Canon’s free image editor can do most of this stuff too so software purchasing may not be as big an issue as you think.
In MY RAW workflow, I use a product called PureRaw (by DxO) and what makes it great is that it’s designed mostly to batch process and goes very quickly. It also does a superior job of removing high ISO noise AND finding details that you wouldn’t believe were there. It’s quickly become a standard tool in most pro wildlife photographer’s toolboxes. What I love about it is that it removes my ‘hesitancy’ of shooting into the high ISO range because I know it will do a good or even great job. So in effect, it’s like gaining a couple of f-stops on any lens or system – that is, any camera or lens that is COMPATIBLE with PureRaw. Alas, I checked, and the Canon SX70 RAW does NOT work.
Still, I would highly recommend installing PureRaw’s week long trial to get a sense of what can do to RAW files that ARE compatible. (This includes a LOT of older model cameras – so if you saved old RAW files, you’re in for a treat!).
I would also recommend that if you want to move up a level of camera that you check to see if it’s covered by the PureRaw list because seriously, adding that extra advantage of high ISO is really worth it for observing. You want a higher shutter speed to handle a flying bird? Try cranking up the ISO and voila. Same with macro – want to peg the fstop to its highest DOF sharpness? Float the ISO (on auto) and there you go.
When I moved up from my Canon SX540 I ended up getting a (used) Nikon P950. Yes, another bridge camera. But for me, the big sell was PureRaw support, 4K video and weight (and budget! Cost me $400 used.)
With the 950 I can travel or walk with a closed lens camera that gets me an ‘effective’ (in 35mm terms) 2000mm tele, and by clipping on a Raynox-250 to the front (from back pant pocket, 2 seconds), I can get good shots down to the 4mm across frame range. You mentioned astronomy? The 950 even has stuff for that. All in a total of less than 4 lb package that can fit easily into a small backpack or even a large jacket pocket. Compare that to the weight and bulk of trying to achieve that range with a DSLR or a mirrorless. Plus, being a bridge camera, there’s no need to worry about sensor dirt. It’s all sealed. (No more physiotherapy bills either)
It took me a while to get used to the 950’s idiosyncracies, but that’s true of most cameras.
Full disclosure, if I am on a mission locally to shoot ONLY macro, I tuck away the 950 and reach for my Sony A6300 and my Laowa 100mm lens. The giddy amount of detail that the larger sensor gets practically spoils your taste for going back to bridge. But, like I said – if you want ONE camera to do a lot of stuff, without breaking your back or bank, the P950 is worth a look.
Here’s two shots from a couple weeks back where I was concentrating mostly on bird shots and I came across a new woodlouse. Reach for the back pocket Raynox and…
Even if you decide to move to a DSLR, I highly recommend that you keep PureRaw in mind. If you’re shopping for a new camera, you can (like I just did) usually find a sample of that camera’s RAW file AT ITS MAX ISO to download. That’s the time to take PureRaw for a ride and see what you can get.
(above: the April eclipse from my backyard, handheld (no filters even) on my Nikon P950.)
Even if a TG is NOT your main macro camera, it’s still a great camera that you can take anywhere to capitalize on those ‘you-never-know-when’ observation opportunities. And even if it’s a steady rain, since I have no other weatherproof camera, I can still have fun on the trail.
Like I did with my Tg5 just a week ago…
For iNat purposes (remember, max image size for iNat submissions is 2048 pixels), I have found that for quick and easy stacking, to shoot in 4K video. Even by default, you’re getting around 30 decent sized images a second.
You basically just move slightly in and out so that in a few seconds you get enough frames to make good selections from, pop it into a vid editor and harvest the best frames to cover the focus. Then run these through your stacking software. For me, at least, by far the easiest stacking software is what’s found inside the Affinity Photo’s app. Fastest, and most forgiving when it comes to automatically aligning the differences.
Taken (BION) with a $30 clip-on microscope lens on a smartphone:
And this one is one of my first tests with this method using available light and Nikon P950 bridge cam:
I like DSLR vs mirrorless, and I think Nikon is the best in the market. Ultimately keep in mind that newer top end lenses are more important than the body tho. For macro make sure to get an external flash and soft box/diffusor (camera’s built in flash isn’t as bright and it makes for harsh lighting).
Here are some of my macro shots with my Nikon D7000 (15 year old camera, to illustrate my point above) with a cheap but new macro lens:
I do landscape, some close-ups (not macro), some wildlife, and aurora photography. I got my first DSLR, a Nikon D3300, 10 years ago after doing a search on “DSLR for beginners” and I’m still using it. It’s been a real workhorse for me. Pros are: it’s simple to use, is lightweight, has a kit lens (18-55 mm) that is adequate for most situations, and has some quick settings that are great for iNatting – the “sports” (burst) mode shoots 12 frames/sec and I use that with insects a lot. In 10 or 20 frames of very fast-moving hawk moths I can usually get several good, sharp photos that freeze the motion of their wings. Cons: the kit 300 mm lens has no “infinity” mark and it’s really hard to get sharp photos with it. Due to age, the D3300 doesn’t record GPS or connect to wi-fi (not a useful feature anyway if you’re out of cell range often).
I’ve been doing aurora photography in Alaska for about 8 years and have gradually upgraded. About 1.5 years ago I got a Nikon D750 full-frame camera, and a few months later I got a Rokinon f2.8 fixed-focus lens. Both were used and together came to about $900. (At the time, used mirrorless camera bodies were well over $1200). The D750 is a lot heavier than the D3300. It has a gazillion features that I’ll probably never use but the setup takes marvelous aurora photos.
How do you use your gear? I mostly use the D3300 and my cell phone for iNatting when I’m out hiking and don’t want to be weighed-down by gear. Phone cameras are so good now, you can get a huge range of good photos (even some of printable quality) from very close to panorama. Will you be in situations where you want to quickly switch from wide-angle to telephoto lenses?
So far, I haven’t used my aurora setup for anything else and probably won’t unless I can carry camera, lens, and tripod in my car, due to bulk and weight.
In summary: a basic DSLR/mirrorless with interchangeable lenses + phone camera might give you the most versatility if your goal is getting good observations for iNat.
Astrophotography is a specialty and may require a different setup that doesn’t cross over as well.
If your goal is professional quality images for reproduction, I think you could start with the camera body, then add high-quality lenses over time starting with what you need or use the most frequently. I think it’s also possible to rent cameras and lenses from reputable camera shops if there are any where you live. That would be a good way to see what works for you. Good luck!
I want to get good pictures for iNat but also win casual photo contests and maybe have my pictures win more serious photo contests. Thank you for your help!
You’re welcome! I look forward to seeing some of your photos in the future. See also the thread in Nature Talk on Dec.7: “Transitioning from Canon Point-and-Shoot…” It might add to the options you’re considering.
What part of nature are you interested in?
My partner is only interested in birds and some flowers so I told her to try Nikon P950 or P900.
I am interested in birds, orchids, grasses and mosses (in chronological order), landscapes and streetscapes. I recently bought a Canon SX70HS and an OM TG-7 because my old Canon got tired after 70000 frames.
TG-7 makes stacked focus macro images and light is not a problem with the diffuser ring.
SX70 has 0 cm minimum focal length so I got macro covered for mosses and grasses.
I take insect photos with the SX70 in “macro” mode zooming in.
The TG-7 takes great photos of children in motion. For everything else, I use the SX70.
The two cameras, bag, spare batteries and accessories cost me just over your budget.
I am active on iNat and Google maps and take 12-18000 frames a year.
If you choose cameras with bigger sensors, please note that specialist (tele- or macro) lenses cost multiples of the body and you would probably need a backpack to haul all the gear.
There is a lot of good recommendations on this thread. I would add that exploring your camera to the full and finding what limits you will give you the direction how to proceed.