Reply With QuoteGood long lenses cost serious money, what's your reasonable cost?
I would stick this in the other section but doesn’t appear to get much movement in there.
Ive recently moved and I’m lucky enough to have some great views which stretch out for several miles in front of me. So far we’ve had Deer, foxes, a variety of bird including Kites, jays, finches and I’m realising that my old Samsung NX 1100 is a bit lacking when it comes to something a little further away, in fact very lacking! I’m looking at something with a tele-lens which will take reasonable pics at a reasonable price. Any suggestions?
FFF
Good long lenses cost serious money, what's your reasonable cost?
Up to £1000
Not read reviews and don’t if you like photography or just want a point n shoot, take a look at Nikon P1000 under budget and will zoom to the moon and back.
Sony RX10iii and a spare battery. Version iv would be better but double the money.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-DSCRX1.../dp/B01E7NHNW8
Christ- just watched the videos on YouTube, I see what you mean!Originally Posted by justin44
This, definitely.
If you want something that you can use just point and shoot but which will allow you to get a bit more serious if you
want to Sony RX10 iv although would probably mean buying used.
If you want something that will give you good results at a pretty bargain price Lumix FZ330.
Both of above give you 600mm at the long end, the Sony has a bigger sensor (better low light performance) and more pixels but unless you plan to print above A4 or drastically crop pixel numbers not such an issue.
I bought the Sony for a tiger safari last year as carrying lots of lenses etc wasn’t an option and it performed very well
and sold it 2 months later for the same as I paid for it.
My wife has had the Lumix for a few years it has an excellent Leica lens also it’s very light.
couple of photos, sony first Lumix second
[IMG]
👍
I’ve owned the Sony RX10 MkIV, and it’s a fine point and shoot camera, with a very nice lens and a 1” sensor that is big for a bridge camera.
But, it’s over budget even used, so I’d go with the recommendation of a couple of others and get the RX10 III that has the same Zeiss lens and sensor as the Mk IV, but a slightly less capable AF system that you’ll only miss if you’re into action photography.
For garden ‘birds on a stick’ and other wildlife at medium distance, it’ll do you proud.
There are longer zoom bridge cameras out there, but many use digital zooming which you can do yourself in photo editing software.
You should be able to pick up an RX10 iv for £1,000 Clifton cameras have one for £1,099 but it isn’t the best time to try and buy at the moment.
If you plan to video as well the improved AF system over the iii is much better for video.
Should have checked this before I posted but just realised your current Samsung is an interchangeable lens camera with an aps-c size sensor which is the same size as a lot of DSLRs and bigger than the one in the Sony.
If you’re happy with the rest of the camera probably worth looking into getting a longer lens rather than changing the camera,
They make or made a 50-200 which would give you equivalent of 75-300, presumably youve just got a 50mm lens or similar at the moment. Shorter than the 600 on the Sony but might be worth picking one up used and seeing if it’s long enough and if not sell the camera and lenses together and then upgrade to something else.
Yes it has interchangeable lenses but comes with the standard 50mm lens which as I said for anything more than 20 ft away is useless. I did look at this originally but at the time could only see lenses which era c£500 plus which tbh I didn’t really want to spend on a 6/7 yr old camera, however I will take another look. cheers
The longest lens made for the Samsung was the 50-150 2.8 and originally cost around a grand, I don't believe it's made any longer and doubt it sold in big numbers so second hand will be few and far between and even then the 150 would still be lacking. If the Sony RX10iv can be had for about a grand second hand, it would be a no-brainer for me.
Seems like a pretty decent camera even though it’s not the latest, I would be reluctant to go to a smaller sensor
unless it’s to reduce weight/size which in this case it isn’t, if the 300mm is a bit short you could probably have a decent range
to crop, even if you don’t normally do any post processing just getting something like Photoshop Express which is free
makes it easy to crop and it’s auto adjust setting can work quite well.
SH 50-200 probably about £140.
There was a 50-200mm. One here https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Samsung-n...epid=219692753
I'd say worth trying at that price.Can always resell for small loss(at worst).
List of lenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...X-mount_lenses
My Google error, I could only find the 50-150 2.8.
What about a used canon dslr and a 400mm lens u can pick up a used 400mm prime lens for £500 ish which leaves plenty for a body
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
The good thing about the photography market nowadays is there are so many ways to get what you want/need, for a given budget.
More generally, I’d say that 300mm equivalent is a bit short for wildlife photography, although it’s still useful if you can get close to your subject or if your subject is at the larger end of the scale.
It’s quite possible to disappear down a long and expensive rabbit hole chasing better results, as I did when I became obsessed with Owl photography!
I currently use Sony APS-C cameras and the 200-600 lens, which is a great system for wildlife, if not a little cumbersome.
If I had to have just one camera to cover everything though, at a more casual level and without having to change lenses and without putting my back out, it would be one of the RX10 cameras, more specifically the Mk III or IV if I was doing wildlife as well.
Get a nikon D3 or D700 and a 1st Gen 70-200mm Nikkor, can be had for your budget
Full frame quality, speed, f2.8 max aperature , a battery that last circa 1200 shots and later on get a 1.4x extender for more reach
The 50-200 is an NX Mount lens and they also they make an 18-200 but lot more expensive, not an expert on Samsung
so would be worth double checking they would work with the NX1100.
I’d make much the same recommendation, particularly if you really want to concentrate on wildlife photography as opposed to just occasional photos of wildlife.
Having been through the M4/3 stage I went DX then full frame. I can’t see myself going back to a smaller sensor anytime soon. I just found myself having to make too many compromises.
If most of your subject matter is at any distance then the non-VR version of the Nikon 300mm f/4 is a great option, with the 1.4x teleconverter for more distance if needed (it becomes a 420mm, the compromise being it becomes an f5.6 lens). This lens also has very close focusing, making it almost like a macro at times.
Your mileage might vary depending on the type of wildlife you want to specialise in, but you mentioned deer, which is my preferred subject matter.
Personally, I'd look for a decent used DSLR as other have mentioned.
In fact, even new some good DSLRs are far better priced than these mirrorless cameras.
Lenses tend to be more competitively priced, too.
The photography experts will tell you that you need to spend a fortune to get a really good lens (and they're probably right in absolute terms), but unless you're enlarging to a huge size, many budget zoom lenses are perfectly adequate for wildlife, scenery or sports photography.
I've got a Pentax DSLR (I went that route as I had a Pentax K mount 35mm SLR and some of the lenses were reusable), but Nikon or Canon are the most popular brands these days.
M
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
The Nikon P1000 is a one-trick pony. Stupidly long and not especially sharp zoom (which you could never hand hold) attached to a very average camera.
I'd go for the Sony RX10. I have both MK 3 and Mk 4, and the results are as good as I get with my Nikon D750 with 150-600mm Sigma lens. They are also a lot easier to carry around.
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equip...lumix-dmc-gx8/
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equip...h-power-o-i-s/
Maybe a little more than your budget but this is a tried and proven Panasonic Micro 4/3 safari outfit with a lens equivalent to full frame 200-800mm … you'll really need a very long lens for birds and mammals … forget about shorter zooms with extenders.
And consider adding a macro lens for close-ups https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equip...is/sku-970023/
And for wildlife you'll definitely need a decent tripod or monopod too … and a tripod head
Compact superzoom cameras are not the Jack of all trades cameras that manufacturers purport them to be … they suffer at the extremes of their focal lengths
You'll get better advice from the regulars on the TZ Digital Photography forum
dunk
Last edited by sundial; 10th April 2020 at 05:25.
"Well they would say that ... wouldn't they!"
Dunk
That does look a cracking lens - and far better than its 100-300mm predecessor, which is what I have. I found that lens lost sharpness at around 250mm. The lightness compared to my big prime lenses was a revelation though! I still take that lens (and an M4/3 body) with me if I have to travel with just hand baggage, as it’s so versatile.
It’s just a shame this lens, like its predecessor, is not fixed aperture. I found when I really wanted the distance I also wanted the light.
A great point too about the monopod/tripod. For convenience I like the monopod but a good tripod can make a tremendous difference.
The 100-400 is a chunky thing, and there was quite a bit of sample variation when I had mine, my second copy after I rejected the first one was good.
I had the Panasonic 100-300 mk 2 version of your lens, and it was apparently much better at the long end than the Mk1. I found it good anyway.
One of the reasons I moved away from DSLRs and lenses like the 200-400 or the big primes was to avoid the need for a tripod/monopod, the freedom was quite liberating.
There’s a guy at one of the local spots I go too who still uses his full frame DSLR, 600 f4 and a chunky old tripod, and I still reminisce about my days doing that. I don’t miss the machine gun rattle though as he fires off shots, another mirrorless benefit in my view is silent mode!
Ha! Quite right - I’d forgotten about that. The mirrorless is silent in a way that my Nikon in Quiet mode never will be.
You’re right about the liberating feeling as well - with the mirrorless it feels like you’re carrying around a toy......until you see the photos they produce. I won’t be surprised if DSLR’s disappear during my lifetime, other than perhaps for some very specialised applications.
Posting Permissions
