Birding On a tight budget - should I buy less now or wait to buy right?

[kneale]

Hi all. I love nature and am tired of using only my iphone. I've had cameras in the past but it has been years. So long in fact, when I tried to hook my old Pentax DSLR up to my Macbook, it was incompatible, so no way to download my photos. So, now I am looking at Canon Rebels including the SL2, T7i and also the D77.

My goal, other than being able to take photos of my kids, is to shoot nature. I love to garden and we have many birds, bees and butterflies that come into the garden on a regular basis. I also have lots of flowers and want to capture them as well. My husband would like to use the camera for video capture of his Tankganyikan Cichlids (fish). 

My dilemma is I've watched so many Youtube videos and it seems I "need" at least the Canon T7i or D77 to be able to even get a mediocre shot (according to all of the "experts"), and I honestly can't afford the price point of either of these with all the lenses. I can afford the D77 body only, which obviously does me no good. The T7i is slightly better but only with the 18-55 lens. I can just afford the SL2 with the kit 18-55 and the 55-250. 

I'm at a loss. To hear most of the Youtubers anything less than at least one of these is a waste of money. No camera means no pictures but I am wondering if I should just hold off and save up for the better camera, the D77 or maybe even the D80. What are your thoughts and experiences?

Thank you!

[kneale]

Ernie,

Beautiful pictures. I don't only take birds either. 🙂 Just a good place to start learning. 

[shadowsports]

LoL..  and here I thought it was "Lamb Basting"...  all my life. 

Flame Adobe..  oh, I'll do that...  You guys can have it.  They aren't getting a penny from me any longer. 

[ebiggs1]

"They aren't getting a penny from me any longer."

I am sure they aren't concerned.  And, there lies the problem.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"They aren't getting a penny from me any longer."

I am sure they aren't concerned.  And, there lies the problem.

---

But whose problem is it, Adobe's or their customers'? The plain truth is that there's a lot less difference than there once was between the capability of Adobe's products and that of their competitors. Maybe they're foolish not to be concerned.

[John_SD]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"They aren't getting a penny from me any longer."

I am sure they aren't concerned.  And, there lies the problem.

---

But whose problem is it, Adobe's or their customers'? The plain truth is that there's a lot less difference than there once was between the capability of Adobe's products and that of their competitors. Maybe they're foolish not to be concerned.

---

I believe you hit the naiil on the head, Robert. While Adobe products may still be superior to those of its competitors, the gap is closing, and closing fast. For most of us, there is simply no reason to send a monthly gift to Adobe for the rest of our lives. There are too many other products that do a fantastic job. For the majority of them, you buy it once and the product is yours. Upgrades are not always must-haves and even if you do want to upgrade now and again, you aren't forced into it. And it is affordable, not a lifelong tribute you must send in.

For pros like Ernie, and others who may have hundreds of thousands or millions of images to consider, it is likely not worth the hassle or headache to make a move to another product. I suspect that they know they are being ripped off and jerked around, but they have no reasonable alternative, and so they asquiesce to the situation. For the rest of us, there is simply no reason to get into an unacceptable financial arrangement that Adobe forces down your throat. There are too many alternatives now, and I for one expect that Adobe will feel it in their bottom line at some point. And speaking of other products I am taking another look at ON1. 

[ebiggs1]

Now don't get me wrong guys.  I am not on Adobe's side on this.  I was one of the loudest protesters when they announced this nonsense.  But the facts are, Adobe is making more money that ever.  Just check their stock price.

The bottom line, Photoshop and Lightroom are the "standards" of the industry. Until that changes, not in any foreseeable future, no software that is 'just as good' has a chance.  The also-runs will be left to the amateurs.

At this point if you want the best, the most compatible with the industry you go rental only.  As to upgrades, I have not upgraded since Adobe stopped upgrading CS6 and LR6 woth ACR9.  Has not been a problem.  If you are just starting out like our OP and waht the best $9.99 isn't all that bad.

[kneale]

Thanks all!  This is all really valuable information. I don't have any of these suggested programs yet. 

Karen

[Waddizzle]

---

@kneale wrote:

 Also, All off these were uploaded to FB first and then downloaded to my computer. I need to figure out how to upload photos directly to my computer because I'm sure I lose quality with all of the uploads and downloads. Karen

---

You are correct.  The round trip through FB does not help image quality.  The simplest way to get photos out of the camera, and onto your computer, is with an inexpensive card reader, which plugs into a standard USB port.

I like to use the free Canon EOS utility, which somewhat automates the transfer process, allowing me to automatically rename files on the fly.

[kneale]

Love it! 

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@shadowsports wrote: 

---

Buying Canon refurbs is a good idea; buying on credit isn't, unless you're a professional. Buy what you can afford. Photography can be a deep money sink, and it's easy to get in over your head.

A lot of what you hear about birding is based on the presumption that you're in the wild looking for birds that are trying to stay out of your way. That doesn't necessarily apply to the birds that hang out in your garden, which means that you can probably get by with lesser equipment (particularly shorter lenses), at least for now.

---

I agree, with Bob.  You can get by with a lesser lens.  In fact, a lesser lens will probably do you some good.  Using a super telephoto lens is a lot like looking at the world through a straw.  The longer the focal length, the narrower your angle of view.  

Telephoto lenses fall in the 100mm to 300mm range.  Super telephoto lenses are 400mm, and up.  Using a medium telephoto zoom lens, like the Canon EF-S 55-250mm STM lens will help you get your “sea legs” before using a big super telephoto lens.  

Most people need a monopod, or tripod, to use a super telephoto lens effectively because they tend to be big and heavy.  Using a telephoto lens without added support is fairly easy for most people.

As far as what lens to buy, of course, the best advice is to “buy it once, buy it right.”  But, sometimes the big step up can do more harm than good.  I suggest going with a telephoto lens with a maximum focal length of 300mm.  Most birders in the woods like to use 400-600mm lenses.  A 300mm lens is more than adequate for the backyard bird feeder.

Sigma and Tamron, which both make 150-600mm super telephoto lenses, have both recently released 100-400mm lenses, which have super telephoto focal lengths, but in a medium telephoto size package.  I think these are great lenses for someone needing to learn how to use a super telephoto lens.

If you want to jump into the deep end, and go for a big 150-600 super telephoto lens, be prepared to spend a bit more on a decent monopod and tilt head.  I use a Benro monopod with a Kirk monopod tilt head.  I love the Kirk head, because it is very strong, and easily supports the weight of a five pound lens, and a three pound camera body, without flopping about.  A ball head simply does not work as well for action photography as a tilt head, or a pan and tilt head.