Skip Navigation
Photography @lemmy.ml
SurpriZe @lemm.ee

Looking for advice on a camera for nature photography under $600.

I’m totally new to photography and want to get my first camera. I’ll mainly be using it for nature photography while hiking and traveling.

My only focus is on photos of the highest possible quality.

My budget is around $600, and I’ll also need essential accessories, but don't know what I'd need, like a lens?

Not open to refurbished, as I'm buying in Vietnam.

29 comments

  • What kind of nature? Landscapes or wildlife?

    For landscape you don't need much, just get whatever camera body you can afford and the widest zoom (probably gonna stick with a kit lens in your budget). In terms of accessories you might want CPL and ND filters and a decent tripod and you're good to go.

    If you want to shoot wildlife (animals, birds etc), that's a very different story and your budget won't work, the lenses needed are very expensive.

  • Most of my experience is with Canon, but I have friends that shoot mirrorless Sonys. If I did it all again, I would definitely go mirrorless to make astrophotography easier, but for your budget mirrorless is probably a no-go.

    I recommend checking out the Canon Rebel series. They are an entry-level camera that fits your budget and I recommend looking for a package with a couple different lenses. In the US, I've seen good deals at Costco for a camera + 2 lenses, but this was years ago and I don't know where else to point you for a good deal today, particularly in Vietnam. Don't discount other brands, this is just what I am familiar with because my first camera was a hand-me-down Canon from my dad. Nikon and Sony are other well-known brands, but not the end-all be-all.

    You can always buy used and perhaps get a good deal, but make sure you test everything first and look for someone wanting to upgrade or that never really got into the hobby. Make sure it doesn't look like they dropped the body or the lens. Again, idk how viable this is in Vietnam.

    The biggest investment in photography will always be lenses. If you get a decent body, it can last you forever. For a good wildlife lens with a high zoom for something like fast-moving birds, you're looking at thousands for a lens (if not tens of thousands). Slower animals won't need to be this much and plants/landscape you can get by with lower-end lenses for a very long time if not forever. If you really, really want higher quality photos, you are probably going to need to shell out thousands. I've borrowed $10,000 lenses from friends that were sufficient for most all wildlife, but we're still too slow for focusing on flying birds. Don't bother buying something like this unless you have the means and find deficiencies in your kit (I borrowed from professionals that didn't focus on wildlife.)

    If you can find a kit in your budget with something like a 75-300mm lens, you'll be set for a very long time. If that's too zoomed, a decent, fixed 50mm is around $100 last I checked and easy to carry along and swap. Fixed lenses will generally be higher quality for less money, but less useful while hiking.

    Worry less about your gear than developing your skills and understanding the settings on the camera after this first purchase. A kit in the $600 is a very reasonable start and will get you a long way, but will not cut it for most wildlife photography.

    • Not that interested in wildlife to be honest as there just aren't many animals left in Vietnam wandering in the wilds (almost everything got poached to hell, especially birds, it's like walking in a deadzone sometimes). So I'm most interested in still life and macrophotography for fungi, plus maybe a few landscape shots now and then, and of course I'd love to take portrait photos of wife and ourselves traveling.

      Do you have any comments on the Canon EOS R50? And what one specific lens would you recommend for it, in my case?

      • Tldr: I think the Canon R50 is a good first pick for your budget. Get 1 or 2 extra batteries or a power bank. Get the best UHS-I SDXC card you can, aim for 200 MB/s, <$50. Use the camera strap. Wrap it around your forearm when not on your neck so when you inevitably drop the camera, it doesn't drop.

        Wait to buy a new lens. For your first pick I recommend the Canon RF35mm F1.8 IS Macro STM lens that is $500 and does not zoom. The stock 18-45mm lens on the R50 can do this job too, just worse than the recommendation. The stock lens also has some zoom, which you'll probably appreciate if you've never had a non-zooming camera. Lenses are expensive as shit, but the most important investment in your kit too.

        In the future (years unless you really need the extra range), I recommend saving up for the $1200 Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS lens below based on what you said, but gave more options that should last you until you learn enough to pick them out on your own. When choosing lenses, give yourself room to grow into a full frame camera. These two will get you a long way and limitations often lead to more creativity.

        Sorry, a lot of what is below becomes rambles because I researched the lenses as I wrote. Idk your means, so adjust your budget/timeline as you want. The above is the important bit.

        Long version:

        The Canon R50 looks like a good entry point for your budget. For alternatives you may see: I would not pick the Canon R100. The Canon R10 looks worthwhile, but is outside your budget. The Sony A6100 is a viable alternative, but I think it's more expensive than the R50 and the R50 will probably perform overall better. I would choose the R50 or the A6100. Don't consider increasing your budget to get the R100, that's money better spent on lenses.

        I haven't used the R50, but I read around a little. Things that concerned me: low battery life, cannot select shutter speed minimum auto ISO, UHS-I memory. I think these are all things that can be overcome easily enough or I feel spoiled complaining about these days. It's a crop sensor, so the focal length listed on a lens won't always match your effective focal length based on what I suggest below. When looking at numbers in the future, just keep it in mind.

        I always bring extra batteries or a power bank, so if you are prepared you'll be fine. Depends on how long you shoot and how many shots you take. It's usually hours for me and this would be pushing it on one charge.

        My understanding is you cannot set a minimum shutter speed when in auto ISO mode. This will probably not be an issue for you until you are ready for a full frame camera, but someday it will bother you. You can always manually select the ISO to get over this, but it probably won't matter for your intended use.

        UHS-I is slow these days. If you are shooting a lot of photos in a row, you may reach a point where you need to stop and wait for the camera to store before continuing. I used this for a lot of years and it can be really frustrating to run into, but you can overcome this by being aware that it can happen. Most likely if taking burst shots, so not usually relevant on a hike. A UHS-I SDXC card will mitigate much of this, you can push it to around 200 MB/s I think and these are pretty cheap these days. Try out whatever you get, play with shooting a lot in a row and see if it's a problem. An upgrade to the highest end will be <$50 but you may not need it. Another, you won't care until you really care and that depends on your use case point.

        Now the big catch (as it will always be): lenses. The 18-45mm I see on kits for sale with the body is not great and when I say that, I want to emphasize that it's not bad, there are just better options to do the same job. Unfortunately, the lenses are all going to break your budget, so I suggest you put them on your wishlist instead. Lenses are always the most expensive part and if you get multiple, you may want to upgrade to a bag specifically for them. I find most outdoor shooting I bring only 1 or 2 versatile telephoto lenses because I don't want to carry more and swap a lot. I favor larger telephoto lens, but as you shoot, you may find you favor something else, so fit your choices to what you want to shoot and where your kit doesn't allow you to do what you want. There are often compromises that can be made to make things cheaper even if I suggest a better lens.

        If you can, i suggest planning ahead with these purchases: if you buy a lens, make sure it can also go on a full frame camera. If you don't end up wanting to go that route some day, don't worry, just shoot what you enjoy and what makes you happy. Photography is very expensive and it's very easy to get caught up in buying the next new shiny toy. Less lenses, but more versatility will probably serve you best. Don't go out and buy these when you buy the camera. Try your camera out first!

        Below is the gut-wrenching reality of photography and how expensive the low to mid range options can be. Note that prime (non-zooming) lenses are always cheaper, but usually less versatile. Always look at the photos taken by reviewers when shopping for a lens. Everything listed below is targeted at the Canon R50 after looking around a bit:

        For macro and much more: Canon RF35mm F1.8 IS Macro STM. ~$450. Great for macros and low light. 52.5mm on this sensor. This is a prime lens. A cheaper alternative is the Canon RF28mm F2.8 STM for about $250. The low f stop values for these lenses will open up many possibilities for shots, but these are great lenses for just walking around and shooting anywhere if you don't need any zoom. Both are fine for portraits, but if you want something a bit more targeted, the RF50mm F1.8 STM ~$200, "nifty 50" will be great for portraits. They will be very compact and lightweight, which you'll care about. As much as I harp about telephoto lenses later, I bought a used Ricoh compact camera at one point because I didn't want to carry around my full frame. Nothing wrong with these lenses, I just want you to be aware of my bias. If I ranked my priorities: 35mm > 28mm > 50mm but only get one. I think the effective focal length of the 35mm lens with the R50 is 50mm and the effective length for the 50mm lens is 80mm.

        Versatility + some range: Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. ~$1200. Steep price, but very much a pick where one lens fits most situations with a good balance of performance to cost. It will take much nicer photos than the stock 18-45mm and give you some extra range. This is probably the single lens to get over any other with the caveat that I'm assuming you will one day upgrade your camera and want to keep using this as your first-pick lens. That's why I think it's more worthwhile to consider a more expensive lens here. An alternative is the Canon RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM, ~$500. I'm sure this would serve you well. It's more budget-minded, but perfectly fine, the only drawback is that you will not be able to use this on a full frame camera. To me, this is wasted money, but if you never see yourself upgrading, then it's worth considering over the 24-105mm as a better starting point.

        You could stop here with the 35mm and the 24-205mm and probably cover most of what you would want to use the camera for unless you really get into photography. Once you try your camera out, you'll better know what you need. If you care mostly about wider shots and macro, pick the 35mm in addition to what comes with the camera. It's cheaper and gives you additional options. If you are finding you really want some more range, the 24-105mm will be an excellent lens for many years to come. Both should fit a full frame camera too, so it's not burnt cost if you upgrade. I want to stress that choosing two lenses in this range will cover almost everything you could want and I'm thinking you would do this in the coming years, not today.

        More options:

        Larger telephoto: Canon 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM. ~$650. This gives a lot of zoom for the price and (importantly) is relatively lightweight. Most telephoto lenses are more than double this price and weight much more. F/5.6-8 is the trade-off. It won't do as well in low light or fast-moving situations, but it is a great deal. Probably a steal. You don't find telephoto lenses that are decent quality around this price. Again, it's because of the f stop trade-off.

        Beyond here only lies danger to your wallet. If you want this many lenses, you probably are ready to graduate to a full frame camera first.

        For wider shots: go for a smaller prime (non-zooming) lens to keep it cheap, like the 16mm f/2.8 STM. The zoom lenses are good, but 10x the price. Only consider this if the 35mm and 28mm lenses I mentioned above don't cut it.

        I personally get a lot of use in around the 50-200mm range. It's the sweet spot for me. The trade-offs here can cost $1000. RF70-200mm F4 L IS USM, ~$1500. f/4 is probably good enough, but there are f/2.8 that give more versatility...for >$1000 more than the RF-S55-210mm F5-7.1 IS STM at ~$350. The f stop is quite a bit more limiting though.

        For myself, I know I would get 99% of my shots done with the 24-105mm above and the 70-200mm lens here. Beyond that, I would probably buy the 35mm prime lens for the f/1.8. Landscapes, portraits, street photography, macros, astrophotography, most wildlife...those three would cover all of my needs besides shooting fast moving birds.

        If I were you, these are the three lenses I would save for with a Canon R50, but that is based on my shooting and I know what I like to use. I want to stress again that you should use the camera and stock lens to begin with and see what it is that you find you want before you make any lens purchases.

        I know I threw a lot of info at you here, but I tried to organize the lenses based on your potential priorities while trying to minimize the budget and maximize performance.

      • When starting, focus on learning these basics very well: framing, how to use shutter speed, aperture, iso and how they affect the photo, some very basic post editing of RAW images such as cropping (framing), contrasting, color and light balance. Keep edits to a minimum as subtle is generally better. That doesn't mean you can't do cool, artistic things in post, just go easy at first.

        If you have a solid understanding of the above and don't solely shoot in auto mode, this is where you will see an advantage over using a phone camera. That said, it's a hobby to enjoy, so there's more to gain even if a phone would be sufficient.

29 comments