Your ideal wildlife set up

I thought this thread must exist, but I did not find anything.

The goal would be to look at your budget, what you like to do and then what solution that leads to, what you do currently and what your future plans are => just to pick up ideas from each other.
Pictures are a plus.

My budget is a high amateur budget (I do not make money from photography, but I make enough money to amuse myself with photography).
I like to go around on long walks, sit down when I heard something to see what is going on and take macro, up to telephoto shots when the opportunity arises.

Ideally I would have
- a light set-up, portability is important
- 3 bodies: 1 long telephoto set-up, 1 short telephoto zoom and 1 macro set-up. (the last 2 seem easiest to combine).
- a seat to sit
- tripod for telephoto with a gimbal
- basic camouflage (camo) for fast blending in
- a harness for free movement and fast action
- optional, wide angle and filters for when I´m waiting for movement.

The issue is clearly to be ready for a lot of different action while staying light and having it easy to move and within the budget.
The budget makes that I do not have someone to carry things for me and the amateur makes that I can miss shots and it does not really matter. On top of that I do not have all the time of the world either.



I want to buy a cotton carrier harness, put in front of me my D7000 with the 500mm, on one side the 70-200 with an second body and as third a small sensor mirrorless with macro set-up.
In a light backpack my gimbal and a camo poncho, wearing camo clothing, probably a drink and snack. I have a carrier bag that takes a little seat and a tipod (without head).
The wide angle and filters can go in a larger backpack when I feel like it.
My current issues:
- the second body, I want it light, high performing in low light and still good for wildlife; but cheap. I still have some time to get it, if I ever do.
- no harness, I´m carrying everthing in my photo backpack + the case for the 500mm => I really need to remove all unneeded before leaving.

P.S.: I have 2 tripods for stake outs. 1 for targeting (e.g. a nest or drinking place) the second for a gimbal and very long telephoto for moving targets. Did not get to do that though.

From the reviews I have read on the Net, D4S is the ultimate wild life camera. It has clean high ISO and very fast AF.
Using the Nikon D4s for wildlife photography | Nikon Rumors
D800 vs D4s For Wildlife in Low Light & Long Lenses

For a light weight camera D3300 is ideal. The cost too has dropped below $500, at least in India - currently D3300+18-55+8GB+case is going for $480.

aroy said:

From the reviews I have read on the Net, D4S is the ultimate wild life camera. It has clean high ISO and very fast AF.

Click to expand...

Clearly a lot of professionals on high budget will go for that, probably combining it with a AFS 400mm f2,8 II and some TCs. Then others make other choices, many of us do not have or want to spend that budget.

aroy said:

For a light weight camera D3300 is ideal.

Click to expand...

Why is that for you? Let me be clear the D3300 is a hell of a machine and I certainly considered it, but one of my main goals, adding high ISO is not going to happen with it, so I´m saving and looking out for something second hand.

Vincent said:

....
Why is that for you? Let me be clear the D3300 is a hell of a machine and I certainly considered it, but one of my main goals, adding high ISO is not going to happen with it, so I´m saving and looking out for something second hand.

Click to expand...

You will get the best high ISO with the 16MP sensors - D4S followed by DF.

D3300 is one of the lightest DSLR. Its high ISO may not be best, but quite decent. Makes an ideal body dedicated to micro photography - small objects with a 60mm lense+extension tubes.

Vincent said:

I want to buy a cotton carrier harness, put in front of me my D7000 with the 500mm, on one side the 70-200 with an second body and as third a small sensor mirrorless with macro set-up.
In a light backpack my gimbal and a camo poncho, wearing camo clothing, probably a drink and snack. I have a carrier bag that takes a little seat and a tipod (without head).
The wide angle and filters can go in a larger backpack when I feel like it.

Click to expand...

I just went to exchange my 18-105 DX for a 70-300G, I'll probably loose in quality, but gain in reach. However it made me think of this thread.

Current conclusions:
1) I like the cotton carrier, but the 500, even the 70-200 are too heavy on it IMHO during longer walks, hence I now have a 70-300 for position on the harness. For less movements around a shooting terrain the heavier lenses can still go on the cotton carrier.
2) I rarely put the macro ready for action the way stated above, it is or on the second body or in the bag. You need to remove the large lenses from the cotton carrier before you can move sufficiently anyway.
3) I move the 500 in a regular hicking backpack on the back, I find this more comfortable for carrying. In the holders for the ice pick I can put the tripod and I secured my Gimbal now for transport.

My cheap second body became a D70s, I would have preferred a D3200, but that was still 3 time the price. I was saving afterwards and I now also carry my Sony A7s for twilight, video and more static set-ups + it is important in a lot of not wildlife shots.
For terrain with good access (e.g. some parks have concrete cycling roads through them), I have a fishing trolley to take more material.

The D4s would be a none starter for me even if budget allowed,ime in the school that thinks reach is important for wildlife and cropping will still be needed even with DX so it has to be a D7200 body,lens well within my budget i had what i considered to be the best,the Tamron 150-600,i had problems with mine but if Tamron could promise me it was sorted i would buy another.
For flowers and insects well that would be the new love of my life the D750 with a 150mm macro,i could cover most things with those two set ups.

As my wife never reads this forum i can say if my new meds change my ability to walk and carry camera gear the above could become more than speculation,

I pretty much set out to accomplish those goals at the beginning of the year. I started from scratch and built what i consider a good setup. D7000, D7200, Tokina 11-20, Nikon 18-140, Tamron 150-600, A decent tripod (Oben 1411 with BA111 ball head), Oben monopod, Manfrotto RC128 fluid head, Lowepro flipside 400 backpack, remote, cleaning stuff, hood/loupe for video, Rode video mic pro, extra batteries, good uv filters for all lenses, 4 stop nd & 9 stop nd for the 18-140, and a 9 stop for the 11-20.
I feel like i got what i need and that it's capable of doing a lot more than i am able to do. I would have to check but pretty sure i'm still under six grand for everything.
I'll be getting another tripod in the future and come up with a way to pack the Tamzooka with body in some sort of ready bag -probably end up padding a duffel bag. It would have been nice to have a pack that will carry both bodies with lenses attached (one with the Tamzooka attached). Ameristep doghouse blind would be a good idea for a wildlife photographer.
Other than all that a reflector and some flash stuff is somewhere in the future then stick a fork in me cause I'm done!!
I got some pics on flickr for examples if you want to see what ive done with the gear. Link at the bottom of my posts.

I like to keep things simple, and I hate carrying a tripod around. I brace against trees, fence posts, rocks or what have you and that works for me most of the time. I have a great store brand monopod and a decent tripod, but I only bring them when I know it will be a low light and fairly static subject situation.

I always carry two bodies. My D7200 has the Nikkor 300mm f/4 (the older IF-ED, not the new PF with VR) with 1.4x teleconverter. My D7100 has the Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6. I love the 300mm f/4 and have a love/hate relationship with the 18-300. I'm considering a shorter, sharper zoom and a longish macro to replace the 18-300.

I have the Tamron 150-600, and like that for low light when the vibration reduction comes in handy. It's not as sharp and does not focus quite as quickly or accurately as the Nikon 300mm f/4. The zoom can come in handy, though. I had to keep backing up recently when shooting deer in the mountains with the 300mm/TC set up. That young buck kept walking closer and I had to keep retreating!

I'm pretty happy with this set up. I'll be interested to see what people say about the new Nikon 200-500 when they put it to use in the field.

The best investment I could make now would probably be a backpack instead of a shoulder bag. My back pays the price after I've been out for 3-4 hours.

I am still using glass I boughtyears ago for my F5 And N90, a 300mm f4ed and an 80-200mm f2.8d. Also carry a a TC14B works great on both lenses.
Harle

Woodyg3 said:

I like to keep things simple, and I hate carrying a tripod around. I brace against trees, fence posts, rocks or what have you and that works for me most of the time. I have a great store brand monopod and a decent tripod, but I only bring them when I know it will be a low light and fairly static subject situation.

I always carry two bodies. My D7200 has the Nikkor 300mm f/4 (the older IF-ED, not the new PF with VR) with 1.4x teleconverter. My D7100 has the Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6. I love the 300mm f/4 and have a love/hate relationship with the 18-300. I'm considering a shorter, sharper zoom and a longish macro to replace the 18-300.

I have the Tamron 150-600, and like that for low light when the vibration reduction comes in handy. It's not as sharp and does not focus quite as quickly or accurately as the Nikon 300mm f/4. The zoom can come in handy, though. I had to keep backing up recently when shooting deer in the mountains with the 300mm/TC set up. That young buck kept walking closer and I had to keep retreating!

I'm pretty happy with this set up. I'll be interested to see what people say about the new Nikon 200-500 when they put it to use in the field.

The best investment I could make now would probably be a backpack instead of a shoulder bag. My back pays the price after I've been out for 3-4 hours.

Click to expand...

I would pretty much mirror this in an ideal world.

For me carrying all that gear mentioned in the original post would make me slower, noisier and probably kill a lot of the enjoyment for me.

At most I would carry two bodies, my D7100 with either a 300mm f/4 + 1.4XTC or 150-600mm/200-500 (depending on reviews) and a second (currently it would be my D3200, although a D750 would be nice) with a good macro lens. Macro lens would realistically be a sigma 105mm but the 150mm would be nice.
I might also pack something like a tokina 11-16mm which is on my list.

I'd add a decent rucksack to carry any additional bits and pieces and could take my manfrotto monopod if I felt I would need it.

Alternatively I'd carry my D7100 with a 300mm f/4 = 1.4TC and a bridge like a p900 but that would depend on IQ and usability.

Generally right now I carry one body, 70-300mm my 55mm macro and spare battery and that's about it. The most important part is knowing where the wildlife is, knowing how to get close to it and how to get the most from whatever gear you're carrying.

Woodyg3 said:

I like to keep things simple, and I hate carrying a tripod around. I brace against trees, fence posts, rocks or what have you and that works for me most of the time. I have a great store brand monopod and a decent tripod, but I only bring them when I know it will be a low light and fairly static subject situation.

I always carry two bodies. My D7200 has the Nikkor 300mm f/4 (the older IF-ED, not the new PF with VR) with 1.4x teleconverter. My D7100 has the Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6. I love the 300mm f/4 and have a love/hate relationship with the 18-300. I'm considering a shorter, sharper zoom and a longish macro to replace the 18-300.

I have the Tamron 150-600, and like that for low light when the vibration reduction comes in handy. It's not as sharp and does not focus quite as quickly or accurately as the Nikon 300mm f/4. The zoom can come in handy, though. I had to keep backing up recently when shooting deer in the mountains with the 300mm/TC set up. That young buck kept walking closer and I had to keep retreating!

I'm pretty happy with this set up. I'll be interested to see what people say about the new Nikon 200-500 when they put it to use in the field.

The best investment I could make now would probably be a backpack instead of a shoulder bag. My back pays the price after I've been out for 3-4 hours.

Click to expand...

So 1 long telephoto (otherwise becomes too heavy), shorter telephoto macro + transstandard zoom. I seem to add a tele zoom to this for fast intervention during the walk.

I think the 200-500 f5.6 vs 300 f4 is a hot topic and will be down to personal preference. The new 300mm f4E is light, has a lot of corrective glass; the 200-500mm will be sufficient for most and more versatile.

Packing is important for wildlife indeed, generally too neglected.

harleridr said:

I am still using glass I boughtyears ago ...

Click to expand...

I agree that new material is not needed, a budget can be kept by using older material and it works great.

cbay said:

I pretty much set out to accomplish those goals at the beginning of the year. I started from scratch and built what i consider a good setup. D7000, D7200, Tokina 11-20, Nikon 18-140, Tamron 150-600, A decent tripod (Oben 1411 with BA111 ball head), Oben monopod, Manfrotto RC128 fluid head, Lowepro flipside 400 backpack, remote, cleaning stuff, hood/loupe for video, Rode video mic pro, extra batteries, good uv filters for all lenses, 4 stop nd & 9 stop nd for the 18-140, and a 9 stop for the 11-20.
I feel like i got what i need and that it's capable of doing a lot more than i am able to do. I would have to check but pretty sure i'm still under six grand for everything.
I'll be getting another tripod in the future and come up with a way to pack the Tamzooka with body in some sort of ready bag -probably end up padding a duffel bag. It would have been nice to have a pack that will carry both bodies with lenses attached (one with the Tamzooka attached). Ameristep doghouse blind would be a good idea for a wildlife photographer.
Other than all that a reflector and some flash stuff is somewhere in the future then stick a fork in me cause I'm done!! ...

Click to expand...

How do you carry the blind, I still have not dared to take it on longer hikes.
Also flash is a topic I`m getting into, some fill light can really give more detail, but it requires yet more set up time and I seem to try to avoid it.

Elliot87 said:

I would pretty much mirror this in an ideal world.

For me carrying all that gear mentioned in the original post would make me slower, noisier and probably kill a lot of the enjoyment for me.

At most I would carry two bodies, my D7100 with either a 300mm f/4 + 1.4XTC or 150-600mm/200-500 (depending on reviews) and a second (currently it would be my D3200, although a D750 would be nice) with a good macro lens. Macro lens would realistically be a sigma 105mm but the 150mm would be nice.
I might also pack something like a tokina 11-16mm which is on my list.

I'd add a decent rucksack to carry any additional bits and pieces and could take my manfrotto monopod if I felt I would need it.

Alternatively I'd carry my D7100 with a 300mm f/4 = 1.4TC and a bridge like a p900 but that would depend on IQ and usability.

Generally right now I carry one body, 70-300mm my 55mm macro and spare battery and that's about it. The most important part is knowing where the wildlife is, knowing how to get close to it and how to get the most from whatever gear you're carrying.

Click to expand...

Indeed travelling light is important, but when you want to stake out you need some more gear.
A bridge is light, versatile and sufficient for a lot, I agree you should not limit to DSLR, many seem to carry point and shoot even.

I think that linking the gear to knowing the area and wildlife is indeed a good approach, on a first exploring trip I might take very little material and when I find a very interesting spot I might park closer to it next visit and take a lot more material.

Ok for reach I have the D7100 and my Nikkor 80-400 combo! For landscapes I have my D800E and currently my 24mm Nikkor!
Then for fast walk around shots, Ihave the D700 with either my nNikkor 35mm or Nikkor 5Omm!
Tripods available too with gembal head or a gitzo tripod with a arca swiss z1 ball head!

Bill16 said:

Ok for reach I have the D7100 and my Nikkor 80-400 combo! For landscapes I have my D800E and currently my 24mm Nikkor!
Then for fast walk around shots, Ihave the D700 with either my nNikkor 35mm or Nikkor 5Omm!
Tripods available too with gembal head or a gitzo tripod with a arca swiss z1 ball head!

Click to expand...

Using some primes can reduce weight you do not need to zoom in all ranges indeed.

Ever use the D800E with the 80-400? Do you not gain in crop what you lose in reach? I prefer to see as much as possible of my suject, but some crop a lot + prefer the more pro layout and algorithms.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Oh yes my friend, I have not stopped using the D800E with the Nikkor 80-400mm! I just want the D7100 on that lens for critters mostly for the extra reach in shooting the fast squirrels we have a around here! But the D800E and the Nikkor 80-400mm makes a good walk around setup I think!

Vincent said:

Using some primes can reduce weight you do not need to zoom in all ranges indeed.

Ever use the D800E with the 80-400? Do you not gain in crop what you lose in reach? I prefer to see as much as possible of my suject, but some crop a lot + prefer the more pro layout and algorithms.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I personally prefer my 300mm PF for wildlife. It doesn't always get me as close as I want but the upside is that I can carry it all day even when attached to my D810. It's not front heavy which makes it balance the weight nicely in my hand. Besides that I usually have the 18-35mm on me but it's more for the occasional landscape than wildlife.

Another advantage is that I can stuff all that, cam included, into a ridiculous small Lowepro (Nova 140 or 170, I'd have to check to be sure) which is very handy when I am walking through less accessible parts and don't want to bump my gear into everything.

I've been wanting a good 300mm, but cost and lack of ready cash has kept me from getting one so far! Lol

J-see said:

I personally prefer my 300mm PF for wildlife. It doesn't always get me as close as I want but the upside is that I can carry it all day even when attached to my D810. It's not front heavy which makes it balance the weight nicely in my hand. Besides that I usually have the 18-35mm on me but it's more for the occasional landscape than wildlife.

Another advantage is that I can stuff all that, cam included, into a ridiculous small Lowepro (Nova 140 or 170, I'd have to check to be sure) which is very handy when I am walking through less accessible parts and don't want to bump my gear into everything.

Click to expand...

Bill16 said:

I've been wanting a good 300mm, but cost and lack of ready cash has kept me from getting one so far! Lol

Click to expand...

I very enjoy this lens; she's fantastic but 300mm doesn't always cut it. Since a week I'm trying to get a shot in at some buzzard and even when I know his habitat and habits, he sees too well and doesn't allow me to get close enough. I can crop with this lens to 100% on the D810 but it still does not cut it.

Sorry to hear that buddy! I'm not into birding much so I haven't got so much of an issue I don't think.

J-see said:

I very enjoy this lens; she's fantastic but 300mm doesn't always cut it. Since a week I'm trying to get a shot in at some buzzard and even when I know his habitat and habits, he sees too well and doesn't allow me to get close enough. I can crop with this lens to 100% on the D810 but it still does not cut it.

Click to expand...

Vincent said:

How do you carry the blind, I still have not dared to take it on longer hikes.
Also flash is a topic I`m getting into, some fill light can really give more detail, but it requires yet more set up time and I seem to try to avoid it.

Click to expand...

The blind was a suggestion as mine are primarily self made hunting blinds or brushed in spots already in place. The doghouse is around 13lbs and the outhouse model is approx. 9 lbs. I believe they come in their own duffle for transport.
As a serious hunter i believe concealment is a huge deal; especially for photography up close - much like bowhunting. At a certain point it becomes necessary to define the type of wildlife one wants to photograph and make the adjustments necessary.
If my main interest weren't bowhunting from tree stands and pre-brushed in spots i would consider a portable ground blind for photography a must around here. The outhouse model would be my pick.