Camera for an amateur

[The Dutchman]

You've probably long since bought yours but I'm having a ball with my Canon EOS M50 purchased w/ the 2 lens kit for $699. It's a lot of camera for the price and has more pluses than I can remember. I've had it for 4-6 weeks but only started shooting full auto a week or two ago. No regrets w/ my purchase

[Tronhard]

You've probably long since bought yours but I'm having a ball with my Canon EOS M50 purchased w/ the 2 lens kit for $699. It's a lot of camera for the price and has more pluses than I can remember. I've had it for 4-6 weeks but only started shooting full auto a week or two ago. No regrets w/ my purchase

Again. the focus of of the quoted post seems to be on the camera body, but there are no native EF-M lenses past 200mm - and to get any long telephoto lens suitable for birding or other wildlife will cost a lot more than would be affordable for a starter. Furthermore, the EOS M50 is likely more aimed at videographers, while the EOS M5 is laid out more for photography, having an EV dial on the top for example. The M5 is all metal, the M50 made of composites.

https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-cam...5-vs-canon-m50

Nevertheless, I will stick with my original suggestion of the Sony RX10 - with its massive array of phase 315 detect auto-focus points and on-sensor processing it is a birder's dream. Neither of the M's is weather sealed and the Sony is - for a wildlife photographer that is handy. Yes, it will cost more than the M5 and M50 kits, but it is far more suitable for the purpose of the OP.

[The Dutchman]

Tronhard, mind reading’s a great trick. Can you show me how?

[Tronhard]

Tronhard, mind reading’s a great trick. Can you show me how?

Not sure what that means, or whose mind I was supposed to be reading. {:-)

My comments were based on my reading of the OP, and the experience of shooting wildlife, including birds, for about 40 years. Furthermore I used to train sales staff in client needs analysis, and one of the main principles of that is to look at the other person's needs rather than one's own preferences. Since you ask me to explain (or "show you how") I am happy to share my logic.

My suggestion came after reading and considering material from the OP, my unbiased evaluation of the suitability of a DSLR or MILC, and in particular a EOS M series unit for the OP's purposes, and as the owner of 3 EOS M5's, and all of the EF-M lenses except the macro unit.

First, I was taking note of the OP's statements:
"I am a budding photographer exploring the huge realm of Photography.
I am open to all options as I was using a compact camera though would prefer a Nikon or Canon.
I mainly do bird photography.
Cost is also a factor...
I live in India"

Starting with "I mainly do bird photography." for me, the glass was an important starting point. Conventional wisdom suggests focal length has a strong relation to subject type.

In terms of your recommendation, I absolutely took your recommendation seriously and came to the following conclusions:
1. Given that bird photography usually involves super telephoto lenses (>300mm equivalent FoV) and the longer the better, that almost inevitably involves a significant investment in DSLR or MILC equipment.
2. There are no native super telephoto lenses in the EF-M offering - the EF-M 55-200 offers a max FoV of only 320mm equivalent.
3. Any non EF-M super telephoto lens would require the use of the adapter - further degrading the lack of weather resistance, and India has a very challenging climate.
4. The OP also said they were exploring 'the huge realm of digital photography' - implying they will want to shoot a range of subjects and while there is the EF-M 18- 150mm, the maximum reach for that is only 240mm Equivalent FoV, which is really short for birds and the longest EF-M telephoto solution (like the 55-200) might not be flexible enough. That would imply a DSLR or MILC with multiple lenses, yet the OP has a limited budget.

At this point I took heed of the statement that the OP would consider all options and, given these specs I looked to bridge cameras.

I noted that bird photographers have long-since embraced the benefits of super-zoom bridge cameras, offering wide focal length ranges with equivalent focal lengths up to 2000mm - in particular the Nikon Cookpix 950, but like most bridge super zooms, it uses a very small 1 2/3" sensor(about the size of a cell high-end phone) and is not weather resistant. The same is true of the Canon Powershot SX 40-70HS range with a maximum equivalent FoV of around 1390mm. They are good in clear, bright conditions, I had several of these and sold them because of the resolution and noise issues.

There are some bridge cameras that do offer much bigger 1" sensors, larger than the mass of that market, have large focal ranges while offering weather resistance. I noted that the OP says they would prefer Nikon or Canon, but there are no super-zoom cameras from Nikon that offer the same specs as regards sensor size and weather resistance.

In particular I looked at the Canon PowerShot G3X and the Sony RX-10MkIV. Both offered equivalent FoV of 24-600mm, 1" sensors, and weather resistance. I have owned the former but sold it in favour of the Sony because it was a bit slow to focus and the unit did not incorporate a built-in EV, something that is pretty necessary when one is shooting at 600mm equivalent. Canon offered an EV as an attachment via the hot shoe, but this was clumsy, fragile, bulky and rendered the unit no longer weather resistant when attached.

The Sony, on the other hand, has the same zoom range (24-600mm equivalent) superior speed, a built-in EVF (the unit looks almost identical to a DSLR) and has brilliant Zeiss optics with a high-end sensor with advanced processor capability. It consistently gets rated as the best super zoom bridge camera on the market, as supported by the references I provided in my own first post (#19).

We don't have a figure for the OP's budget, but if they want to engage with all the things they wanted, to me the Sony is the prime candidate if they can afford it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they do not have the funds for such a solution, then I would recommend a good used Canon DSLR - rather than a MILC. Why, because there are tons of them on the market and a huge range of lenses for those bodies. Since the OP suggested Canon as an option and Canon has the greatest range of lenses I would tend to go in that direction.

A couple of options could be:

• The Canon EOS 7D - they were superseded by the MkII and the prices have plummeted, yet it has a good focus tracking system and is built like a tank, as one would expect of Canon's premier crop body. I still have mine and it works fine.
• The Canon EOS 80D - now superseded by the 90D they have also dropped in price and yet have good sensors although the tracking system is not quite a good as the 7D IMHO. Great unit, I have a couple.

For either of these units I would suggest these lenses:
As a walk-around lens either:

• Canon EF-S 18-135 IS STM or USM. Excellent kit lenses, relatively silent with a FoV equivalent to 29-216mm
• Canon EF-S 15-85mm IS USM an older but excellent lens with great optics and a FoV equivalent to 24-136mm

As an initial purchase for wildlife either of the following:
The Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM MkI or MkII. giving a FoV equivalent to 112-480mm

I have written a thread as a review on these lenses on the Canon USA community forum:
https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/L.../262318#M14886
There are sample images from these two lenses throughout the whole length of the thread.

They are both capable of delivering great results and the MkI should be extremely cheap.

Later, if they have the funds they could go for the Canon 100-400 L MkII lens or even the Sigma 150-600 C lens. Both are a major step up in value, but frankly the OP will get a lot of mileage out of the 70-300 units.

[xpatUSA]

Not sure what that means, or whose mind I was supposed to be reading. {:-)

My comments were based on my reading of the OP, and the experience of shooting wildlife, including birds, for about 40 years. Since you ask me to explain (or "show you how") I am happy to share my logic. <>

A well-restrained response, Trev, considering the dubious tone of the post to which you are responding.

[Rufus]

It is a shame MV123, who posted the original question nearly 4 weeks ago has not engaged with the replies.

[Tronhard]

It is a shame MV123, who posted the original question nearly 4 weeks ago has not engaged with the replies.

Thanks Ted - I took the high road on that one.
Yes David, no response as yet. Nevertheless, is it an interesting exercise!

[The Dutchman]

Well, now I'm seeing condescension where there is none. I wonder why?! Please no serious responses to the previous question, I'm being sarcastic. Thanks for the great response Tronhard. I've been taking screenshots on here and trying to grow into them. I'm mostly learning landscapes now but hopefully I can diversify into a few other things before long