Wildlife Photography on a Budget

--->, Uncategorized--->Wildlife Photography on a Budget

Wildlife Photography on a Budget

2011-02-08T20:43:47+00:00February 8th, 2011|Photography, Uncategorized|8 Comments

Here’s a great way to make a photographer happy: After viewing her photos, say something like “wow, you must have really great gear.”

Everyone knows photography is not about the gear. Right? Well, it isn’t . . . but sometimes it is. Artistic vision is definitely not about the gear. And you’ll rankle a lot of artistic people if you say it is. I know a few people who are stocked to the gills with Hubble-style lenses, but who still haven’t cracked a book on composition or exposure — and it shows, in spite of the amazing equipment. And I know others, like my S.O. Hugh, who walk around town with an old iPhone camera and ekes out masterpieces with 2 or 4 megapixels. David Hockney created art with polaroid composites. Shooters reframe the world through the lenses of plastic cameras.

(As a side note, read this piece about Hockney’s opinion of photography as a medium, and its place in social control and art.)

Where gear matters is when your desire and skill exceed what your equipment can do. Or, when the vision is near impossible to execute without a bigger camera sensor, studio lighting, staging, or a 600mm lens.

In wildlife photography, gear does matter. Expensive lenses price a lot of people, including myself, out of what would be considered the top glass and technology for the task. But that doesn’t mean you’re priced out of the endeavor altogether. I’ve heard more than a few people say, “well, I can’t do wildlife photography because I don’t have the cash for the lenses.”

Guess what? I don’t either. I don’t have cash for the lenses. I’m a writer, which, if you know anything about the writing life, probably means it will be a while before I have cash for the lenses. But I’ve also spent the past five years immersed in wildlife photography, have sold some photographs, have had others published. Most importantly for me, photography is how I spend nearly every lucid (and not-so-lucid) moment away from work and other pursuits. It’s pure love, it’s therapy, it’s passion, and it’s a visual and emotional avenue toward connection with the animals and natural resources around us. And it can be that for anyone who can piece together a few basic components.

Budget Wildlife Photography Gear

So, what do you need? Bare minimum: a zoom lens, either fixed or interchangeable, and a deep interest in the photographic process. I can’t, in good conscience, advocate photographing wildlife without the physical distance of a zoom. It’s important for the animals that photographers give them space with a long lens — a critical tenet of wildlife photography ethics. Please don’t be one of those people chasing ducklings around the lake for a closeup with a point-and-shoot. Those stellar, published close-up shots are taken with long lenses, often 600mm equivalent or more. Trying to get physically close just traumatizes, and sometimes endangers, the animals.

I started off with a Panasonic Lumix FZ50 super zoom, not a DSLR. (I did have an old film SLR, but no tele glass back then.) The FZ50 has a fixed Leica lens with a 35-420mm range zoom. After shooting with that for a while, I added a 1.7x teleconverter which gave me additional zoom on the long end of my lens.

The FZ50 is a great super zoom or bridge camera. I still use it frequently as my main macro shooter — attaching a Raynox DCR-150 lens to the FZ’s barrel.

But the FZ is not pro-caliber gear. I stress that to suggest that you can, with extra effort, get some decent wildlife shots with a camera like my FZ50. They may not be headed for the pages of National Geographic. But for me, a super zoom was an affordable alternative to a DSLR and lenses — and a model I could easily throw in my pack on long hikes. The FZ50 also gave me practice in the features of more expensive gear, and forced me to apply ingenuity. I had to develop workarounds and find creative ways to shoot and frame my options in the face of my camera’s limitations.

If you have the funds for a base-level model, I’d recommend investing in an entry-level DSLR if you’re serious about action wildlife shots. You will be frustrated by the shutter response on quick-moving animals if you don’t have a DSLR. Still, with a zoom camera of any kind, you can, indeed, get some decent wildlife photos with still or slow-moving animals — or birds with predictable flight patterns. Photographing takeoffs and landings is a great way to hone the birds-in-flight technique, even with a slow shutter response. Check out brand forums like those at dpreview to view samples of what people are doing with some of their super zoom cameras.

When we finally saved up for our current gear — which is still “budget” when you compare against what the big boys use — the speed of the DSLR’s shutter, the autofocus, and the clarity of the image was damn near magic after slogging through the preliminaries on a super zoom. My photographs improved, no question. The ease of photographing wildlife with the new equipment was magical. My keeper-to-cull ratio improved significantly. But — I attribute some of my ability to get shots with my current system, to those first years of shutter lag and creative stretching. It forced me to find opportunities I might not have otherwise seen.

Right now, I’m shooting with a budget zoom lens — a 70-300mm Zuiko (Olympus). At one point, Amazon was selling this lens for less than $250. Of course, that implies a DSLR camera body to which you can attach the lens. Our smaller Olympus E-520 was less than $500 when we bought it. A lot of manufacturers now have comparably-priced entry-level DSLRs that are perfectly suitable for some wildlife photography. This is my second go ’round with gear, a move up from the FZ50.

Because it’s a four-thirds system camera, the effective reach of my Zuiko 300mm lens is 600mm (in 35mm terms). You can read more about those technicalities at Wiki (as in Pedia). I chose Olympus for that reason, actually, trying to find the best balance between our dollars, the weight of my hiking system, and the reach of my lens. It’s all very complex and very personal. I’m a huge Nikon/Nikkor fan, as well, so I’m not a brand vigilante. Canon is extremely popular with wildlife photographers. Pentax makes great cameras, as does Sony, among other examples. Figure out which features are most important to you, borrow friends’ cameras, and then decide how to allocate those bucks.

The Downside of Budget Gear

The first and least important downside is that you’ll walk into the wetlands or wildlife refuge with your comparatively tiny lens, and will get barely a nod from the gang of old-salt photographers, hauling their huge and respectable Canon and Nikon lenses. You can’t care . . . even if lens envy is normal. ūüôā

The second downside is the speed of the lens and light. My lens is f4 at the wide end, f5.6 at full zoom. Each f-stop increase reduces the available light to the lens at that particular focal length. There are zoom lenses that are f2.8 throughout the range of the zoom — they usually start around $1400. There are prime lenses (fixed focal lengths of, say, 800mm) that run up to $12,000.

What that means for me is that my lens does well in bright light conditions, not so well in low light. And the images with my lens are best when I can genuinely fill the frame with my subject. The quality of light is, of course, critical to any type of photography, including wildlife.

My lens is also slow to autofocus and will hunt against backgrounds like blue sky — which means birds in flight are a bigger challenge. I frequently have to chuck shots where an expensive, fast lens might have captured the moment well.

There are images I have trouble getting, exotic nature excursions I haven’t taken, or photo seminars I can’t attend within the limits of my budget. But it hasn’t stopped me from engaging in one of the most enjoyable things I’ve ever done in my life. Relative to what wildlife photography can cost, I’ve managed to keep up and have fun with a bare bones kit.

The Most Important Aspect of Wildlife Photography

To me, the most critical aspect of photographing wildlife is the motivation behind it. The old adage, “photograph what you love” is still keen wisdom. To derive the most from the experience in the field, you need an insatiable curiosity about the subjects of your photos. If you don’t understand or care about the animals you are photographing, photo representations will probably lack the personality that you can infuse into your shots if you genuinely grasp their biology and behavior. If you don’t invest yourself in the greater issues of wildlife welfare and survival, a photo will be just that — a photograph without the greater context of story and environment and advocacy. Chances are, if you’re interested at all in wildlife photography, you’ve found your way there through a similar path to mine, which is a desire to know better, the wild lives intertwined with ours. And if that’s the case, there are ways to indulge that passion without totally busting the wallet.

A lot of nature photography is actually about spirit and perseverance. It’s about patience in the field and practice — waiting for the right opportunity and the right light, doing your homework on where to go, at what time, with what expectations. It’s about stealth, wisdom, and appreciation of the moments that evolve around you and your camera. It’s about getting up at dawn, getting soaking wet, with ice-pop fingers, and staying longer than everyone else. It’s about understanding light and exposure. It’s even more about wild animal behavior and biology. Wildlife photography is as much a natural history course as it is an artistic pursuit. Some of the best chances to photograph arise because you know or have learned where an animal will be and how she will engage with her environment, once she’s there. Most importantly, for me, wildlife photography is a way to immerse yourself in the wild world without harming a soul (if done correctly) — and with the potential to share that vision with others who may not [yet] appreciate what you’ve had the chance to see.

I hate to hear an enthusiastic wildlife advocate say, “I can’t do what you do” — if it’s purely a consideration of finances. If there’s a will and a passion for the pursuit, I do believe there are ways to finance a small, entry-level investment. There’s an initial expenditure, but there’s also a huge market for used gear in good shape, and a constant glut of new models which tends to bring the prices down. Stock up on an extra battery, an inexpensive tripod and some memory cards. Read everything you can, online and in books, on wildlife photography, exposure, lighting and technique and you’ll find there’s an incredible amount of mileage you can eke out of a basic photography package.

Our Gear, Acquired Over Time

  • Panasonic FZ50 super zoom (< $400) with 1.5 teleconverter and $40 Raynox 150 macro lens
  • Olympus E-520 DSLR (< $500)
  • Olympus E-3 DSLR ($1200)
  • Zuiko 70-300mm zoom lens (f4-5.6) — my wildlife lens ($<300)
  • Zuiko 14-54mm zoom lens (love this lens for landscapes and wide shots < $400)
  • Manfrotto lightweight tripod ($100). Friends just gave me a Gitzo tripod head for Christmas which I will need to match with suitable tripod legs soon.
  • Manfrotto monopod ($60)
  • Friends also gave me a wildlife photography blind, which I have yet to use. Not sure where I can set it up without freaking out people who might think I’m shooting deer from my leafy tent.
  • Backup batteries and compact flash cards ($10-25)
  • Lowepro sling pack and Tamrac photo bags. ($30-70)

My Early Wildlife Photos – Panasonic FZ50

These are all shots I took with my FZ50, before I invested in a DSLR. At the time, my FZ50, with fixed zoom lens included, was less than $400. Some of these shots would have been better, even with my existing gear, had I understood light and exposure better back then.


This photo is part of my best series of American Avocet shots. I was able to photograph them quite close, undisturbed, at Palo Alto Baylands in Northern California. After I bought my DSLR, I tried to replicate the scenario but to date, have not been as close to the birds.

American Avocet Pair

American Avocet Duo - ©ingridtaylar

This Mallard mother is on high alert not because of me, but because of a dog owner and off-leash dog coming along in the distance. I’d been set up for a while with my tripod while the ducks slept. The dog finally rousted the ducks and sent them into the water. It was a leash-only area, incidentally. That particular form of negligence really gets to me, especially during spring nesting season.

Mallard Female and Ducklings

Mallard Mama & Ducklings - ©ingridtaylar

I shot this image at Redondo Harbor in Redondo Beach — in Southern California. There’s a breakwater where the pelicans rest as the sun goes down. Unless you’re in a boat, it’s tough to be on the right side of the sun and still have proximity. So, this image would have benefitted from better light on the other side of the rocks.

Brown Pelican Stretch

Pelican Stretch - ©ingridtaylar

I didn’t notice that this poor Canada Goose had just one leg until I looked at my photos later. Although I’ve seen my share of debilitating and fatal injuries, there are disabilities wild animals can sustain and still continue to thrive. This was one of them.

One-legged Goose Takeoff

One-Legged Takeoff - ©ingridtaylar

This photo was taken at Cesar Chavez park at the Berkeley Marina. The area where Burrowing Owls nest is now cordoned off so that off-leash dogs don’t harm the owls. (Dogs are not supposed to be off-leash at the perimeter of the park, but some owners don’t pay attention to the restrictions.) I shot this image in a different area of the park, an area where we haven’t seen the owl in subsequent years. The spot was far too vulnerable to dogs running free on the pavement. I fear that may have been the driving force behind the owl’s failure to return.

Burrowing Owl in Berkeley

Burrowing Owl in Berkeley - ©ingridtaylar

This was taken near Tiburon one afternoon when the Brown Pelicans in the area were particularly unafraid. I sat on a dock and shot some frames as they swam by. The photo was taken shortly before the Cosco Busan oil spill on San Francisco Bay. When I was out in the field later, helping with searches for oiled birds, I often thought about this intimate afternoon I had with the pelicans. I hoped they were okay.

Brown Pelican Pair Swimming

Pelican Pair - ©ingridtaylar

This Anna’s Hummingbird photo is actually a good example of where a super zoom falls short of a DSLR photo. (You’d see it more clearly at full size.) If you compare it to the photo below it, you can see the difference in sharpness and clarity. At the time, though, I was elated I was even able to capture a flying and hovering hummingbird with the FZ50, shutter lag be damned.

Anna's Hummingbird - ©ingridtaylar

This image shot with my Olympus E-3 and Zuiko 70-300mm

Male Anna's Hummingbird - ©ingridtaylar


  1. Adam Pinnell February 10, 2011 at 2:48 pm - Reply

    Beautiful images and great advice!

  2. Glenn Nevill February 10, 2011 at 4:57 pm - Reply

    I’m on my 5th digital body, I keep upgrading as they improve, but the long lenses I use for bird photography, my 400 f5.6 and my 500 f4 lens, continue to work flawlessly. They may seem like an extravagance, but I expect they will easily last as long as I keep shooting and they hold their value, whereas the camera bodies are like cars and when sold used drop in price quickly as the newer models come out.

  3. ingrid February 10, 2011 at 5:11 pm - Reply

    Hey, Adam, thanks very much for the comment. I perused the gorgeous visuals and photos at your site — a great presentation! And full of scenery I don’t normally get to see from my West Coast haunts.

    Glenn, I don’t see lenses as an extravagance at all. In fact, I’d be committing genuine sacrilege if I suggested anything like that, in face of the extraordinary images you capture, by combination of your talent and your glass. I consider shots like yours visual necessities in this life. My husband Hugh always maintains that when it comes to gear, photographic or computer, buy the best you can afford, even if it hurts like hell. At the same time, people often diminish the power of ingenuity and persistence when it comes to capturing an image. And when I heard that comment again recently (“I can’t afford wildlife photography”) it sent me to the page with my thoughts.

  4. Glenn Nevill February 11, 2011 at 10:17 am - Reply

    I should have prefaced my comment by saying I agree with everything you said and your photos back it up.

    Buying gear to match your passion is always a compromise. There is only so much one person can carry.

    Speaking of hurting like hell, carrying a 600mm f4 lens which weighs 11.8 lb. which I do not own, is really hard on the back, even my 500mm f4 weighs in at 8.5 lb. When you combine that with a camera body that weighs 2.6 lb, a teleconverter, a 24-105 zoom for sceinics, a 10lb tripod, extra battery and a bag to carry it all. It can really weigh you down.

    So it makes for an interesting choice. There is always that dilemma about what to carry into the field. With the light weight 4/3 system Olympus uses, you can carry a lot greater range for a lot less pain. I do wish they had better autofocus, but as your photos attest, you can get some amazing shots.

    BTW, if you go the other extreme from telephoto, macro lenses are affordable, I just purchased a macro 100mm f2.8 used and there was the 50mm macro that was only $250. And you can find buglife to photograph in your backyard.

    So there are lots of ways to go and the way you explained it was perfect.


  5. ingrid February 11, 2011 at 11:55 am - Reply

    Glenn, you make some great points about lens weight. People have obviously thrown out their backs carrying a lot of gear, so those are not small considerations.

    And I’m glad you brought up the autofocus issue. Because knowing what you are purchasing — and why — is so important. Otherwise serious disappointment can result, or worse — a camera that sits unused or gets cussed at constantly. ūüôā

    When I bought my E-3, I was deciding between the E-3, the Nikon D300, and the Canon EOS 40D. I researched, easily, three months before I made a decision. And because of that, I had realistic ideas of what my camera would and wouldn’t do. It was a very tough choice based, ultimately, on a few criteria that were important to me. But I knew I was making a tradeoff, based on the things I loved in the other cameras.

    Some of my friends were surprised that I chose the E-3 after that much deliberation. My Nikon friends were sure I’d be carrying a D300, my Canon friends couldn’t wrap their heads around my choice. But, weight and reach were big considerations for me. Weather resistance was another. (I’ve soaked that poor E-3 and it’s a rugged old soul.) And the articulating LCD — at the time, it was the only model in my desired category that had it. The autofocus is something Olympus adherents have always hoped Olympus would improve on, but it looks like they may be investing more energy in micro-four-thirds now. I hope my E-3 body lasts through my next equipment incarnation, because it would be a nice, lightweight alternative to the next level of gear I decide to invest in.

  6. Prashant March 23, 2013 at 1:53 pm - Reply

    Hi, I have seen your DSLR Shots. Those are wonderful. i am planning to buy first DSLR, since you are into serious photography i want your suggestions on it.

    I am planning a Nikon D3200.

    hows the camera overall performance ?
    What multi purpose lens should i go for? (focusing on far distance wildlife and nature)

    Please help me giving few genuine reviews on it.

  7. Daniel July 23, 2014 at 8:50 am - Reply

    Love the photos. It’s nice to see what you can get with minimal gear and expense. I’m certainly not one to have lens envy in the sense that I want to show off what I have or make some big splash. For me, discreetness and portability are very important. As the saying goes, “the best camera is the one you have with you.” The camera I have with me now is an Olympus Pen E-PL5. I have two kit-level zooms (Panasonic 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 and Olympus 40-150mm f4.0-5.6) and two relatively short prime lenses (Panasonic Leica Summilux.25mm f1.4 and Olympus 45mm f1.8).

    I do have lens envy whenever I run into a limitation with my equipment that I can’t work around. I’m certainly not a pixel peeper, nor do I print big images. I hardly ever print images at all.

    But even with those limited needs, I find that I’m still getting stuck with capturing wildlife and sports, especially in lower light conditions…like under stadium lights or in indoor basketball gyms. I squeeze out as much as I can by dialing up the ISO to something like 3200, but the results are still not working out well, even for on-screen display.

    I was at a soccer match last weekend, and when the light got too dim, I switched to my 45mm f1.8 prime, but of course the focal length was so short that I had to crop and crop and crop just to see the action I was capturing. By that point there was very little data left in the image, especially since I was still using something like ISO 1600.

    Do I really have to throw $1,300 at an f2.8 zoom just for this? Is there another way?

  8. Daniel July 23, 2014 at 9:16 am - Reply

    Also, I keep reading about these point-and-shoot bridge cameras like the Sony RX10 and the Olympus Stylus 1 with constant f2.8 zooms. But I’ve also seen that because the sensors are smaller (especially on the Stylus 1 with a 1/1.7″ sensor) that f2.8 really isn’t f2.8. The Panasonic FZ1000 also has a 1″ sensor, but the lens is f2.8-f4 to buy some extra reach that the Sony RX10 lacks.

    So, since I’m not printing large sizes (8″ x 10″ is the max, and only on rare occasions do I even do that), would I be better off to trade in my low-end Micro 4/3 gear for one of these new high-end superzooms with a faster lens? I know I would lose out on some noise performance, but would it help me capture the fast action in low light (at least somewhat)? Or is it not worth the tradeoff due to the inferior noise performance, etc.?

    Also, I do like the power that my short prime lenses give me in terms of shallow depth of field — would an f2.8 zoom lens on a camera like this be enough to blur the background and render some basic “bokeh?” What about handheld night photography?

    I even feel like my Micro 4/3 setup is bigger than I want. If I can still get the photos I want without having to carry a bag of lenses, then I would prefer to do that.

Leave A Comment

This website uses cookies and third party services. Ok