Looking for a good used DSLR for my wife's B-day

[No Money]

Hunt out a good used Nikon D200 and a Nikon DX55-300 VR zoom. Lots of bang for the buck. With longer zooms vibration reduction is a good option to have.

 

[Champco]

Cost-co will save you money. get the Canon they have on pallet. Buy new and avoid headaches.

 

[Alobar]

Thanks for the tips and suggestions! Her birthday came and went earlier this week and I decided to just ask her if she thought she would take the time to learn at least the basics of a digital camera with a decent zoom lens and she pretty much said no. So I am getting her a stained glass mosaic mirror for the bathroom from a local artist.

I am now thinking to get a camera myself and learn up on it so I can show her how to use it effectively on birds. Maybe she can get into it that way without any pressure and if not then possibly a new hobby for me.

 

[HTHMAN]

Not to start a flame war, but do not rule out the Sony DSLR line. They have a couple advantages. Anti-shake is built into the body so all lenses are image stabilized. The old Minolta auto lenses fit the mount and they are plentiful and pretty cheap The original models used the same sensor as Nikon (made by Sony). The newer models use a fixed semi-transparent mirror that is now going to start being used by Nikon. Whatever you buy, you will be locked into their system. Make sure they offer (and you can afford) the lenses and accessories you will need.

 

[onepixel]

You also might consider sometime like the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX500. It's in the price range.
18MP
Zeiss, 30x optical zoom (24-720mm). I have a number of Sony/Zeiss lenses and they are freak'n awesome.

The newer technology, performance and image quality on these newer compact cameras are often better than old DSLRs.

 

[cratz2]

In plentiful light, some of the higher end point and shoots and bridge cameras look fantastic.

I took several pics a couple years ago at a car and motorcycle benefit. Some were with my D700 and a 28-70 2.8 lens which when everything was new was probably about a $4,500 rig and some pics were taken with a Canon S95 which is a point and shoot with a slightly larger sensor that I bought used for $125.

After doing my normal Lightroom/Photoshop tweaks, I needed to look at the file names to tell some of them apart.

Now if you are in lower light or if you want to delve into shallow depth of field stuff (intentionally blurry backgrounds) or consistently printable telephoto shots, a DSLR is the way to go in my opinion.

Some of those newer bridge cameras are pretty impressive out to about 15x or 20x or so. Much beyond that, physical limitations such as camera shake and atmospheric conditions creep in.

 

[Alobar]

In plentiful light, some of the higher end point and shoots and bridge cameras look fantastic.

I took several pics a couple years ago at a car and motorcycle benefit. Some were with my D700 and a 28-70 2.8 lens which when everything was new was probably about a $4,500 rig. And some pics were taken with a Canon S95 which is a point and shoot with a slightly larger sensor that j bought used for $125.

After doing my normal Lightroom/Photoshop tweaks, I needed to look at the file names to tell them apart.

Now if you are in lower light or if you want to delve into shallow depth of field stuff (intentionally blurry backgrounds) or consistently printable telephoto shots, a DSLR is the way to go in my opinion.

Some of those newer bridge cameras are pretty impressive out to about 15x or 20x or so. Much beyond that, physical limitations such as camera shake and atmospheric conditions creep in.

Most of the artsy depth of field stuff I doubt my wife would be interested in. How I see it, she needs enough glass to get out there and take clear pictures of birds as that is her thing.. Now she looks at them with field bino's but there is nothing like a clear picture from 100 yds or more away to go home and look at the books for id'ing them, and of course posting on facebook.. I doubt low light abilities would be a serious issue. Zoom lens, from normal focal length on out there considerably without looking like she is packing a bazooka along is what I think she needs..

 

[chicks]

If your company participates in the Employee Purchase Program from Panasonic, you can get some serious discounts on Lumix bodies and Pan/Leica lenses. This one, with the 2X crop factor of M43, and coordinating IS (lens and body), will get you a nice birding setup with far less weight and size vs full frame.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2016/...ic-leica-100-400mm-lens-review-by-bob-towery/

 

[cratz2]

Most of the artsy depth of field stuff I doubt my wife would be interested in. How I see it, she needs enough glass to get out there and take clear pictures of birds as that is her thing.. Now she looks at them with field bino's but there is nothing like a clear picture from 100 yds or more away to go home and look at the books for id'ing them, and of course posting on facebook.. I doubt low light abilities would be a serious issue. Zoom lens, from normal focal length on out there considerably without looking like she is packing a bazooka along is what I think she needs..

Well if reach and identification are the top priorities, on a sub $500 budget, I'd personally either go with a recent bridge camera or as I mentioned on the last page, a used Canon body in the range of a 40D, 50D or a T1i or a T2i and the Canon 55-250mm STM lens. That will get effectively 400mm.

And as funds allow or if you want more reach, a used Canon 100-400mm L lens will get you to 640mm. That's a lot of reach for fairly little coin.

For even more reach, I think a Kenko 300 Pro 1.4x teleconverter 'should' autofocus with that lens though focusing will be a bit slower.

The DSLR will obviously be heavier but that weight and additional length can help when it comes to holding the camera steady.

 

[chicks]

Didn’t notice your price limit, sorry. Here are a couple bird shots I took yesterday with the tiny, pocketable LUMIX DMC-ZS50, which I picked up refurbished a couple years back for under $200. The Osprey was at least 1000’ away, with the camera handheld at maximum zoom, about 720mm equivalent. Small sensor, so not super detailed. Does have a viewfinder, but very small, and the LCD is fixed. Newer model has a tilt LCD. It’s a great little travel camera, but a stretch for serious birding.

Same camera, much closer up, maybe 15’ away. Pretty good detail, but not too many birds will let you get this close.

 

[HTHMAN]

Neither of us has owned a SLR since the film days fell from favor. My wife has just recently become interested in "birding" (ID'ing birds, photographing, sharing etc) and has nice bino's but often birds won't sit still enough to take note of all the little minutia needed for proper ID. So far all she has is her cell phone for photos, which when zoomed way out (digitally zoomed) look like crap and are useless for ID as well.

What I think she needs is:
A. Something with a through the lens viewfinder.

B. A telephoto lens, something njot so huge that she leaves it home, maybe variable 80 out to 200mm (based on 35mm film camera)

C, doesn't have to be a large megapixel body, mostly these photos will only be viewed on a computer screen (although cropping may make a higher pixel camera more useful)

D. I don't want a camera with lots of difficult menu's to have to navigate through in the bright sun. More point and capture is what we are after I think.

E. looking to spend no more than say $300 Camera and lens can be a few years old, just want her to try one out and see if she will use a real camera or not. I don't want to spend for a new one if it sits in a drawer.

Any ideas on brands and models to watch out for on Ebay or other sites.
Thanks

A Sony A200 or A300 series will fit the bill for cheap. Saw this on eBay. Those may not be the best lenses in the world but would get her started cheap and has more than the range you want. Would be about 28-450mm in 35mm terms.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-Alpha...103145&hash=item4425cc58be:g:85kAAOSwYM9bfJOw

 

[Wildcat]

Using a Sony DT 55-300 lens on my Alpha DSLR would give me about 450mm (in full 35mm frame terms) at full telephoto, which is pretty darned good. My daughter's zoom on the Canon goes out to about 400mm (35mm equiv), which is also quite good.

Camera shake will be an issue at those focal lengths, though, so having the ability to get good photos at a faster shutter speed, and having image stabilization, will go a long way towards getting clear bird photos. Using a tripod isn't all that handy since birds tend to move around a lot. Unless you catch some that are nesting.

Here are a few I caught with my 75-300 zoom:

 

[onepixel]

Quality lenses and megapixels make a difference.

Here's a bit of an extreme example.
105mm at 42.4MP.

Bird of paradise. I know not the kind of bird you had in mind. The full size image and the 100% crop.