I wanna digital camera

jenza8

I am looking to get in to bird and nature photography purely as a hobby. I'm not sure what is the best way of going about doing this. I have read that the canon D60 SLR or the Canon EOS 20D are very good cameras that you can put telephoto lenses on but obviously they're pretty pricy. Am I better to spend a lot now and get a top(ish) quality camera that is brand new, would it be better to buy a top(ish) quality but second hand camera (ie from Jessops or my local photography shop) or would it be best to buy slightly cheaper and more of a midrange camera until I see if I do really enjoy doing it - but then I probably wouldn't get the kind of pictures I'm after?

Can anyone recommend any other cameras that will do the same job? I read that I will need a 500mm or 600mm lens - what can you put these with?

Any advice would be really welcome.
Thank you

Nile

Hello jenza8

I subscribe to the BBC Wildlife magazine. The current edition (April 2006) has two excellent articles which will help you to enjoy photographing or watching wildlife.

On pages 65 to 68, there are photo masterclass tips from the top wildlife photographers.

On pages 78 and 79, they evaluate digital SLR's. These cameras might be too expensive for your budget but you'll get some useful advice to help you decide which camera to buy.

Another tip I can offer is to watch the BBC Countryfile programme on a Sunday morning. They often have wildlife watching tips and advice.

If you haven't seen it, this is a thread about some of the spectacular wildlife you can see in Scotland. It is on page 11 of the 'Scotland' board.

Enjoy your wildlife watching.

Kind Regards

Nile

jenza8

Hello Nile,
Thank you for your reply, I shall definitely be going to buy the BBC Wildlife magazine to get some tips and will make a note to watch the countryfile programme too.
We're going to Scotland (near Dundee) in just over a week so I will be making sure I persuade my husband to go up to Fortrose, that sound fantastic.
Thank you once again.
Jenny

paul_h

jenza8 wrote:

Am I better to spend a lot now and get a top(ish) quality camera that is brand new, would it be better to buy a top(ish) quality but second hand camera (ie from Jessops or my local photography shop) or would it be best to buy slightly cheaper and more of a midrange camera until I see if I do really enjoy doing it - but then I probably wouldn't get the kind of pictures I'm after?

Buying a highish specification digital camera is a bit of a minefield... I would avoid buying secondhand, unless it's a very recent model - technology is moving very quickly indeed.

So, your choice really is whether to go the whole hog and buy a digital SLR plus lens/es and accessories, or a medium range model with a long integral optical zoom for now. Personally, I've come from the world of the 35mm SLR together with a bag full of lenses, but I now use a medium range Minolta Z5 most of the time as I couldn't justify the cost of a digital SLR system.

Although I've used many digital compacts, the Z5 is the only mid range camera I have used extensively, so it's really the only one I can comment upon - I have to say that the results from this camera constantly amaze me, and the fact that it effectively replaces a whole SLR kit and fits in the palm of one hand is a revelation.

The Z5 has an integral 12x optical zoom, giving an 35mm SLR equivalent zoom range of 35-420mm. This is really about the best integral zoom available and may not be quite long enough for very long range wildlife shots. However, at medium range it is very effective and the quality at full zoom is really very good indeed. It also has an image stabiliser, which is very effective for handheld shots at long range, you can get away with a two stop lower shutter speed if you need to. There are a large number of specialised programmed exposure modes, together with the standard SLR aperture/shutter speed priority and full manual modes.

However, if you really need the magnification that a 500mm+ lens can give you, there is really no alternative to an SLR system, digital or film.

HTH

roswell

If your looking for budget id go for a fuji finepix 5600 £186

http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/235281/art/fuji/finepix-s5600-zoom.html

or a bit more high spec the 9500

http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/135392/art/fuji/finepix-s9500-zoom.html

THESE are NOT DSLR`s though

cc25

I agree with paul_h's comments above regarding the Minolta Z5 superzoom camera, and the need for a SLR type system if you require a lens of focal length greater than 430mm.

I have a Panasonic FZ3 camera, a similar type of camera to the Z5 (both are image stabilized 12x optical zoom cameras, and are fairly compact and light in weight). Like paul_h, I'm very pleased with my camera, because it more than meets my expectations, and its limitations are not particularly relevant to the sort of photos I want to take.

You can get a 1.7x conversion lens for the latest Panasonic superzoom camera (FZ7), which gives a 35mm equivalent focal length of 734mm. Here is a link to a thread on the Panasonic FZ7 camera.

At the end of the day, there is no single 'best' camera, just the one that meets your needs (and budget) better than the others on sale at the same time.

jenza8

Thank you all for your advice, I think I do want a digital SLR and am going to take Nile's advice and look at the BBC wildlife magazines evaluations of them. I am going to have a look at both the panasonic FZ7 and the minolta Z5 too but many of my pictures will be taken from distance from a bird hide so I think I will have to go for the greater magnification. At least I now know some recommended models to look more closely at!

mr_fishbulb

The cropping factor of the DSLR will increase the telephoto end of the lens. I think the Canon 350D has a cropping factor of 1.6 so a 400mm lens would become 640mm, which should be enough for you.

But one thing to consider is the aperture of the lenses.

Now I don't know how still these birds keep, but the lower the aperture, the faster the shutter speed. And that means if the bird is moving around, you are more likely to get a sharp shot with a faster shutter speed than a slower one. This has nothing to do with anti-shake technology - that only reduces the effect of movement on the camera and not movement of the subject.

It will cost hundreds of pounds to get a 400mm lens with a low aperture (~2.8). But isn't that important if the birds generally keep still.

I would say go for a cheaper body (Canon 350D, Nikon D50/70) and spend as much as you can on a good quality lens.

moonrakerz

The most important thing in any camera is the piece of glass on the front. Most of the electronics inside comes from a limited number of manufacturers.
I would go for a camera from a recognised camera manufacturer rather than an electronics company. Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta etc, etc.
Just trawl the net for reviews on what's available, there are hundreds out there.

paul_h

moonrakerz wrote:

The most important thing in any camera is the piece of glass on the front. Most of the electronics inside comes from a limited number of manufacturers.
I would go for a camera from a recognised camera manufacturer rather than an electronics company. Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta etc, etc.
Just trawl the net for reviews on what's available, there are hundreds out there.

That's a very good point that I forgot to mention, I have always been a fan of Canon SLR optics in the past. However, the Panasonic Lumix range is an exception, it has a lens designed by Leica and is reported to be very good indeed.

The Minolta is also slightly unusual in that it has a apochromatic (APO) lens which reduces colour aberrations, rare in a fixed lens digital camera. It is also fast - it's a big piece of glass for a medium range digital.