Which Digital Camera for Wildlife Safaris?

tpowell

Should I be looking for something more like this?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-Digital-Camera-incl-18-55/dp/B0020MLKF0/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1291489780&sr=1-1

Please someone advise

tpowell

ringo_24601 wrote: »

tpowell - this site may help you http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/

You are going to get more 'reach' (zoom) for your money with a bridge camera, even though ultimately the quality won't be as good. However; it won't be bad either.

If you are thinking SLRs, it may be worth finding the lens you want first, then work backwards to what camera to put it on (ultimately, you're buying and SLR for the bigger sensor and the better access to lenses)

Here's a few lenses that i found which are budget, and have a good reach:
Sony Alpha 75-300mm
Canon EF-S 55-250mm
Nikon AF-S 55-200mm

Personally, i'd be looking at the canon system (I have a Panasonic SLR and the range of lenses is less and more expensive, so i use old manual focus lenses.. i have a 300mm prime lens that only cost 30 quid)

You could always get the Canon EOS 1000D (with a 18-55 kit lens) for £335 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B001TOD3YG) and tie it with that 55-250mm zoom, and you've got a really large range of zoom for about £485. Add in a 50mm f1.8 for £78 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-Lens-50-1-8-II/dp/B00007E7JU) and you'd have a nice photography kit.

Sadly, SLRs aren't the cheapest way to take pictures

Thanks for the info, what is the difference between IS and non-IS? Image Stabling?

ukcarper

One of the problems with the big zoom bridge cameras is that it is very easy to zoom in too far 600mm is a long telephoto and it become difficult to hold camera steady even with image stabilisation. Generally using such a long lens you would need some form of camera support in all but very good light. But if you are careful not to zoom in to far you should get good results.

A good DSLR would be better for what you want but as you can see you will need to spend more that £300 the Canon is very good as is the equivalent Nikon. You could save yourself over a £100 and get the 1000d with none IS lens as IS not so important on the standard zoom lens. Then you will need to budget at least £150 to get a reasonable longer zoom.

Image stabilisation help keep the image still allowing you to take photos at lower shutter speed without getting camera shake. not very well put I hope you understand

A._Badger

There is another reason why a DSLR would be worth considering - and that's the optical viewfinder system they use.

Compact cameras and their ilk usually force you to compose on a rear LCD screen and they are all more or less useless in bright light.

With a DSLR, you are looking through the lens that is taking the image - not relying on a poorly illuminated screen.

Particularly for wildlife photography and even more so in Africa, I'd suggest a DSLR would be a better bet. As for makes, I'd stick with Nikon or Canon, though Pentax would be a good third option.

Hope that's some help.

googler

tpowell wrote: »

After checking pictures of the camera's in my original price range, they all seem to be very blurry when zoomed in. However, my favourite was the Lumix FZ45.

Could someone let me know what kind of price I would be looking at for a better setup? Maybe I can buy a Digital SLR for now, and then get the zoom at a later date? I am an amateur at all this, but have so many great photograph opportunities where I am living, so want to take advantage of this

I may be picking it up wrong, but the tech spec on the FZ45 is VERY woolly on what the max focal length of the "24x optical zoom" is. Zoom lenses are normally quantified with a minimum and maximum focal length, such as 18-55, 55-200, etc.

The spec also suggests that the optical zoom is acheived by using only the central portion of the sensor, with a max resolution of 3MP..... which is far less than the standard 10 or 12MP that seems to be the norm.

I'd suggest that the lens should be your first priority, with the camera second. An entry-level SLR with a great lens will give you better results than a top-level SLR with a mediocre lens.

Enterprise_1701C

I found my 55-200 lens very useful out there, and my Nikon D40 may well have been the minimum speed you need, not sure if I would have got the pictures I got with something like a bridge camera.

ukcarper

googler wrote: »

I may be picking it up wrong, but the tech spec on the FZ45 is VERY woolly on what the max focal length of the "24x optical zoom" is. Zoom lenses are normally quantified with a minimum and maximum focal length, such as 18-55, 55-200, etc.

The spec also suggests that the optical zoom is acheived by using only the central portion of the sensor, with a max resolution of 3MP..... which is far less than the standard 10 or 12MP that seems to be the norm.

I'd suggest that the lens should be your first priority, with the camera second. An entry-level SLR with a great lens will give you better results than a top-level SLR with a mediocre lens.

I believe the FZ45 has Leica 4.5-108mm optical lens which is a 25-600mm 35mm equivalent so should be capable of giving reasonable results. But I agree an entry-level DSLR with good lens would give better results but would cost a lot more than £350.

ukcarper

Jane_Blackford wrote: »

I found my 55-200 lens very useful out there, and my Nikon D40 may well have been the minimum speed you need, not sure if I would have got the pictures I got with something like a bridge camera.

That’s a nice combination and is the equivalent of 82-300mm at 35mm which in good light should be ok especially with the d40 where you can afford to increase ISO slightly but the modern equivalent would cost more than £350.

spaceboy

Canon D500 DSLR. Costs a bit more than £350 but worth it.

[Deleted User]

A._Badger wrote: »

There is another reason why a DSLR would be worth considering - and that's the optical viewfinder system they use.

Compact cameras and their ilk usually force you to compose on a rear LCD screen and they are all more or less useless in bright light.

With a DSLR, you are looking through the lens that is taking the image - not relying on a poorly illuminated screen.

Particularly for wildlife photography and even more so in Africa, I'd suggest a DSLR would be a better bet. As for makes, I'd stick with Nikon or Canon, though Pentax would be a good third option.

Hope that's some help.

My 4 year old Panny FZ4 had a rear LCD screen, and an LCD viewfinder - it was not effected by the issue of bright sunlight at all..

You may also want to spend a little on a monopod if you do buy a big-zoom camera/SLR.. it's a !!!!!! trying to self-stabalise a 600mm lens (but it is possible - see this taken with no stablisation on a 300mm prime lens with a 2x crop factor, making it 600mm - http://www.flickr.com/photos/kirwilliam/4883507778/)