Beginner to Wildlife Photography

[shenk1]

I'll agree with you CharlieCreek as thats what I've done.

Money is always tight so I started with a good bridge camera , then bought a decent dslr with a couple of lenses to get started,then upgraded to a good macro lense and now looking at a better long lense. Hopefully won't have to spend too much in one go that way and as I build up the idea is to sell on the lesser gear to fund the new stuff.I also learn my own abilities and requirements as I progress as I think sometimes it can overwhelm you with technical stuff or you just use what you have and never progress in your skills.

I'm still learning and will be for a long while yet but I'll stick at it

shenk1

PS a nieghbour of mine tried getting into photography and , with all best intentions,went out and bought a grands worth of dslr and equipment.He recently went on holiday with 75 Quids worth of compact camera as he " couldn't be bothered ".It hardly comes out of the cupboard now

[freiston]

Originally Posted by Alicja

Although the 350d seems good i have realised that it only has 8 megapixels, and I would really like more (because even my camera phone has 8mp!) However, I don't know how important megapixels really are when doing wildlife photography.

The image quality from the phone's sensor and lens will not be a patch on the 8mp 350d.

Take a look at some of the photos by Juza taken with the 350d and an expensive lens - image quality is not an issue. Here's a link - a mixture of 20d and 350d images Juza Nature Photography.

I use a 350d with a couple of Sigma lenses (150-500mm & 10-20mm) and a Canon 28-135mm and am very happy. Of course, I would like to upgrade the camera someday - but I ain't in a rush to do so.

[david156]

Hi,

I started out with the Canon 1000d twin lens kit. The lens were the standard 18-55mm and the 75-300mm, both non is. It cost £495 new which was about all I could afford at the time, and for starters it wasn't too bad. The 1000d body is ok but I would consider a better lens.

When I could afford it I got a better lens (canon 100 - 400) and have now got a better body (50d) but I still use the 1000d occasionally with a canon 28 -135 and leave the big lens on the other body.


Cheers David.

[momji1971]

Agree with most of whats already been said. The decision comes down to how serious you are in taking wildlife photography up as a hobby.

If you are unsure a good bridge camera would be the way to go. Shooting for birds can get really expensive as a standard focal length in the 500mm region is considered as a standard and they aren't cheap.
Add to this the tripod you would also have to buy to hold the lens.

At least with a bridge, you have an allround capability. From macro to portrait to wildlife.

That way, if photoraphy becomes a passion, you can take the jump in quality and cost to a Dslr and long lens.

Good shooting!
regards.
Stu.

[trondi]

Fantastic fun learning to shoot with a superzoom. I have had 5 years with a Sony H5 and in that time have learnt a huge amount about all the skills and processes needed to get the best out of manual and other functions found on digital cameras. The flexibility from excellent macro to amazing zoom shot capabilities is without doubt is the clincher for any beginner wanting their first wildlife camera.

One camera with the ability to shoot video (many IDs rely on some movement capyure) as well is pure lightweight heaven.

BUT in low light conditions the IQ is pants. You cannot get low light quality images that in any way compare with DSLR sensor images. Grrrrrrr.. and so many wildlife pics are taken in the gloom or at high shutter speed (same gloom equivalence).

so eventually.........