New to Nature Photography

[Jim Ford]

I suggest the O.P. makes sure he gets this model of the 18-55:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...p5-5p6_is_c16/

The earlier one was the 'bottle bottom', and I've seen some images in the Gallery that look like they've been taken with this lens that I would be _very_ unhappy with.

Jim

[dmbuild66]

the 18-55mm woulld be good for insects etc but more or less useless for bird photography!
Dave

[mightymaiden]

I have a Canon 450D with a 17 - 85mm, 100mm macro and a 75 - 300mm lens. Im serious getting into bird photography and im saving up for a sigma 150 - 500mm lens. 300mm just isnt long enough. This is something to bare in mind if you want good shots!!!

[Lancashire Lad]

Be realistic people!!

Guinnessman says he has a budget of £250.00 - If he wants to stick to that budget then discussing the merits of DSLR systems is pointless.

A DSLR with a kit 18-70mm will be nigh on useless as a nature photographers camera - especially as Guinnessman has said that he is interested in Birds and Insects.

For those subjects he will need a long telephoto, and a macro - neither of which will be furnished by a DSLR and said kit lens.

Yes, a DSLR system will provide for better low light shots, but a camera with a useless lens for the type of photos you want to take will be no good regardless of what the lighting conditions are.

I suggest that Guinnessman sticks with his original intent and buys a good bridge camera. With such a stand alone camera, he will have a very good all rounder, which will provide some very usable images at all focal lengths from wideangle/macro to long telephoto.

There are many occasions when I don't want to to carry my DSLR system around, and I regularly use only my Finepix HS10 (and prior to that, a Finepix S9600), - and have had some very good shots indeed from those cameras. (I mainly shoot macro, and lots of the HS10 shots are in my WAB Gallery, but the camera is just as capable for telephoto shots or landscapes etc.).

With such a budget in mind, there will be some inevitable compromises, but I would rather have a bridge camera that would get me the shot in 90% of instances, than a DSLR and lens combo that would only get me the shot on rare occasions.

Go for it Guinnessman, get a HS10 or something similar, you won't regret it for one moment, (especially if you also obtain a Raynox supplementary lens for even closer, higher magnification macro), and such a camera will always stand you in good stead as a back up, should you decide to upgrade to a DSLR system in two or three years time.

Regards,
Mike.

[PMG]

I'm with Lancashire Lad here having built up and arrived at todays equipment via much smaller cameras. Back in 1999 or thereabouts I made the switch from Pentax K1000 slide film camera to digital with a Fuji Finepix and I had a ball! Many of the early photos in my Gallery were taken with that camera! Then at some point I moved onto a Nikon 4500 and that is still my camera of choice for moth photography and certain fungi shots too (those where I want plenty of surrounding background showing) for the portrait fungi with plain backgrounds I use the 40D or 7D with the 105 macro. The little Nikon was the only camera I could afford at that time - its all I had and it meant that I couldn't do the one thing I really wanted to which was bird photography .... but it did everything else very competantly .......... So yes a bridge camera is the way to go for your budget at the min and it will get you used to changing settings and make you work hard to get the very best out of your shots. Then later on when something more expensive can be added you will have honed your skills and be in a much better position to use a dslr ..... good luck!

[MartynA]

Definitely go with the bridge camera!

I've progressed in a similar way to PMG - from a Panasonic FZ30 to a Pentax K10D and I frequently think I used to get better photos with the Panasonic bridge camera!

I remember reading about some professional photographers who purposely did a photo shoot with small P&S cameras just to show what they can do and make the point that it's the photographer and not the camera that makes a great image!

There are many advantages to a bridge camera - not least of which is portability. The only thing you WILL have problems with are images of birds in flight - which was one of the reasons for changing to a DSLR.

These days you can get bridge cameras with a 30x zoom - to get that with a dslr would require quite a substantial investment!

My friend still uses my FZ30 and we often compare pictures and conclude hers are better than mine!! ....but then, as I said, a lot depends on the photographer

Martyn

[Amarillo]

Good to see some sense being talked at last! Its an absolute no-brainer for a beginner on a budget of £250 to go for a bridge camera. A DSLR with lenses for wildlife photography requires a budget of at least double this budget, more realistically 3 or 4 times. There seems to be a lot of snobbery on here regarding them. As long as you understand their limitations, you cannot go wrong and can always upgrade if you get more serious (and have more cash!)

Personally I use a Panasonc FZ38 and you can get them for £200 now I think, which would then allow you to get a teleconverter as well and stay within your budget. The newer versions FZ45 and FZ100 have more zoom, but from what I've read some people seem to suggest image quality not as good as FZ38.

[phil messenger]

I have recently started trying my hand at bird photography, and was questioning whether to get a DSLR or a bridge when i had a spare £350, I went for the Fuji HS10 with it's 30X optical zoom which is fantastic i might add, to get a DSLR with a lens of that reach was way above my price range so the HS10 was ideal, and my Raynox 2.2 telephoto lens really does help with those really long shots....

[DOXHOPE]

Used to have a Fuji S2Pro, what cracking colours and images I got from it..