camera advice please

You can't really beat a mobile phone for landscapes, their quality is so good now. I have pro tog bodies and lenses and for anything which doesn't need a massive telephoto lens, I just use an iPhone. Minor compromise on quality, but such a massive gain on convenience...

For animals you really need big glass and that costs big $$.

For wildlife you want something like a 70-200 telephoto. No idea if you can get an old manual one for under £200 - maybe....

As footflaps.
It's only if I want really good quality I'll pick up my camera bag. That or really creative (I'm trying to get into macro)

Loon at mpb.com or the used section on wex photo, Wilkinson cameras etc. any camera shops in town.

As for phones. Learn about composition, I did a Colin prior workshop years ago and he put up two photos at the start. The good one had been taken on a phone with some thought to the composition, the poor one was taken with a top flight camera as a 'snap'.

Left field, but I'd look at something like this.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/175998510633?hash=item28fa542629%3Ag%3ASOgAAOSwamVlP8lN&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4DMfcF7l65reg6CLDqQ5NdbP1KpQxVvrP6fXvSJrwDFAeocqGuYMf8zFTjzU%2BMG3nPm8hCVKG74oOcNDRwz7pPKxpOGrtuDEIhcw9%2BKweZ4FhlrzgNrQDqxxhugDMmAinL0rDcnoJ921%2Fuk0GnF%2FrjUYjn4cd%2FYkDn9luaDYsFjQy51d8v1ma0wHV%2FZYZiZvEQFsAp2RFQ5GsE198EGSvBy5PqnP87KxnjSwzBG0OiG%2BouM67z8qlBLemOOZJy6GMkLS7zEVnDe73JU7qMUSrQU1M46MLxMwgsRR8iBElfAd%7Ctkp%3ABFBMlIGOt_Vi&LH_BIN=1

I have a couple of old Panasonic micro 4/3 bodies and love them. Throw in some cheap vintage M42 lenses and an adapter and you have a fun way of getting into 'serious' photography.

Having said that, a lot of my photography at the minute is done with grungy old phone cameras bought off the 'bay or my modded Fuji compact rather than my 'good' gear or my Pixel 6...

I’m no expert but if you look at the old dslr route and prefer Nikon, start looking from d3100 onwards, that one was a big step up from the d40 series. D3200 gets the movable screen for using at odd angles.

Voigtlander Bessa 1.

Some HP5.

I've been looking at the d3200 so far but from what I'm hearing using my phone would be better?

Better in the sense of what? There’s a lot to be said for putting one eye to a real viewfinder and looking at what pictures can be made from what is there, and maybe about stuff that is there that will detract from the picture you are trying to make. From there you either hoof it to a better viewpoint, or start with the wide or telephoto lenses to-get what you want. Then how much light do you want, where from, and how much motion blur is best?

get a panasonic fz200 or fz1000 used bridge camera and see how you get on. They have a lot of zoom. See how it comes out and what more you want/need after that

Every photo I’ve posted on the Today’s Photo thread has been taken with an iPhone, and I think every photo I’ve posted on the Gigs thread as well. I honestly can’t remember when I last used a camera.

This was taken with my iPhone…

Jesus christ can we have a health warning before spider photos please! *shudders*

i don’t want to spend too much, budget up to 200, so probably a used dslr

You could pick up a used Dslr for £50 that would do a perfectly good job. It's the lenses that cost the money. And the flashes, tripods, filters, and all the rest of it. It's easily more expensive than mountain biking if you get deep enough into it.

animals

What is animals? Wildlife will often require big telephoto lenses (£££) to get close from a distance. Taking photos of the dogs around the house is something different entirely.

Better in the sense of what?

I think for many people a phone is a fraction of the effort for better results.

You really have to ask yourself what you want from it. If you want to spend the time learning every aspect of it, and absorbing yourself into the process, get a proper camera.

I have 3 DSLRs and a point and shoot all sat in cupboards collecting dust because what takes me hours in photoshop my phone does in seconds. In fact my phone often does it better... Which is the point you start to question all the time and money spent. There's a tradeoff in optical quality but it only really applies if you're blowing up images to a decent size. You can't tell if you're just posting them to Facebook. In short, if you're just wanting to produce some half decent looking results, you're probably more likely to do it with a phone than you are a camera. 

Ive got a very good fuji compact, dslr sized sensor and good lens. It can take exquisite photos, but isn't always the easiset. This summer I went to the Pyrenees and got a whole raft of lovely, well exposed photos, all on my pixel 6a. Left the fuji at home.

Downside of course is no view finder. Personally i find that annoying as i need reading specs. But for landscape and portrait work generally, it's fantastic.

CEX would be a good place to start looking for a decent camera. IMO a DSLR is the way to go (but I grew up using SLRs) - I recently got a Canon with an IS (Image Stabilisation) lens and it’s amazing - very forgiving for at least a couple of stops down. We are saving up for a telephoto IS lens now.

And , if you are serious, get a camera that can shoot RAW and invest in Photoshop - what you can do post-shot is amazing

animals being birds mainly, I've found my phone doesn't do well with zooming in for better images of hovering birds of prey.

^^^ what you need is a telephoto lens and a quick one at that. They aren’t cheap (a really quick one go well into the thousands) but a few hundred will get something good enough as a starter.

Something like a Nikon d90 (or maybe a d7000) with a half decent zoom will get you started.

I've got a d80 (very old) with the Nikon 70-300vr lens and it is just about long enough for bird pics if you can get quite close.
The stabilisation is a god send.

I was actually considering getting rid of all my camera kit, as it wasn't getting used. Then my daughter started playing football for a local team and all the pics on the WhatsApp group were either tiny coloured dots or a grainy splurge of digital zoom horror.

I took my SLR along with the long lens and am now unofficial photographer 🤣
Blows any phone shots out of the water.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Pixel 4a and the pics it takes still amaze me. But, it's not the right tool for the job when any distance is involved and you need to get in close.

A used compact zoom?

the things that make photos good are skill, opportunity, having a camera with you, and some way down the list is fancy equipment. Sure, a monster zoom and a mega camera can make some things possible that wouldn’t be with a phone camera but IRL skill and practice trump fancy ‘glass’.

Child #2 got a great photo of a cheetah on a termite hill while we were in Tanzania in 2016. Beat all others with fancier equipment. Camera was some Panasonic compact with a fairly long optical zoom.

These were probably on a canon 450D with a 70-300mm zoom. <br /><br /><br />

My son bought a Nikon D7100, 50mm prime, a Sigma (something around) 30-80mm, and  a 70-300 zoom. He bought for a college course. MBP who we bought it off were superb and I would recommend them.

It's great as a proper bit of kit to play with. The instant shutter, the light you can actually play with, the zoom ability is great. I do enjoy taking it on occasion and playing to see what I can wrangle out of it. The zoom is barely enough for birds - I would suggest you need a really meaty zoom and tripod or stick to mount it on.

I'm comfortable with the majority of pictures being from my phone though.

prettygreenparrot

Sure, a monster zoom and a mega camera can make some things possible that wouldn’t be with a phone camera but IRL skill and practice trump fancy ‘glass’.

True for most things, but if you want to get close-up images of small things you need a long lens.
All example pics you show have been with long zoom lenses. With a phone camera they would have probably been a small dot in the distance, or a blurred mess of digital zoom.
There's a reason that child #2's cheetah pic wouldn't have been worth posting had it been taken with a 2016 smart phone 😉.

Agreed though that timing, composition, experience, luck and practice are required.

A compact camera (or bridge cameras) with decent zoom lens would also be a potentially good option, rather than an SLR; especially as most have optical stabilisation built-in. My first digital camera was a Konica Minolta Dimage Z2 that had a 10 or maybe 12x optical zoom. That was a great camera.

I know that they are not popular but a used Pentax dslr can use any Pentax lens as any image stabilisation etc.  is done in the body rather than the lens and so you can buy quite reasonable telephoto lenses cheaply.

second hand bodies also tend to be cheaper than equivalent Nikon and Canon equipment. The more modern ones also quite well weatherproofed. The downsides are that the cameras tend not to be as well specced as some others, but as a cheap starting point might be worth a look at

f you want to learn about photography there is a lot to be said for buying a small compact mirrorless Fuji. Why Fuji?

Well, it’s easier to learn shutter speed, aperture and focus zones using  proper dials and manual focus - plus mirrorless Fuji work very very well with older manual focus lenses which can be picked up for almost nothing on eBay etc. There are also plenty of interesting new Chinese manufacturers like 7artisans which make cheap lenses to fit Fuji - stuff with 8mm focal lengths etc which cost less than 100 quid v ten x that for a Nikon Dslr.

That’s why second hand ‘very expensive when new’ Dslrs are so cheap - because to get good results you need a lens costing several hundred pounds or more - good photographers never sell good lenses only bodies.

Also Fuji cameras are quite small so you can easily carry a body and 2 lenses without looking like David Bailey.

I use a Canon EOS 100D, which is/was the smallest SLR body Canon made at the time - there's an updated version now, can't remember the model name - with a fixed 24mm pancake lens. The combo is small enough, not much bulkier than a compact, that I can actually be bothered to carry it with me. Takes really sharp images and the lack of a zoom makes you think about what you're photographing ime. Something like that second hand might be a good starting point. 

I find it far harder to compose shots without a viewfinder and the screen on my iphone is next to useless in bright sunlight in particular, so it becomes a bit of an exercise in point and guess. 

I'm sure there are loads of options that'd work

animals being birds mainly,

Birds are small and far away so you will need a very nice lens if you want decent images of them (look at how rough the images of birds in post just above are - no offence to poster!)

You are realistically not going to get a DSLR and a decent enough lens for £200.

I still use a Sony A700 which is around 15 years old now and it still gets me better images (using a 50 1.4 lens) that any phone would and camera and lens is under £200. It is also far nicer to use than a phone as pretty much every function is on a button and using a viewfinder is just nicer for me.

I won't however be getting any good shots of birds...

What is animals?

You are Philomena Cunk aicmfp.

I think that phones do indeed capture a scene very well these days, but they don't really allow you the same level of manual control to be creative as a good DSLR will.

A great picture is far more than a scene captured faithfully. I think a DSLR can make you think differently about composition and allows a lot more experimentation beyond pre-designed filters in apps etc.

That being said, I almost always use my Pixel 6a these days, but the years I didn't use that but used my D40, D7000 and D7100 that I still have, really helped shape the way I frame/compose images now, even with the phone.

London Camera Exchange are another good dealer that have a lot of used options. Can't go too far wrong with a body from one of the big makers, and getting lenses as you go.

Very rewarding.

Birds are small and far away

Every photo I’ve posted on the Today’s Photo thread has been taken with an iPhone, and I think every photo I’ve posted on the Gigs thread as well. I honestly can’t remember when I last used a camera.

This was taken with my iPhone…

I think you have kind of disproved your point with your photos. A photo taken with a decent camera even an old one with a macro lense or even just a macro tube will walk all over that with detail.

Phone cameras are amazing "the best camera is the one you have with you" cameras but they don't stand up scrutiny compared to a reasonable quality digital camera. And you can't do the manual controls properly to get nice shots.

Anyone buying a flagship phone thinking they'll get a decent camera - make sure it's not Samsung. I have an S22 Ultra and the camera is gash. Yes, I've seen decent results, but you shouldn't have to work as hard as you do with the Samsung to get them. That's not the point of a phone cam

(I can use a full size camera btw)

I'm a keen wildlife photographer, and realistically I think that you would need to spend £700-£800 to get second-hand DSLR kit that would give you bird pictures that you would be happy with unfortunately. Canon 7d (£200) plus 400mm f5.6 prime or 100-400mm mk1 zoom (£550). The good news is that you would lose very little money on either of those lenses if you decided you didn't like photography after all.

Bridge cameras now give half-decent results, but older ones are poor for wildlife (slow to react, slow to use, poor image quality when zoomed in) - a Nikon P900 would be your best bet second-hand for maybe £400, but manual control is still clunky compared to a dslr.

For me, the main improvement with every generation of camera body is ISO performance - my 40d was tricky at over ISO 400, but my current body is ok at 25,600. As you pay more for lenses speed of focus and image quality improve. Ultimately it is those few simple things that cost the money.

Comapare the images from my first trip on safari in 2009 with a 40d and 100-400 with my most recent trip with modern gear, the difference is clear. (Don't get me wrong, old gear can still take amazing images, but modern gear vastly increases your chances of getting a great image in a much wider range of conditions).

My website

For me, the main improvement with every generation of camera body is ISO performance

Yep, definitely. Because I shoot in daylight with a 50 1.4 the ISO improvements make no difference to me but clearly if you are using f5.6 lenses for moving objects then it makes a world of difference.

I think you have kind of disproved your point with your photos.

Just what I was thinking. Show a fuzzy picture of a spider is not a good example. My £200 DSLR image of same subject would be many times better.

I use a camera phone a lot for eBay images and just take snaps when I am out as for general photos they are very good.

Child #2 got a great photo of a cheetah on a termite hill while we were in Tanzania in 2016. Beat all others with fancier equipment. Camera was some Panasonic compact with a fairly long optical zoom.

Here's a picture of a cheetah that I took with a DSLR (f5.6, 1/1600 at 300mm zoom).

Proves the point well. People are either kidding themselves or easily please if they think a phone or lower quality camera is up to wildlife photography. It is just basics lens physics and those massive lens with loads of elements are like that for a reason...

I forgot to add - that picture was taken in 2006 with an entry-level Canon (a 300D) and EF 75-300mm telephoto lens, so it wasn't even high-end stuff – you could get the exact camera and lens from CEX today for £125 (£30 for the body, £95 for the lens).

The old ' I want to get into photography so what DSLR do I need' is a really good way to fill one of your drawers with unused aging tech.

The flipside to that is - yes, phone cameras now can be superb, but they do have limitations because of the simple physics of the size of the glass, and fixed lenses - a few now have it, but its multiple fixed lenses, rather than true 'zooming'.
Most of what phones do is in the clever processing and software.

Personally I have found the ideal is - a really lovely, high end, cheap, old, but good quality compact. In my case a circa 10 year old Sony RX100 (Mk3, I think). Small enough to fit in my pocket, can wifi upload to my phone in seconds for the insta-bangers you might be tempted to use the phone for. Has a proper view finder.

For example - https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/New/Sony-Cyber-shot-RX100-III_4016.html?gclid=Cj0KCQiAgK2qBhCHARIsAGACuzkgVRXdkxSoykw2Wtb6XQyV0olYFK9BG6n4mUlbnAdfg-vvPcHLUtQaAporEALw_wcB

The crucial part is - I have it with me. Unlike my bigger bridge camera and DSLR which is sat in the draw at home. This camera, since I bought it, has lived permanently at the door with my keys/in my pocket/in the glovebox.

Its flat, fits in a jeans pocket, light, you can grab it with one hand but its also a proper camera, with a viewfinder - which makes composition and the act of photography so different to grabbing snaps on a phone.

And it just takes lovely, lovely photos. The headlines resolution is actually lower than my phone - but the overall aesthetic is much, much higher. Photos seem to just be 'nicer'. And the ease of use of basic settings, exposure, depth of field etc makes you really think about what you are doing. I love it.

I've also got an RX100 (Mk4) and though its a lovely camera and really small, I don't find it that easy to use compared to the Fujifilms. Because its so small there are no dials and everything has to be accessed through the buttons/screen which can be a pain. Don't get me wrong, its a great camera (and my only non phone camera at the moment) but I miss my little XE-2 with proper shutter speed dials and aperture rings (yes I know the RX100 has a 'ring' on the lens but its not the same)

Don't get hung up on a DSLR, there is much more options on the market these days. Have seen people get amazing results with the latest compact cameras as it's all in the skill of the operator. I'd be tempted to have a session at a local photography class, try some kit out, talk to people who do what you want to do and see what they use. You'll then get a feel for whether you like it and what suits your budget.

You can’t really beat a mobile phone for landscapes, their quality is so good now.

Depends on your skill level and how much you value convenience. I've still got a Canon EOS 1000D kicking about that I could get some amazing results with but just lugging it around made it more faff and hassle than just using my phone. My current Pixel 6 is great for most situations so the Canon is sat in it's bag and has been for a few years now, probably with a knackered battery! Cost around £500 with lenses back in 2009ish and now worth £50-100 at most. Think it's been used for a total of 5-6 trips and maybe 1-200 pictures in that time so quite a waste really.

Have seen people get amazing results with the latest compact cameras as it’s all in the skill of the operator.

Absolutely, you can. But, factoring in the skill of the operator, they could take significantly better pictures with a good DSLR set-up than with a compact in many circumstances (ie, sport, wildlife photography, landscapes etc).

I asked on here 6 months ago for camera advice, to take pics of my lad's various sporting endeavors*
I ended up with a Panasonic FZ80/82 bridge camera, (220 quid from CEX)
I blooming love it, both taking pics and the camera (although I feel as if I'm ready to move on from the camera)
Like yourself I wasn't sure whether it was something I'd properly get into, so didn't want to spend too much. I liked the thought of a bridge camera as it meant not having to mess about with lenses, carrying them, attachment them and keeping them safe etc. In that regard a bridge camera has served it purpose for me and with a FZ80 it has a very wide range of focal length, 28-1500 or something, that will allow you to have a go at any style of photography you want with same bit of kit. Sports for me and wildlife for you are pretty similar, so that's maybe why this camera might work for you.
The downside is the image quality isn't as good as expensive glass. But this camera is defo better than using a phone, imho. It's been like a "gateway drug" and has helped me learn loads while being faff friendly.
I'm looking into upgrading now, as I can see it's maybe holding me back a little, but I'll sell it back to CEX for 120.... (best 80 Ive spent in a long time)
Good luck, have fun.
* My post at the time was semi hi-jacked about not taking pics of kids. I'm happy to report that I have of course been super safe/respectable and have been met with nothing but acceptance, joy and thankfulness for the images I've captured of my son's team mates.

Phones are great for convenience but if you’re serious about landscapes for example, a semi decent mirrorless or DSLR camera is superior.
The controls they offer can’t really be replicated on a phone. For example, I might want to stick it on a tripod with an polarising filter (to reduce glare and increase saturation) and set it for a 5 second exposure (maybe to blur some water movement) at f/11 (to get sharpness throughout the image) at ISO100 (to eliminate noise). I’m not sure it’s possible to do that with a phone.
As for quality, a phone pic looks great if taken in good light but look at it on a big screen and it’s just a pile of mush and noise when zoomed in.
iPhone 13 (full resolution)
Canon 5d (reduced file size)

Do you want to "take better photos" or do you want to "learn photography"?

A high-end phone will tick the former box, point-and-shooting with everything set to Auto my Pixel phone outstrips my dSLR by a country mile. What a dSLR or equivalents thereof bring to the party isn't inherently "better" photos, it's creative control.

I have a mate who's a twitcher. He takes some astonishing pictures. But he has a pro-series lens costing four figures, a high-end tripod, and he will happily sit in a hide for hours on end tracking birds lobbing about. You want to be a photographer, the first thing you need to buy is patience.

the first thing you need to buy is patience

absolutely
but a big zoom ,low light capability and very quick reactions make a massive difference

I've learned about and how to use a few cameras for wildlife photography for work. I was shocked (as someone whos never used a camera before) how good the budget bridge cameras were. Crazy levels of zoomies that meant it could get shots that the phone couldnt even dream of. The werent objectively 'good' but i was thrilled with them:

This is with a canon sx70 ~500 new

Then i got lent a canon 7dmk2 + Tamron 200-600 lens, entry level 2nd hand DLSR

And finaly a top of the range mirrorless (sony A1 + 200-600)

yes, this is a wild gos 😉

So you can see that as you spend more money, you do get more image quality. That said, i loved the cheapest one. small and light so it went everywhere with me - dont feel self concious about it either like you do with the dork setups (which also do best with tripods). Quality was only an issue once id seen what the better one could do on the same subjects, and then i wasnt happy. Until then ignorance was bliss

@duakan - good demonstration of the differences that different levels of equipment give.

And I want your job!

I'm interested to learn about photography, this thread has already made me look at other features within my phone's camera.

i asked about dslrs which has only ended up displaying my ignorance really as I've only just started looking.

never heard of bridge cameras before and they do seem like a good choice.