My wife wants to buy me one of these for my birthday: https://www.currys.co.uk/products/canon-eos-2000d-dslr-camera-with-efs-1855-mm-f3.55.6-iii-and-ef-75300-mm-f45.6-iii-lens-10204844.html#collapseFour

I use a bridge camera at the mo and it’s fine for what I want – wildlife pics etc etc – but it’d be nice to have something a bit better. The price is on budget and on the face of it the camera looks good to me. Waddaya think?

body is pretty good but only as good as the glass on the front of it.

and those lenses are just about ok-ish.

stick with the bridge camera unless you want to start another expensive hobby…

Depends on what wildlife photography you want to do, the only negative is the slow continuous shooting mode of 3 frames per second.

On the one hand you can’t really go wrong with anything Canon/Nikon/Sony/Panasonic. If it has the features you want and can afford it then it will do a good job for the pricepoint.

On the other, the camera world is barreling (pun intended) towards full frame mirrorless. So I’d be looking that way for a new body. 10 years ago there were very good reasons why mirrorless sucked compared to SLR systems, but sensors, processing and displays have moved on. The silver lining is that it should be possible to put an SLR lens on a mirrorless camera with an adapter because the mirrorless body is smaller. But that relies on the manufacturer making the parts capable of talking to each other. So if I was buying a new DSLR now, I’d be looking to see what the lenses are likely to be compatible with in 10 years time.

Unfortunately for me Richo/Pentax seem determined to go bankrupt before breaking with tradition. The CEO is on record saying they won’t make a high end mirrorless camera. Come on, please, just make one and chuck a K-mount adapter in the box if you’re worried about tradition.

I use a bridge camera at the mo and it’s fine for what I want – wildlife pics etc etc

Don’t know what the etc etc includes but for wildlife the 18-55 lens is next to useless so first expense would be a lens that won’t typically be that cheap.

Not bad at all for the money.

DSLRs are shifting from the market for mirror-less cameras.

So bulk,lens speed/quality and age is the only thing counting against in this package. Hence the value.

300mm is just about the start of wildlife focal length but realistically lens costs and quality will be the big spend later.

Plenty of modest price EF/EF-S lenses though given RF is the new dog on the street.

You probably won’t go far wrong.

I just dabbled with a Sony A7C (b-cam for work) and payed nearly 3 used times that so it looks good value to me.

It might be worth seeking out the ‘best’ cheapest body you can find without lens and sourcing a lens you really want?

Cheap lenses tend to stay on the shelf.

I’ve got a Nikon D80 which is a bit of a dinosaur & a Nikon 70-300VR (stabilised) lens.
I’ve done a bit of wildlife photography with it, as well as Motorsport (similar in terms of panning on a subject etc.)

I would not want to be using that for wildlife photography without the stabilisation, on all but the brightest of days. No stabilisation and you’ll want a monopod with it at the very least.
It doesn’t look like a bad deal, but wonder if you’d be better off getting a 2nd hand body & better lens for what you want to do.

It would certainly get you started, but you’d probably find the limitations of that lens a bit frustrating, mainly due to the lack of stabilisation and your ability to take a sharp picture in less than bright lighting conditions.