UKC

My wife and I are increasing getting into birdwatching, so are looking for a camera to take photos with.

Looking at some superzoom (50 to 60 x) bridge cameras, coming in at between £200 to £400.
Or would I be better with a cheaper DSLR, with the option to change lenses between standard and zoom?

Can you get reasonable 50x zoom lenses for DSLRs?
What would anyone's recommendations be for either type of camera?

In reply to Fredt:

It's not what you asked for, but I just bought a mirror less lumix gx7. Flexibility with changeable lenses, compact size and high image quality
I really like it so far and you can get them for £300 after you claim cash back from Jessops.

In reply to Fredt:

It depends on whether you'd use the camera for things other than birding. Telephoto lenses for DSLRS are neither cheap, nor light. If taking pictures of birds is your sole interest, and if ultimate image quality is not what you're after, then I would probably get a superbridge. Some of them will have more reach than any DSLR lens, like the Nikon P900, which goes to a ridiculous 2000mm (35mm equivalent) and sells for 450£ at Jessops. Now don't expect image quality on par with a Canikon 800mm f/5.6 lens, nor the same shallow depth of field. Here's a comparison between several superzoom bridge cameras: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2015-roundup-long-zoom-compacts?utm_campaig...

Another possibility would be to get a cheap m4/3 body and an Olympus 75-300mm or Panasonic 100-300mm (600mm eq. at the long end). IQ will be better, depth of field a bit shallower (though don't expect wonders) and you can mount standard lenses on them. It's a more expensive solution though, and I find 600mm to be still too short for small birds (finches, tits and so on), as well as for raptors or herons which are easily scared (unless you're willing to use a ghillie suit or something like that and be very patient).

Third alternative, get a Nikon 1 body and the 70-300mm (up to 810mm eq.). Image quality is good and the focusing system is great. More expensive though, and judging by the upcoming release of their DL series, it looks as if Nikon is giving up on this system.

Hope this helps.

In reply to Fredt:

It's a great hobby, as is wildlife photography - remember to just enjoy watching them sometimes, rather than always snapping. You'll understand them better and that makes you a better photographer.
Exciting couple of months ahead for you with migrating birds returning and nesting.


A DSLR will give you a better quality image than the superzoom, but you will not get the same reach with any lens you can buy for the sorts of money you mention above, so you will have to get closer.

With reference to 50x, 60x etc:
If you already know this, then I apologise in advance, but I'd rather ensure you understand before you buy -
The 60x on a bridge camera does not refer to its magnification power, such as you may be used to with an 8x or 10x pair of binoculars.
The 60x means that the longest focal length of the lens is 60 times that of the shortest. Since the shortest focal length of cameras varies so much, the figure you are looking at is not a particularly useful one - especially as you will mostly be interested in the longer focal range if you are after bird shots.

A more useful figure to use for comparisons is the '35mm equivalent' focal length. The higher that number, the bigger your bird will appear in the viewfinder.
A rough guide is that a 50mm (or equivalent) lens gives approx the same field of view as your eyes - It gives approx 1x magnification.
So divide the max focal length of any lens you are looking at by 50 to get an approx magnification.
eg. a 300mm lens makes things look 300/50 = 6x closer/bigger than a 'standard' lens.
If that 300mm lens is mounted on a DSLR with a crop factor then it will have more reach.
Eg if the crop factor is 1.5, then the the example above would be 300/50 x 1.5 = 9x closer/ bigger.

If these numbers don't sound high, they aren't! A lot of people are disappointed when they first buy a DSLR for this sort of stuff and realise they just have to get closer using fieldcraft.

If you got into it and chucked some money at it then a popular sort of lens is this
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00NJ9KAQI/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF...
This is 600mm at the long end - so approx the same sort of view as a 12x pair of binoculars of a fullframe DSLR or an 18x pair of binoculars on a 1.5 crop body.
£1200 and you still have to get reasonably close to small to medium sized birds.

Large apertures are also valued by wildlife photographers. The more light the lens can let in then the faster the shutter speed can be (freezing the bird) and you can isolate the bird by throwing the background out of focus.
Large aperture, long focal length lenses are heavy, expensive and require practice.

DSLRs have bigger sensors than the superzooms and can take low light shots with less noise.
They also have a faster autofocus mechanism which is also more accurate in low light and also gives a better chance of focussing on a moving subject - such as a bird in flight.


tough question.
I made the assumption above that you want high quality shots of birds, perhaps ones with artistic merit?
If this is your aim, you'll eventually want a DSLR.
If on the other hand you want 'record shots' to help with identifying what you have seen, then a super zoom will be just the ticket.

In reply to Fredt:

I think a lot depends on whether you intend to use a tripod or not.
A DSLR and large zoom is much more unwieldy than a bridge camera.
After a lot of effort last year I managed to get a half decent image of a snipe in flight with my Lumix bridge which would have been nigh on impossible with a DSLR/zoom equivalent.