Am I ever opening a can of worms with this post or what? Buying a camera is often such a matter of personal taste, but let’s put that to one side, dive straight in, and say that the most important questions to ask when buying a camera for nature photography is not “Will this one do?” but “WHAT will this one do?”. What we need to ask ourselves from the outset is what we want to achieve with our photography, and - which may save a lot of money in the future by getting the choice right first time - to think whether we’re likely to want the option to expand our kit with better lenses etc in the future.

What do I mean by all of that? Well, do you want to produce magazine quality photographs (which means you’ll need to buy a very high-quality - ie expensive- camera), or would you be happy producing images you can view on your computers, share with friends, and post on a blog? Are you likely to become serious about your photography - in which case you’re going to want a Digital SLR (DSLR) which opens up a world of user-control and add-ons, or stay content with a camera which you can pull out of a pocket and use occasionally - in which case some of the better compact cameras with optical zooms will probably suffice? (I’m possibly going to use a few techy words/phrases in this post that you may not be familiar with, so please use this link to get to a post which includes a glossary I wrote for the first part of this mini-series).

Choosing a camera first and foremost shouldn’t be a matter of going for a machine that “looks good” (the final image will potentially impress far more than the camera that takes it remember) or that has every button and technicological bell imaginable (most of which you’ll be paying for but probably never use). It should be a matter of working out FIRST which buttons and bells you actually want. Does it matter whether you can take pictures of Robins in sepia? I doubt it. Do you want to record a bit of video too? No reputable DSLR will do that, so they can be ruled out immediately. And the place to start deciding which camera you’ll buy is most definitely NOT the High Street. Not all retailers are the same of course, but going into a “pile ‘em high, sell ‘em cheap” camera shop and being faced by a commission-driven sales assistant intent on selling you the most expensive model on the shelves in the shortest possible time is extremely daunting and frustrating, and unless you’re armed with a shortlist and a good idea of the cameras you’re already interested in, you’ll be dizzy and running for the exit within minutes.

No, the place to start (assuming you haven’t just won the lottery or have the spending power of a Bill Gates, in which case you can stop reading now and just buy the camera shop and browse it at leisure) is to go online or to your local newsagents. Nipping out for the latest edition of a camera magazine like “What Camera?” or “Digital Photography” may seem an obvious tip, but it’s surprising how many friends of mine have gone out and bought a camera THEN asked me if it’s any good. If they’d spent an hour curled up with a camera magazine they’d have known the answer before they’d handed over their cash. Magazines will give you a reasonable idea of what’s “hot” at the moment, provide explanation aplenty, and as importantly tell you what the camera you’ll end up buying is likely to cost (one complaint about magazines, incidentally, is that they do tend to look only at the latest models - but if you check out the review sections at the back they usually carry a long list of previously-reviewed cameras graded with a ’star-rating’).

Even a magazine will carry an overwhelming range of cameras and options, so in that hour of curled-up contentedness you need to constantly bear in mind that all-important question: what am I trying to achieve with my camera? There are certain things that have to be remembered, and the first is that despite the advent of the digital age getting good (rather than adequate) wildlife photographs still takes time, skill, and fieldcraft, and - usually - a lot of money. Most digital cameras these days seem to promise that they’ll do everything other than choose what to point themselves at (for that they still need you, the photographer), and it is true that as long as the subject is still and well-lit even a cheapish compact camera will take a very good photo - but it’s also true that no compact camera will take a truly excellent photo if the subject is moving fast or is not well-lit. For that you will need a DSLR - and, more importantly, you’re going to need to know how to use it properly (see part two of this series Read the B****y Manual). Before spending your hard-earned salary therefore, ask yourself whether you’re prepared to really learn the technical aspects of photography. If you’re not, why spend over 500GBP/1000USD on a prosumer camera when 200GBP/400USD will get you a seriously good - but ultimately limited - compact?

Ask yourself, too, whether your interest in photography is likely to be enthused enough to want better equipment/more options in the future. If you think you’re going to get hooked on photography and you’re prepared to learn the ropes, then invest from the start in a good, well-built camera body and build a collection around it: in the long run it saves money, saves time, and you’ll get better photographs more quickly. There is no option to upgrade a compact camera - if you want better photos you will have to go back out and buy a better model: with a DSLR (particularly one made by a manufacturer that makes high-quality lenses) there are so many add-ons that your options are only limited by the size of your bank-balance (or overdraft). Remember, too, that no matter how good the electronics inside the camera the light hitting the photo-elements comes from the outside - and the only way in to the camera is through the lens. If the lens is tiny, mass-produced, and cheap, the light entering your camera will be corrupted. If the lens is large and the glass used to make it is finely-ground and multi-coated it won’t be (which is partly why lenses for DSLRs like Canon and Nikon cost so much, and partly why most mobile phones don’t take magazine-quality images).

When it comes to bird photography despite “digital with everything” it remains true, of course, that most birds are still small and they still tend to fly away if you get too close. Whilst digital cameras are packed to the gunnels with technology, most compact cameras simply don’t give you enough control or take pictures fast enough to capture quickly moving birds. Most compacts are also not up to the job of providing the magnification you need, despite their promises of huge zooms. The small lenses of compacts don’t magnify nearly enough and if they do they are usually right at the limits of their capabilities and most likely will throw up image quality problems (lots of noise, blurring from camera movement etc). Stay away in particular from “digital zooms”: these work by basically increasing the size of the original image electronically, which is almost always a recipe for a ruined shot. If you want “to get close” your choice is either to look at digiscoping (check out Mike McDowell’s excellent blog for advice) or to buy a DSLR: using a telescope or a long lens gets round the problem because the glass is doing the work of magnifying not the camera, but neither option is cheap.

Two final pieces of advice.

Firstly, when it comes down to camera choice it’s definitely worth considering buying a well-known brand. Yes, there are good cameras made by lesser-known companies, but there is a reason that everyone has heard of Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fuji et al. It’s because they make equipment that is well-built and that lasts, they (usually) provide excellent warranties, and most stores will sell and know how to repair them. If you want to go online and buy a very cheap camera from a start-up in South Korea go ahead: you may be getting a bargain, but then again you may not and replacing a cheap camera several times costs as much as buying a decent camera just once. One of the big problems of buying online, by the way, is the lack of any real relationship between buyer and seller: it may cost more initially, but there’s absolutely nothing to beat going to a good camera store, getting to know a knowledgeable assistant, and building a working relationship with someone who understands what you need and how quickly you need it.

Secondly, don’t forget that the camera is not ‘the end of the spend’. Whilst digital cameras mean that - thankfully - film and development costs have been banished forever, you’ll probably still want to buy batteries and extra memory cards, you’ll need a computer to download your photos onto, and - if you really want to get the best out your final image - you need a good photo-editing programme. Most cameras don’t come with a protective case either. Costs can mount up quite quickly, so before you buy your camera work out a budget that includes all the extras you need.

I’m just about done. I’m sure some of you started this post in the hope of being given a few concrete suggestions so that you could go out forthwith armed with a credit card and be taking photos by this evening? Sorry to disappoint, but even if I did rattle off a few model numbers by next week something else will come along to supersede them or someone will be commenting that they bought such-and-such camera two years ago, it’s brilliant, and how come I didn’t mention it. I know what I bought recently, if that’s any help - a Canon 40D. Is it better than eg the new Nikons? I don’t know, because as I had thousands of pounds worth of Canon lenses in my kit-bag it didn’t cross my mind to investigate much further than reading the odd Nikon review. I knew what I wanted my photos to look like, I knew the money I was prepared to spend, and I made my choice after reading as many Canon user-reviews as I could get my hands on. I’m happy with the choice I’ve made because I knew exactly what the 40D could do and how well it did it - and that, IMHO, is what buying a camera should be all about…