Starter camera

[idahoblues]

As a walkabout camera suggest taking a look at mirrorless rather than DSLR, save about a third of the weight in the body and half in the lenses typically, and image quality is as good as APS-C (which is the format your budget would bring in a dslr) Olympus OMD EM5 or EM10 second hand from somewhere like MPB would be my starting point, or better still the OMD EM1 mark 1, an old camera now but available for about £200. Panasonic or fuji are alternatives in that format

I have an old Olympus, almost forgot about it but now remembering what a great camera it was

 

[idahoblues]

As a walkabout camera suggest taking a look at mirrorless rather than DSLR, save about a third of the weight in the body and half in the lenses typically, and image quality is as good as APS-C (which is the format your budget would bring in a dslr) Olympus OMD EM5 or EM10 second hand from somewhere like MPB would be my starting point, or better still the OMD EM1 mark 1, an old camera now but available for about £200. Panasonic or fuji are alternatives in that format

I just looked into this camera, sounds great( om-d e-m 10) thanks for that

 

[RadcliffeRick]

My twopenneth worth. A full size camera can be a bit of a pain. I would suggest a smallish camera that can fit in your pocket but still has a good lens etc. To start off I would suggest something like Olympus TG-6 TG6 Waterproof Digital Camera. This fits in your pocket and is splash proof. Nat a bad starting point.

 

[idahoblues]

This thread got me looking into a replacement camera, I didn’t realise how far out of touch I’ve become. Ignore my earlier posts as I haven’t a clue

 

[I'm With Stupid]

As a walkabout camera suggest taking a look at mirrorless rather than DSLR, save about a third of the weight in the body and half in the lenses typically, and image quality is as good as APS-C (which is the format your budget would bring in a dslr) Olympus OMD EM5 or EM10 second hand from somewhere like MPB would be my starting point, or better still the OMD EM1 mark 1, an old camera now but available for about £200. Panasonic or fuji are alternatives in that format

APS-C is just the sensor size. Fuji cameras are both APS-C and mirrorless, as are some Sonys, Canons and Nikons. Olympus and Panasonic use micro four-thirds sensors, which are smaller and therefore in theory, don't offer as much detail (which isn't necessarily a problem depending on your needs). The big advantage of a bigger sensor with something like wildlife is that you'll tend to want to crop your pictures because you can't get close enough, so they let you do that without losing too much detail. You can still take perfectly good pictures though. I took this on a micro four-thirds sensor:

But that's the full size of the image. Perfect for instagram, but you probably wouldn't want to print it. You'll notice a bit of noise in the background, which would be reduced with a larger sensor. That's because I had to crop this image quite a bit to get the animal framed nicely. Also if you're shooting wildlife in a forest, there's often not a lot of light, so the bigger sensors will perform better there.

The other advantage of both micro four-thirds and mirrorless is size and weight. I was able to carry my camera and three lenses all in a pretty small shoulder bag. With my full frame camera, I can't fit the camera and one lens in the same bag.

 

[RadcliffeRick]

APS-C is just the sensor size. Fuji cameras are both APS-C and mirrorless, as are some Sonys, Canons and Nikons. Olympus and Panasonic use micro four-thirds sensors, which are smaller and therefore in theory, don't offer as much detail (which isn't necessarily a problem depending on your needs). The big advantage of a bigger sensor with something like wildlife is that you'll tend to want to crop your pictures because you can't get close enough, so they let you do that without losing too much detail. You can still take perfectly good pictures though. I took this on a micro four-thirds sensor:

But that's the full size of the image. Perfect for instagram, but you probably wouldn't want to print it. You'll notice a bit of noise in the background, which would be reduced with a larger sensor. That's because I had to crop this image quite a bit to get the animal framed nicely. Also if you're shooting wildlife in a forest, there's often not a lot of light, so the bigger sensors will perform better there.

The other advantage of both micro four-thirds and mirrorless is size and weight. I was able to carry my camera and three lenses all in a pretty small shoulder bag. With my full frame camera, I can't fit the camera and one lens in the same bag.

Looks like he has just been told how much Sanchez got for his pay off!!

 

[crublue1]

Cheers mate, I’ve been looking at the DSLR ones so will probably go that route.

If you're going dslr take a look at the nikon d5300. This is a great little camera for the money. I'd go secondhand (look for a low shuttercount) but if you're not confident there are some bargains out there as the body is getting on a bit now. There is a d5600 which is more expensive and newer, but it only really adds a touchscreen, higher iso capability and Bluetooth. So unless you really want these features save your money.
Not sure what level you're at? If you've never had a dslr it will take you a while to outgrow this one. It's capable of full manual as well as aperture priority etc. Which is what you will need for landscapes and wildlife. Aim to get out of auto/ program mode asap. If you're only gonna use auto you may as well just get a super zoom compact.
The nikon has a 24mp sensor, a decent fire rate, and of course access to some great lenses if and when you want to expand, and it's tiny by dslr standards.
Canon probably do a similar camera but I can't comment on that cos I've never owned one.
Hope that helps.