Colin Green

I have the D7000 and the D7100. The former is a great camera but the D7100 is better. Wouldn't you expect it to be if it superceeds the other?  Nikon knows what it is doing or it would soon be out of business,

    What the removal of the low pass filter has given me is incredible detail on images.  Beware of salestalk - it depends on what models the salesman is trying to shift and what he has in stock.

   The technology you get for your money is absolutely amazing and the extra pixels are of immense value to me in wildlife photography.

   Lenses are important, probably more so than a body but you also need the most up to date platform you can afford for them to work on.

   Never having handled a D600 I cannot comment on this body but I can vouch for the D7000 and D7100 and if money or a lens upgrade are not a priority then I would, without hesitation, go for a D7100

Natural history.  The beauty of nature never fails to astound me whether it's a magnificent landscape or a tiny insect. To focus into a flower to photograph say a hoverfly is like entering another world, The colours are so vivid. 

Love gardening and have an allotment. A passion for natural history and am a member of Butterfly Conservation, Bumblebee Trust, The Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and the Lincolnshire Naturalists Union. Nuts about nature I suppose which is why my photography and videography is so important to record what I see. Then there is a love of history which ties in with my wife's metal detecting and family history which I research with my eldest daughter.  My main love though, is my family.

You've just been given very good advice there from JRosen. A good start is a 70-200 Nikon with a 1.4  or/and a 1.7converter  but your talking a fair bit of money! Add to that a Canon 500D close up lens and you've got an excellent kit for close nature work from plants and insects to small birds  and animals of all sizes that will come in close. The whole gear is very portable and produces excellent results. The 70-200 is also good for portraits and great for landscapes. An alernative could be the 80-400 Nikon which I am told is good or the 50-500 Sigma which I used for some years with great results. Some photographers also use a 300 with a teleconverter.  If money and weight are no object then how about the 600 or 800?   The choice is huge.  Should you opt for a long telephoto lens then the most important piece of kit is the tripod. Buy the best you can afford and remember you get what you pay for! Buy the best and you'll pay for it once.

  I would advise you to research the subject thoroughly before you decide.

Oh yes, and remember, in nature you can wait for creatures to come to you providing you are well hidden and quiet.

I use a Panasonic TM700 and my D7100 with Pinnacle Studio 16.  DSLR's are brilliant for wildlife photography the problem for me is the audio. The dslr picks up every minute sound. Still working on a solution but it looks like seperate sound recording and that's more expense and more equipment.  Not good for a pensioner

That's a great article!  Thank you.

I am retired, have plenty of time, am a nature photographer so RAW is a must for me. It gives me complete control and always retains the original image. Imo, the only reason to use jpeg would be the time element such as a journalist etc would need, and as said jpeg is good. If your not in a rush use RAW.

My  advice to you is to buy the best that you can afford.  It is cheaper in the end and such an important piece of equipment.

Hi from Lincoln, England.

   Found this site by accident and it looks great!  My passion is nature photography so hope there are some like-minded folk. Landscape photography is another pursuit.