Photography

What’s going to be really important for wildlife is moreso the lens(es), rather than the camera body.

Generally speaking, what you want out of the camera body for wildlife is fast burst shooting for capturing that action moment and fast/accurate autofocus for keeping animals in focus while they’re moving.

A good and fairly priced camera body that will do this would be something inthe Sony a6000 series, the latest which is the a6700, but you could probably easily get away with an a6600 or even an a6400. (The less you spend on your camera body the more you can spend on lenses, and your lenses will cost significantly more than the camera body).

The a6700 is $1400, you could save a few hundred going used and/or getting one of the previous models.

But far more important than that is the focal length of the lens, and the maximum aperture of your lens.

The focal length is important in allowing you to get good photos of the wildlife that fill your frame/photo by optically getting you close to the animal.

The aperture is an opening in the lens that acts very much like the pupil in your eye. The maximum aperture is how large that opening can get, which is important because the bigger it gets, the more light it lets into the lens.

Letting more light into the lens is critically important because the more light you get, the faster your shutter speed can be, which will help you freeze the animals when in motion.

An good lens to start with would be the 70-200mm f2.8. (The maximum aperture of the lens is the f2.8. The smaller the aperture number the bigger the opening).

The Sony 70-200mm f2.8 costs between $200-3000 depending on the version you choose. That may seem eye watering, but consider that you’ll be able to use this lens literally for a lifetime (provided you take care of it).

For wildlife the 70-200 f2.8 is a good lens to start with but if you get serious about it over time you’ll likely want to get longer lenses to get you even closer (optically) to your subjects.

Wildlife is going to be pretty lens heavy. You'll want at least 400mm equivalent.

As r/photography likes to say, the equipment is really personal to you. For example, I absolutely hate using Canon cameras, something about their UI just puts me off; I'm a good deal slower when using them. If possible you should try out some cameras to see what sticks. If you're serious I'd suggest renting something that catches your eye and is around your budget to try.

If you're on a budget a DSLR is actually a great pick; you probably can get a higher level body used with some really cheap 80-400/100-400/150-600mm type lenses now. Saw on my local Amazon a Tamron 150-600mm G1 new being cleared for like under US1k.

Edit: Also, stating your budget will really get you more targeted recommendations.

What is your budget and would you accept second hand cameras?

Personally I would start with a second hand APS-C camera. APS-C crop cameras will give you an extension on your focal length, and when birding you want long lenses.

Any camera from the last 10 years from Nikon, Canon or Sony will be fine, I would go Nikon or Sony myself but it's your choice. Sony for the quality of the camera, Nikon for the lens range. Canon is fine but the build quality on their bottom end cameras is weak.

New: Nikon Z50 or Sony A6700

Used: Nikon: 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, 5300, D5500, D5600, D7100, D7200, D7500, D500
Sony: NEX-7, a6000, a6100, a6300, a6400, a6500, a6600

You can find some of the used models new, a feature you might like is in body image stabilisation, but image quality wise they're all close enough that image quality will be more lens dependant than body dependant. Newer/Higher end models have better AF.

then you want a lens, 200mm 2.8 is nice, 300mm is nicer, some sort of stabilisation is useful for you too.

If you like mirrorless sony is good, if you prefer a DSLR used Nikon is good.

You should probably look to spend a big chunk of, if not most of your budget on your lens IMHO.

I'd say wildlife (or at least birding) starts at 300mm. You probably want to look at a crop sensor camera, it'll let you get more out of your lens.

Image quality is a game of small wins, a slight upgrade in sensor here, a fractionally better lens there. You can pretty much always spend slightly more to get a slightly better image. The more challenging conditions you shoot in (low light, more distance from subject, smaller subjects) the more your gear will matter.

If your willing to go second hand, I'd look towards the Nikon D500 for a pretty bloody good camera for this.

I fell ass-backwards into Micro Four Thirds and can't be bothered to leave.

Right now my main shooter is an Olympus OM-D EM1X. You can pick these up for about $700-800 even though they were the top-end pro model only four years ago. At times I also use an Olympus PEN E-PL1, which is an ancient early MFT mount camera that will produce some damn fine images on an extremely low budget ($50-60 body only, maybe $100-120 with a kit lens).

As others have said, the lens is really everything. I threw down on the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm and have not regretted a single dime of the $800 or so I spent for it on eBay. I've seen them go for less but mine was in very good shape.

There are tradeoffs with the MFT system. First, it's a smaller sensor. It will be claimed the low light performance is poor, but this is again down to the lenses you have available and the native ISO of your sensor. The other tradeoff is kind of a positive, kind of not. It's a crop sensor system, meaning that it doesn't "see" all of the light entering the lens. It's a smaller image relative to a "full frame" camera. On the one hand you're getting a "smaller" image but on the other it basically doubles the focal length.

So that 100-400mm lens I mentioned gets me the equivalent of 200-800mm of effective zoom in a package that's smaller and lighter than my sister's Canon setup with even a sub-100mm zoom.

Another cool benefit of MFT is that it's dead easy to adapt basically anything to it. As long as the lens is manual there's probably an adapter for it, which massively expands the types of lenses available.

Outside of that it's all upsides. I mean... you DO have to deal with the constant "Micro Four Thirds is dying!" and "LOLTINYSENSOR" garbage from those of a far less refined nature. But they can piss up a rope. lol

One thing to look into is whether a crop-frame camera will work for you (APS-C or whatever). The huge plus is that it, in effect, multiplies the focal length of your lens by the crop factor, so you can buy a shorter (and so, cheaper) lens for the same focal length. This is important because, as other posters have said, lens focal length is a key factor.

You do lose out on things like low light performance with a crop-frame camera, so it's nothing like a pure win, but do look into it.

If wildlife is your prime subject, especially if it's birds or shy animals, you can be reasonably sure you will always be working at the maximum focal length you have (even if its 600mm on a full frame camera), so you could look at a prime (fixed length) lens rather than a zoom one. Zoom becomes more important in landscape photos - "Fill the frame" is good advice. Photos of insects takes you into macro photography, and seperate lens from anything else you do.

Aperture - depends on what time of day you plan to take photos - if it's daytime walks on even slightly sunny days, even F11 will do fine with a decent modern-ish camera (e.g. a Canon R6). Yes, F2.8 would be really nice, but gets really expensive on longer lenses! On the other hand, photos in woods on gloomy days using F11 might still be enough to ID a bird, but usually won't satisfy due to noise.

As you might guess from the above, I've been very happy with a Canon R6 + RF 600mm F11 lens - but that met my price point.