KevinFRK

The other advice looks good, but just a word on Autofocus, especially for wildlife. I've not tried any of the eyeball tracking cameras, but if it's not that, it is just going to be "Closest distinct object", unless (ironically) it recognises an eyeball or face and clicks to that. "Closest Object" is fine for portraits, etc. but for poorly lit wildlife with undergrowth around it will really struggle: you will forever be focusing on fascinating sticks and leaves. I'm therefore often switching from Autofocus to "Focus on this point" and hoping hand shake won't put me off target. Occasionally, even resorting to manual focus.

Eyeballs on wildlife in poor light or in cover are, unsurprisingly, hard for cameras to spot.

It will also struggle in poorer light - relatively distant flying birds against a cloudy sky for instance, can leave my Canon R6 searching wildly for a viable focal distance for anything, for all to my eyes it's "obvious" there's only one thing worth focusing on. This is the "distinct object" part.

In some ways, the above problems are due to "proper" cameras having a shorter depth of field (but better quality in that field) compared to smart phones, so getting the focus "good enough" is more of a challenge.

That is all to say, Autofocus is nice when it works, but it won't always work regardless of camera, so still pay attention to the ease of other focusing modes.

Oh yes, but the other sites are a lot further away from Reading, and you can see Kites through South Oxfordshire. Indeed, the map at that link gives a pretty good sense of "Where did my Kite (or its parents) probably come from?"

Perhaps a Golden-crowned Kinglet - you could try posting the photo to the !birding community for confirmation (but then you might be exposed to my bird photos).

Yes, all it needed was for people to stop persecuting them, and they've come roaring back. I'd guess at least a dozen in West Reading (as in I'm seen half that many at once), and probably more like three times that. They presumably spread down from the Chilterns release site.

No, no, I just can't upvote someone calling me a liar....

If that was taken in the UK, it would be a Firecrest, and would invoke jealousy from the likes of myself.

If taken in the US, some sort of Kinglet, and I know nothing about their rarity there.

"Telephoto" has varying meanings from a technical (focal length is longer than actual length) to a "it's long", so can be rather meaningless in advertising copy.

Low-light handling is as much to do with the body of the camera as the lens - the lens just gathers light, its the body and its sensor that offers the sensitivity (and you may find mirrorless cameras better at that).

A low-ish aperture number, such as F4, will certainly help in low light but will also add to price and weight by quite a bit (F4 on a 800mm can lead to a silly price!). So, keep it as low as your budget allows for the focal length you want.

The focal length will depend on whether full-body sensor or a crop sensor - if the latter, then 400mm might well be ideal, but for the former, for wildlife such as birds, I'd suggest more like 600mm if you can. If its the local badgers, that's different.

You might also want to consider zoom - adds to the cost, but adds to options.

Background: I had a lot of pleasure with a Canon R6 + F11 RF600mm (which is something of a budget lens) taking wildlife shots, and often in poorer light (up to ISO2000 or so gets OK shots, and can go much higher for "ID" shots) - I've upgraded to a much better (heavier, more expensive...) lens, but that's outside your budget. The Canon R6 was always billed as good in low light - ironically for having fewer pixels (there's a trade off).

Given you don't want RF lens, I'd strongly recommend looking at 2nd hand Canon (or Sigma!) lenses from a reputable source - ideally a competent local camera shop offering a years guarantee on the lens or the like. Don't just buy from Ebay!!! Many camera enthusiasts have moved to mirrorless (for good reasons, though DSLR still has one or two reasons to use), and Canon therefore cater far more for that market - which means smaller range of new lens, and lots of 2nd hand lens on the market as using EF-RF adapters sucks.

You've been posting some pleasant photos today, but this one is suffering a bit from depth of field issues on the cone. Having the pine needles in soft focus is fine, but the cone probably ought to be sharp end to end. Perhaps up the aperture (higher F number), shoot from further away and crop, or shoot more from the side.

Yay!

Plumped up ready for winter I'd guess, that and the location is good for them.

Ah - yes, I still fail to think of mobile phones as capable cameras in certain (wide-ranging) circumstances - like this one! I'd imagine it's the in-camera composite from the various lens it has.

Nice. What were you using to get such great depth of field?