I would certainly agree with you on that combination.
My picture at number 6 on this thread was taken on a not dissimilar pairing of a Canon 4000 D and 70- 300 ( mk111) ,
If it was me,I would look at Wex and look 
at used gear with a rating of 9 or above, a small DSLR and a light lens , job done
In fact you could get a Canon 2000 for Ā£350 plus the lens I talked about for around Ā£750 , a new camera and nearly new lens for Ā£750 plus memory card and camera bag , all under Ā£1000
See my post above, it can be done with a light camera and a vetted / checked lens.
Hello Cobbywobbles; fun to invest in a hobby and something that brings you (/family) joy.
Photos are a one time thingā¦ and the camera on hand IS the camera that gets the shot.
I put photography as my third hobby when tiered. Growing up it was computers(/+gaming)>audio>photography, but nowadays I could probably flip that, although with the contention that is āI have my audio sortedā and am happy living with thatā¦
Cameras; well - I have had a few.
I first got into digital cameras when they came to the market in the 90s, and have followed their evolution since.
Quite simply- we get what we pay for!
A newer part will improve autofocus and tracking of subject capabilities; beyond that when you go back a few years, you generally get a bit more āISO noiseā or, in real world use- the photos get less usable in lower lighting.
Something which doesnāt affect you if you are on a tripod, but more modern digital bodies are building image stabilisation into the body of the camera, and in many cases this body stabilisation will work with the image stabilisation in some lenses and will give, combined with HIGH ISO sensitivity- A LOT OF LATITUDE with regards to composing shots.
Buying faster lenses (that allow composition control like ābluring out the backgroundā is where the costs go up hugely), especially with regards to long range lenses that might help you nail the composition of some far off object and actually capture the animal with enough megapixels on it to have something useful to look atā¦ that being said around 2-3 megapixels of your actual subject can lead to some amazing shots, so, some cropping is likely to be expected,ā¦ and having a 24 megapixel camera allows a further āzoomā (through cropping) by a factor of tenā¦
Most photographers would choose faster glass (ie f1.8 better than f4) to have control in the composition and BETTER LOW LIGHT shots.
But, given how much extra that costs, is probably the sacrifice you may choose to make, given most of your shots are likely to be during lit scenes and ādaylightāā¦ faster glass allows faster shutter speeds (whilst netting correct exposure for a bright and vivid image) which also helps obtain sharp shots in many situationā¦ but sharp shots requires having your focus right on the mark, and, well , more expensive glassā¦
Oh noā¦ Iāve done like most posts here and opened up more cans of worms that actually helpedā¦
so we have to start with āDo you know about the trifecta of ISO, aperture and shutter speed to control your exposureā?
I am going to move on like you do,ā¦ (if not go watch some chewyyoube videos until you realise they are the fun in manual photography, and that having the camera perform these automatically for you (eg ISO) can make modern photography super easy/fun and rewarding.
So, now lets look at bodies a littleā¦
larger sensor sizes come in bigger bodies.
bigger sensors allow for more autofocus points/lower ISO noise and generally āmore megapixelsā all else being equalā¦
The realworld difference comes down to two thingsā¦ is the camera easy to use āin the handā (having the smallest/lightest camera isnāt always a good thing!)
Ergonomics matter.
If you have used a camera previously, eg a Nikon or a Canon, then a modern body by one of those companies can be a real benefit due to how naturally your hands will move around on the unit. (being able to take shots because it just feels right)
For that reason I would never recommend a Sony.
(Iāve owned many, but ergonomics and user set up, whilst āgetting betterā is best left for photographers who want the bleeding edge technology and donāt mind fighting with their camera for it to do basic things- from a user experience level they are basically the worst!, and in my eyes best for studio work left in one setupā¦ of course everyone will take issue with that statement as majority of market buys them cause they are cheap and play āspec sheet warefareā. As I type this I have three sony camera within 2metres of me, all different sensor sizes, with various pros and cons. I have had beautiful full frame bodies with image stabilisation in them and adaptors for my legacy glass (and primes and zooms they made), and, when I go to other manufacturers (who build USABLE CAMERAS) my hit rate for photos goes up massively. (end of argument),ā¦(still want to argue; I donāt have to go to huge lengths to setup other camera systems to make them āreal world useable eitherā),ā¦ and then comfort and ergonomicsā¦ (Iād avoid the Sony, unless putting something like aDSC-HX99, or the HX90 before it in the pocket turns out to be your āend all solutionā)ā¦
Proper camera companies know how to make glass and whilst Sony bought up Minolta to āget a leg upā in this area, and certainly used their ergonomics initially (and in their big DSLR cameras) lens design is crucial.
Most camera lens makers havenāt been doing so for 80+ yearsā¦ understanding that red/green and blue spectrum light all travel through glass at differing speed and the āknowledgeā of how to have that light land on the sensor plate in a way that is pleasing and representative of the subject matter is more of a science than we punters give credit to.
So, before we move on to solutions, we should know that two competing technologies exist.
DSLR and āmirrorlessā.
DSLR means that the scene you are looking at is being bounced up into your eye by a mirror (that steps out of the way when you take the shot, and lets the sensor see what you see)ā¦ this allows for a view finder with NO LATENCY (useful for sports and moving wildlife/kids etc), but more usefully, especially to Black and White afficondos is the nature of the full contrast range that this allowsā¦ electronic viewfinders used in mirrorless, whilst getting faster (less latency) and higher refresh rate, are without a huge amount of the actual light that the scene contains. (our monitors do not show us what our printers canā¦ nor what we actually saw)
I shoot mostly mirrorless, and if I need the extra speed advantage due to using a 10 year old camera body, then I can use my other eye to see what is happening and āshoot when appropriateāā¦ sometimes this works fineā¦ but in truth, DSLRs own the high end market mostly for a range of reasons.
Now lets talk about what you are actually likely to buy:
a small mirrorless camera.
Quite simply: the smaller sensors multiply the effective focal rangeā¦ if you buy an Olympus or Panasonic body, you get a 2x crop, so that 300mm becomes a 600mm effective lens. combine that with 20+ megapixel and you have a further ācropā āzoomā in the digital darkroom/post production, if you so choose.
so 3000mm of effective āreachā if we take into consideration that National Geographic were āquite happyā with 6Megapixel images for full page graphic.
Having that sort of reach in a budget and a lightweight camera that you are likely to carry everywhere is truly awesome.
So why have I mentioned interchangeable lens cameras and not just ābridge camerasā. (the HX99 kind of has that covered, in something that is cost effective and always on āyour beltā); latitiude!
Firstly you are learning a system/body that is likely to get updates without altering the form to much, so if, five to eight years from now you are still doing these types of shots (And HOPING THAT the camera companies havenāt folded business due to marketing for camera phones insisting that their crappy f1.6 lenses and āall thatā spec sheet warfare is actually a camera worth using (NO), camera phones are all about software trickery, much of which can be done with actual camerasā shots as well!) (Sorry for that, but most think their camera phones are āpretty specialā, and on the basis that the camera on hand when we wish to take a shot gets the image, then āthey are wonderfulā) (moving on); buying into a camera body that you get comfortable with is absolutely the big trickā¦
Those small mirrorless bodies with in body stabilisation, will often net you a sharp shot (combination of glass(optics) and focus and ISO being ālow enoughā to not get noisy/wash out the contrast etc)
I myself would recommend Fuji (My three Fuji bodies are what the family choose when taking photos (even over their Sonysā and Canons and ā¦etc etc)
Weirdly enough, My XT1 and XH1 sometimes get reached over to pick up a Panasonic GH5, for which I have inferior glass, generally speaking, but something about the control layout and ergonomics just gels with my brain and I find myself dialing in all my settings (I am a full manual shooter) by hand without lifting my eye from the viewfinder or moving my camera to check thingsā¦ (Eek;Sony!)
In fact my Fuji XT1 was a body I moved to FROM a Sony A7mk2 (technically a big backstep), but the ergonomic improvements and the dials feeling natural, made my shot composition nearly instantaneous, and the number of shots I was netting was hugely improvedā¦
So, specs matter a little bit, but not anywhere near as much as user control and handlingā¦
and lightweight camera systems are likely to be carried,ā¦
and smaller sensors will allow āhugeā focal lengths for a lot less money, and still be hand holdable.
wildlife photography (never my expertise) seems to benefit from tripods, but I have always been a hand holder guy.
in fact my chewyyoube channel (of no relation to cameras, so no need to look up) uses a photo of a bird flying over water taken on a Fuji XE1 with a crappy āno nameā bit of glass, manually focusedā¦ it is a great shot and I even used an āin cameraā film simulation to make the shot pop in a way that suits me. (I am a āno post productionā person presently/for decadesā¦ but āmaybe somedayā 
)
Not trying to plug me thereā¦ just I do not have that photo handy to uploadā¦
Please go to a camera store and build a relation with the staffā¦
I recommend one that has a second hand section, and save some serious coin by buying a Nice Olympus model a few years oldā¦ you will probably get some great starshooting modes and a nice 20mm/25mm/45mm prime (pick one that suits all you ānon wildlife āZOOMā shotsā) and you have a camera system.
One for better photography than most people will ever own (even vs the latest phones etc)ā¦
One of those small primes (eg the 20mm) will give you some shooting latitude for landscapes /nightshots/street etcā¦ Iād probably go the the 45mm as a portraiture lens and with nice bokeh (background defocus) for animals etcā¦ (f1.8 is not equal on different sensor sizesā¦ f4 on full frame being roughly equal to f2.8 on APS-C, and requiring f1.8 to get equivalent defocus on the smaller Olympus and Panasonic sensors)(contentious statement as bokeh is a factor of many things, most important of which is the subject distance and foreground/background plane distances vs the subject etc; is a whole hobby unto itself- but fair to say that phones with their f1.6 is somewhere in the ballpark of f8 on an actual camera, when attempting to ādefocusā and is why they use multiple shots and digital trickery to (generally poorly) emulate actual āfast glassā ability to subject isolate in a compostition.
Anyhow my first post hereā¦ I feel I have done my old āhead-fiā rant styleā¦ it is pre coffee oāclock here, and I chose to write this rather than go out filmingā¦ so I say āthankyou for the breakā (or Iād have lugged a Panasonic GH5 and tripod out to some national park this morningā¦)
sun rise is happening, so I will move on and let the dawn of the day illuminate me in ways that I can only hope some words here MAY HAVE helped the OP.
When I sold cameras I used to sell most people TWO cameras; one for their pocket (ie ALWAYS on them) and one for the serious shots of the subject they wanted to capture.
Whilst my personal preference is Fuji (100% especially for their colour and glass), I do not feel this is what I would buy as a wildlife shooter.
Budget being higher, Iād MAYBE recommend other partsā¦
but feel totally confident in recommending an older Olympus mid range body ideally one with some weather proofing ;-), and to grab their kit 300mm zoom, and a nice prime. (we have come in seriously underbudget, so maybe an older Sony DSCHX90 (/99) to go withā¦) That way you and the partner can shoot simultaneously, and compare who gets the a)most shots and b)better shotsā¦ I bet it would be 50/50 and you 'd both have many many printable āwinningā images for your gallery.
success with your endeavoursā
cheers, rene (aka whitedragem)
Well worth looking at the micro 4/3rds camera offerings from Olympus and Panasonic. Much less weight, good lenses (on the whole), excellent image stabilisation. Iāve had some very satisfactory hand held shots at 600mm equivalent in average light with a budget zoom lens.
Dudeā¦ the op has Ā£1000-Ā£1500ā¦
Plus, he only wants the photos to look at and web posting. 
Another consideration is how seriously he wants to take his new hobby.
Getting up at 6 every morning, waiting hours for a particular animal/bird to turn up, rain or shine.
Or. Taking a few snaps on an enjoyable walk.
Agh sorry missed that, I do apologise to the OPā¦ perhaps something to aspire to if you get into itā¦ Iāll delete my post.
I guess getting into wildlife and bird photography does require the right equipment like most things otherwise frustration and disappointment will almost certainly creep in and give up. Whether its web hosting or otherwise doesnāt really make much difference IMO, itās the ability to create the capturesā¦
An iPhone can be a great camera for casual snaps, the latest versions are quite good, but typically hopeless for tracking fast moving subjects
A couple of months ago I went along to my local RSPB in Dungeness and asked the question - what sort of lens did I need to partner my Fujifilm XT-4 for wildlife particulary bird photography.
Realised that good as it is the Fujifilm camera is not a wildlife camera and the lens that I eventually bought, the awesome, 70-300mm again doesnāt cut it for the super close up scenes I thought I was going to achieve.
Great conversation with staff at the RSPB but on leaving the penny dropped that this is a whole different ballgame and budget.
I havenāt read this thread, as Iām not keen on equipment threads, but Collywobbles, my advice for wildlife photography is to go for no other than a 600mm f4 prime lens. If it something special for you both, there is no other option. Not a zoom and not f5.6 or lower. And this needs to be a Nikon or Canon, no other. How you get this expensive lens is another matter. Theyāre all over the place secondhand and some are very relatively cheap. I would sooner have a perfectly working, scratched body prime like this than any cheap new lens. Theyāre built like tanks and can be sent back to Nikon/Canon to be serviced. It can be any age, as long as itās compatible with the camera you choose. If you had a mate next to you on a shoot, youād borrow his scratched, tatty 600mm f4 at any opportunity and once youāve used it, youād be sad handing it back.
Throw out the shiny new lens thought and buy a proper tool.
What scope do you have? Is there a phone adapter available for it?
I have a phone adaptor for the scope, which is a reasonable Nikon 50mm with a zoom eyepiece. I found it very difficult to operate properly on the lowest magnification. Maybe I have a rubbish adaptor but getting the image precisely into the camera takes ages and the results were OK at best. The camera lens, I found to in an awkward place as well.
Luckily the bird was happy to sit still for 20 mins. Actually results were not bad.
Hidden in the thread is the budget: Ā£1000 to Ā£1500.
These classic top lenses are everywhere. Google it and youād be surprised. Just avoid fungus/mold on the elements.
Thanks. Youāve tried it, itās not satisfactory. Move onā¦
Again, hidden in the thread, weight is an issue. Those 600mm F4 lenses are three to six kilos, depending on which generation. That really isnāt what the OP is going to buy.
The Nikon 600mm f4 lens is ONLY $12,300.
You can judge a man by the size of his 600mm lens!!!
But heās got a bad back from carrying all that kit
In the end lugging large lenses over Africa and on planes made me think about smaller , lighter lenses even for air shows
Sony makes great stuff! Thereās a reason that most TV Networks use Sony.
Because they make professional tv equipment?
