I planned out a road trip I want to take soon, the idea is just to challenge myself to see how quickly I can capture my first 100 animal species. I don’t want to start until I have something better than just my iPhone camera though.
It seems like to be satisfied with getting bird pictures I need at LEAST a 300mm zoom lens right?
What about for insects/arthropods because I’d like to try to get a lot of those too.
(I’m completely clueless about photography at the moment)
Welcome to the iNat Forum!
One helpful way to think about it is quantity versus quality.
If your main goal is truly to reach 100 observations of different animal species as quickly as possible, then that’s completely valid! You don’t need a 300mm zoom lens. A cellphone works great for photographing the most commonly observed species on iNaturalist. Many of your observations will reach Research Grade quickly, even with just a few pixels.
However, if you’re more focused on capturing higher-quality observations, then that is also a worthy goal, but it’s a different journey. I’m sure others will share tips about how to do that!
Hey! I was in the same boat in March. A basic DSLR will go a lot further than you think! I got a Nikon D3400 for cheap from a pawn shop. Any old DSLR will work though. Try and find one with 12mp or more, and you’ll be golden! Just remember that the brand of camera you pick will dictate the lenses that fit. Nikon and Canon have a huge ecosystem of lenses available.
As far as purchasing lenses, eBay is your friend. Nikon has a ridiculous amount of options that have been in manufacture for decades. Bird shots are much easier with a modern “AF” (autofocus) lens, and the difference is 100% worth the price. As far as a focal length, 300mm is a pretty good entry point. Be warned, bird lenses can get pretty expensive pretty quickly! Luckily, any lens that works for birds tends to be useful for just about anything far away.
Bugs are different, and can be handled fairly well by a basic “kit lens” (18-55mm). If you feel fancy, try and find a “1:1” lens, or a “macro” lens, and you’ll get much larger and sharper shots of insects. I use a Vivitar 90mm f2.8 1:1 Macro for the vast majority of my bug shots, and it handles it all fairly well for a lens from the late 70’s. A good rule of thumb to remember is that the longer the focal length (the bigger the XXmm number), the further you can be from your target and still get good detail. It’s not accurate 100% of the time, but enough that you can use it as you start your journey. It mostly starts to matter with up close “macro” photography, where your lens will be inches away from your target rather than feet!
When in doubt about a specific lens, just go search “(name of lens you find here) Flickr” and you’ll find galleries of photos taken with that exact lens, so you can see how they are used and in what situations! Photography can be pretentious sometimes, but it’s really just as complicated as you choose to make it. There are lots and lots of solid resources online, and usually a photography club can be found in your region if you prefer in-person instruction.
I use a Nikon D3400 as well. For macro shots (insects, grass spikelets, etc) I have a Tokina AT-X pro lens. For zoom of distant objects, I have a Nikon Nikkor 70-300 mm lens.
If you’re just starting out and funds are limited and you just wanna capture quick pics, your cellphone should be fine.
I am not an expert, but I do love my macro lens…
The seeds here in this pic are around 1 mm in diameter:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/279306716
These ants are approx 1 to 2 mm
https://keyapa.com/pheidole/2024/09/25/pheidole-flavens-orangey-townie/
It’s really great that you’re planning to get so many observations.
I’m sure lots of people will have advice about what camera to get, but don’t dismiss the idea of just using your phone camera. I got something with a good zoom for birds and anything else in the distance, but I still use my phone for more than half of my observations.
For insects and plants I almost always use my phone as it’s quick to just pull it out and snap, without having to mess about with changing lenses.
Personally, I’d recommend just using your phone for now, until you get more experience with using iNaturalist, then you’ll have more of an idea of what kind of organisms you enjoy observing, and what kind of photos you want to take.
your iPhone camera is plenty good enough, especially for getting started - and for small things like insects, you can buy a small macro lens that attaches to the phone
personally I use a compact digital camera that is quite popular for field use (at least for bugs!) - the Olympus/OM Systems TG-7
What model of iphone do you have? You could try looking up how to guides for your phone’s camera settings. I get pretty good shots with my Samsung Galaxy S21, and the only thing I know how to do is adjust the zoom. It can be a pain to get it to focus on the right thing sometimes, and forget about moving targets, but it works great for plants and insects that will stay still for a bit. Plus, I can just upload straight from the phone.
Also, take notes of when and where each subject was. You’ll want that when you make the observation. When you make the observation, set location before you try to narrow down the subject. It really narrows the results down for the computer.
In my experience a lot of general naturalists seem fairy happy with “bridge” cameras which act like point-and-shoots but have the zoom range of DSLRs. You can get more zoom with them than even high magnification DSLR lenses and don’t have to switch lenses for different subjects, but compromise on the crispness of the photos (which isn’t an issue for iNat as much as it is for Instagram).
Honestly honestly, keep going with your phone. If I see something flighty, I am strict about getting a phone photo first. Often a pixelated blurry colourless phone photo is better than the animal disappearing while I faffed with camera gear!
Some of the phone cameras are pretty good, the 10x optical zoom cameras (samsung ultra etc) are as good as I get digiscoping.
The other thing with your phone is there is no learning curve! There may be other features you can take advantage of - adjusting exposure/exposure lock, different modes etc, but you probably already know how to use most of the features already. I still regularly take whitewashed/blacked out photos when I have misadjusted my camera in manual/program mode. This almost never happens with the phone camera.
That said, once you’re up to speed and accustomed, almost any DSLR/mirrorless with a fair lens will take pretty nice pictures, even once it’s been cropped, even if it’s not a 300 mm lens.
I wouldn’t discourage you from getting a nice camera, nto much beats the satisfaction of a crisps and clear photo perfectly catching a behaviour and all the wonderful hidden features of an organism, but I wouldn’t let it distract you from teh joy of watchign and capturing things.
I also think that for starting the iNat adventure a decent smart-phone should be enough. Getting a camera involves is a bigger commitment of time (learning the functions, layouts, basic photography ideas, processing). Having said that, almost 10 years ago I decided that I want to take good photos of insects and bought my first proper camera (Canon 80D DSLR) and a 1:1 macro lens (a lens, which I still use). Birding lenses followed later. If I was getting my first gear now, I would seriously consider a micro 4/3 setup which is a lot more portable, gives decent image quality and can be bought second-hand at a good price .
If you have binoculars those also really help with distant birds/mammals/larger insects if you get some practice putting your phone camera through the binoculars!
i think this is all the more reason to start with what you have (your phone camera), and then figure out what you want based on what sorts of limitations you find in your current equipment. if you think you’ll need new equipment before a planned road trip, go out before you need to potentially get new equipment and just figure out what sort of things you couldn’t get using your existing phone. then make purchase decisions based on the things you wish you could have captured but couldn’t + your budget.
FOR BIRDS: I would agree that you will need at least 300mm focal length to routinely produce quality (or even “good enough” bird photos. But it does not need to be a zoom lens. In fact, I recommend staying away from zooms at this point. A 400mm fixed focal length would serve you better than a zoom.
FOR INSECTS & VEGETATION: I highly recommend a macro lens. A true macro lens capable of 1:1 magnification ratio. Note that many lenses that call themselves “macro” are not actually macro at all. Just look for the magnification ratio in the specs and make sure it is 1:1, then you’ll be good. And it would behoove you to start with a 100mm focal length, as anything wider, like 60mm, is extremely difficult to use effectively for insects. NOTE: You have to get so much closer than most people realize … for just half decent insect photos, even with a 100mm lens, you will usually have the lens just 4 to 6 inches from the subject. Ditto for many small wildflowers.
FOR BIRDS AND INSECTS: I recommend an older, used DSLR that has a “crop frame” sensor. Like a Canon 80D. You can get one for about $350 used. The so-called “crop sensor” is not only a lot cheaper than full frame sensor cameras, but it actually works to your advantage with most bird opportunities and practically all insect/macro opportunities. It is rare that something cheaper is also better, so take advantage of that anomaly. Also search websites like MPB.com and KEH.com, which are companies that sell used cameras and lenses, and are very reputable.
I would not recommend a 400mm telephoto for a beginner on a small budget, particularly since this is someone who says they have no prior experience with nature observation, even using a cell phone.
Long tele lenses require a a fair amount of skill and practice to use (e.g., avoiding camera shake) and it can be challenging to find one’s subject when looking through a long lens; many beginners are likely to find it easier use a lens where you can start wide and zoom in once your subject is centered in the frame.
Long lenses are also typically designed for professional or semi-professional use and are generally not cheap (or light, or small); while one might be able to find a few inexpensive options, they are unlikely to be beginner-friendly or particularly suitable for bird photography (manual mirror lenses, lenses for old DSLR bodies that are long discontinued, etc.)
I wasn’t going to weigh in but I have to say I disagree emphatically with a lot of the advice here. I know next to nothing about photography but I do know that my 100-500mm zoom lens on my mirrorless camera has served me bettter than any other lens in my kit for everything. I’ve tried using a macro lens and never got as good results. Here’s the thing for me: I like to photograph birds, mammals, dragonflies and damselflies. To properly identify damselflies, I need really good detail. And I generally can’t get close enough to get diddly from a macro lens. But my 100-500mm does a spectacular job getting details from damselflies which may only be an inch long and where I need to see the terminal appendages clearly and the damselfly is a few feet away in a stream where I can’t get any closer. I don’t have to be right on top of them. Best of all, I never have to change lenses. The one lens does it all for me. I used to have a prime lens for 400mm but finally got rid of it because it was useless to me–sometimes I’m too close to a subject, sometimes too far away so I sold it.
I will say this however: when I first started out, I used one of those “all in one” cameras because it did everything albeit not as clear on fine details. It was great for birds and even spiders because I could get very close shots for the spiders and the detail in those instances was actually pretty good. I cut my teeth on that which let me determine that I liked photographing critters and liked creating observations. It was only after about 2-3 years with that camera that I worked my way up to my current mirrorless camera with the 100-500mm zoom lens. While I do have other lenses, unless I’m doing landscapes or people, I just don’t use them. Like I said, I’ve been unhappy with the results using the macro lens, not to mention that I rarely get close enough to anything to use it, so it sits in its case at home.
So maybe one of those hybrid cameras with the builtin lens would be a good start for you? They are generally reasonable in cost, don’t require you to buy lenses, and do a reasonable job from macro to zooming for distant birds/critters. They generally do have sufficient detail for most observations and will certainly be good enough to get you your first 100 species. Then, if you find you really enjoy it, you can research the various options and decide what you want to do.
Just in case you want to know: I used a Canon Powershot SX70 as my first camera. Now, I use a Canon EOS R5 mark II with a Canon 100-500mm lens. That’s now my basic kit. I’ve had very good luck with the R5 II for dragonflies and damselflies as well as birds, mammals, etc. I’m quite happy with it even as an idiot who knows almost nothing about photography.
I know this flies in the face of what the others have said. I think it’s because I’m an amateur who knows nothing and they know more about photography. But I’m a firm believer in doing what works for me. If I try something and can’t make it work for me (like when I tried to use my macro lens) then I just do what does work. I’ve had plenty of people tell me zoom lenses don’t give you sufficient detail (baloney–at least for me) or that I hold the camera incorrectly (I have arthritis in my wrists so I do what I can).
That’s why it’s important that you do what works for YOU regardless of what others say.
(And sorry if I sound grumpy. And I apologize if I offended anyone–but really–it’s ultimately a decision you’ll need to make based upon your requirements.)
I took a similar path to the one you did, Amy.
When I first started out in photography, I got a point and shoot, and then I moved up to a bridge camera like the Powershot that you mention. And then I finally moved up to an interchangeable lens DSLR, and soon got a 100-400mm zoom for it.
I soon came to realize that using the DSLR with the telephoto was not any more complicated or involved than using the point and shoot. It was just as simple and beginner-friendly, yet produced exponentially better photos.
Hence, my regret is that I ever bothered with the point and shoot, and with the bridge camera. In hindsight, I should have just gotten the DSLR and the telephoto right at the beginning, and that would have saved me a year and a half of what ended up being wasted time shooting with gear that did not produce satisfying images.
This is why I wrote my advice to the starter of the thread the way I did, because I have experience doing the point and shoot thing, the cell phone as a camera thing, and the bridge camera thing … and through it all I learned that messing with lesser cameras is something that I regret having done.
Welcome, @sporkquack!
There are varying opinions on bridge cameras, and I respect everybody’s experiences. I will say that I’ve had mixed results with the ones that I’ve used (I stick with them for the moment because of weight as much as cost; chronic illness forces trade-offs), but my experience has been that the more manual control you have over it, the better the results it will give you. I shot film SLRs before getting my first bridge camera, and I get intensely frustrated when a camera decides that it knows what I see better than I do. My current Nikon CoolPix P520 has a good balance of presets (most of which I never use), and manual control, with a single wide-angle lens that does well close in and at maximum zoom.
I’m firmly in line with @amybirder on this one: doing what works for you is a priority. My suggestion is to decide what your priorities are for photographing your observations, look at a selection of cameras and reviews—including older equipment—figure out which ones are best for meeting your needs, and choose from the short list. Also, if you have a local camera shop, go talk to the staff there. They can tell you all sorts of dish that doesn’t always make it onto review sites: durability and repair costs come to mind. Some brick-and mortar stores even still do equipment rentals, which is a great way to try things out before you commit. Remember: the best camera is that one that you have with you and will use. 
If you’re not super sure about photography yet, I’d suggest starting simple and less expensive. You can get a ton of species with an Olympus TG-7, which I see has already been mentioned. Fairly inexpensive, and for the price excellent macro capabilities that will help you get a lot of invertebrates in sufficiently nice detail to ID. It also works underwater, which is awesome.
I myself have a TG-6, which was my first iNatting camera, and carried me along quite well for about 2 years before I finally decided to get more elaborate gear to photograph birds (I’ve now got a Nikon P900) and even better macro of tiny animals (my OM-1 Mark 2 with a 90mm lens). I still use the TG-6 as a backup camera; for macro in tight spaces where my nice camera won’t physically fit; for “mid-range” plant photography where the macro camera is too unwieldy and the bridge camera is overkill; and for underwater photography.
Meaning that you already had experience using a camera when you moved to using a fixed-length telephoto.
Not at all the same thing as starting with such a lens when you are also struggling to understand how a camera works and how to use it effectively. An expensive purchase is not generally a good idea for someone who doesn’t yet even know whether they like photography and will want to continue.
Now, if one was considering renting a camera for the trip and knew already that one is exclusively interested in photographing birds and other distant objects and is prepared to deal with the learning curve of a long lens (realizing that one’s first images may not turn out, and willing to experiment with different settings until one figures out what works), this might be reasonable advice. But recommending it as a purchase for someone who has never used a camera? I stand by my position: not good advice.
I can totally understand that. I was hesitant to just say “take the plunge” with the DSLR/mirrorless because I wasn’t sure if the cost was an issue. Or if, after buying all that, iNat might not be their thing after all. Or you could say I just wasn’t sure. Everyone’s journey is so different.
I am glad to hear you say however that I’m not totally out of my mind to say a zoom lens can be quite suitable and has the advantage of not having to carry around a bunch of lenses you have to swap out all the while begging the critters not to run/fly off. 
Oh, and I meant to say it might be ok even without a lot of experience because these days the cameras are so easy to use that they are pretty much point-and-shoot. watching YouTube videos about using any potential or newly purchased camera can help a lot. In fact, that’s what I did for both the SX70 and the EOS R5 II. Because I really don’t know a lot about photography or how to use a camera. I’m just persistent and kind of know what I want to achieve.
I’m still working on depth of field though to try to get more of the Odonata in focus. Although I do okay if their side is presented instead of one end or the other. And then there is trying to get a decent photo when the critter is silhouetted against the sky…and…well, I have a lot of room for improvement.