Compact vs SLR
I'll start with the camera, because experts agree that photography is more difficult without one. Shown below is a pair of wildlife photographers out taking photos. The one on the left has an SLR and the bare minimum number of lenses he thinks he might use. The one on the right is using a compact.

Hawk-eyed observers will notice the difference. Where the compact has all the functionality you need built into the one unit, the SLR user has to keep changing his lens to suit the moment. So if some rare species of bird lands on a branch nearby and starts striking a series of never-seen-before poses, the one with the compact would have fired off a card full of shots before the SLR user has even found his 70-200mm lens. By the time he's fitted the 70-200 and pointed it at the branch the rare bird is half a mile away being digested by a python.

SLRs are also bulky, heavy, expensive and complicated. So why do photographers bother with them?

One reason is responsiveness. While digital SLRs respond almost instantly to the shutter button, compact digital cameras have an annoying pause between when you press the shutter button and when the camera finally gets around to to taking a photo. I think the picture of the wombat below illustrates this problem very well. You see, I pressed the shutter button when the wombat was facing me. Yes, seriously. By the time the camera responded, well, I'll let the picture finish this story...

Finally, perhaps the main reason why people still buy SLRs is because the compacts still don't quite match the image quality of the SLRs with their specialist lenses. Which kind of makes sense when you think about it. Because it's easier to make a lens that does one thing well, instead of one that does everything well. Of course, if you're not wanting high-resolution prints then chances are you won't see the difference and the compact will do just fine.

Film vs digital
Digital is instant-gratification photography. Why wait two days for a "one-hour" photo lab to ruin your pictures when you can ruin them yourself at home on your computer? But more likely than not you won't ruin them at all. In fact, some of the new compacts are producing amazing pictures and are really easy to use. So your photos could look great.

No, I'll go further than that. In my opinion, the ability to take lots of digital shots and experiment without wasting film/money has improved the standard of photography among many enthusiastic amateurs (and perhaps some of the pros as well) and I think that’s a cool thing.

Which lens?
Small furry/feathered animals might look cute on-screen but they tend to make reluctant photographic models. Arm yourself with a large camera, walk up to a critter and just see what happens. If you're lucky you'll get a shot of it fleeing to the nearest dark place and you'll end up with a photo not unlike the wombat pic above. That's why nature photographers often use long, expensive lenses.

Bird photographers are big fans of the long lens

Faced with this situation I finally forked out for a long lens. Well not a really long lens - they cost too much. But longer than my 100 mm lens. So I was outside yesterday thinking I'm finally ready to get that award-winning nature shot of some bird way off in the distance. And what happens? A bird lands on my shoulder. I swear this is true. Who said birds weren't capable of irony?

Great Moments in Wildlife Photography No. 1: Indian Mynah

Fast lenses
Photographers love using fast lenses. In case you're wondering, a lens is called fast if it's good at capturing light, meaning it can get a pic of that critter in the shadows with a faster shutter speed than a slow lens could. I'd argue these lenses are also fast for the speed they send you broke buying one. You see, fast lenses tend to use a lot of glass and precision manufacturing. Which is why they cost so much.

PAGE 2 | PAGE 3