This thread has been really, really useful. Thanks a lot everyone.
A few things I'd like to point out that could be useful.
1) I am very serious about getting into nature photography in a major way. By this, I have a few things in mind - 1) general landscape stuff 2) large wildlife 3) smaller critters too. I don't expect to be able to do all of this perfectly with my first camera, of course, I just want to learn. I do have this notion of trying to create really up-close, vivid & anatomically detailed shots of things like seashells or dead insects though, call me crazy.
Nikon's terminonlogy for lenses which focus close up and allow 1:1 reproduction is "Micro" in their lens names. The general photography term is "Macro." Generally if you're really serious about macro photography it'll involve a specialized lens (and those lenses are really good at close distances and generally ok to good at longer ones in terms of absolute quality- you'll likely be happy either way.) Nikon sells a 105mm, 60mm, 85mm (DX) and 200mm today, and has in the past sold other lengths.
The longer the lens the more "working distance" you have between yourself and the subject. Only the 200mm f/4 won't AF in normal/macro usage on the low-end bodies but it's expensive and not all that easy to find anyway.
Tamron also makes a *very* good 90mm macro that's arguably as good as any macro made by any manufacturer and the ones made in the last few years will focus on any Nikon body. Sigma makes some "macro" lenses, but they're generally zooms that don't do "true" macro.
Other accessories that are useful with macro are ring flashes and focusing rails- but even one of the cheesy-looking plastic bounce-around-the-lens flash attachments will give you enough light control to be useful.
Wildlife is a compromise between lens length, speed and distance to the bird or animal. It's expensive to do right, about the best compromise you can get for relatively bright light is the Sigma 50-500mm lens, though you can get ok results with something like the 70-300, you may need to work on approach skills with only 300mm.
People generally recommend wide to ultra-wide lenses for landscapes, and you can certainly go that way- though I've recently seen some really nice landscapes done on full frame with a 125mm lens- and you can stitch. I have everything from 10-400mm on DX and 20-400mm on FX and I find that I tend to like 35mm for general landscape work. Nikon has a pretty inexpensive 35mm DX prime.
2) I'm interested in a host of other forms of photography too - street photography and photojournalism particularly, architectural stuff too. Again I don't expect my first camera to be able to do all this brilliantly, I just want something adequate that I can learn the ropes of different disciplines with.
Again, it's the lenses, not the camera that makes the difference. I tend to like 20mm for architecture, but if I were to shoot it seriously, I'd be spending big money on a tilt/shift lens or (more likely) a set of bellows to correct perspective and change the focal plane. PJ can be done with pretty-much any lens- depends on how close or far away you need to be.
3) I have no idea whether to go Nikon or Canon, and my decision will probably come down to browsing internet reviews and comparing prices. Any suggestions would be really welcome. splitpea, in reading your post on the previous page am I correct in thinking you think both brands are relatively even and have their advantages and disadvantages for nature photography?
I shoot fine art nature. I shoot Nikon. If you're absolutely not going to rule out shooting birds and down the road can see getting a 400, 500, or 600mm prime lens (and you're looking at $4000-8000+ new for one of the big guns) then Canon is the way to go- the price differences are still in the "buy a camera body" range between them an Nikon. If you're not ever going to fork out more than ~$3000 for a lens, then the differences are pretty immaterial. Nikon's 200-400VR (~$6000) is unique in its size/image quality and would be another reason to go with the dark side.
Sigma has a 300/2.8 that's not quite the same quality, but also not quite the same price as the Canon/Nikon brands, so if you're looking at sports pick a brand and compare that to the C/N alternatives.
4) Should I just start with a basic kit lense for whatever camera I buy or should I seek something different (trying to spend as little cash as possible here remember)
It depends on what your goals are. If it's to learn photography, that works, if it's to learn macro photography, a macro lens is less of a compromise than the *much cheaper* alternatives of diopters, reversing rings or extension tubes- rings and tubes are probably not going to work on "G" type Nikon lenses and newer cameras, but good-quality diopters are still relatively cheap.
5) If I'm looking for a cheap-ish P&S with a good optical zoom, good video & small size, what should I consider?
Thanks again for all the help.
lenny
Dunno, I don't do P&S cameras.
Paul
