Tips on what camera to get

[Annie]

I've got a big birthday coming up and I've asked for a camera. I haven't had a camera in years (the last I had was a Kodak disc camera with my name written on a sticking plaster on the back so it wouldn't get lost on school trips ).

I'd like to start photographing butterflies and wild flowers; is it necessary to get a DSLR camera, or will I be able to get good results with a little point-and-click?

I'm not worried about winning competitions or being able to alter and enhance my photos; the pictures will be my own personal record.

I know the sky's the limit when it comes to prices; if it's worth getting a dearer camera I will be putting my hand in my pocket towards the total.

Any help would be gratefully received

[Markulous]

Don't know where you are in the comfortable-with-a-camera stakes but unless you desperately feel the need for a dSLR I'd recommend a good bridge camera and take advantage of all they have to offer in image stabilisation, fairly reasonable sensor size and zoom lenses. There again, if all you want to do is macro photography, you could do worse than get a dSLR with a macro lens!

Whether you'll continue to need the sticking plaster, only you can answer!

[Annie]

do they not come with sticking plaster as standard equipment? I hate it when you buy something and then have to go out and get the rest of the kit before you can use it

thanks for the info, it's given me some more to put into the melting pot

[Markulous]

do they not come with sticking plaster as standard equipment? I hate it when you buy something and then have to go out and get the rest of the kit before you can use it

Opinion tends to be divided nowadays on Microporous Tape (for the subtle softly-softly approach) or Duct Tape (for the macho engineering nerdo approach). Sticking Plaster is really very yesterday and smacks of Blue Peter badges (although Sticky Back Plastic Tape is, of course, the full BP approach). HTH

[Denise]

Hi Annie,

I started off with a very small compact camera (pressie from hubby) and got some reasonable shots.
I moved onto a bridge camera, and for me it was a disaster! I personally wouldn't go there again.
I now have a DSLR, Canon 400D. It's taken a bit of practice, but I am beginning to get some decent photo's now.

If you opt for a compact, you could do a lot worse than a Nikon Coolpix. Some of my friends own them and have taken some lovely photo's. It has a nice big viewing screen, unlike the compact that I had. I am sure that there are many compacts in the market now with macro function and a large screen. Get one with 7m pixles or more.

If you decide on a DSLR, read the many previous threads on this subject. It seems that this forum is mainly split between Canon and Nikon, but eccles uses a Sony, and it is a very good camera with IS built in.

Hope this helps a bit.

Denise

[Annie]

Thanks, Denise. Is there any particular reason that you didn't get on with a bridge camera?

I must say that I've had the Coolpix recommended by a friend - I've been doing a bit of hunting round on the internet and found the S550 with 10 megapixel resolution which seems reasonably priced; I think I might be veering towards that as a good starter camera; I guess I can always upgrade in the future as I get more confident.

[Denise]

Thanks, Denise. Is there any particular reason that you didn't get on with a bridge camera?

The size was good, and it was quite light, but the images I got were very disappointing. I tried and tried to get on with it (as it wasn't cheap) but failed.

Perhaps it was just me as I know other people who use them, but I love my Canon camera now, and wouldn't swap back for quids.

Cheers
Denise

[NickB]

[quote="Denise"
The size was good, and it was quite light, but the images I got were very disappointing. I tried and tried to get on with it (as it wasn't cheap) but failed.

Perhaps it was just me as I know other people who use them, but I love my Canon camera now, and wouldn't swap back for quids.

Cheers
Denise[/quote]
What bridge camera did you use?
N

[Denise]

It was an Olympus.

Denise

[NickB]

It was an Olympus.

Denise

Don't know the Olympus - I used a Panasonic FZ50 + Panasonic "close-up" lens before my current set-up.
And it produced good results; members of this forum use them to good effect.....and I really miss the DoF that they give over a DSLR!
One feature that ALL DSLR manufacturers could and should copy is the automatic zoom of middle 1/3rd of viewfinder frame in Manual focus to give fantastic control over fine focus.
N

[eccles]

The main difficulty with nearly all compact cameras' close up function is that they work at the wide angle end of the zoom range. This means that you have to get really close to the subject in order to get a decent image size. Many insects, including butterflies, are intolerant of cameras stuck very close to them and will fly away before you can get your shot, although using the screen to frame the image helps a great deal. I used to use a Canon S3, and like NickB, stuck an adapter and a close up lens on it for butterflies. This approach has the advantage of giving the maximum magnification at the telephoto end of the zoom and I could snap butterflies from around two feet away instead of two inches. Having said that, Jack Harr has taken some pretty good shots with his S3 with the basic super macro setting from very close distances, so it can be done, albeit with a LOT of patience.
If you want an entry level DSLR, then the Sony A200 is going for a very low price at present, cheaper than many bridge cameras. Image quality is good, it has spot metering and in-body image stabilisation. Performance in low light isn't as good as the entry level Canon models, but it's a fair bit cheaper, and in any case butterflies on the whole LIKE good light, i.e. sunshine.

[Patrick]

Annie,

My advice is to look at as many butterfly photographs as possible where camera details are given, you will soon see what sort of quality is possible with different set-ups. If you really feel you must have the absolute top class results which can be achieved using a DSLR then do consider the very significant extra weight of a DSLR set-up before you purchase (including tripod if there is no image stabilisation!). Do you really want to carry that around a butterfly site for a few hours at a time?

I only have personal experience of three digital cameras (one DSLR) but from what you say about your requirements I would recommend the Panasonic Lumix FZ 50 with the Panasonic close-up lens (essential). I use this camera knowing it is a compromise on quality but it is a joy to use and all my butterfly photographs are hand held (made possible with the built-in image stabilisation and the fact that all my butterflies have been photographed in good light) so no heavy tripod to lug around.

I have attached a recent photograph of Marsh Fritillary taken with the Panasonic at Hod Hill, hope this helps.

Patrick

[Gruditch]

I disagree about the weight factor with the DSLR, if you get a shorter length Macro lens, used in combination with either a Canon 1000D, 450D, or 400D. You will have a lightish compact setup, a tripod or mono-pod is a optional extra, not a must.
If photography is going to be secondary to the day out, I would just get a compact. If your not really into photography Annie, then a DSLR is not for you, as you will only get out what you are willing to put in.
I'm sorry but I just don't get the point of bridge cameras, to big to fit in your pocket, yet you can't change the lens.


Gruditch

[Patrick]

Surely the point about bridge cameras is that with a focal range of 35mm to 420mm (FZ 50) there is normally no need to change the lens (or carry those extra lenses around with you). For butterflies you will need the close-up lens but this is a featherweight single element unit.
I agree that if you are totally in to your photography and you want to obtain the very best quality possible then it has to be a DSLR but it doesn't sound if that is the case with Annie.

[NickB]

I agree with Patrick - THE point about Bridge cameras is that you have everything (if you include the the add-on macro lens) from telephoto to close-up in one package for less than the cost of Gruditch's lens! And I'm sure that many of these users produce images as good as many DSLR owners - just look at this forum! I had an FZ50 for 2 years before I finally went DSLR and loved it! And I know lecturers and professionals that use compacts, albeit Leica - which BTW can be had for less than £400 - for assignments.
Now, I agree with Gary that image quality will not match a DSLR - so for those who want that extra 10% to 20% to take their photography forward, this is the way to go.
But if you want to learn WHY you need a DSLR, then use a Bridge or Compact first. Their big advantages are weight and handling, ease-of-use, in-camera image stabilisation and a better Depth of Field on the smaller sensor they use. The disadvantages are that they are technically limited in the sorts of things that you can do if you don't use the pre-programmed modes, images can be noisy and the manual controls are often clumsy and difficult to use, except in manual focus (on the FZ50) where the centre 1/3rd of the image is magnified for close focal control - Canon, Nikon, et al please note! With regards to weight - Gary, if you can get a macro, and telephoto-zoom and DSLR body all at less than 650 grams (the weight of the FZ50) then let me know!

So, if you have reasonable experience of photography - get a DSLR; if you want to learn and not spend a fortune AND get very decent results, try the Bridge/Compact route.

And don't get browbeaten by all these DSLR owners (like me and Gary also) who now have to justify all that extra expense somehow!

NickB

[Gruditch]

I'm sorry but I just don't get the point of bridge cameras, to big to fit in your pocket, yet you can't change the lens.

I knew I would get some bites on that one


Gruditch

[Patrick]

But if you want to learn WHY you need a DSLR, then use a Bridge or Compact first.

Nick,

It kind of worked the other way round for me!

Although my first digital camera was a compact (Nikon Coolpix 4500), after a couple of years I thought I should really have a 'proper' camera and range of lenses etc. So I purchased a Canon EOS 5D (maybe not the best choice for butterflies but I wanted it for other work too) and the Canon 180mm macro, cost was around £2,500. I immediately attempted to photograph some Emperor Moth caterpillars I was rearing (not a difficult subject, they were not going to fly away ) and had an absolute nightmare trying to get a decent result (lack of DoF and difficulty manoeuvring the big, heavy camera on a big, heavy tripod into exactly the right position) and all the time I kept thinking I could have done this easily, a hundred times over with the Coolpix. It was one of those moments when I broke into a cold sweat realising what a big, expensive mistake I had made!

It's not as if I have not had experience with big heavy cameras, for 15 years I had a Mamiya RB67 medium format film camera and range of lenses and accessories which I used to take around the countryside using a converted golfing trolly, but I had been spoilt by the easy-to-use Coolpix.

As you have moved on from the FZ 50, my current camera, I would be fascinated to know what your present set-up is and maybe see some results?

Patrick

[NickB]

Like you - it was a shock going to DSLR - for all those reasons! Film to digital bridge was a revelation; bridge to DSLR is much harder and makes you work!
But I think I am now starting to get going - all my shots in the Comps this year are from my Nikon D300 and Tamron 90mm macro; last years' are from the FZ50.
The big difference is picture quality - noise is always present in the FZ50.
The big issue is DoF in macro DSLR, which is why many of the competition shots we see on UKB are side-on, with antenae either hidden or parallel to the camera; we can not get the DoF to get a wider shot sharp! So the challenge is to find ways to overcome or mitigate that - that's the tough bit!
Nick

[Patrick]

Thanks Nick,

So far I am not feeling any desperate need to rush out and purchase a DSLR and think my original advice to Annie was sound. I have looked at the Competition entries for 2006/2007 and cannot see any info on equipment used and of course all pics are at low resolution. Are there no proud DSLR users with their own flickr account so I can see, at high resolution, the benefits of using a DSLR?

Patrick

[Gruditch]

Not out to make friends are you Patrick

Gruditch