Unrealistic expectations?

[55bloke]

About a year ago, I was debating about weather to upgrade my camera equipment. I had for about 4 years been using an Olympus 750 (4mp) ultrazoom, and had been more than delighted with the results. But, technology had moved-on and prices were falling, so I was feeling the urge for something newer and more capeable. Debated for weeks about weather to go for a digital SLR, or one of the new generation of compacts? REALLY would've liked an SLR, but the prices - taking into account the lenses and flash guns needed to do what I wanted - eventually decided it, and I went for a Canon S51S. At 8mp, and with exceptionally fast zoom and autofocus, I felt it would be a big step forward. But, if I'm honest, it really isn't! The images are MUCH bigger than those produced by the Olympus, but I can't honestly say they're any better, and certainly not any where near as good as the images I see on here, produced by those of you with SLRs. So, were my expectations too high?
Here is a selection produced by the Olympus:-








and here, some from the Canon. Apologies for the fact they're taken in the local Tropical House, but butterfly photographing weather, and butterflies, a bit thin on the ground around here so far this year!!




What do you guys think?

[Charles Nicol]

hi 55 bloke

i too have not made the leap to dSLR yet. i have been working my way up from basic snaps on a throwaway holiday camera (£2.99) via basic digital kodaks such as the c330 & the more advanced Z612. My current kit is an Olympus 550 uz which has a powerful 18x optical zoom but cost under £150 new from Amazon.

i know next to nothing about focal lengths/field depths/apertures/exposures & other nerdifications. i know when i have taken a good pic & can always delete the rubbish !!

your orange tip photo & the small copper were very pleasing; i would have voted for the small copper ( side view ) if it was in one of the comps.

i look forward to seeing more of your pics on here

all the best

charles

[Rogerdodge]

Your Canon photos are all taken in poor light, and this is reflected in the camera settings
1/15 @ f2.7
1/60 @ f2.7
1/125 @ f3.5
1/40 @ f2.7.
- all of which will give blur from camera shake - even the one at 1/125 (this is the sharpest picture however - the large blue one second from bottom).
You also have a low ISO setting of 80.
If you increased the ISO to, say, 200 or even 400, you will get a much faster shuter speed and avoid all the blur yu have in these pictures. Sure you will have more 'noise' but that is corectable in some softwares.
All the Olumpus shots were taken in good light, and this is shown in the details
From the top-
1/800 @ f3.2 ISO164
1/60 @ f3.2 ISO 100
1/60 @ f3.2 ISO 52
1/125 @ f3.2 ISO 200
1/500 @ f5.6 ISO 50
1/400 @ f5.6 ISO 50
1/200 @ f5.6 ISO 50
1/250 @ f3.2 ISO 50.
I think it is quite clear that the sharpest pictures are (generally) those with the fastest shutter speeds.
Try setting your Canon to ISO200, and the Aperture priority to f5.6 or f8 if it has such a mode, or 'sport' if it doesn't. The Macro settings tend to assume you are on a tripod, and sets very slow shutter speeds.
Better still, get a DSLR and have total control over a better image.
Hope I have been of some help.
Roger Harding

[55bloke]

Interesting stuff. I do keep the Canon ISO set at 80, to keep the definition at it's best, but of course you're right, there's not much point if the shutter speed is so slow that I get shake! The question remains, however- did I expect too significant an improvement when I traded up to the Canon?

[Rogerdodge]

The question remains, however- did I expect too significant an improvement when I traded up to the Canon?

No - the Canon is a significantly better camera than the Olympus. It will take a bit more practise to get the best out of it though.
Get the settings right, and the images will follow.
ISO 200 to 400 and fast shutter speeds. The aperture is insignificant as the smallish sensor will give good depth of field anyway.
HTH
Roger

[55bloke]

Hi guys. Still experimenting with my Powershot, but getting very frustrated due to lack of occasions when spare time and decent weather coincide!! That, plus what feels like a severe shortage of butterflies around here. Anyway, I decided to go mad and purchase one of those adaptor tubes that allows you to mount auxiliary lenses in front of the camera's own lens, and got a close-up lens to go with it. Supposed to allow close-ups as good as the camera's "super-macro" setting, without having to get quite so physically close to the subject. Seems to work ok, but the camera's autofocus appears to be totally baffled by it, which is rather puzzling. Anyway, a few pics to show what I have managed so far:
Small tort

Hedge Brown

Skipper- showing a limited deapth of field.

Not a butterfly, I know, but I like this shot of a hover fly!!

[JKT]

Now the sharpness is definitely there. The problem with these seem to be with exposure. The first is clearly overexposed, while the last is underexposed. Both are approximately as dark, though. Auto exposure is rarely good in this game. I don't know what your camera allows in this respect, so go and find out.

[eccles]

I assume the close up lens is a Canon 500D? If it is, or another achromat then you're well on the way to producing some fine butterfly shots. They won't be as good as you can get from a DSLR no matter what anyone tells you but you should be able to produce pleasing A4 prints that stand up to reasonably close scrutiny.

[55bloke]

Last weekend, I returned to my old stamping ground in Kirbymoorside, North Yorkshire. The visit confirmed my impression that there are virtually no butterflies here in Sheffield- even the city parks with their impressive flower beds are virtually devoid of butterflies. Kirby, however, was alive with them, just as I remember it to be. Didn't have a lot of time for photography, but did take all these in one garden in a couple of afternoons. Nothing very impressive species wise, but nice to actually have something to point camera at!