Camera Quest

[Paulco]

Hello All,
I shall be after a decent camera soon, obviously a necessity if I
am to become serious with this new found hobby. I have taken a
liking to the Cannon EOS 700D, especially with its live view rear
screen - seems a boon to someone relatively new to DSLR cameras,
I am however on a budget at the moment and am unsure which lens
to use - is a macro lens necessary/desirable or indeed would a lesser
camera be as good.
Thanks for any suggestions given.
Paul

[Ian Pratt]

Welcome to the forum.
You will need to decide your budget for a new camera. Some contributors and competition winners use compact/bridge cameras such as the Lumix FZ200, or the Canon/Nikon equivalents.
A DSLR has advantages but you will need to buy lenses, not necessarily a macro lens, but it depends what you are aiming to photograph and the quality required. See the portfolios in galleries from Fishiee, Nigel Kiteley and Neil Hulme to see what can be achieved . The first two use DSLRs but Neil uses a Lumix FZ 38 , I think.
Hope this helps.

[Ian Pratt]

Neil Hulme's photos can be found at gallery/album.php?album_id=80
The others are in the same area of the website.
Regards
Ian

[John W]

I think it also depends on how technical you are and how much you know about photography. The bridge cameras are more or less point and shoot, whereas the DSLR gives you a lot more options for setting aperture, shutter speed, etc. You can certainly get excellent results with a bridge camera, you only have to look at Neil Hulme's pictures to see that. He uses a Panasonic Lumix FZ38 with an extra Panasonic close-up lens (LC55 I think the number is). The FZ38 is now discontinued, the current model is (I think) the FZ200, and will cost £329 from Amazon plus about £50 for the close-up lens. I prefer a bridge camera precisely because it is easier to use but obviously other people take a different point of view.

Cheers
John

[Neil Hulme]

Thanks for the plug, Ian, but I should point out that all of the images in that gallery were taken using the Panasonic Lumix FZ7, a very early and basic 6 MP model in the range. This is a primitive instrument by modern bridge camera standards. I still use the FZ38 and see no reason to change, bearing in mind that butterflies, orchids and a few landscapes make up 99% of my photographic targets. If you are serious about photographing birds, animals, aircraft etc. you really should go down the DSLR route.

I haven't loaded more than a handful of images to Flickr yet, but you can get some idea of what the more current Lumix range can produce here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125367544 ... 651005812/

BWs, Neil

[Jack Harrison]

This is a possibility but expensive and hard to come by these days:

http://www.thecultureconcept.com/circle ... camera.jpg

I took my first butterfly picture with one of those in circa 1949 but didn't understand about close up lenses as a ten-year old. Picture was badly out of focus.
But I did develop and print myself (courtesy long-suffering parents who allowed me to turn the downstairs toilet into a dark room!).

Jack

[bugboy]

Hi, I upgraded to the 700D this summer from a 400D that i'd used since 2006. For all of my pics I used a 50mm Sigma macro lense which does give good quality pics. I'm still getting the hang of the 700D, I'll be practising over the next few months, and I have also just bought a 105mm sigma macro of ebay, second hand for £150 which I shall be experimenting with that as well. Using macro lenses does mean you have to get close to your target so good fieldcraft is essential but for me thats all part of the challenge.

I only recently joined the forum myself and started off my personal diary last month, have a look to see what my combination can do but like others say, it depends on how technical and what kind of pics you are going for. I won't pretend my pics are as good as some I have seen on here but I'm happy with them and thats all that counts at the end of the day

Good luck and hope you enjoy your new bobby as much as the rest of us

[Gruditch]

The learning curve is very steep, but as long as you stick with it, and don't expect miracles in the first five minutes. A DSLR like the 700D will be a great fun.

Regards Gruditch

[Paulco]

Hello All,
Many thanks for comments.
Great Blog and pictures Bugboy,
Gruditch, may I ask what camera your using for
many of those pictures, a pro camera for sure,
and used in an outstanding way - just exceptional.

[Gruditch]

Hi Paul,

The pictures on my site were taken over several years, and I've had several different camera bodies in that time. My current set up is a Canon 5D II for landscape work, and a Canon 7D for wildlife and macro. They are both probably a bit dated now, but any DSLR is capable of producing top quality images. You get more power, better auto focus, weather sealing, and lots of other nice stuff on the pro camera bodies. But they don't necessarily produce superior images. The lenses however is a whole different story. Good glass maters far more than the camera body it is attached to. You can scrimp a bit with the camera, but splash out when it comes to buying lenses.

Regards Gruditch

[MikeOxon]

I shall be after a decent camera soon, obviously a necessity if I
am to become serious with this new found hobby. I have taken a
liking to the Cannon EOS 700D, especially with its live view rear
screen .........

To add my 2p worth... if your new hobby is 'butterflies', then many cameras,including the 'bridge' cameras referred to by others in this thread will do an excellent job of recording your encounters.

If, however, you are seriously interested in photography, then a DSLR will offer by far the greatest scope. The live view rear screen is, in my opinion, a very minor feature of a DSLR that I very rarely use - the point of these cameras is the real optical viewfinder, which makes action photography possible - such as sport or birds in flight.

As Gruditch has said, the most important part of a DSLR is the lens. The more expensive bodies have better weather sealing and ruggedness, but often have the same sensors as their 'lesser' brethren. The final image quality depends most upon the lens.

In film days, many photographers said that a good photograph is made in the darkroom. This remains true for digital photography, but the darkroom has been replaced by software, such as Photoshop (there are many other image processing programs, including the free 'GIMP')

A compact or bridge camera is designed to produce the best possible image directly from the camera, whereas a DSLR captures much more information, which needs subsequent processing to get the very best out of the image. The DSLR captures more image detail (known as dynamic range) than can be seen in the initial result, but which can be brought out by post-processing. If you really want to make photography your hobby, this is an important area to master.

Mike

[Jack Harrison]

Pretty good analysis there Mike.

I would add my 3 penn'orth to Mike's 2p. If you have an expensive DSLR and break it, you will be very seriously upset indeed. If you have a bridge camera, sure you will be upset, but nothing like as much. I would add that several of the cheaper cameras I have owned have been dropped on to very hard surfaces and survived.

Anyone care to comment how well DSLRs (which might cost several times as much as a bridge) fare after being dropped on to concrete?

And another point about lower cost of a bridge: you can replace/upgrade more frequently. I usually get a new one every three years or so but my present Lumix is still going strong even though approaching its sell-by date.

Jack

[MikeOxon]

Anyone care to comment how well DSLRs (which might cost several times as much as a bridge) fare after being dropped on to concrete?

I once dropped my Nikon D300s with 70-300VR zoom attached a short distance (only about 2 feet) onto concrete. The camera was unscathed but the 'VR' function in the lens was converted to a 'vibration enhancement' feature! Fortunately, my insurance replaced the lens with no quibbles, within a couple of days. At the risk of sounding incredibly clumsy, I also managed to drop my Nikon 300f4 lens onto a gravelled track but it suffered no apparent damage whatsoever. The difference is that this is one of Nikon's 'professional' lenses, built to work in a war-zone!

There is, however, some evidence that good quality plastic can be more resilient, because it is capable of absorbing the shock better than a metal body

Mike

[Gruditch]

I've had several occasions when some of my gear has hit the deck. Like Mike, I found the camera bodies escaped unscathed, but I have damaged a couple of lenses. Tripods tumbling over is the usual suspect, when camera gear gets damaged. Or driving off with your camera on your car roof, like BillS

Regards Gruditch

[John W]

Or driving off with your camera on your car roof, like BillS

I managed to do that too, most annoying I guess I'm glad to know I'm not the only one!

John

[Jack Harrison]

Or driving off with your camera on your car roof

Not done that...........YET

My drops have always been for the same reason; camera in case round waist upside down (camera case, not my waist). Oh, shut up.

Jack

[Paulco]

I shall be after a decent camera soon, obviously a necessity if I
am to become serious with this new found hobby. I have taken a
liking to the Cannon EOS 700D, especially with its live view rear
screen .........

To add my 2p worth... if your new hobby is 'butterflies', then many cameras,including the 'bridge' cameras referred to by others in this thread will do an excellent job of recording your encounters.

If, however, you are seriously interested in photography, then a DSLR will offer by far the greatest scope. The live view rear screen is, in my opinion, a very minor feature of a DSLR that I very rarely use - the point of these cameras is the real optical viewfinder, which makes action photography possible - such as sport or birds in flight.

As Gruditch has said, the most important part of a DSLR is the lens. The more expensive bodies have better weather sealing and ruggedness, but often have the same sensors as their 'lesser' brethren. The final image quality depends most upon the lens.

In film days, many photographers said that a good photograph is made in the darkroom. This remains true for digital photography, but the darkroom has been replaced by software, such as Photoshop (there are many other image processing programs, including the free 'GIMP')

A compact or bridge camera is designed to produce the best possible image directly from the camera, whereas a DSLR captures much more information, which needs subsequent processing to get the very best out of the image. The DSLR captures more image detail (known as dynamic range) than can be seen in the initial result, but which can be brought out by post-processing. If you really want to make photography your hobby, this is an important area to master.

Mike

Hello All,
Many thanks for helpful info.
Yes Mike, this newly found interest is "Butterfly" based, the need for a camera at present is merely a means with which to record sightings. But obviously I would like to record them in as lifelike as possible (with a budget still in mind). My leanings now seem to be towards a bridge camera, and presumably I should checkout the latest manufactured being as technology seems to be flying so fast in this field, - or maybe I should go for 2nd hand DSLR, difficult decisions. I would very much welcome suggestions of particular cameras that you suggest.
Thanks Again. Paul

[Neil Hulme]

Hi Paul,

I think Mike hit the nail on the head here:
"if your new hobby is 'butterflies', then many cameras, including the 'bridge' cameras referred to by others in this thread will do an excellent job of recording your encounters."
"If, however, you are seriously interested in photography, then a DSLR will offer by far the greatest scope."

You won't be able to take epic landscape shots such as those you've seen on Gary's website, but if you are after something more modest, specifically for butterflies, flowers, fungi etc., then I really think that one of the more recent Panasonic Lumix models will serve you very well, for relatively little money.

I've just posted quite a few images to my Flickr site here https://www.flickr.com/photos/125367544 ... 014014567/, which will give you an idea of what you can do with a bridge (given good light conditions). All were taken on a now out-of-date FZ38, fitted with a Panasonic close-up lens. I'm now on my second FZ38, having purchased a 'nearly new' one on ebay. The total kit cost me c. £200, so if you drive off leaving it on the car roof, or drop it in a river, you might swear - but you won't fall to your knees and cry like a baby.

BWs, Neil

[MikeOxon]

My leanings now seem to be towards a bridge camera, and presumably I should checkout the latest manufactured being as technology seems to be flying so fast in this field

I think the pace of change in digital cameras has slowed down quite a bit now and the technology is pretty mature. I use a Panasonic Lumix FZ200, which is still current and has been around for a few years. I've written quite a bit about it in my personal diary thread, starting at viewtopic.php?f=29&t=7459&start=40#p83508 You might find it useful to read about my experiences with this camera and how I rate it against my Nikon DSLR.

Mike