www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

My compact digital is great for carrying in a pocket almost everywhere i go but it keeps letting me down in macro mode, see pic, and its hopeless for taking pictures of Butterflies that are further than 6 feet away, so i am considering getting a better camera that can take a great Macro pic and zoom in to something thats 5 or 6 metres away.
Are these types of Camera any good?, are they what i need?, any opinions would be great but please bear in mind my camera knowledge consists of knowing which way to point it.
Steve.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B007 ... d_i=468294
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B003 ... d_i=468294
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-Coolpix-P ... 98&sr=1-28
Thanks..

Hi roundwood123,
Buy the Lumix FZ45 and the compatible adaptor and close-up lens. This range of cameras is a clear best in class/price range. I have no technical knowledge of photography but still manage to consistently get images I'm pleased with. There are several other UKB contributors who use the FZ38 (discontinued), FZ45 or FZ100 to good effect. Look at Mark Colvin's images of Wisley exotics - he only started with the camera last summer and he knows almost as little as I do about photography.
Good luck, Neil

Hi,

I picked up a Lumix FZ38 off e-bay last winter and used it last year and am very happy with it. I had some very useful advice from Sussex Kipper and Mark Colvin with regard to using it, especially with the close up lens and adapter.

If you want to have a look at what I achieved during my first year of taking butterfly photos as a beginner, check out my diary. I took loads of photos which included many 'duff' ones but the pics posted are ones that I was happy with.

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=5424

Hope this helps,

Neil F.

Hi Steve,

I can only agree with what has been said above.

Sussex Kipper wrote:Buy the Lumix FZ45 and the compatible adaptor and close-up lens.

I purchased my FZ45 at the end of June last year and after a fairly short learning curve started producing images that certainly pleased my eye. As Neil stated, I certainly don't class myself as a photographer and to be honest I find talk of apertures, ISOs, depth of field, speed ratings and the like extremely boring. It's the insects I'm interested in. What I particularly like about the FZ45, and Neil has proven this on numerous occasions with his excellent images taken with the earlier FZ38, is you really don't need thousands of pounds worth of heavy equipment to take decent shots. Image quality is of course in the eye of the beholder and what appeals to me as a decent picture may of course not appeal to you. If you want a lightweight, easy to handle camera then look no further. I would not have achieved many of my images if I had been lugging heavier equipment about. In my opinion (forgetting the type of camera you may have) two of the most important things to learn are (i) understand your subject and (ii) when composing your picture look through the image into the background for it is often this that makes or ruins a picture.

To prove a point about the FZ45 I have actually just purchased another one for my son to use this year.

Good luck,

Kind regards. Mark

Brilliant, Thanks Neil,Neil and Mark for taking the time to reply, I shall purchase the Panasonic as you all suggest.
Just thought i would mention that despite not posting on this site as much as i used to i still look in most days, I actively look for and record Butterflies in my part of Essex, last year was great for Green Hairstreaks with over 30 seen and i managed to find 2 new sites for them.
I also found this Purple Hairstreak Cat, amazing camouflage.
Steve.

Hi Steve,

Glad to be of assistance.

Make sure you purchase the Adaptor (DMW-LA5) and Close UP Lens (DMW-LC55) to go with the FZ45. These items will make a difference to your results. Just remember, when fitted, you will be operating between 0.18m and 0.5m from your target. Both Neil (Sussex Kipper) and I generally work very close to our subjects. If you want to shoot something further away you'll need to remove the close up lens and adaptor. Please ask if you want any help regarding camera settings.

I hope you enjoy your purchase.

Good hunting.

Kind regards. Mark

Mark Colvin wrote:I purchased my FZ45 at the end of June last year and after a fairly short learning curve started producing images that certainly pleased my eye.

Me too. I bought my FZ45 in October 2010 and it has proved perfect save for getting the types of macro shots that routinely win competitions on here.

I'm not a natural photographer and even if you gave me £1,000 worth of equipment I'd struggle to translate it into professional type shots. In short, for an amateur like me, the FZ45 ticks all the boxes.

I bought a FZ45 in October 2010, sadly it departed this world after I fell off my bike in April 2011 (and I had not bought a warrantly with it), its replacement is a Fuji HS20 (not yet butterfly christened), DSLRwise I invested in a Sony a65 in January although the main mission for its 24 megapixels will be landscapes.

Just to say I also use the Lumix FZ100 (much the same as the FZ45). Considering the low cost when compared to a DSLR and lens I find the results acceptable for an amateur like me. I won't win any competition, but they are a useful way of recording what I see.

I visited a professional photo gallery in Hunstanton this afternoon run by Martin Wase. He has some stunning large prints, eg 50 x 40 cms. He has a DSLR but he is quite happy with his Canon Powershot. Indeed, the two most impressive of his offerings were taken with that camera. Martin swears by compacts.

His website:
http://www.mjwasephotography.co.uk/
doesn’t do his pictures justice.

So we are back to the old argument — DSLR versus Compact (or Bridge)

I swear by my Panasonic FZ38 (predecessor to the FZ45). The one thing I do miss badly though is a free (vari) angle LCD screen as that enables shots to be taken form otherwise-awkward angles. The Panaosnic FZ15) however has a free angle screen.

Most of the pictures on my latest website with taken with the FZ38 although some earlier were with a Canon Powershot A65 (sadly no longer made)

http://www.normalfore.co.uk
(click on an individual image to see larger photo)

Jack

Don't wish to be picky, the guy is obviously talented, but the haloing from the sun, and the noise and distortions in some of the skies.
That's down to his post processing, not the camera I would imagine, lets his site down badly.

50 x 40 cms big!, I just got a 3ft x 2ft canvas done, that's big.

Other than being on the wind up Jack, I don't know why you keep coming back to this "DSLR versus Compact (or Bridge)" supposed argument. But I'm in the mood, so I'll bite.

If someone is more bothered about being able to pop their camera in their pocket, or won't entertain the thought of lugging equipment about, or is financially embarrassed, then obviously a DSLR is not for them.

Some compacts & bridge cameras can produce a fine image, no denying that. But I have a DSLR, rather than a compact because I want versatility, and power, and I'm prepared to pay to get it. I can attach 140 plus lenses, from 8-1200mm on my camera. I can fit dozens of filters, (vitally important for landscape work, don't now how Mr Wase gets away with it). With my full frame 5D MK2 I have 21.1 mega-pixel. With my 7D I have fast accurate auto focus, and 8fps.

if none of that is important to you, why spend thousands on camera equipment, the important thing is that you enjoy it.

Mind you a Compact or Bridge in the right hands v DSLR in the wrong hands.

Regards Gruditch

Gruditch wrote: Other than being on the wined up Jack

I can't decide whether that's an accidental or deliberate mis-spelling.

David M wrote:I can't decide whether that's an accidental or deliberate mis-spelling.

Accidental, dyslexia.

Regards Gruditch

Martin Wase's website certainly exaggerates all the poorest aspects of my (new) “friend's” photos. In the flesh, they look a great deal better. But I would agree that some of the colours, contrasts, etc are decidedly over-the-top. But remember: he is a commercial artist/photographer. If people are prepared to pay £150 for one of his “arty” pictures, then all I can say is good luck to him.

I know Gary that your “wined up” wasn’t deliberate but it was rather funny you must admit. Typos and unintentional misspellings can be hilarious at times. How about someone typing, with reference to Sir Ian Botham, "Beery" instead of his more usual nickname "Beefy"? I don’t happen to be dyslexic but I do have my own limitations. My arthritic back is not my choice, but it does in fact mean that I can never get down to ground level to be able to, for example, photograph that Purple Emperor feeding on the path. That lack of mobility is one reason why I could not use a big heavy DSLR even though I admit (very small print now) they do have many advantages.

Jack

Had my fz150 for about 5 weeks now & very pleased with it. Reviews & user comments on the web are very complimentary, so much so that it seems many who can no longer carry dslr's or do not want to are buying it. It has a swivel screen & mp is dropped to 12 from the 14 of the fz100 for better IQ. With my Sony 1758tc attached it is good for birding etc. Attaching a pic of a SEO flying about 70yds away, sooc apart from crop. Eric

That's a super SEO shot, Eric and a great testimonial for the FZ150.

I've always felt disappointed by the size and weight of DSLRs, which are as bulky as their 35mm film predecessors despite, in most cases, having half-frame (APS-size) sensors. I used to use a Rollei 35 film camera, which managed to take full-frame 35mm, while being smaller than many digital 'compacts'.

Now that the digital camera has become mainstream, I hope that manufacturers will turn their minds to more capable smaller designs. There's no 'law of nature', which says that a digital sensor must be the same size as a film frame but the very small sensors in most bridge and compact cameras, introduced originally for cost reasons, do seem a bit too small for optimum quality. The latest Canon G1x shows that a larger sensor can be provided in a compact body but, currently, at too high a price.

Mike

Exactly Mike, size does matter. You cannot beat the laws of physics (diffraction and that sort of thing). So small sensors, in particular the small individual pixels, can never match the bigger pixels of a DSLR. I believe researchers have some tricks up their sleeves such as multi layer pixels, but for now the large pixel (by inference, the large sensor) will always give potentially better resolution, greater dynamic range, and other benefits. But the downside is the sheer bulk of a modern DSLR ;that makes them impossible for people like me. I cannot quite understand why they need to be so big. I used to be quite happy with the bulk/weight of my old Pentax film camera. Why then can’t similar designs be used in the digital equivalents? Maybe there will be some progress once the idea of a moving mirror is finally consigned to photographic history. For those who like the “clunk” they make, then that is easily simulated electronically.

I would have thought that the micro four-thirds compromise would be along the right lines but for some reason, they have never really caught on.

And why might I ask are interchangeable lens (as per DSLRs) thought to be a good thing? Surely one fixed zoom (as per bridge compacts) is the answer? And with the bigger sensors, I wouldn’t have thought huge zoom ranges are really necessary in any case. How often for example do you need an image more than say 2000 pixels across? A physically big 20 mp sensor (approx 5000 large pixels across) can easily be cropped to 2000 and still be perfectly adequate in most situations. That implies that zooms only need to be say 8x: this surely would reduce manufacturing difficulties and cost?

Jack

Jack Harrison wrote:And why might I ask are interchangeable lens (as per DSLRs) thought to be a good thing? Surely one fixed zoom (as per bridge compacts) is the answer

Now you have been on the wine Jack. Imagine the size of the camera with the 8.49lb Canon 400mm f 2.8 built in.

A sports photographer needs vastly different equipment to a wedding photographer. When the manufacturers do try the one lens for all uses thing, the image quality always suffers. Sigma 28-300 for example, nasty lens.

Regards Gruditch

Gruditch

Now you have been on the wine Jack.

Not wine but shortly going to the Black Horse in Castle Rising where it's curry night (includes a free pint of very decent beer). Very conveniently, my partner Stella is teetotal :)

Surprisingly the spelling is teetotal not teatotal. I thought the word was a pun on being only a tea drinker. You live and learn.

Jack

Jack Harrison wrote:
Surprisingly the spelling is teetotal not teatotal. I thought the word was a pun on being only a tea drinker. You live and learn. [/i]

Jack

Apparently, it comes from the reduplication of "total" - T(otal)-Total, as in total abstinence. A 19th century coining.

Dave