| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| Treacodactyl |
Digital Camera for nature photographyThe time has come to upgrade our 1MP digital camera. The type of photos we take are mainly of wild life, frogs, slow-worms, trees fungi etc. We don't take many landscape pics and I'm not one for taking many indoor photos or photos of people. Looking about I don't think I need to spend more than £400 and there seems to be several that fit the bill at much less. I don't intend to print the pictures out but will use them mainly on web sites, but I would like to have high quality pictures.I like the idea of the Konica Minolta Z3 as it has a 12x optical zoom, 4MP and has image stabilization which I think would come in handy as I'm not the most steady photographer. It's about £230ish. However, several reviews only think the image and colour reproduction is average. Fujifilm's S7000 and S5500 seem to be top of my list at the moment. Our existing camera is a Fuji and many people seem to like theirs. They often do well in reviews and people say they have good picture quality. The S7000 has 6MP but only a 6x optical zoom and no image stabilisation and costs about £330ish. The question is would a 6x zoom and the extra Mega Pixels be fine for taking some decent snaps of wildlife? It's not easy to get close so a zoom will help and the extra pixels will leave room for editing. Any comments, suggestions & recommendations gratefully received. |
||||||
| trigfa |
I've had a Fujiilm S5500 for a couple of months now and am really pleased with it. A lot of my pictures have been wildlife. | ||||||
| jema |
I am on a 3.2mp Fuji camara and whilst I find that perfectly adaquate and have no plans on upgrading for years, i think that if I was to get a new camara I'd aim higher than 4mp, especially if it was for wildlife photos.
You may not want to print posters from the pictures, but why deny yourself the option? |
||||||
| tawny owl |
Yep, 5/6 seems to be the general standard now; above that, it seems that it's not 'real' resolution, and can actually make the pics worse. |
||||||
| Treacodactyl |
What sort of zoom do people use to take close ups of wildlife? | ||||||
| Silas |
The first thing you need is a good lens. Dosent matter hom many pixels you have if the lens cannot focus all colours correctly on the same plane. Next, just how close will you be getting? If it is very close you may have to consider an SLR as the parallax error on a rangefinder will be too great and you will be very prone to distortion. If you are in any way worried about camera shake, use a tripod. As for pixels, just how big do you want your enlargements to be? For small pictures having a lot of pixels is a distinct disadvanage!
Dont even consider a non optical zoom. Stick to good quality manufacturers who have a proven track record in lens design - Olympus, Nikon, Fuji, Cannon. |
||||||
| tahir |
This place has amazingly detailed reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/ |
||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Well close enough to get a decent picture, for example a detailed picture of a frog on a lily pad. We have a tripod which we should use more often but it's not that easy asking wildlife to sit still while I arrange the tripod. At the moment I don't want large pictures but past experience of moving subjects makes me think a reasonable sized picture will leave plent of scope for cropping! Would the S7000 with a 6x optical zoom and 6MP be a reasonable choice? |
||||||
| Bugs |
What makes a good lens then? Is it just a question of choosing a good make like those you suggest here or are there other things to look out for even within these manufacturers? |
||||||
| jema |
In my opinion, simply read the reviews, I think what people have said about quality lenses is spot on. These days the "electronics" in a camara costs pennies, it is build quality and lenses that cost. But even a good manufacturer does the occasional lemon, and the price of a good camara is still far from trivial. So do the research, read the reviews. |
||||||
| Silas |
A good camera with a good vibration reduction lens system will cost you thousands and even then will only reduce vibration, not elominate it. A reasonable tripod with a ball head is very quick and easy to operate. The set-up you mention should be more than adequate for your needs, but, please, think again about a tripod. |
||||||
| tahir |
A tripod is extremely useful especially if you're shooting in not very bright (woodland?) locations | ||||||
| Treacodactyl |
I will certainly try the trypod again, especially for shots where I can focus on flowers and wait for bees etc. One more question, can you connect a remote shutter release thingy to a modern digital camera to reduce all shake?
We have looked at many sites over the weekend, some seem to contradict each other though. Certainly the Fuji I mentioned seems to get good reviews. |
||||||
| Silas |
Funnily enough, many 'consumer' digitals do have this facility, yet a lot of 'pro' cameras dont, bit daft really, I would find one quite useful. | ||||||
| dougal |
Zooms? : 3x and 6x aren't specifications. They are marketing bullet points. Times what? Well it is about the focal length - 3x means that the longest the lens can offer is 3 times longer than the shortest - it doesn't tell you how long it actually is, or what that means. To "get closer" you need a long focal length "telephoto" lens. How "long"? Digression needed to answer! With 35mm cameras all generating a standard sized image on the film (36x24mm - and I'm *deliberately* ignoring half-frame cameras) the actual focal length was a nice easy yardstick for comparison. Different digital cameras with the same focal length lens but different sized (physical size, not the number of pixels) sensor chips will appear to be "zoomed" to different degrees.
Hence the thing is to look at the "35mm equivalent focal length"! For a 35mm camera, a focal length of 50mm was a "standard" lens with most SLRs. Shorter gives you a wider view - around 35mm became popular on snapshot cameras, not only could you get the whole group in but focusing and shake was less critical. 24mm is a serious wide angle and below 20 you are knocking on fisheye... But to "get close" you want a longer lens... 75mm is nice for portraiture, 135 is starting to narrow things down a lot. (Most digital cameras' 3x zooms are equivalent to a 35-105mm on a 35mm camera.) However for birdwatching, even a 200mm is unlikely to be "long" enough! While sports photographers may use 400 or 500mm, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that some snooping paparazzi regularly use even longer lenses... A big drawback to "long" lenses is that the longer the lens's focal length, the more they will show up shake. It used to be 35mm practice to say that the slowest usable (handheld) shutter speed was the reciprocal of the focal length... 1/50th with a 50mm but 1/400th with a 400mm. Which brings us to... Tripods: A monopod is lighter and quicker to use. Useless for multi-second exposures of course, but great for steadying a "long" telephoto lens. (And you can even use it somewhat like a walking stick.) Other things to watch out for. For photographing animals, children, or even normal people (rather than still lifes) you want a camera with minimal "shutter latency - the delay between pressing the button and something happening. Some cameras have a "more responsive" setting, which runs the battery down faster, but does help to capture the moment that you selected... You may want a facility for triggering an external flash, as well as cable release and a tripod mount... When shooting in high resolution, it may take the camera a noticable time to "wind on" and get ready for the next shot. There's a fair chunk of data to be shifted, and usually compressed. And don't think that all "macro" facilities are equivalent... Re Silas' point about SLR's - almost all digital cameras give you an "SLR capability" (at least in respect of parallax errors in macro work) - by using their inbuilt LCD screen. But you may wish to compare the visibility of different camera's screens outdoors (and in sunlight)! Now, can anyone suggest a digital camera that "handles" like a 'proper' camera (such as my old OM-1) at a reasonable price. I'm so hacked off with "menu options" for every damn adjustment - at least gimme some knobs! Unfortunately, you seem to have to spend megabux to get any sort of a controllable camera. Or is there a Praktica-for-today? |
||||||
| tahir |
I think a few of them have wireless remotes nowadays |
||||||
| twoscoops |
Some you can, mine you can't. i went for the Fuji S602 and I can't see that you can attach a remote. You can, however, set the timer to 2 or 10 seconds. | ||||||
| Silas |
The OM1 had only three user controls, aperteur, shutter speed and iso. The Fuji S2 set on manual has 'knobs' that allow you to set these just the same as the OM1, you have the choice of c/w, spot or matrix metering. |
||||||
| dougal |
But my point really was that with the OM, you could feel the controls, without taking your eye away from the viewfinder, and hardly changing your grip at all... Megabucks: *Used* S2 bodies seem to go for £500 or so on eBay. There's some american offering 'New' ones for £1100... And a buy-it-now on an S3 for £950. I'm bemoaning the lack of a cheap, "photographer's" camera - like the old Praktica's as prime examples (note that I didn't even say Zenit...) |
||||||
| Silas |
When I bought my first OM1 back in the mid/late seventies it cost me about £200.00. add 30 years of inflation and you are about on par for an S2 I should think. |
||||||
| tahir |
OM's were never cheap, I've still got my OM4Ti's | ||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Thinking about this a bit more I may plump for the Fuji S5500. At 4MP and with a 10x optical zoom (37-370mm equiv but most cameras at this price 10x means about the same thing, most shops not mentioning anything other than the 10x bit) it seems fine for what I want. It should cost just over £200 which seems reasonable for my first decent digi.
I've been put off the S7700 by a review that, although contradicting many others, said the picture quality was poor. But I don't really get much extra for the additional £100 it is, especially if I don't need the 6MP. I've checked out the S5500 on www.dpreview.com and looking at the sample pictures it should do me....I hope. Thanks for all the comments. |