Camera for good close ups of wildlife

[SusieBee]

Originally Posted by freefeet

Fuji F70 EXR...



That was taken hand held without a stand, it would have been better with a tripod.

It's also a silent camera, so you won't spook any wildlife you're trying to photograph with unnecessary noise.

Well I'll be chuffed if I get pics like that freefeet. I must get a tripod/bean bag to try and get sharper pics. I'm also reading a good beginner's photography book and of course the manual.

I did try a Canon powershot but found it too small and awkward, needed something more bulky which the Fuji S1500 is and yes a good silent camera.

[MartynA]

I generally use a Pentax K10D with a mixture of lenses for my photography - but I also have a small Olympus point and shoot camera and I have to say that, very often, when taking macro photographs the image produced by the Olympus is as good, if not better, than that produced by the K10D for most purposes - unless you want A4+ sized prints.

The type of lens on small cameras lends itself to Macro and the depth of field is generally greater than it would be with an SLR (although that obviously gives you more control over it). As for butterflies, it's often easier to get close with a small camera at arms length than an SLR using the viewfinder (although more recent ones with live view solve this problem).

There's always a tendancy to think that a bigger, more expensive camera will produce better photo's but that's seldom the case, as has been proved by many professional photographers who produce great images with inexpensive point and shoot cameras.

If you want better pictures of distant, moving wildlife then some sort of zoom is a necessity and if you want to take birds in flight then probably an SLR is essential as you'll be able to keep tracking the subject while taking pictures.

Take time to get to know the camera and make best use of it... learn to make use of the settings available (for example 'sport' mode is often the best setting for ANY moving object - including wildlife!)

At the time I bought the K10D DSLR I was using an FZ30 - which I still have - and I still sometimes think I managed to produce better pictures with that!

Most importantly... have fun! it IS a hobby!

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by GFM

I've been delaying forever but now want to buy an easy to use camera that will provide me with good close up detail of such creatures as butterflies, amphibians, or anything I quickly spot when out and about. I have an ordinary Olympus digital and it provides me with general pictures and the wildlife pics end up as distant images. I want to spend £100-200 whether it be new , used or ebay. I would be pleased to hear from anyone who has bought and used such a camera and would like to genuinely recommend it.
Thanks all.

Just to explode a few myths here-

1 - You can get close up to insects and use noisy cameras and even flash!! You just have to exercise a little stealth and patience to get those close shots. Anyone who uses a zoom lens to shoot insects will probably fail to capture any great detail.Knowing the subject matter also helps.

2 - The phrase 'easy to use' as regards cameras probably won't produce excellent images - but I'm not sure what you mean by 'good close up detail' as I'm sure we all have different concepts of what that means.

3 - A tripod is not always necessary - it depends on whether you are learning how to use the camera to speed up your shots in lieau of using a tripod - which isn't always possible in awkward situations. A tripod is a great advantage but can limit what you can get access to.

These were taken hand held (resting camera on knees/ lying on tum/hand held in air) - the first has a little fill flash and the next two were taken on a sunny day.








They are barely cropped so you can see how close I was.They have not been sharpened in Photo Shop either - that's a NO-NO with me as I can really tell when that's been done and so can stock sites!

If you're really serious about the detail I'd recommend you went for a second hand DSLR and Macro lens. If not then some of the suggestions here are fine.

Acher

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by acherontia

They have not been sharpened in Photo Shop either - that's a NO-NO with me as I can really tell when that's been done and so can stock sites!

Should be a 'YES-YES' - see here, particularly 'Why Sharpening is Needed':

Sharpening -- Part I

See also the late Bruce Fraser's ('an internationally recognised authority on digital imaging') 288 page book 'Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop CS2'.

Sharpening is not a 'cheat' to fix substandard images, it's an essential part of producing a digital image for display.

Jim

[Geoff F]

Yes I agree, and remember that for many, if not most, digital cameras the standard settings include automatic sharpening and saturation 'enhancement'.

I always prefer to turn off the auto sharpening and use carefully controlled sharpening, with Unsharp Mask, during the normal editing tweaks.

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Geoff F

I always prefer to turn off the auto sharpening and use carefully controlled sharpening, with Unsharp Mask, during the normal editing tweaks.

I now use 'Photokit Sharpener'. It's expensive, but very good. Here's a review:

PhotoKit Sharpener

Jim

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

Should be a 'YES-YES' - see here, particularly 'Why Sharpening is Needed':

Sharpening -- Part I

See also the late Bruce Fraser's ('an internationally recognised authority on digital imaging') 288 page book 'Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop CS2'.

Sharpening is not a 'cheat' to fix substandard images, it's an essential part of producing a digital image for display.

Jim

Nota bene Jim - I said I do not sharpen in Photoshop....... and I also said with me

I always sharpen in RAW format as everyone knows that all digital imagery needs some sharpening.
The conrol in RAW software is much more subtle and controllable and if you don't shoot RAW then sharpening in PS should be done very carefully.
I suppose it all depends on how one wants to use the images as well. If they are for stock sites then there should be no sharpening in PS - any editor worth his salt will pick up on the pixil disruption that this causes!
If, however the images are for personal pleasure or for putting on here then sharpen away, if you want. It's just that when you've been used to trying for an image that stands up still sharp at 100% -200% enlargement then, often, an artificially sharpened image sticks out like a sore thumb. OH has over 800 images on one stock site and none have been sharpened at the PS stage.

Even if you aren't going to sell - looking at an image at 200% to see if it is still sharp will up the ante somewhat. I just bin anything that doesn't stand up to close examination - it's difficult sometimes but stops one getting 'precious' and increases one's ambitions whilst out shooting - which is always a good thing.

As with everything it's horses for courses and I certainly don't expect other people to do as I do if they don't want to. I would, however, advise great caution with sharpening - if it's overdone then the image is degraded for reasons of what is essentially an illusion. One can actually 'sharpen' using contrast - which works on the existing pixils and does not disrupt or degrade them.

Obviously I still maintain that sharpening in PS is definately still a NO-NO for me - or anyone who seriously wants to sell .

If it's for fun - sharpen away if you want!

Acher

PS - Has that bloke written about CS4 yet? LOL Or even Lightroom which is the now pro industry standard software?

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by acherontia

I always sharpen in RAW format as everyone knows that all digital imagery needs some sharpening.
The conrol in RAW software is much more subtle and controllable and if you don't shoot RAW then sharpening in PS should be done very carefully.

As I understand it, a raw 'image' is not capable of sharpening - it's just data that represents greyscales. Any sharpening done within a raw developer would be on the developed image - TIFF, JPEG , the developers native RGB format, whatever - so it's little different to sharpening in Photoshop, except you don't have the benefit of layers.

It's just that when you've been used to trying for an image that stands up still sharp at 100% -200% enlargement then, often, an artificially sharpened image sticks out like a sore thumb.

You sharpen for the final viewing size of the image, so you would sharpen differently for an image to be printed at 20x16" on paper, to an image at 800x600 pixels displayed on a monitor. To sharpen an image for viewing at 800x600 pixels and display it at 1600x1200 or print it at 20x16" is wrong.

PS - Has that bloke written about CS4 yet? LOL Or even Lightroom which is the now pro industry standard software?

Ermm, what 'bloke'?

Jim

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

As I understand it, a raw 'image' is not capable of sharpening - it's just data that represents greyscales. Any sharpening done within a raw developer would be on the developed image - TIFF, JPEG , the developers native RGB format, whatever - so it's little different to sharpening in Photoshop, except you don't have the benefit of layers

You sharpen for the final viewing size of the image, so you would sharpen differently for an image to be printed at 20x16" on paper, to an image at 800x600 pixels displayed on a monitor. To sharpen an image for viewing at 800x600 pixels and display it at 1600x1200 or print it at 20x16" is wrong.


Ermm, what 'bloke'?

Jim

Oh dear - I fear this is descending into a bit of an argument? No smiles from you at all there...... and you seem to have taken sections of my post out of context and without the friendly way they were said.

I'll tell you what - you stick to what you know and I'll do likewise as I don't want any teddies thrown in corners for all to see when I was only representing my own views in accord to what I do with my images. I certainly don't want to continue with a detailed reposte re technicalities - I'm sure a lot of people would find it quite boring.

I've never been one to enjoy talking about photography in endless detail - I'd sooner be getting practice doing it.
Incidentally - the stock sites ask for no sharpening as they want to do it later .......... obviously?

Which is why I don't do it myself - as I said my images are mainly for this purpose.
I just think there are far too many oversharpened images about as it's easy to get a little carried away.
I did it myself when I was first starting out and before my eyes and mind became more discerning. It certainly helped when other more experienced photographers pointed out my mistakes and I listened.

Also, as I said, it's good to raise one's game and if we don't we will never progress. This is how discernment and high standards are attained - through experience and listening to others. I know I, for one, am definately still learning and willing to listen to others as long as they don't try to tell me what stock sites want and what they don't want!

Incidentally -I had a look at your images in the Gallery and there's some nice stuff there Is there any particular reason why you chose Olympus? It seems even odder than my choice of Sony! - My reasons being that Minolta have made some of the best glass about and as Anti shake is in the camera bodies they still fit!

Going back to the OP- (if you're still with us! )

If you want really good detail on the cheap OH suggests buying a cheapish Nikon, getting a used 50mm lens (£60/70) and getting some reversal rings from China via Ebay. (£6) remeber - good glass is always preferable to a good camera.

Acher

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by acherontia

Is there any particular reason why you chose Olympus? It seems even odder than my choice of Sony! - My reasons being that Minolta have made some of the best glass about and as Anti shake is in the camera bodies they still fit!

High quality weather and dust protected body and lenses - I've spent 10 hours in the hills in pouring rain with the camera just slung over my shoulder.

Magnesium body with anti-shake built in. A dust reduction system with a proven track record of actually working. Flip-out live view screen (I now wouldn't dream of owning a camera without one. I also wouldn't dream of owning a camera with Nikon's misconceived idea of putting the hinge on the bottom!)

Very high quality lenses - don't take my word for it, have a look at some reviews on the net.

The following from dpreview:

"Indeed the Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD is quite simply a superb lens, which can lay claim to being one of the very best standard zooms currently available."

"Certainly in terms of the studio results, it's the nearest we've yet found to a technically perfect lens." (50mm macro)

There are similar reviews for the Zuiko 50-200mm and 7-14mm to be found on the net.

The Olympus bodies come in for criticism for their high ISO performances, but I come from a background where pushing TriX to 800 ASA was considered exotic - and I don't take many shots of black cats in coal mines anyway!

Jim