What Kind of Camera Do You Use?

I currently have a Nikon Coolipx digital point and shoot camera.

I'm thinking about splurging and upgrading to a digital SLR. I'm thinking the Nikon D40x (10.2 mp). The package they have out now is with two lenses: 18-55mm Nikkor and 55-200mm G Nikkor. I'd like to be able to get more wildlife photography around my place, an acre that has wooded areas on two sides, but I have to be able to shoot faster and zoom, obviously.

Any opinions out there? What are you using? What kind of lenses or accessories are a "must have", in your opinion?

Thanks.

Hi katie, It really depends on your budget.

There are some great superzoom cameras on the market too.

I'm sure the Nikon D40X is a great camera but if your thinking of using the 200mm lens for bird photography then you'll have to be very close to the birds.

I have both a superzoom camera and just recently a DSLR w/ a long lens.

You might also want to ask in the Camera & Photography Forum.

Silly me - didn't think about the fact that there was probably a forum for this question. But good info from you . . . so I need to consider a longer lens than what I'll get in this package.

Thanks!!

An alternative to getting a "longer lens" is to get one of the modern cameras that have adequate zoom to start with, especially for bird watching where the birds fly away if you get close enough to use one of those awkward bulky non maneuverable cameras with heavy lens attachments. I swap back and forth between my Kodak P850 (5.1 megapixels but 12x optical with 3.3x digital enhancement for a total zoom of 39.6x) and my Kodak P712 (7.1 megapixels with 12x optical and 5x digital enhancement for a total zoom of 60x). Makes it possible to capture birds in motion such as the attached photo of an "ice skating" coot on Herman's Lake in the Wilbur D. May Arboretum area of Rancho San Rafael near downtown Reno Nevada. The coot had just landed on the ice covered lake and was heading towards a gathering of other coots and ducks feeding some distance away.

Great photo - can't imagine what that looked like in person. So didital enhancement will provide more "zoom" power, it sounds like. I'll make sure that I ask the salesperons that question specifically. Thanks!!

Digital will provide some extra zoom, but really you want the most OPTICAL zoom you can afford. As you increase the zoom digitally, you lose resolution, I believe, kinda like blowing the image up on your computer screen.

I'm glad you asked this question here, katie. I'm interested to know what cameras my fellow birders on this forum use because I've gotten to know their photography and could then match specific cameras with what they've produced. Also, I'm too intimidated to go to the photography forum. I don't know about all the techy stuff, I'm just like you and want to know which are the best cameras for what I want to be able to do.

Adelbertcat, I'm especially interested to know what camera you use, if you see this. You've been posting some wicked-good action shots lately!

I use a Canon 400D. Most of my bird shots are made with a lens that zooms to 300mm. It is not enough zoom. I wish that I had a zoom that would go to 500mm. The digital zoom on the point and shoot cameras are really just cropping the pic that you can get with the most optical zoom. You can do that on your computer if you want to. I would not consider the digital zoom. My first digital camera was a Canon G5 and I learned quickly that I could not get good pics using the digital zoom. The optical zoom is the one that is important. Also remember that the more megapixels the camera has the more you can crop and still get a good pic. Ten megapixels is a good place to start but more would be better. But that cost money. Camera companies keep increasing the megapixels with each new model. Also a lens with an image stablizer is good to have. Some of the p&s cameras have an iso shift to do this but that is not as good as an image stablized lens. A stabilized lens is important if you want to hand hold the camera. Also a lens with low aperture number is important to allow as much light as possible to the sensor. A lot of my bird photos are made in the shade. I find that I need more light. The more light you get means you can use a lower ISO which means a clearer pic. If you use a high ISO you will need to use noiseware software which also takes away some of the sharpness. So it is always better to use the best lens you can afford. Lens converters and polorizing filters cut down on the light so try to get a lens with f4 or lower at full zoom. That means beginning at fifteen hundred dollars and going as high as anyone can imagine. LOL

This image was made with the zoom at 300mm and the robin was 15 feet away. It was only cropped for a better shape.

I belong to several international photo forums and it seems that most of the people who have dslrs either prefer Canon or Nikon. Both companies have a good choice of lens plus lens are made by other companies to fit those cameras. The kit lens that comes with cameras are good for landscapes, family and still life but you need better ones for bird photography. You might consider a macro lens also if you want to get pics of insects and small wildflowers.

This message was edited Mar 24, 2008 12:46 AM

I used to think I was incapable of focusing (no pun intended) on these details enough to learn anything, but at least I've got it. Digital zoom can help, but as much optical zoom as you can afford is really where you want to go . . .

I have the Canon 400D also but w/ a Sigma 50-500mm lens.

I'm still learning with it and haven't had alot of time to practice.

If I ever win the lottery I'll be getting one of those Prime Lenses. :-)

Just to emphasize what others have said, "digital enhancement" really is a *lossy* process. It's just that there are some photos you're not going to be able to get *at all* unless you do have the digital enhancement on top of the very best optical zoom that you can buy. There are significant quality improvements to having the digital enhancement vis a vis trying to crop and blow up an inadequate photo with computer software, despite the lossy nature of digital enhancement at the camera level. Main thing that happens, the moment you go beyond the focal length that your optical zoom provides, is that the camera starts shrinking the number of pixels that you actually get in the resulting photographic record.

But there's another key factor in using one of the point and shoot dig it all cameras rather than hauling heavy lenses around. You get older and your hands are no longer capable of handling the WEIGHT of those lengthy bulky awkward lens attachments. You have that WEIGHT in the way and your mobility for recording moving subjects is severely impaired. Therefore the *kinds* of photos that you can record, the range of subjects and environmental conditions in which you can actually get a photo, is severely impaired with the heavier bulkier awkward lens attachment technology. I suppose if you've been doing lots of dumbbell curls and have hands capable of crushing concrete without gloves and are young enough, "maybe" you can handle a camera with the phenomenol increase in weight that the lens attachment technology involves. For the rest of us, the light weight dig it all cameras with serious optical zoom capabilities (10x or better) are a very much more useful choice.

In order to have an easy to use list of cameras… I've put together a list of what camera everyone is using, according to posts or EXIF Data from posted pictures. I'll edit as I get more input.

For what it's worth, I think the key for us is really the amount of lens you can afford in an DSLR, and the optical Zoom in a point and shoot (as mentioned above). I find my digital zoom to be useless. I HAVE to have it on a tripod for one, if I'm using that feature.

2ndCousinDave= In his own words: I currently own the Mark III, the 5D, the 40D, the 20D and the now antique D30 :-)
adelbertcat = Pentax K100D
akdoug =
angele =
bebob = Canon PowerShot S3 IS
Beclu727 = Olympus SP560
bgrumbin = Kodak P712 (7.1 megapixel 12x optical 5x digital enhancement)
Billyporter = Kodak Z650 Zoom
Boojum =
bsharf = Sony DSLR A100
Burn_2007 = Fuji FinePix S5700 s700
ceejaytown = Canon EOS 30D
cshirsch = Nikon D90
claypa =
crazybirdlady51 = Olympus Sp550UZ
critterologist = Sony cybershot t-200
dellrose = Canon EOS 40D
dinu = Panasonic DMC-FZ8
dragonfly62 = Fuji Finepix S700
duckmother =
Elphaba = Kodak Z740 Zoom
f_chisolm = Canon 400D: 300mm lens
gardenpom = Olympus Evolt 500 SLR with 70-300mm lens.
goldfinch4 = Canon PowerShot SD700IS
grammyphoeb =
Grandmaggie = Kodak M753 Zoom
GrannyGrunt = Kodak P850 Zoom
Grasmussen = Panasonic DMC-FZ50
Hczone6 = Nikon D200
Indiana_lily = Panasonic DMC-FZ8
kennedyh = Canon EOS 300D
kniphofia = Sony H50
konkreteblond =
lilyfantn = Nikon D70
linthicum = Nikon D70 with a Sigma 50-500mm; Nikon D200 with a Nikkor 500mm prime lens
Methodical = Canon 50d with various lenses (http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/p.php?pid=5888877), Panasonic Lumix FZ18
Mrs_Ed = Previously Kodak DX7590, Now a Pentax K100D Super
Nanny56 = Fuji FinePix S80000fd
NM_Jane = Canon Rebel XTI, Panasonic DMC-FZ28
Oldned =
OPbirder = Samsung Digimax L60, 6.0 mp, 3x optical zoom
Original_Sybil =
PanamaCreel = Nikon D300
PeeperKeeper = Olympus SP550UZ
pelletory = Canon 400D: w/ a Sigma 50-500mm lens.
Resin = Fuji FinePix E550
rntx22 = Nikon D200
SadieMae = Kodak DX7590 Zoom
Shan71 = Kodak Z712 IS
Shelia_FW = Nikon D50
Tabasco = Canon PowerShot S30
tigerlily = Canon EOS 30D
wallaby1 = Nikon D40X


This message was edited Dec 30, 2008 9:04 AM

Resin = Fuji FinePix E550

Almost all of my bird pics digiscoped through a Kowa 'scope.

Wish I could afford something better, like a decent digital SLR with image stabilisation!

Mrs_Ed extracted the EXIF from an old photograph that I posted here to arrive at the conclusion that I'm using an "Olympus C700UZ" which was a 2.1 megapixel 10x optical 2.7x digital enhancement camera. In fact I *was* doing so until a couple of years ago. Then I moved up to a 5.1 megapixel 12x optical 3.3x digital enhancement Kodak P850 for very much better results and then in August 2006 to a 7.1 megapixel 12x optical 5x digital enhancement Kodak P712.

As for having "to have it on a tripod for one, if I'm using" the digital enhancement feature, Image Stabilization on the hand held and hand holdable modern dig it all cameras has solved much of the problem that she's talking about. Under real world field conditions, tripods are just another time wasting awkward bulky heavy distraction from the point of the exercise which is "get the picture first" and then worry about it. That is to emphasize that if you waste your time setting up a tripod you wind up not getting the picture at all under many real world field conditions.

woe Bg, you are upgrading cameras fast!

Mrs. Ed, you are so organized !! That list is a great idea! I need you to come to my house and help me get organized. That is a skill I totally lack.

haha. You know, I only do things like this because I get confused easily. I hate trying to remember what thread so and so said what about their camera. Like 2ndCousin Dave I know has a MarkII something or other. But I can't remember.

I think this is a skill that I got from being a desktop publisher for training. It's all about BULLETS, LOL.

You don't wanna see MY House!!! Oy.




This message was edited Mar 24, 2008 12:21 PM

Ah yes, Mrs_Ed, upgrading cameras fast but with more than TEN THOUSAND photos recorded on each camera between upgrades :). There were technical problems with the battery life on the Olympus which were its biggest drawback. If I hadn't been charging the batteries quite immediately prior to going out to record photos, they were quite dead, unable to record anything for me within two days at the most, often within 24 hours of last chargeup. I also wanted more to work with in Photoshop than the 2.1 megapixels that it was able to record for me.

My Kodak cameras solved the battery problem with a different kind of rechargeable battery that can go *weeks* without losing its juice. I also got about 20% more optical zoom and a bunch more digital enhancement by going to the Kodak cameras. It was in fact the more than 10,000 photos already recorded on the P850 that had worn some aspects of it to the point that I was fearing it might die on me in the midst of a several day trip and I wanted absolutely for sure to be able to continue recording photos while travelling. So I bought the P712 and now use the P850 mostly as backup assurance that somebody is always going to be available to record what I want to record. Nearing 10,000 photos recorded on the P712 but haven't yet seen anything with more optical zoom *and* adequate digital enhancement capabilities so am likely to continue with my existing main camera and its backup until I do see "something better".

As listed, I do have a Nikon D40X. It is a great camera to use, but I have had a problem which the guarantee covers. I sent the camera for repair, it was one of the focus points blew but only in the 'Advanced' programmes, I could use all focus points in the Digi-vario prorammes which are the auto ones.

I use the Advanced programmes most, in these I can up the EV for dull days and we have plenty of those. There is also a 'flash compensation' you can +/- the same as EV which compensates for not being able to use the auto flash in these programmes. These settings make up to a point for not having a lower aperture number lens, which are very expensive. If we could all have good light wouldn't it be great, lol! When comparing photos, look to see where people live and if the sky is blue. Northerly places usually have less good light even if it is blue.

The weight of this camera is much less than most, camera with 55-200 mm lens is under 800gm, and with a strap around the neck and camera at waist length it is very easy to support with both hands or leave hung. I have damaged nerves on my shoulders (road accident), and have difficulty holding a compact in my hand, this camera causes no problems even on my neck which is not the best either, the strap is broad and rests in a comfortable place. So a compact isn't always the answer to problems.

The two lens on offer with the D40X was on offer too when I got mine, but after researching I realised I would need a lens with VR (vibration reduction) for hand held shooting. I opted instead for the basic kit lens (which I never use as it hasn't got VR and hasn't the scope for bird pics) and got the 55-200mm VR lens separately from another seller, it is reasonably priced. I never use a tripod, it just isn't practical, I take my camera out with me around my neck when I do my garden rounds each day, even when I water my pots, just in case. It is a daily ritual, and I try to get bird pics on my way as well as other pics.

The 10.2MP does give a huge scope for cropping, and a DSLR will give better results than most compacts with a large zoom, although some are quite good. Another factor with the D40X is the sensor is a little smaller than the full sized DSLR cameras, giving a narrower field of view. This has the effect of increasing the lens zoom by 50%, so in effect a 200mm zoom is equivalent to 300mm but only on this camera. It is adequate for me in most situations, but a 300mm lens giving 450mm would be good sometimes. The drawback with the longer zoom lens is for one the extra weight it will add to your camera. The other drawback is the minimum shooting distance goes from 3 feet as with the 55-200mm lens to 5 feet for the 70-300mm lens. If you were only taking long distance shots this would be fine, but I take a vairety of shots when I'm out with my camera so the 55-200 is a good compromise. I can even take quite good macros from 3 feet of small insects, the viewfinder is surprisingly easy to use and magnifies the subject well.

All in all a great camera for the price, limited with lens compatibilty though, but unless you can afford to pay a lot for good lens it doens't matter anyway. You should check out the lens which this camera can take, then decide if it is for you, the Nikon website will give the details. I know I felt disappointed when I realised I couldn't add all sorts of magnifiers etc, but not many cameras will give all benefits we think we want and we have to be realistic about what we will really be using it for. One thing it is limited in is the focus points, there are 3 in a line across the centre. When trying to take pics of stars I felt I could have used more focus points, and if wanting to attach to a telescope I would need the Nikon D80. If you can afford that then go for it instead. Mine was bought as a gift, and I don't feel rich enough to go the extra with all the lens etc, but how I would love to upgrade!

Reading the last post, I should mention battery life. This one lasts for many shoots without charging, it goes down in 3 blocks and I usually charge once it's lost one but if using a flash it goes down more quickly. The battery is also used to download pics and I was worried about this as my Sony compact used the power source and charged at the same time. I need not have worried, the pics download so quickly and don't drain the battery at all. The Picture Project which you download to is also very good, once you have fixed the pics they can be exported to My Pictures from the File tab. You can also import any pics to the programme the same way. It has many features which negates the need for any other photo programme, and the quality of the pics start out good quality so you need to do little to them anyway most of the time. I used to have to delete many pics (with the compact) and pick the best, now most of them come out well and I end up deleting many just because I don't need many of the same, but there is usually still a few that are better than the rest.


This message was edited Mar 27, 2008 7:04 PM

I opened this thread b/c I was interested in what kind of camera I should get if I ever have any money. I was so surprised, Mrs. Ed that you knew what kind of camera I have when I didn't even know! You were absolutely right of course.

The zoom might be good if I had a tripod, but I can't hold my hands steady. The battery life was good until I left it out in the rain twice. In fact, once, I left it on the patio floor which flooded, so it was standing in at least an inch of water. I'm amazed it still works, but it goes through batteries fast now.

Can't wait for the day when I can get a better one! I must say though that you birders are just as techy as those photo people -- way over my head!

Well Elphaba, that is because I'm a sneaky sneak!!! No, wait, a psychic. No wait, a geek wannabe.

Actually, the way I discovered this information is by looking at the EXIF data.

Here's a bit of info to help you understand EXIF.
http://www.digicamhelp.com/learn/glossary/exif.php

I'm not entirely sure what programs allow you to see EXIF data, because I have a full version of Photoshop so don't need anything else. But I know that some hosting sites will tell you the data. And in general, the operating systems should allow it too (Mac=get info, windows xp = right click).

I'm not sure all of us birders were techy to begin with. I think the love of the birds drove us to get better cameras!!!!! And then you know, it's a bit contagious!!!

All I can say is make a list of things you want in a camera. For me it was nearly all outdoor stuff. Nature, wildlife, etc. And then do lots and lots of reading about it, all the while keeping in mind what your needs are.

A point and shoot camera is right for some people and a digital SLR is right for others. I've used both. The key is making the most out of what you have and if YOU are satisfied with the results, nothing else matters. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

I use a Nikon D70 with a Sigma 50-500mm attached for most field photography. I also have a Nikon D200 with a Nikkor 500mm prime lens attached for those occasions that allow me to set up a tripod. I don't consider myself a professional despite having expensive equipment. I just strive for quality and perfection which I believe can only be achieved with equipment similar to that used by professional photographers. Perfection often comes at a high cost. I'm not there, may never get there but it is a goal for me to work toward.

Everyone thinks that their camera is the best. I own Nikon equipment but if I could start over with the same amount of money I have already spent, I probably would go the Canon route. Canon has a broader selection of lens and is less expensive overall, without any loss in quality. Other manufacturers likewise make comparable equipment. Nikon and Canon just spend more marketing dollars to promote their products and they have done a superb job in doing so.

There are also so many other factors that come into play beside the camera and lens. The more time you spend outside, in the field, the greater your chances to capture that special moment. When I am walking, I am always conscious of where the sun is. I move in a direction that gives me an advantage. If I find a good site, I determine what time of day is best for that site, early morning or late afternoon. The camera and lens are just accessories to you. Learn to make the most out of your opportunities. And, learn to create those opportunities.

Gardenpom = Olympus Evolt 500 SLR with 70-300mm lens.

Linthicum - all good tips. I love the Coolpix, except for the responsiveness. And I read about that before I bought it - just didn't know how much it would impact me. When you're photographing animals (domestic or wild), you need to be able to be spontaneous.

Mrs_Ed - thanks so much for the list and all the help. I'm sure this thread will help lots of people for awhile to come.

Well, Mrs Ed, if you were trying to track me through exif, I may have added to your confusion since I have several cameras and I upgrade quite often. My current camera is the Canon 1D Mark III. But if I happen to post an image that was taken 6 months ago (before the Mark III was released), you will see I had the previous version, the Mark II N. And if the image was 2 or more years old, I then had the newest version that was out at that time, which was the Mark II, and before that the 1D (sometimes called the Mark I). As for my backup bodies, I have the 40D, the 5D and I still have a 20D. Actually, I also still have my old D30 body too. The main reason is since it is a 3 MP camera, the current value is very low. But it is hard to let it go for $400 when you paid $2,900 for it new. The same logic applies to the 20D.

I won't get into the lens discussion. I have too many.

Dave

Well Dave, I figured you'd give me all your information!!! I KNEW you were using a Mark II. Didn't know you were up to the III!

OUCH on the D30 Body.

Can you talk about lenses in General? Looks like you usually are at 400mm for the blue birds???? Or was that dellrose… hmmmm, I'm getting my EXIF confused.

What would you say that 400mm would equate to in a point and shoot. For instance. If I take a picture with my point and shoot and the digital zoom is almost all the way in use, then it is 63mm.

Mrs_Ed commented "I'm not sure all of us birders were techy to begin with. I think the love of the birds drove us to get better cameras!!!!! And then you know, it's a bit contagious!!!"

With me it was the other way around. I've been a photog for more than fifty years. As my cameras got better and faster and I got zoom (never had it until my first point and shoot dig it all, the Canon700 Ultra Zoom, about 7-8 years ago), I became able to record those distant, skittish, sometimes fast moving fine feathered friends. Never had been interested when bird watching was a matter of using binoculars to get a fleeting glimpse without recording. But for a person with adequate photo recording equipment, the cute little birds with their colorful feathers make wonderful subjects. Even started feeding them in appropriate environments after finding out how interesting they were. So, in my case, it was the availability of tech that made bird watching possible.

That's very nice BG!

Here's a couple of the guys, ravens who are ubiquitous out here in the High Desert, enjoying some of the certified 100% natural wild bird seed that I provided for them. As with some other kinds of birds, they rarely sit still long enough to get a clear image of them unless one is feeding them. Their coloring is such that mostly one gets "silhouette" pictures trying to photograph them at any distance at all.

My reason for the feeding is a combination of a growing liking for those life forms with a "trick" that another photog I met in a regional state park in Washoe County Nevada taught me with the Stellar's jays and squirrels and chipmunks there. Provided with some feed in a location that they feel safe in, they ignore side distractions such as a photog paying attention to them. Reason I emphasize "they feel safe" is that I have tried the trick in places that "looked" ultimately safe from my viewpoint (apparently hawks or other predators made it unsafe from their viewpoint) and had them ignore the food while a grotesquely *unsafe* location a mere 100 feet or so away (in the middle of the in/out driveways through the area) seemed to them a lovely place to have food provided ;).

Wow they are quite big. Nice pic!

Holy smokes. I would not want to come into contact with THOSE beaks!! Yikes.

Could someone explain in very basic terms, the use of filters? What do they do?

Here is a link to a website that will tell you everything you ever wanted to know about filters, and then some.

http://www.tiffen.com/camera_filters.htm

thanks!

Samsung Digimax L60, 6.0 mp, 3x optical zoom, mpeg 4

beautiful ravens bg.

Mrs Ed, I see that you have updated my information in your earlier post. Not to belabor this but I must point out that there are many differences between a D30 and a 30D.

Canon started its "prosumer" line in 2000 with the D30, which had 3 megapixels. When they upgraded to 6 MP, they called it the D60. Then, apparently to avoid confusion with Nikon, which was marketing its cameras using a similar naming system, they switched it around and released the 10D, then the 20D, then the 30D (and currently the 40D.) The 30D has 8 MP and is a very nice camera. My D30 sits alone in my camera case, a virtual antique.

Seven years is a long time in the digital camera world.

Dave



This message was edited Mar 26, 2008 9:00 AM

Sigh… my attention to detail is waning these days.

I don't know what I got wrong, so maybe you want me to just list the Mark II?

Sorry! I don't mean to be difficult. Here is the entry.with emphasis added

"2ndCousinDave= CURRENT:Canon 1D Mark III. ALSO: Canon 1D Mark II N PREVIOUS: Canon 1D, Canon 40D, Canon 5D, Canon 20D, and a 30D (think it's safe to say that Dave is a Canon Man!!)"

The last one you list is the Canon 30D. It should be the Canon D30.

Not a big thing. I am just being picky, I guess.

I currently own the Mark III, the 5D, the 40D, the 20D and the now antique D30 :-)

Dave


This message was edited Mar 26, 2008 11:19 AM

THANKS!!!

Dave, you have too many cameras. I can see why the DW is rolling her eyes. Would you like me to forward my address where you can get rid of those (haha).

:D
Marna

This thread is so incredibly helpful. Thank you all for taking the time to share with us newbies (and those of us who aren't newbies).

Kathy

Anything else we can do to confuse you, let us know!! LOL