Photocameras

Community and Forum → Insects photoshooting → Photocameras

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

15.02.2011 0:47, Melittia

up to 12 tr. you can buy a used Canon EOS 450D carcass. You will have to roll some more tugriks on the object-but if you don't chase the top quality, then you can find a macro lens for kenon in 4 - 5 tr. and I don't recommend starting with a soap dish. then throw it away is a pity

Friends, I have been photographing a lot for a long time. Unfortunately, my photos are mostly only seen by a small circle of friends. The ratings are mostly positive. He started at Zenit-E in 1975. I worked in Japan for a very long time. I knew the staff of all the main companies that produce photographic equipment - this was necessary for my work. I report "insider" information from manufacturers.
Canon and Nikon - devices for reportage shooting. You need quick snapshots to print in a newspaper or magazine. Quality is not important. The number of images is also not important. The price is high due to the fact that this is a camera for editorial offices, and it can afford a lot.
Olimpus is a more intelligent machine. It was supposed to be used more widely than the reporter's craft, with an emphasis on quality and durability. It didn't work out very well.
Minolta-cameras for use in science. art and other precision photography. Great attention is paid to the quality of lenses and the durability of the shutter! Unfortunately, they couldn't compete with consumer goods and had to sell their production first to Konika, and then Sony outbid everything. So far, Sony uses all Minolta developments.
I shoot: since 1990 Minolta, since 2005 Konika-Minolta, since 2010 Sony. So far, I am satisfied, which I advise you to do!

Likes: 3

15.02.2011 9:25, palvasru4ko

My experience with digital photography equipment is extremely modest, but it may be useful to someone. In May 2008, I bought a PANASONIC LUMIX DMC-FZ50. At first (the first summer) I shot with a "naked" camera, but I quickly realized that I couldn't shoot a more or less normal "macro". Therefore, in December 2008, I bought a lens for macro photography with an optical power of +5 diopters (Marumi DHG Achromat Macro-200 (+5)). It became noticeably more fun. I don't shoot in RAW. On my technique, it did not justify itself. The advantages and disadvantages of such a system (THIS camera + THIS lens) in my opinion are:

Peculiarities:
1. My copy tends to overexpose the image, so I almost always shoot with an adjustment (underexposure).
2. Power consumption. NATIVE NEW battery WITHOUT USING A W/C MONITOR can withstand 400-450 images. Now, after three seasons, it is enough for 100 – 150 shots. Capacity loss is approximately 100 frames per season. I shot the first two seasons with a single battery. Then I bought a second one. She's over a year old now. Enough for 300 – 350 frames. Whether I shoot a lot or a little is up to you. In just three years, more than 30,000 shots were shot. At the same time, there was not a single delay in the shutter release.

Advantages:
1. The ability to zoom allows you to be as still as possible while shooting. Generally, you don't need to move further/closer when moving an object. When the lens is screwed up, full manual zooming is possible, that is, the device focuses on the entire range of focal lengths.
2. Much cheaper than most options "DSLR" + "macro-optics" (If you do not consider the option of a used DSLR + threaded optics of the USSR + adapters and rings).

Disadvantages:
1. Without a lens in the "macro" mode, zooming is almost impossible, shooting is carried out exclusively in a wide-angle position.
2. Small matrix noticeably, although quite tolerable, makes noise already at ISO 200. At ISO 400, you can shoot fairly passable black-and-white shots, because color is already annoying. You can only raise the ISO higher in moments of desperation, when the fact of shooting is more important than quality.
3. Although the lens is called "achromatic", but manufacturers honestly write that the lens has better performance when compared with "non-achromats", that is, no one promises the absence of aberrations. And indeed – there are aberrations, the longer the focal length, the more noticeable they are. 4. Sharpness. The device shows good sharpness at small and medium (for this model) focal lengths, but at maximum values the sharpness is noticeably reduced.
5. Color reproduction is not always adequate. The images are not very high-contrast. I tried different modes, including manual white balance adjustment. In the end, I gave up on this and shoot in the white balance mode "auto", sometimes "cloudy". If anything - "photoshop". Although a lot depends on the specific instance of the camera.
6. With the lens screwed up closer than 15 cm to the object, the device does not focus. As well as from a distance of more than 50-60 cm. If you need to work at other distances from the object, the lens must be removed.

For example, there are several snapshots. I didn't change the dimensions, I didn't work on colors and sharpness (I didn't have time yet:-))) only I reduced the "mass" a little in Photoshop for quick loading.
So:
1. Pyrgus malvae. Crimea. A picture without a macro lens from a distance of about 10 cm from the subject to the lens. The aperture is fully open (f 2.8), shutter speed 1/160, ISO 100, equivalent to FR-35 mm. shooting with hands in cloudy weather:

2. Pyrgus malvae. Crimea. Macro lens shot from a distance from the subject to the lens of about 30-35 cm. Aperture 3.6, shutter speed 1/200, ISO 100, equivalent to FR-185 mm, shooting with hands in cloudy weather:

3. Caterpillars of Autographa gamma scoops hatching from eggs. Crimea. Take a picture with a macro lens from a distance of about 20 cm from the subject to the lens. Aperture 11, shutter speed 1/30, ISO 100, flash, equivalent FR-368 mm, shooting with hands in the room:

4. Newborn praying mantis Hierodula transcaucasica. Crimea. Take a picture with a macro lens from a distance of about 20 cm from the subject to the lens. Aperture 11, shutter speed 1/400, ISO 100, exposure correction (– 2/3 stops), equivalent FR-420 mm, hand-held shooting in sunny weather:

My conclusion: for a naturalist straitened by money and not concerned to fanaticism in the pursuit of sharpness and brightness of the picture-the camera is quite good. If your pictures will not be printed in A4 format, then the image quality is quite adequate for your money. If you want more, save up some money and buy a "DSLR" with a macrodiscrettor.

Likes: 3

15.02.2011 13:16, palvasru4ko

1. I don't know how much it costs now, but we bought it (in 2007) and last year a Nikon DSLR (a whale, not a carcass) for about the same money.

The model appeared in Ukraine in 2007 and was sold for $ 700. In 2008, I took it for $ 600. Now – 500-450 $. Plus a macro lens (for a diameter of 55 mm, about $60). Instead of a protective filter, you can buy a UV filter for about $ 6-8 (twice as cheap as a protective filter, but there is no difference). Add a memory card and a trunk – about $50. In total, we will get at the current cost of 600 plus / minus 20-30 $. Show me a DSLR (not used) WITH a MACRO LENS for that kind of money? "Carcass" with a whale-yes, but this is not the same..., although you can do a "shifter" through a reverse ring… In general, everyone decides for himself. It is well known that with a good set of "SLR camera + macro lens", no "compact" will compete with"DSLRs". In fact, if there was no financial issue, then there would be no dispute "compact" or "DSLR". There are plenty of ways to save money. There are many ways listed on photo sites (for example, articles by A. A. Benediktov). I've already squeezed everything I can out of my phone, but I'm not ready to switch from compact to DSLR yet. But I am convinced that if I accidentally break my phone, I will not buy a "compact" anymore...

15.02.2011 13:51, okoem

Show me a DSLR (not used) WITH a MACRO LENS for that kind of money? .....
In fact, if there was no financial issue, then there would be no dispute "compact" or "DSLR".

I once saw my Pentax + kit + flash drive for $ 67 on e-Bay. And it doesn't seem to be used... Sold without haggling, immediately. Probably because the model is outdated.
The DSLR has significant disadvantages - dimensions, weight, inconvenience of the viewfinder. A Pentax 100mm macro lens costs $ 650. A shirik for landscape photography costs about the same.
A simple compact soap dish costs a hundred pupaars, fits in a breast pocket, takes both macro and landscape shots. In terms of depth of field on macro, it bypasses any DSLR. Graininess and light sensitivity are worse, but then who takes photos for what purposes. If you want to post photos on the Internet, then the quality is more than enough, in my opinion.
IMHO, the main thing in photography is not the camera model, but so that the photographer's hands are not crooked.

Likes: 3

15.02.2011 19:41, palvasru4ko

I once saw my Pentax + kit + flash drive for $ 67 on e-Bay. And it doesn't seem to be used... Sold without haggling, immediately. Probably because the model is outdated.

For the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED lens on the website http://av.hotline.ua there are 7 offers for sale. One of the options is 3520 hryvnias ($440). Suspiciously cheap compared to other stores - 58,000, 57,592, 60,000 hryvnias (that is, more than $7,000). Click on the funny "cheap" price of 3520 hryvnia-go to http://www.fotosale.com.ua/product_N4898.htm and there is already a more real price - 60,400 hryvnia, that is, $7,500. Maybe a mistake, maybe a "decoy", although what's the point? Maybe something is wrong with this Pentax?

15.02.2011 19:57, okoem

For the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED lens on the website http://av.hotline.ua there are 7 offers for sale. One of the options is 3520 hryvnias ($440). Suspiciously cheap compared to other stores ..... Maybe something is wrong with this Pentax?

With e-Bay - I don't know, maybe something was wrong, but in general the auction is serious, and sanctions are provided for violators (rating downgrade, for example). And on all sorts of hotline, etc. what just won't be written. How many times have I already bought photographic equipment via the Internet - you can't trust the prices, you always need to call back and ask. In places where prices are low, as a rule, either the product is out of stock, or the price on the site is not so low.

15.02.2011 20:50, TEMPUS

Thank you all for your valuable advice.But I'm still a little confused.

As they say, as many people,so many opinions.

It is difficult for me as a beginner to search for the right camera model,without really knowing what criteria to search by (after all, I am still only a novice in photography

)

Oh, well.

I spent the evening looking for my camera. Taking into account your advice and my financial situation

, I looked at different models on different sites and selected a few that I liked.Only now I can't decide which one is the best in terms of its performance characteristics and price-quality ratio, and which one should be purchased in the end?

Below I will post links to these models of cameras,I would very much like to hear a comment from anyone who has used them or has at least some idea about them.

This will make it easier for me to make my choice.I will be glad of any information.

Here, in fact, these models of cameras:

People who shoot almost professionally, praised from compacts Canon PowerShot SX120 IS - "a good option is the functionality of a DSLR with compact dimensions."

Is this what we're talking about? http://rumart.ru/gadgets/photo/canon/power...CFUXwzAodFwscfg

up to 12 tr. you can buy a used Canon EOS 450D carcass.

Used Canon EOS 450D was hard to find.The durability is higher due to the fact that various additional equipment(macro rings,etc.) is sold together with the camera,and therefore the price is very high for 12, and even for 14 thousand rubles. Without this equipment, they refuse to sell.In a place with that, I was able to find the following:
http://pleer.ru/_29922_Canon_EOS_1000D_Body.html
http://pleer.ru/_31244_Canon_PowerShot_SX30_IS.html
I would like to hear your opinion on these models.

I shoot: since 1990 Minolta, since 2005 Konika-Minolta, since 2010 Sony. So far, I am satisfied, which I advise you to do!

I liked the following Sony cameras:http://www.ligafoto.ru/e-store/xml_catalog/1320/14664 , http://pleer.ru/_29717.html , http://pleer.ru/_28338.html and http://pleer.ru/_32829_Sony_Alpha_NEX_5_Body.html,но I would like to hear your opinion.

In May 2008, I bought a PANASONIC LUMIX DMC-FZ50.

Are we talking about this model? http://cifrovik.ru/xchange/photo_technics/cameras/21190/ I also liked this model: http://pleer.ru/_29138_Panasonic_DMC_FZ45_Lumix.html

This post was edited by TEMPUS - 02/15/2011 20: 59

15.02.2011 20:56, KingSnake

I spent two years shooting on a Panasonic FZ50. Reviews are only positive, I noticed very little negative behind it. I changed it to a Sony a330 because I broke my optics on one of the expeditions.

Regarding the choice of a camera, I can say the following. At the moment, you need to take a DSLR. Compacts and ultrazums are no longer the same, they were relevant 2-3 years ago (in terms of price/quality ratio). Now all manufacturers are chasing the number of mp forgetting about other characteristics. Buying a DSLR you will not be tied to one glass (lens), and you can choose what you need. For example, I have 3 of them: whale (18-70), macro (90) and TV (100 - 300). Of course, all these three lenses overlap the glass of some ultrazuma, the same Panasonic FZ50, but the quality will be the corresponding 1/3

Now about the company. I would advise you to take Sony. I can't say about other companies, for example olimpus or pentax, but the cost of glasses from canon and nicon is not lifting, even used. Sony prices are much lower, what is new, what is used,and the quality is not much worse.

All of the above is IMHO correct.

This post was edited by KingSnake - 02/15/2011 21: 04

Likes: 1

Likes: 3

Likes: 2

16.02.2011 20:47, TEMPUS

It seems to me that the simplest CD will work well for shooting insects from the collection - you install it on a tripod, set the lighting and shoot at a low iso. Is there any special meaning in a DSLR?

Shooting insects from the collection is of course the main goal,but I would like my (future) camera to also give at least some positive results in the field.

Here you need to decide whether to buy everything at once, or gradually, as needed (so to speak, to stretch the pleasure...). But you will still have to buy additional "gizmos"... OF COURSE, IF THE DEVICE IS ACTIVELY USED... Life will make you...

That's how I plan to buy it:I won't be able to buy both a camera and its equipment right away (since it doesn't fit into my budget), so I'll buy it in stages:First, I'll buy a camera (most likely still a mirror, although I haven't completely abandoned the compact as a possible option yet), then (in a month and a half)equipment for it.I already have a rough idea of what equipment you will need to buy later.

17.02.2011 1:21, Hierophis

After I rubbed my camera, the simplest Sapop A420 soap dish, I took and bought the Olympus 510UZ. And why I bought it, soap - on the awl...

Yes, in terms of image quality (noise is mostly less and detail is slightly better, but there are no special advantages) this is a little better, the A420 shot on ISO 50 with a little noise and a decent "plane" of the image, and the picture on ISO 400 turned into a cryptographic slide. On Olympus 510, on ISO 100, the image is taken with a closed lens and a shutter speed of 1sec. it gives several glowing points, and there is also ISO 50(I counted three points). On the ISO 4000 available there, you can take a page off in a gloomy library with shaking hands, and then even read it! The dynamic range is very poor, you can only shoot clouds illuminated by the sun through HDRi, the RAV available there simplifies this.

Manual focus is available, but it is not functional, it is not clear when it was focused, so you can only use it to set infinity, in other cases it is easier to move the camera itself. But even infinity in mine is somehow knocked down, soaps slightly =0

Zoom works fine, smooth zooming, good forkusirovka, at the maximum, of course, distortion is decent, and there are a few dark corners, but what to do

Zoom can be used in macro mode, which really improves the process of photographing all sorts of nervous beetles like horses(up to 5X at a distance of about 40 cm to the bug).
You can also get a real 15X zoom(without interpolation) by manually changing the working size of the matrix(while the resolution drops by 30%, I think, from nom. 7MP) Thanks to the tracking autofocus in 10X mode (nom. zoom), you can shoot a flying eagle, with a smaller bird it is more difficult, autofocus does not always find it ))) It's even worse in 15X mode, but you can still shoot the eagle.

There are two modes for macro shooting - macro and super-macro. In the latter, as I understand it, the working size of the object decreases, and the zoom increases(such as a macro ring), as a result, the working distance starts from 1 cm, the depth of field and detail are worse than on Canon. In normal mode, the macro is more or less normal. it works with 5 cm, but in general, when choosing a macro mode and without it, no difference is noticeable. At the same time, the most terrible thing is a constant daub past a specific blade of grass in the thick of the grass, with the point focus of essno, Canon did not have such garbage. In super Macro mode, the situation is corrected, but the mode itself is not very good(zoom is not available in it, by the way).

Serial shooting works fine only at a resolution of no more than 1200X760(up to 500 frames in my opinion, about 2.5 x in 1c), but it still slows down, shooting lightning in serial mode is almost unrealistic(in Canon it was 5 in 1c in mine). And at a nominal resolution, you can only make 15 frames in almost 1 minute. There is bracketing.

There are manual and semi-automatic modes, aperture from 2.5 to 8, shutter speed from infinity (you need to hold the button) to 1/1000. If the button is not held, then from 15 seconds.

In fully manual mode, without autofocus, it still freezes when shooting - it measures the exposure time, and this is not disabled... But you can hold down the button on the first click, then the snapshot is instant. It is necessary to implement this in electronic form, then it will be straight ka kzerkalka)))

All exposure metering(3) and focus modes are available. This includes"intelligent" (but faces are not recognized), multi-zone, permanent and tracking autofocus.

There is an interval shot, up to 99 images, an interval from 1min to 99. For shooting the growth of sprouts, and so on - what you need

The video recording is terrible, there is no sound at all, but there is such an option, you can risk it

It is not possible to take micrographs through a microscope. Absolutely impossible on a physical level. No options, just tear out the object. This is an objective device.

There is a thread inside the lens-macro nozzles and a zoom expander (up to 30X seems to be there), plus standard photo filters can be screwed on.

After two years of extreme exluatation, a speck of dust got on the matrix(on the IR filter), and this is despite the fact that I made a sealant on the object, and they write that it gets dirty quickly in general. After I disassembled it, it turned out that the IR filter is not protected in any way, in short, there are a lot of holes in the object, but this was not the case in Canon. Removing the matrix is easy, but still, it will be difficult without skills. Nothing like this on Canon in three years. I don't say anything about the front lens at all - a lot of dust gets clogged under it, so it's so easy to remove that it needs to be cleaned almost once a month.

4 2500 Ah batteries are enough for 700-800 images without flash on the working screen. There is a viewfinder, but it's electronic, you can't see anything in it at night, but it's good enough, it's not familiar to the eyes, but you can't look at it for hours. In addition, you can safely look at the sun at sunset.

Auto-illumination doesn't work at all, you need to use a flashlight to light it up.

Self-timer of 2 and 12 seconds, "one-time".

Here is such a miracle of technology. In general, I will buy 100% BU Canon A410 -420, sometimes I don't want to take a whole trunk with me for the sake of some Olympus, it doesn't fit into my pocket, and I don't want to take micrographs. In general, to carry a camera around the steppe around my neck is a rare piece of garbage, I used to walk freely, I need to take out a plant or someone else out of my pocket and shoot it.

Poro DSLR and say scary.
Zoom - object buy, macro buy, or rings=physical correction of the working area= small GRIP and detail. Being in some economic realities, it is better to walk on the steppe with a soap dish than to work on a DSLR)))

17.02.2011 17:55, gumenuk

Since 2002, I shoot only with different SONY models-starting with the 707, 717, 828, A-100, A-380 and now A-850.
Of the cheap ones, I really liked the 828-a rotary lens, a large screen, a good range of lens focal lengths, and the ability to macro from 2 cm.
But for macro photography, I used a Raynox attachment lens-150 or 250-it dresses quickly, does not reduce the aperture, when changing the focal length of the lens, you can get different magnification scales, does not reduce image quality, since it has a resolution of more than 300 lines per mm (which is more than the lens), costs about 2000 rubles.
A macro shot of these devices can be viewed here http://www.photosight.ru/users/58/

Pictures:

2011.02.04___DSC04067.jpg — (397.04к)

Likes: 2

09.03.2011 19:36, palvasru4ko

Infa for those who shoot "compact" or are going to buy a "compact". I used to shoot macro shots with a Marumi achromatic lens (+ 5 diopters). I decided to try shooting with a non-chromatic camera, but with a large magnification factor. I searched all over Simferopol, but I didn't find anything like this in photo stores (!), I found the right lens on the radio market. Here are my first impressions:
If you buy such a glass (Neachromat, X10), then only for "home" shooting without a microscope. In nature, there is nothing to do with it – the "working" distance is too small (a few centimeters). Although the five-diopter Marumi achromat is about 2 times more expensive, it is quite enough in the field in most cases (see post No. 45). In addition, a hand-held test shot of a coin with a diameter of 16 mm showed that the level of chromaticity and sharpness cause the most negative feelings. Perhaps, with adequate lighting and shooting from a tripod, something will change for the better, but so far my opinion is: you can shoot, but then it's better to translate to B/W or sepia and "sharpen". If the goal is not a photo exhibition, then it is quite passable:

Likes: 1

11.11.2011 21:18, Vorona

People, tell me the blonde girl...

In general, for once they seem to be threatening to give out money for equipment. My superiors gave me the task of looking for a camera for shooting with a trinocular microscope. With the words " well, would you like to see something like Kenon good cameras?"

I have little experience, and my superiors seem to have even less. I think you should look for a specific model that experienced people speak about with approval.
The previous purchase by the poke method (Canon PowerShot A630) is somehow not very pleasant to me. I'm not satisfied with the inability to focus manually in the first place. As a result, shooting turns into a roulette game (I don't like gambling

).
Well, the rest of the problems, I admit, from myopia or laziness. A tripod, for example, can still be used - you can adjust the aperture and lower the ISO.
AA batteries also somehow look strange in a device that is always used in close proximity to a 220 V outlet....
I don't know what the budget is. A few options would be nice...

Likes: 1