FishProfiles.com Message Forums

...And since there are so many digital photographers on here, I figured it would be a good place to ask for advice. Now that I no longer have my FujiFilm FinePix A210, I want to get something bigger and better.

My main problem is that I plan on taking lots of photos of both fish and wild birds, and I'm having trouble finding a (reasonably-priced) camera that doesn't sacrifice the macro mode for a good zoom and vice versa. I've heard that overall, Canon is one of the best digital camera brands, so those have mainly been the ones I'm looking at. I don't know much about digital photography, but I am a fast learner and I want something a lot more advanced than my first digital camera (which wasn't horrible by any means, see samples of macro]http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/4707/picture466vf6.jpg[/link], [link=aquarium]http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/2276/picture219xp9.jpg[/link], and [link=landscape photos).

The first camera I was thinking of was the Canon PowerShot S5 IS, but I have withdrawn that nomination after trying it out in the stores and reading about it online. I've tried taking macro photos on it before, and I just can't get them to come out. Apparently the minimum focus range is 10cm, but even when I try to take photos at about 12-14cm they all come out slightly out of focus.

I've read about its troubles with the macro mode online, and although the 12x zoom is very attractive to me, there's no point in getting a digital camera that can't take photos of fish as well. Also, upon looking at reviews and sample images online, it appears that the image quality in general isn't all that great. Most of the images I have seen from it have noticeable purple fringing, which is irritating to me.

Another camera I was looking at was the Canon PowerShot SX100 IS. This model appears to have a better macro mode, though I've never tried it out in person to be sure. It has a 10x optical zoom, which is not as good as the above mentioned camera, but it should be adequate to take pictures of birds. It also has a slightly higher number of pixels (8.3 versus 8.0 million). Overall, it seems like it might be a slightly better camera than the S5 IS, but the fact that it is $100 cheaper makes me suspicious...

The third model I was looking at was the Canon PowerShot G9. This one only has a 6x optical zoom, but it has a significantly higher number of megapixels (12.1). I'm very impressed with the image quality of this camera, including that of macro photos, but I'm just not sure of the zoom power will be sufficient for photographing more distant subjects. There wouldn't be any way to attach some sort of fixture to the front of it to increase the zoom, would there? Not another lens, but like binoculars or something (I've done that with my old camera).

Does anyone have any ideas for a good intermediate-level digital camera? It doesn't have to be Canon, though I would prefer another reliable brand if not that (I've heard good things about Nikon and Panasonic). My main criteria that it has at least decent photo quality (8 megapixels or more), have a good macro focal range, preferably have a powerful optical zoom, and preferably be under $500.

Thanks for any help with this (and I'll keep sleuthing in the meantime).

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

First - the S5 IS and the SX100 - the difference is that the 10x zoom vs 12x. That will cause a price difference. Image quality though - the SX100 uses newer technology (like the digic3 chip) so image quality is better than the s5.

The G9 is the high end point and shoot - its pretty much one step below the canon digital rebel xt/xti DSLRs. You can get the XT for a little more than the G9, but then you have to buy accessory lenses.

As for accessory lenses for the G9 - the teleconverter (Tele Converter TC-DC58C) and there is a wide adapter too. You do lose image quality using these though. Now, the good thing about the G9 is that it can shoot in RAW mode. What's so good about that? Well, you have ultimate control over your images. Exposure, white balance, contrast etc can all be controlled WITHOUT image loss (like you would with a JPEG file). That will make up for the 6x zoom quite frankly.

Out of the three you had listed - I'd definitely go for the G9 because of the amount of control you have over your final image.

Thanks for the reply. I've been doing some more thinking today and talking with more people, and I'm probably going to go with the PowerShot G9. One step below DSLRs is probably what I'm looking for... I don't know the first thing about separate lenses and I would probably just find some way to scratch/break/lose them. I did want something that could shoot high-quality photos in an uncompressed format (either RAW or TIFF), however.

The 12 million pixels are pretty hard to resist... This image almost completely sold me on the camera last night.

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

Keep in mind a few extra MP's don't make a HUGE difference.

How the camera works for you is a very important issue. Some people like viewfinders, some people like having SLR controls, some people want something that fits in the pocket ect....

Ya it is sometimes hard to get both zoom and macro. I know adam has an extender that goes on his IS (not a separate lense). Try looking through B&H for gear that helps with zoom. And I'm sure you know to ignore digital zoom.

^_^

But, they do make a difference. And also remember that with the current batches of canon cameras with the newer processors (digic3) allows cleaner images from higher ISO images.

So really if you have a technically great image in terms of shutter speed and ISO, you could crop in and not see alot of issues with the image.

Our canon rep here in denver uses a G9 when he's out and about - doesn't have to worry about lugging about all the rest of his gear, and has shown us 11x14 images at 800 ISO from that G9 and they look beautiful.

ok so everyone should go out and spend hundreds of dollars on a new camera cause it's got a half MP increase and their old one should end up in the dump

What I was trying to explain is that if Natalie , or anyone likes a camera and feels comfortable using it and it meets their needs, they shouldn't bypass it for one that has 1 extra mp and likely costs more. That extra mp is not going to get them published in Natgeo, the money might be better spent on any number of extras that may make getting the image more likely. Tripod, faster media card, faster batteries, proper filter, flash ect.

^_^

I know adam has an extender that goes on his IS (not a separate lense).

He has an extension to make the zoom more powerful? How well does the camera perform for macro photos? I'll have to look through that site and see if they make something compatible with the G9.

And I'm sure you know to ignore digital zoom.

Yeah, I learned that years ago with my FujiFilm. Digital zoom seems to be one of the few things that can make an ugly bird even uglier (Turkey Vulture from about 35 feet with Canon PowerShot SD1000).

What I was trying to explain is that if Natalie , or anyone likes a camera and feels comfortable using it and it meets their needs, they shouldn't bypass it for one that has 1 extra mp and likely costs more.

That is true, though in this case, it's paying $100 for 50% more pixels (which is a lot). If there wasn't such a drastic difference in pixelage, then I would definitely go for the one that costs less.

the money might be better spent on any number of extras that may make getting the image more likely. Tripod, faster media card, faster batteries, proper filter, flash ect.

I'm definitely going to get a tripod when I get the new camera (whichever model I end up choosing), unless I can figure out some way to hook up the one I have for my digital camcorder to it. Are those things all standardized or does each model/brand require something different? Maybe I can just rig up some sort of adapter instead of buying a whole new tripod.

I don't really know anything about filters. Are those necessary/beneficial to point-and-shoot cameras?

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

posted the accesory adapter in my first post natalie. And tripods are pretty standard in terms of screws.

and we're talking a 4mp difference - not 1mp. What I am saying is that the extra megapixels (and the SLIGHTLY larger sensor of the G9) is going to help counteract the lack of zoom. Not by much, but will allow more detail in the image than what there would have been in the 8mp version.

Now, if you were comparing the 12mp G9 to the 8mp XTi, I'd go with the XTi because of the larger sensor.

I work in a camera store, and I've SEEN the differences between the G9 and the SX100 - much much better quality. 12x superzooms do suffer more for image quality because of the larger zoom over the smaller zoom.

There have been tests by various trade magazines where sometimes the smaller zoom image cropped in to what the larger zoom image originally produced shows better overall quality in the smaller zoom image.

It DOES help. I don't say it's the be all and end all, but I honestly think the quality that is produced from the G9 would benefit Natalie better than the larger zoom.

Larger zooms have more glass and more elements inside them crammed into a smaller space that allows more opportunities for light to start bouncing all over the place producing a lower quality image. Thats why if you get two zooms of the same brand (say the sigma EX series which is the pro line) like the 50-500 and the 70-200 the 70-200 will produce much better images over the 50-500 because it has less elements to cause light refraction and reflections.

As for accessories - the only things I'd recommend for the G9 if you were to go that route is a tripod (or even a gorillapod if you get into down and dirty areas),extra battery, decent brand memory card (sandisk ultra or extreme IV or the lexar professional series, and a better flash (like the 430EX - but thats $250). Batteries are proprietary NB-2 Batteries from canon, which last a looong time, and are rechargeable. Don't need to worry about anything else really. Sure, filter would be good, but you'd need the adapter just to fit filters on it. Its a PITA, but with RAW you can certainly help out in the exposure and contrast department. Yeah, they'd be good, but not the way the camera is designed, since if you wanted the accessory teleconverter, you'd need to choose between it or the filter. But, if you want to get into alot of macro work, I'd certainly look into the 500D or 250D filter.

Heh... I thought I made another post a few hours ago, but I guess I didn't.

Thanks for the additional information. I went to Circuit City and bought the camera for much cheaper than it is normally priced, and I've been playing around with it for a couple hours. These next couple of days are pretty much the only free time I'm going to have for quite a while, so that's why I got the camera now. I didn't get a tripod or the teleconverter, because I want to make absolutely sure I like the camera before I buy additional accessories. If I decide it's not the camera for me, well, that's what two-week guarantees are for.

So far I've been very impressed with it; the image quality is excellent. I've mainly been shooting smaller but higher-quality JPEGs. Here are some samples (I just cropped the images instead of resizing the entire thing, so the quality would not be affected):

ISO 80, 1/250 sec. shutter speed with the flash on (angry bettas don't like to sit still)

photo 1, 365kb

photo 2, 620kb

Tomorrow if it's not as stormy I'm going to see if I can get some good outdoor photos. For now I'm just mastering the basics and figuring out how to take good aquarium pictures.

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

Close-up of a grubby coin, same settings...

photo, 244kb

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

I have a Canon EOS 400D. I wanted the cheapest camera which could take interchangable lens.
My Canon macro lens EF 100mm USM cost as much as the camera did.

Holy crap... For that price it better take some outstanding photos (any samples?).

Here is some BBA:

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

Here is an amusing setting I discovered:

photo 1, 358kb

photo 2, 200kb

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

Here are some bird photos I took today. They came out pretty well for small JPEGs, so I'm anxious to get a new memory card and try shooting some RAW images. It's very dark and cloudy today, so I had to shoot with a higher ISO rating... I'm going to try out a few different parameters though and see what works best.

I used ISO 200 and 1/150 shutter speed for these pictures.

American Robins, 30 feet, 465kb

American Robin, 20 feet, 394kb

Ruby-Crowned Kinglet, 5 feet, 523kb

Ruby-Crowned Kinglet, 4 feet, 537kb

Ruby-Crowned Kinglet, 10 feet, 669kb

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

Anna's Hummingbird (backlit, unfortunately), ISO 80, 1/80 sec. shutter speed...

photo

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

Great shots Nat! Congrats on the new camera!
Brengun takes great pics! Just check out most any of her threads. She has lots of pics on this site.

Thanks. I've still been fiddling around with it and trying to get things right.

A lot of what I'm reading online about different settings (ISO, f/stop, shutter speed, etc.) seems contradictory, though, so I'm still pretty clueless. I'm probably just misunderstanding the text somehow.

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

I could only see the second Robin pic and the last Crowned Kinglet. Love the hummingbird!
Looks like you are having lots of fun with the new cam.

---

Before you criticize someone walk a mile in their shoes. That way you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

Yeah, I think ImageShack is mad at me for hosting so many large photos (even though they are well below the 1.5mb limit and there is no stated bandwidth limit). I'll try hosting them on another site:

American Robins, 30 feet, 465kb

Ruby-Crowned Kinglet, 5 feet, 523kb

Ruby-Crowned Kinglet, 4 feet, 537kb

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.