Recommendation

[vlarep]

Hello guys. I come asking for advice. I'm a biology major and a avid hiker and well, I always wanted to take wildlife photographies. During my hikes I usually encounter many types of insects, snakes, birds and other animals and I would like to be able to take some nice pictures. It's impossible to take good pictures with a common digital camera such as a nikon coolpix, so I've been thinking to one that would suit my needs in a better way. My problem is that I've no idea about cameras, I'm not sure about what I need. I've been checking prices in amazon and they go from a couple hundreds to almost a thousand and I don't want to overspend or buy something cheap that wont be useful. So I come to you, which camera do you guys think would be the best? Is it a good idea to buy an used one?
I want to be able to take good pictures like this ones:
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/385189_2367490301296_892099920_n.jpg
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/s720x720/391830_2325681696107_617396656_n.jpg
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/418953_2809332067064_700216616_n.jpg

Thanks in advance.

 

[rfernando]

I'd recommend any entry level dslr camera from either Canon or Nikon. You can get a good deal on a camera body with a kit lens on Amazon. Those cameras are also light enough to take with you on your hiking trips.

The images that you gave as examples gives me the impression that you want to take close up pictures of whatever it is you see when you are hiking. I'd recommend getting a macro lens if your budget allows for it.

Hope that helps! Let us know what you get.

 

[LizardKing]

Budget? That's kind of important...
Now, I don't think you'll get many conclusions from this thread... you'll have to do the research yourself, because it's gonna be your camera and only you know what you want/need.

 

[vlarep]

I forgot to ask, how many MP should it have?

 

[sovietdoc]

Don't buy a camera based on how many megapixels it has. Higher megapixels don't mean better photos. Just like higher Gigahertz on your processor doesnt mean higher performance.

Wait a few days until Canon t4i comes out, then decide based on features it has vs compeditors (nikon d3200)

I don't know what your budget is but if you like taking photos of insects, wild animals and birds I'd recommend new 28-135 for everything plus f/2.8L 100mm IS USM macro ( nikon got similar stuff)

This easily puts you at $1500 or more. If this is way over your head, you can always settle down on lower quality stuff but obviously your photos will reflect that.

Keep in mind that cheap camera + expensive lens will give you a lot better results than expensive body and cheap glass.

 

[vlarep]

Yeah $1500 is waaay over my head haha. I was thinking about spending between 300 and 500, something like that.

 

[sovietdoc]

You may be able to take pictures like that with a decent point and shoot. Seems like DSLR with a macro lens is way out of your budget.

If you want quality, for the price and what you want to shoot I would recommend Panasonic Lumix. Those cameras take great macro shots for relatively "cheap"

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC...50SO/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1338934323&sr=8-5

Check out sample pictures people were able to take with this cam.

 

[vlarep]

Ok, the price is not bad. You think it's safe to buy it used?

 

[vlarep]

What about this one?
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerSh...ectronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1338948680&sr=1-1-spell
I asked a guy I know, he takes awesome pictures of his tarantulas. He said he usas that camera with a raynox 250 lense.

 

[StandingBear1983]

if you can push to 500$ the t3i with the kit lens will be a lot cheaper once the t4i comes out...same as now with the Nikon D3100 compared to the newer D3200. photography is an expensive hobby and you can't get much more then that with 500$...

I would get a DSLR (even not the newest model\second hand) then buying the newest P&S....still the DSLR will be miles ahead in everything from IQ to performance (due to the much bigger sensor and mechanics). again if you can get a DSLR with a kit lens 18-55 at 500$ go for it and you won't regret it...Personally I regret the fact that i waited so long until i finally bought a DSLR after so many years with a P&S. its simply night and day...

 

[LizardKing]

I agree... While some P&S such as that Lumix and the equivalents from Canon and Nikon can be really good cameras, I'd say it's better to go with a used DSLR with kit lens. Of course you won't have a 24x zoom or the macro capabilites... But you'll using a real camera, and not a 'point and shoot' kind-of-thing jaja...

Anyway, it's all just a matter of opinions, so you'll probably get different responses

 

[sovietdoc]

The ONLY reason I don't recommend a DSLR is because it requires some significant investments to do what you want to do out of the box. Yes, you can get a used or even a brand new DSLR for $500 on a good sale and although your pictures will be superb quality, you will need to invest more than the camera body is worth into glass.

DSLRs have bigger sensors than poit and shoot cameras and because of that their IQ is better, BUT with bigger sensor comes less zoom. A lot of people use cameras like Lumix for macro shots and unless you're looking at printing large format, on your computer you won't see much difference (that's until in 2013 we get 4k computer displays)

Just for amcro alone you'll be investing at least 700-800 bucks into a macro lens, which isn't very good for anything else but macro and occasional portrait shots. So if you want to take other photos, you'll be spending more money. Yes, the quality will be good but if you look at price per performance ratio for what you want to do, DSLR will just be overkill.

While with cams like Lumix yes, the quality isn't as good as DSLR with a macro lens BUT look at the sample shots. This ain't an Iphone either. It got full manual controls, pretty much every single feature as the dslr if not more, the only downside is you cant take the lens off. But you don't need to as it covers a huge zoom range allowing you to shoot everything from up close to far without having to carry 3 lenses with you, 1 for macro, 1 for landscapes and 1 for far distances.

I think for what you want, you don't need a DSLR.

 

[LizardKing]

There are cheaper options to shoot macro on a DSLR... You have extension tubes for about 180U$s (with contacts) and a couple more options. Don't have the link here, but I remember someone created a thread explaining the different options to do macro on a budget.

Anyway, I'm not saying that the Lumix is not a good choice. It is. But, if I were you, I'd go with a DSLR and try to get some cheap macro equipment.

 

[ulrichsd]

If I had $500 absolute maximum, not a penny more budget, this is what I'd get for what you are looking to do:
D3100 factory demo w/ 18-55mm kit lens - $420 this is Nikon's smallest, lightest camera (nice since your a hiker) and although the D3200 is out, this is only 2-3 years old and the factory demo price with lens at $420 is a great deal.

Then I'd add a close up lens filter set for your macro photography. You can see the sample images there for an idea what they can do. Its not going to be as good as a dedicated macro lens (which would run about $500 for an offbrand lens), but it will be a lot better than a point and shoot. (Some people will throw out the suggestion of extension tubes, but the cheap $10 ones can't change aperture with G lenses, and most of the AF-S lenses which the consumer DSLR bodies need for autofocusing are G lenses). The pictures you post aren't super macro, ultra-close up shots, so this setup would work absolutely fine for that.

If you can push your budget a little, there is a package for $580 that includes the 55-200 kit lens, a bag and a bunch of other stuff (a telephoto lens is nice for far away animals like deer, birds, etc). Or you could alway add this lens later or pick one up used.

Good luck,
Scott

 

[LizardKing]

Then I'd add a close up lens filter set for your macro photography. You can see the sample images there for an idea what they can do. Its not going to be as good as a dedicated macro lens (which would run about $500 for an offbrand lens), but it will be a lot better than a point and shoot. (Some people will throw out the suggestion of extension tubes, but the cheap $10 ones can't change aperture with G lenses, and most of the AF-S lenses which the consumer DSLR bodies need for autofocusing are G lenses). The pictures you post aren't super macro, ultra-close up shots, so this setup would work absolutely fine for that.

First time I hear about these close-up filters... would you mind explaining a little bit how they work and if there's IQ loss? I believe the OP could probably use an explanation, too... But, in my case, I've been wanting to get a little bit into macro photography, but for now a dedicated macro lens is out of the question and a proper set of Kenko extension tubes is also a little bit expensive these days for me, too. So, I could use an option like these close-up filters.