camera

[dipper 0]

I'm getting ready to buy a new camera and wondered what tyers are useing for step by step photography.

[switch10 0]

My point and shoot Canon sd1000 works good enough for me (see the pictures in my blog). I know very little about photography, but I think anything with a macro setting should work fine...

[Crackaig 0]

There are so many out there its just a matter of how much you want to spend, how much quality you want and how into photography you want to get. If you are looking for a budget camera then I would take a small fly with me when I go to the shop. Get the assistant to focus the camera on it. If you are happy with what you see then it'll be fine. A camera with a fixed focus lens will not do the job. That rules out a lot of mobile (cell) phone cameras.

 

At the other end of the scale are what are called "Full Frame" cameras, with a sensor the same size as a frame of 35mm film (36x24mm). If I up grade again this will be the next step for me. However I will have to up grade my computer to handle the files. (The Nikon D800 produces single image files in the region of 100mb. That would cause my current computer to crash. Its slow enough with the 15mb files I get from my camera.)

 

Hans W. uses a compact camera for his fly photos. The model he uses is no longer in production but you may be able to find one second hand. I'll have to get in touch with him and find out what the model is. I'll get back to you on it.

Cheers,

C.

[flytire 0]

i use a pentax optio w30 but will be updating soon

 

you dont need a camera with a bazillion megapixels to photograph fishing flies

 

choose a camera with good macro capabilities

 

get some good photo editing software and learn how to use it. theres a lot of free software thats can be downloaded

 

get and use a tripod

 

learn how to focus the new camera. too many fly photos on tying forums are out of focus

 

lighting is very important

 

also think about a camera that takes 1080hd video. you may want to do tying videos later on

 

visit websites on macro photography and lighting.

 

just a few thoughts

[flysmallie 0]

learn how to focus the new camera. too many fly photos on tying forums are out of focus

 

 

This.

 

Like Crackaig, take a fly with you and take some test shots.

[kentuckytroutbum 0]

Dipper-

 

There is some great advice here. I would add that you should go to a "real" photography store, not a big box store. The people at real stores know what they are doing, know the capabilities and limitations of each camera, and will sell you what you need, not just their camera that is on sale this week.

 

Please continue to ask questions, and we will help you.

 

Bill

[Al Beatty 0]

hi dipper,

 

Gretchen & I use a Nikon D5100 of most of our magazine fly pix and an old Nikon D300 as our field macro/regular camera. Take care & ...

[Chase Creek 0]

All good advise. Especially about going to a real photo store instead of a big box store. The big stores are more likely to hire "summer help", rather than someone who knows what they are selling. (Same goes for fly fishing gear).

Don't be in a rush - look around and do some research - ask questions.

[Ben Cochran 0]

For shooting the tutorials, keep in mind that the smaller the sensor the deeper the Depth of Field (DOF) and shorter distance to Hypefocal. What this means: In respect to the same distance to a subject, the smaller the sensor size the greater amount of focus zone or area that is in focus. In the same respect, hyperfocal, the shorter the distance to the point where everything is in focus. The larger the sensor size, the shallower the DOF, which is more often used for artistic effect and may negate (dependent upon lens) that true value of a step by step tutorial. When using a larger sensor, extra expense for lighting and lenses must be budgeted, as constant lighting source needs to be replaced or commingled with strobe lighting or hotter lights, in order to increase the perceived DOF.

 

The best advice that I can offer is: Go for a P&S sized sensor and save yourself a LOT of bucks. IMHO the P&S sized sensor is, by far, the better choice for shooting these types of tutorial's. In addition, you will not have to spend a small fortune on additional lighting and postproduction software.

[kentuckytroutbum 0]

Ben-

 

I think you even lost me on the discussion on sensors! Are you talking about full frame or crop sensors? The choice of lens, and f-stop has a greater impact of the Hyperfocus "H" which is to say that the DOF will be from 1/2 of H all the way out to infinity. Some lenses have distance/f-stop scales to show you the DOF at that setting. For shooting macro, it really gets down to what is your minimum focusing distance.

 

I would still suggest that the images still be shot in RAW, and use Lightroom 4, DPP, NEX, or similar software to post process the images, and make any adjustments that are necessary.

 

Lighting is still very important to the image. Using an on-camera flash alone will render shadows on the image.

 

Some of the compact and P&S cameras that are on the market now are pretty impressive. I would not discount them yet. I do wish that the manufacturers would eliminate the delay between pressing the shutter, and the image capture.

 

Bill

[Peterjay 0]

I'm getting ready to buy a new camera and wondered what tyers are useing for step by step photography.

 

What Norm said about not needing a gazillion MP sensor to shoot fly photos is true in spades. What it boils down to is how much resolution do you really need? I've been making 14X21 and 16X20 exhibition-quality prints for years from images captured with a 12.8MP sensor, (Canon 5D) and my work speaks for itself. A decent P&S will work fine for fly pix - most of them have good macro capability - the trick is to learn how to use it. There are no shortcuts to developing decent skills - no camera ever made is going to turn a lousy photographer into a good one.

 

There's absolutely no need to shoot RAW if all you're going to be doing is posting pix online and making prints for yourself. JPEGs are plenty good enough for those purposes. The nitpickers are gonna say you lose data by editing JPEGs, (true) but it's not that much, and the average person is never gonna be able to see the difference. When you turn pro, there'll be plenty of time to concern yourself with stuff like data loss.

 

On the subject of camera stores: they've gone out of business in droves since the Digital Revolution. The last time I bought film, (2006) I found exactly ONE camera store in the entire state of Rhode Island and Southeastern Connecticut. If you're lucky enough to find one, it's worth paying a bit extra to talk to a knowledgeable person. If you can't find one nearby, there's plenty of info online - if you want to avoid all the technical mumbo-jumbo, check out the customer camera reviews at B&H Photovideo. The simpler you can keep it, the better.

[Ben Cochran 0]

Late Edit: I did not read the post above, from Peterjay, prior to my following posting. Just wanted to add that I agree with all that he had to offer.

Hey Bill,

I do apologize for the confusion, just don't want people to think that larger sensors are always the solution and are always considered an upgrade. One of the main ingredients, for a shoot, will also include sensor size; I consider it during the scouting and preproduction phase of every shoot. I don't want to make this more complicated than what the OP was looking for but the physics applied to the sensor size includes this primary formula named Circle of Confusion (CoC). The CoC is not the same between sensor sizes and within this the crop factor, as we have come to know it, can also be calculated. It is not just a choice of fstop and lenses.

As a proper comparison, lets keep the distance at a fixed 2’ to subject and adjust the lens to achieve a comparable field of view. Using Nikon lenses, the sample uses the closest comparable macro lens.

Nikon P300 P&S: 27mm - f9 - 2’ to subject DOF = 3.96” - CoC .005

* Nikon D300 DX: 60mm - f9 - 2’ to subject DOF = 1.32” - CoC .02

Nikon D4 FX: 105mm - f9 - 2’ to subject DOF = .6” - CoC .03

* DX format sensor Image will have to be cropped in postproduction due to wider field of view and limits on macro lens choice. Keeping everything equal, the cropped sensor body would require a 70mm macro, giving a DOF equal to 1 inch but Nikon does not make a 70mm macro lens.

The important caveat is considered in the fact that the P&S cameras, with macro abilities, are engineered to the camera minimizing the expansion character of short lenses. This is not the case with DSLR bodies and due to that, a crop or postproduction fix may be needed to negate any expansion effect from non flat macro elements.

Lighting is a given, trust me; I make my living from creative and proper lighting solutions. Hot lights, constant lighting, is not always the best solution, as the feather is greater than that of strobe; due to radiant spill. What I was stating and am still sharing, with the OP, is to understand that this type of shooting does not require a lot of expensive lighting scenarios but with larger DSLR sensor's, we use strobe lighting or increase our distance-to-subject to help increase the DOF.

Perhaps it is just me and perhaps I am now in the category of outdated but I was taught and had to practice the approach of: Get it right in camera. Trust me, there is no way that I could have made it as a commercial photographer and the agencies/clients would have kicked my butt out to the street, had I not been able to get their shoots correct in camera. Granted, I am not against postproduction software and as a matter of fact, I even serve as the admin for the NAPP forums. Even at this, get it correct in camera is just as important as it ever was but the trend seems to be relying on the postproduction software to create and save everything. Giving this nature, my question sits on the premise of: Why spend all of that money on expensive gear when the camera does little and everything is created in postproduction?

I understand the commercial demand for counting MP’s but I do not understand the recreational markets obsession with it. It is most important for media destination/print campaigns. If ones image reproduction is conditional and demands a lot of post cropping, I can see the need. If it is due to not getting it right in camera and not really knowing how to use their gear, WOW that sure is an expensive proposition. Truth of the matter, very few recreational shooters really need all of those MP and the fewer the MP’s the better low light/high ISO capabilities of the camera.

This gets me back to my main point, in regards to the OP request for best camera per requirements. You do not need to bust the bank to achieve high quality and very professional looking images. Additionally, you do not need to learn how to be a Graphic Designer or Art Director, by purchasing and learning expensive postproduction software. Learn your camera and learn a good inexpensive lighting solution, for in camera shooting. Again, I submit a good P&S, as my comparison illustrates that it is the far better choice, adequate balanced inexpensive lighting solution and save yourself a ton of money. Set up correctly, no one will be able to tell what kind of camera you used and that your shots are all out of camera.

[flysmallie 0]

Editing software should be for editing. Not morphing. I can't stand those over processed looks. And lots of these programs offer some great image management options and ease in uploading to photo sharing sites.

 

 

And please don't even get me started on megapixels. I don't think it's the users with the obsession, I think that comes from marketing. I've made some really nice 20x30 prints from my 12mp DSLR. A 25mp might have made a better print if you examined them side by side with a magnifying glass but most would never see the difference.

[kentuckytroutbum 0]

Ben-

 

I was afraid that the technical buzz words that we were throwing around was going to confuse Dipper to no end. I do enjoy a technical discussion on cameras, but Dipper was probably left scratching his head wondering what all this meant.

 

My eye doctor, also a camera buff, told me one time that the unassisted human eye can only discern about 12 to 14 MPs. Interesting!

 

You last paragraph above sums in all up, and I agree with you and the other posters whole heartily. Get a decent camera but don't get hung up on MP's and the other literature that the camera manuf. say that you have to have to take decent photos, and don't over invest in gear.

 

Bill

[kentuckytroutbum 0]

Peterjay-

 

+10 on B&H Photo, great prices, friendly advice, quality equipment, fast shipping, and no sales tax to Texas.

 

Bill