It's time for an upgrade seeing how my current one is 5 years old. It works well but doesn't take very good pictures of small spiders. Anyone have any recommendations? I'm interested in photographing mostly spiders I find around my house.
No worries.. The main difference is if you want a camera that is self contained or if you want to be able to change lenses. DSLR cameras usually end up costing more money because good lenses can cost quite a bit. It all depends on what you want. Your budget should be able to find you something more than adequate for what you want to do.
www.dpreview.com Is a great website and has extremely detailed reviews on many cameras of different styles. You might look around there to see what you would be comfortable with.
It is difficult to recommend a specific camera. You really should find a shop where you can compare them in hand. For example, Nikon and Canon make great cameras. However, I really don't like the user interface on the Canons. I wouldn't have known that if I didn't go look at them myself.
I've been doing fairly well with my Nikon Coolpix 8mgpx, which is a couple of years old. It has a macro, and a zoom. Digital cameras have come down in price to the point they are very affordable. You just have to contend with that slight delay in shutter speed. However, there is that rule of "when photographing children or animals, shoot 100 frames and hope one is usable...".
I've done MUCH better than that with my camera, but I also shoot tons of pix. Go to the online ordering of a local store (like Wal*mart or Best*buy or Tar*get, etc) see what they stock. Look up the specs online, and then look at any posted reviews. Then go to the actual store and look at the cameras. Tell the sales guys what you have in mind, that you are photographing small animals, and see what they say is their best seller, which they have the least returns on, and which they feel is best.
I'm in the same situation. I would like a camera to take some T shots with. I've been looking on ebay lately and they have some good deals on SLR digital cameras. Problem is I dont know if I would need the 300mm lens to get a good shot, or if the standard 55mm lens is good enough? I've looked around at pics on here too. Not sure why some "GREAT" pics don't say what kind of camera took them. On another note, I think Nikon and Canon SLR digital cameras are in the top slots for taking great pictures. Forgot which thread I saw this in, but it said something to the effect that any camera that is within a couple to a few years old, is a pretty suitable camera for what your wanting to do with it... hope that helps a little bit.
I would recommend the Canon Powershot S series. S3 to SX30 IS specifically. I use the S5 IS myself. The macro setting is powerful. Couple it with a cheap adapter (Lensmate) and macro lens (Raynox DCR-250) and you're going to be taking shots that can rival SLR results.
You could pick up the S5 IS for dirt cheap these days. I bought it new for $400 three years ago.
I am wondering the same thing... I REALLY want a Nikon D90 but they are soo dang expensive. I got the cash but don't really feel like spending half of my savings on just a camera. I sucks though, I have posted some pics and nobody seems to comment... lol, what is a nice Nikon for somewhere round the $600-$800 dollar range or is there one cheaper that would be awsome as well?
(Sorry for interrupting, just figured the answer may be helpful to you as well)
Im go to throw out a word of wisdom. If you are used to a point and shoot, and are even thinking about a DSLR then you better read....read some more, then guess what read A LOT more. Then once you feel like you read enough, determine what level of skill you have, and how much of an understanding you have of photography.
some people just have that gift. others...can have $10,000 dollars worth of camera equipment and will take worse pictures that you would with a point and shoot. A pro could take a point and shoot, and make it look like he did it with 10,000 dollars worth of equipment.
The key is not the camera(though it helps) its the photographer.
I think even I jumped ahead in the realm of DSLR cameras. I went from a fugi fine pix s 5000 to a Nikon D80....It was VERY overwhelming at first.
That being said. remember you want GLASS! you can buy a 5000 dollar camera, and get crappy glass, and take horrible pictures.
My suggestion is this.
Nikon- some of the best glass in the world, but you will pay for it. lenses are expensive. for a good macro lens, expect anywhere from 500 to 1200 dollars. the Bodies are cheaper than cannon, or others but they will get you with the glass in the long run
Great bodies. I personally like Nikon...if only I can afford a good macro lens..
Cannon- I love them. There lenses are pretty comparable to nikon. bodies are a little higher, but the lenses are alot cheaper. macro lenses start at around 400.
Also, IMHO has a better button layout.
I really wish I would have bought one instead of the D80.
to start, check out the cannon rebel line. moderatly priced bodies, which will leave you money for glass.
for nikon, check out the D40, D60, and D80. all reasonable priced.
also, read reviews!
Just take my word though, The jump from point and shoot, to SLR, Or DSLR can be frighting. so go to a local camera store and ask a TON of questions.
Alot of them do video. That is one of the main reasons I am about to upgrade from my Nikon D40 because it doesn't do video. Other than that and the fact that it is only 6 megapixels, it's a great camera though.
I got a Canon 450D (aka XSi) which is the last of Canon's Rebel (entry-level) series that doesn't have video.
If you want video (which I would recommend) and you want to get a Canon DSLR you should go with either the 500D (T1i) or 550D (T2i). If you're in the states, I would recommend waiting until Black Friday (Friday after thanksgiving) and getting the 550D (which has 1080p video function) for a lot cheaper than it normally goes for.
If not, then I would recommend the 450D as it is a great camera with the kit (18-55mm) lens, and I'm sure would be loads better with a macro lens. Here's an example of what a shot would look like at 55mm (max zoom) and about as close as you can get (12in/30cm) and still keep the spider in focus.
You can see that you'll have to crop the image quite a bit at 55mm, which is why having a 100mm or even 150/180mm macro lens would be useful. However, these lenses cost anywhere from $400 to $1000 dollars, which doesn't include the camera body which is about $600-700 (unless you get it on black friday). So it's really a matter of how much money you have/want to spend.
If you have the money for a DSLR and a macro lens, it is definitely a good investment and I'm sure it will bring you years of entertainment using it to photograph your collection. However, as Anubis pointed out, there are some point and shoot cameras that are nearly as capable (although they have much smaller sensors, so the images tend to be grainier) for a fraction of the cost.
I prefer using 35mm however if you have an older model like I do, they don't make lenses that fit anymore. I had to use macro filters instead of a lens and they gave a weird dark border on my frames. They're great if you want to develop your own film (provided you have access to a darkroom which I don't anymore ) or get cool effects by messing with the "settings". A DSLR is going to be more user friendly.