Cameras you have used to photograph your T's

I wasn't sure which forum this was appropriate for, so I threw it in here just to be safe. I'm planning on getting myself a new camera some time in the near future, so I figured I'd post here to get recommendations from those of you who photograph your T's.

Obviously a digital SLR camera is always a good choice, but I can't really afford anything -that- fancy. Right now I've got a Nikon Coolpix digital camera circa 2008, and I don't like it at all. Pictures are frequently either too bright or too dark. There never seems to be a happy medium. Also, if my hands shake even the slightest, I end up with a blurry picture.

So I guess what I mainly need is something that can handle a variety of light conditions, has a decent zoom feature, and I'm having a brain fart on what you call it, but I also definitely need that feature that compensates for shakey hands.

Thoughts? Recommendations? All are appreciated.

First question is what is your budget? You can get entry level DSLRs now for a pretty cheap that will suite your spider photography needs as well as other photography needs.

advan said:

First question is what is your budget? You can get entry level DSLRs now for a pretty cheap that will suite your spider photography needs as well as other photography needs.

Click to expand...

$200-$300, $350 tops. I did some searching for entry-level DSLR cameras. It's conceivable that I might be able to find one within my price range, you're right. Not necessarily new, but I imagine I can probably find a used one easily enough. I'll check out a couple of pawn shops too; I've seen a few around here with nice cameras on display, but I never stopped to check the price tags on any of them. Thanks for the suggestion!

If you spend some time researching and scouring Craigslist, you could probably find an older DSLR in that range. Most important, though, is to spend some time learning about photographic technique so you know what causes problems and how to fix them. For example, blurry photos are most likely due to too slow of a shutter speed. To get a faster shutter speed, you need a larger aperture (which will alter the depth of field and thus the picture), higher ISO (which could degrade image quality) or to add additional light (which requires additional equipment and how to properly use it). On the other hand, if the shutter speed is correct it could be out of focus due to either bad focusing or trying to focus closer than the lense is physically able to. At the end of the day, even great equipment will give terrible results if it is not used properly.

I have a Nikon Coolpix, one of the less expensive models, the L22. You can get pretty decent photos out of some of those low-end P&S's. Not high-end DSLR quality naturally,but with patience, I think you can get photos to be at least a bit proud of. I've never taken too many shots of my Rose-hair, I like shooting more in-situ photos of inverts (not of T's, they don't live here, unfortunately) but here is one taken with that little Nikon. Also, one of a grasshopper outdoors under natural lighting that I was pretty pleased with, plus a macro of a green-bottle fly.
I'll include a shot of a praying mantis from the Canon, which cost roughly 300 dollars more than the Nikon, which I think was around $79. I have taken better invert shots with that camera, the mantis was just the first I ran across. I don't like it as an example as well as I do the others from the cheap Nikon that I posted. I may have posted these pictures here elsewhere, by the way, I was too tired and lazy to look them up to see.

I upgraded to A CanonSX-40 "bridge camera" because I wanted some superzoom, and it takes very good pictures, but I'm just as happy with many I've taken with the Nikon. Neither of my cameras are as good as a decent-quality DSLR, of course, if for nothing else the lack of complete control. But that's why I went with a bridge camera, I wanted more flexibility than a bare-boned P&S,but didn't feel I needed a dedicated SLR rig. That said, I have seen some AMAZING photos on-line taken by the Canon by other owners. I'm just not that good.

If you get a good shot, you can compensate for a lack of zoom with some tight cropping. The pictures I'm posting are all examples of shots that I though were good enough to allow for some severe crops. It depends on a few things. The sharpness of the picture to begin with, of course, and the ISO of the exposure plays a role too. Too high and a tight crop can bring out the noise. Mind you, I'm far from a pro, I just play around.

Sorry, didn't mean to make your thread a gallery of my photos, I just wanted to illustrate that you can get decent pictures from a wide range of camera prices. Remember, if you like the first three pictures I posted here- all it took was patience, luck, and a 79 dollar point and shoot. I'm not trying to suggest a DSLR is not a better choice, nor am I recommending any particular model, I'm just saying that you can get results clear across the board. Given your stated budget, I'm pretty sure you'll want to bypass the low end P&S's. You MAY want to consider one of the bridge-camera's though. Depends on your goals, I guess.

PS-I'm not sure, but the word you may have been looking for is "auto-stabilization'

Holy beautiful bugs, Batman!

Tim, those pictures are all GORGEOUS! :clap: I would have thought for sure they all came from a DSLR camera if you hadn't told me otherwise. I've got the S220; you've definitely convinced me to give it another shot. (Pun totally intended. )

I'm going to fiddle around with it today and see if I can get some decent pics of my rosie. Thanks so much to everyone who has offered suggestions and insight - it's sincerely appreciated.

I can vouch for the quality of pics taken by Panasonic DMC-TZ7 - the follow-up models are seemingly the same way. Bit pricey, but great quality and I can't complain about the quality for a point-and-shoot came. Plus, they're using a LEICA DC Vario-ELMAR Lens 25mm wide (1:3.3 - 4.9 / 4.1 - 49.2 ASPH), 12x optical zoom, macro capabitilities are pretty good, too.

I have a Coolpix L840, They are $200-$300, it arrived today, it will be my -first- real camera lol. Sad thing is, I am two states below my house so I will have to wait to play with it. I will post some pics in this thread though when I start playing with it soon

I can vouch for a Kodak Brownie and a Polaroid!

Half the battle is focus and depth of field. I small aperture and a tripod with a remote.....OR any point and shoot set to manual focus on a tripod. You can take multiple photos and merge them at different focal lengths to achieve a pic where the whole subject is in focus in a macro shot. On top of this may people simply "over cook" the photo to introduce amazing color that is hardly able to be seen to the human eye in real life.

A tripod and remote shutter release make a world of difference for the macro bug world, then comes cooking the photo into amazing colors and contrast.

Biollantefan54 said:

I have a Coolpix L840, They are $200-$300, it arrived today, it will be my -first- real camera lol. Sad thing is, I am two states below my house so I will have to wait to play with it. I will post some pics in this thread though when I start playing with it soon

Click to expand...

Back some years ago I worked for Amazon over here and those Coolpix sold pretty well. Good quality from what I saw, too. Certainly one of the better point-and-shoot IMO.

Storm76 said:

Back some years ago I worked for Amazon over here and those Coolpix sold pretty well. Good quality from what I saw, too. Certainly one of the better point-and-shoot IMO.

Click to expand...

The wait is killing me, I go back home tomorrow or the next day! Can't wait to use it lol.

After a frustrating stint with a Canon A400, I bought a $400 P&S Canon S5 IS in 2007. Always wanted an SLR, but every time I consider it, I can't deal with the expense of the lenses. I bought a $50 Raynox DCR-250 macro lens and adapter and rig up ridiculous flash diffusers using paper or styrofoam plates. Limitations force you to get creative.

The major drawback is that it's mediocre at anything but macro shots. Landscape and people just look flat and terrible. Video is limited to 480p. For whatever reason, it's pretty great at macro though. Even without the macro lens attachment, its "super macro" setting allows it to focus on an object sitting on the lens directly. You can mess with aperture, shutter speed, ISO, exposure time, flash levels and a number of other settings which makes it feel like a pseudo-SLR.



It's given me a good run. Good, portable field camera that takes abuse well too. More here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11311418@N00/page1

All of that said, I'm sort of bored with it. There's only so much you can do with a single macro lens attachment.

I just took this with my Nikon Coolpix L840...I think it looks pretty good! Still getting the hang of it

Yeah...I like this camera