[hinnark]

Hi,

mainly a birder, I cannot carry that much extra gear around like SLR and macro lenses additional to the scope and binoculars. But I'm also very much interested in insects like butterflies and dragonflies and want to do some photos of these. Since insects are pretty shy I have to keep the distance long enough in order that the animals doesn't flee. I thought that a superzoom camera could do this job adequate well: to keep the distance and at the same time providing a magnification big enough for a full frame close-up. Are there any experiences with superzooms for insect photography and which camera could be recommended?

Thanks in advance,
Steve

[Chalky W]

Steve,

I can't answer your question regarding a super zoom but from experience in using a DSLR and a 150mm macro lens then the closer you get the better. I know most of my 'frame fillers' come from 6-8" distance with a macro lens. With regards to getting close then a bit of patience and a lot of swearing usually get you there in the end.

[njlarsen]

I have an old Pana superzoom that with full zoom is able to focus at about 1 meters distance and produce an image that covers an area about 10 cm across if I remember correctly. I expect newer superzooms will about match this (and of course, most of them can also take shots really close with less zoom and thereby get even more frame filling).

I recently have purchased a panasonic GH2 + 100-300 lens which is used for bird photos, but with a close focus of 1.5 m is is also able to cover an area around 8 cm across. Take a look at this photo of a locust for one example. At least with this setup, I have seen examples on DPReview of a guy using a closeup lens in front of the lens to get closer and get shots that are even more frame filling.

Niels

[hinnark]

Thank you Chalky and Niels for your encouraging comments. In the meantime I did some trials with close-ups in a photoshop. I did try the Canon SX30, Nikon P500 and Fuji HS20. The new Sony100HV wasn't yet available. From the three the Fuji managed to produce the best frame fillers with the largest reproduction scale. I hope I did everything right with the cameras. The Fuji does have a manual zoom lens and I noticed while trying several of them that there is some sample variation in "smoothness" when moving that lens. The Fuji does have a filter thread where I could put on my Raynox macro conversion lens. So at the moment I would say: advantage for the Fuji. This camera is unfortunately pretty bulky compared with the other two. Season for insect photography comes to an end now. So perhaps I'll wait until next spring and see which cameras are at the market then.

Steve

[Neil-T]

What lens are you using for birding? I have had some great results using a 300mm f/4 and a 500mm f/4 with extesion tubes, the only extra thing you have to carry are the extension tubes which are very light. You dont have to get too close either as insects such as dragonflies and butterflies are quite large. Neil.

[hinnark]

Neil,

when birding I almost always use my spotting scope and binoculars and so far a small digicam with adapter. I cannot carry additional dslr and lenses because of weight and bulk. So I'm looking for another solution to take photos and thought a super zoom could fit the bill.

Steve

[Baron Birder]

I use a Panasonic FZ50 with sucess and if I can get close enough a Raynox DCR 150 attached for macro. See below.

[tjsimonsen]

It may be considered old and outdated, but the Nikon Coolpix 4500 still does a fairly good job IMO:

http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/88691466
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/83677316
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/83995793
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/83986408
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/84704321

Thomas

[Baron Birder]

Originally Posted by tjsimonsen

It may be considered old and outdated, but the Nikon Coolpix 4500 still does a fairly good job IMO:

http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/88691466
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/83677316
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/83995793
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/83986408
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/84704321

Thomas

cracking pictures

[walwyn]

The pana and raynox seem to have been made for each other:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/overton...7600301903632/

[hinnark]

Walwyn,

these are excellent photos. How close do you have get to the object with your Pana/Raynox combo?

Thomas,

your photos with the old CP4500 are stunning. Perhaps the camera has the advantage of been built before the megapixel madness arose?

Steve

[tjsimonsen]

Originally Posted by hinnark

Thomas,

your photos with the old CP4500 are stunning. Perhaps the camera has the advantage of been built before the megapixel madness arose?

Steve

Thanks for the compliment.
Yes, I agree 100%. The quality of the 4mp sensor in the CP4500 is good enough for A4 size prints (I have several hanging on the walls - and I am pretty critical when it comes to print quality), and given that they have been cropped from 4:3 format to 3:2, they are not even 4mp anymore. Of course they don't stand close comparison with images from my EOS 40D and 100-400L (or 100/2.8 macro) combo, but still. I have sometimes wondered what a modern superzoom with a 4-5mp sensor based on today's sensor technology could actually achive. Personally, I think it would blow the sockes off today's 12-14mp superzooms.

Thomas

[hinnark]

Originally Posted by tjsimonsen

I have sometimes wondered what a modern superzoom with a 4-5mp sensor based on today's sensor technology could actually achive. Personally, I think it would blow the sockes off today's 12-14mp superzooms.
Thomas

This is exactly what I thought as well. I wonder if pixel-binning, like Panasonic and Fuji are offering, would lead to similar results in respect of image quality, if comparing e.g. a true 8 MP camera with a 16 MP one with binning at 8 MP.

Steve

[KenM]

Steve...a few images from my Sony HX 100V...If you can get good lighting, to the salient points of the subject (remembering that some of these images are 90% compressed) the results can be quite good.

cheers

[KenM]

Two more shots from my HX 100V....I think without a doubt the sharpest shots I've ever taken!...Shot 1 being the sharpest...but shot 2..revealing ''talons'' on a Hornet!..was previously unaware of this ''gripping extension''.....

cheers

[hinnark]

Hi Ken,

your results are quite good. How close do you have to go to the object to get close-ups like this? I'm asking because I don't want to get too close to avoid any disturbance for the insects.

Steve

[KenM]

Originally Posted by hinnark

Hi Ken,

your results are quite good. How close do you have to go to the object to get close-ups like this? I'm asking because I don't want to get too close to avoid any disturbance for the insects.

Steve

Very close!....if the insect is obliging....the Hornet probably 3-4cm. same for Large Wainscott.

The group of four perhaps 30cm?


cheers

[hinnark]

Ok, thanks. What have you done with that egg carton that it attracts moths?

[walwyn]

Originally Posted by hinnark

Walwyn,

these are excellent photos. How close do you have get to the object with your Pana/Raynox combo?


Steve

Thanks. I normally work between 4-8 inches from the subject. So long as you don't cast a shadow, or nudge them with the lens one can get quite close.

[Cuckoo-shrike]

Walwyn, can I ask which Raynox model you were using?

[walwyn]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo-shrike

Walwyn, can I ask which Raynox model you were using?

Mainly the DCR-250, but I have also got good results with the DCR-150. Until I dropped it down the side of a mountain. The DCR-150 is probably better for larger insects, and also for anyone that wants something a little more forgiving than the DCR-250.

[Cuckoo-shrike]

Thanks Walwyn.