What kind of camera(s) do you all use?

[AlanB]

If you think of me as a Nikon version of Hap you'll not be far out. Though my macro lens died a few years ago and I've not been in a position to replace it yet. In the mean time I'm using extension tubes behind the lens.

Depth of field is usually good on the P&S cameras as they usually have quite short lenses. If you are worried about it get more light in there. This will shut the aperture down and increase DoF.

Take a look on ebay for an 18 - 55 Nikkor for your D40 That and a set of extension tubes shouldn't set you back much over $100, and produce great results.

Cheers,
A.

[JohnScott]

... and the Pentax Optio series specifically - they are both great cameras and both take great pix. I've seen pix taken with Pentax Optio cameras that make me drool.

BUT how well a camera suits you is as important as the quality of the images it can produce. In my case, the menus and features of the Olympus were the deciding factor. I first looked at the Pentax and found navigating it difficult. I picked up the Olympus and it just "worked" for me immediately.

As to macro for small flies with the Olympus - this one is a size 22 ...




... shot in natural light streamside with a TFO BVK built by BB member Apachetrout for background effect.

John

[dunfly]

Most modern digital cameras have a decent macro setting. The real trick is lighting. If you can get the lighting right without using the flash, most will take good pictures of flies at close range. You can always back off a few inches and the use the zoom to get the close shot.

I use a Panasonic Lumix TS20 waterproof camera and get good shots. It has a marco minimum focal length of 1.97". It is $119 at Amazon.com right now. I use a JANSJO LED light from IKEA that only costs $10. I use a flat black or flat white backdrop, depending on the fly color.

[Silver Creek]

I use a Panasonic Lumix DMC TS-2. This series of cameras has consistently outperformed other waterproof cameras because of it's German Leica lens. My belief is that the without good glass, you can't get good photos.

The Panasonic Lumix TS4 comes out on top in current (2013) reviews. It takes photos and 720 P HD video also:

http://waterproof-camera-review.toptenreviews.com/

http://gizmodo.com/5916329/the-best-...igital-cameras

Previous model the TS3 and the TS1 also came out on top in 2011 and 2009.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q311...ctgrouptest/12
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q311...mpactgrouptest


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q209waterproofgroup/17
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q209waterproofgroup/


Here is an underwater photo that my son took of his dog retrieving a ball thrown into his swimming pool. You can see the distorted reflection of my son with swimming goggles in the surface mirror. The detail in the original photo is crisp and even the small bubbles are clearly seen. Note the crisp printing on the front side of the ball.

[hap]

Sadly, many reviewers fail to understand basics when they sign on to do them... The Panasonic is a fail compared to a good point and shoot unless 100% of your shooting will be in great light. The f-stop range of the camera cramps its capabilities dramatically. Yet none of the reviews noted that fact. Kicking up the iso to compensate was their answer. That is great if you like noise. Noise to ISO is not usually linear.

For most people the Panasonic is a great choice and for web shooting it is just fine, but for anything serious it is not going to cut it. Suggesting it beats the Olympus when you do not even mention a critical detail is hardly a real comparison.

The first link gives a whole half-point in total score to the Panasonic because it has "live chat" with its customer service?!?!
art laughing

[Hans Weilenmann]

I would love to post my own photos, to get a critique on my work and pointers on how to improve my tying. The only camera I have that actually works right now is my Kodak Playsport. It's more for video than stills. Focal length is about 4 1/2', so any fly "in focus" is to small to see.
So, any pointers?

Allen,

For posting fly images, i.e. web use, different criteria apply from the more conventional snapping family scenes, landscapes, fish, etc.

The key deliverable is: excellent DoF (Depth of Field) as many flies are 'deep' objects, with the wound hackle and flaring wings

This is what I would look for in a camera for the purpose described:
- good glass
- small sensor, coupled with short focal length
- ability to save images in uncompressed form (tiff, or raw)
- manual white balance
- full manual - to set own shutter and aperture combination
- high F-number ability (minimum f8, but preferred >f8.x) in the camera's macro range
- user defined focus area
- closeup ability - think full frame on a #12 dry fly, or better

Of no real importance:
- high mega pixel (for the indicated use 3mp more than adequate)
- optical viewfinder
- water proof

Like Hap, and AlanB, I have a string of cameras, and high end lenses, but to this day I have not found a better tool for photographing fishing flies (and I do shoot many more of those than most for Flytier's Page) than the very dated, very humble Nikon CoolPix 995. It ticks all the relevant boxes.

This camera is long out of production, but is readily available on the used camera market (eBay, Craig's List, Kajiji, etc) for very little money. For those who would like to check it out, I recommend getting the optional AC adapter.

Not saying that there are not many other capable cameras for the job on the market - and a dozen or so I have pitted against the CP 995 in my own quest for the better mouse trap. I just have not found one I consider an upgrade, nor even a match.

Cheers,
Hans W

[branhap]

Hans, has some great points. I'd also like to add another consideration. Type of battery. The Pentax has a Lipo battery, which is nice most of the time, except for when it dies and you would like to throw some AA's in and can't. So I also recommend that you consider that. Nothing like being half way through a hike and having your battery die, and unable to replace the battery.

For high quality Macros I steal my wife's Canon Rebel xTI, and her macro lens.

Paul

[JohnScott]

Good point on the battery, Paul.

My Olympus 850 SW is doing fine with the original battery after four and a half years and somewhere around 10,000 pix. I do regularly charge it after only three or four outings to be on the safe side.

Hans does make a good argument for a "limited use" camera. But for an all around outdoors / fishing camera, it's hard to beat the waterproof, shockproof, and freeze proof cameras like the Olympus SW and Tough and the Pentax Optio cameras. I am curious about the Panasonic Lumix TS20 mentioned by dunfly. But I won't be looking until the Olympus stops doing what it has been doing.

My second camera is similar to yours - a Canon Rebel Xsi. But I don't have the macro lens, which is kind of pricey for that camera.

John

[Uncle Jesse]

I'd also like to add another consideration. Type of battery. The Pentax has a Lipo battery, which is nice most of the time, except for when it dies and you would like to throw some AA's in and can't. Paul

Can't you get a good camera that uses a common battery (AAA, AA, etc.,) put rechargeable lithium batteries and achieve about the same thing that the speciality batteries do.

A second question, I was at a consignment shop where they had an earlier version of the Elph camera, which I have been told does a great job. However, they did not have the charger and connections to download photos. Can those things easily be picked up? Where would you look for them?

[Byron haugh]

I use a Cannon T2i and a Tamron 60mm lens. I really like the camera. You can use aperture control and go down to f22.