Hello all:

Need suggestions on a good digital camera. I want something that I can take very clear photos from a distance, which I imagine is more a function of lens type. Primarily I'd like to take close up photos of wildlife, notably birds on my feeders during the winter, and my current cameras don't have the ability to zoom in how I need. If anyone has good experience with a certain camera and has lens suggestions I would appreciate a nudge in the right direction. I have never purchased a quality camera before, so please don't assume I know anything in this arena.

Thanks in advance.

It depends...

You have to look at a lot of things, but a lot depends on how critical you are. Many superzooms fit the bill, but do you want to be able to shoot in low light? That isn't their forte. Do you want focus tracking for moving subjects like wildlife (Think DSLR), do you want to change lenses for specialized scenarios? Think Macro, astronomy, or attaching to a microscope.

A good place to look is www.dpreview.com

I have this camera, and I like it, but it struggles with lightning photography which I like.
http://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/slrs/panasonic_dmcgh3
It is an interchangeable lens system, small, fantastic video, etc. The 100-300mm lens plus body is 1/2 the size, 1/3 the weight of a low-end cannon dSLR plus zoom lens. There are better bodies available now with much better performance. Some pictures I have shared here were taken with this camera if not my Cell phone.

A good superzoom is this:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/compacts/panasonic_dmclz40 which is a do-anything camera, at the sacrifice of poor low-light performance and inability to isolate subjects with focus. These also tend not to be very rugged, and don't have any weather sealing. Typically considered disposable when they break.

That leads me to another question, do you want weather sealing? This limits your selection to either a rugged camera, or high-end interchangeable lens cameras.

More info needed, and we can help.

-Mark

Thanks Mark - I want to take long range photos primarily of wild birds at my feeders. I imagine I'll find other uses for it, but that's my interest at this time.

I've researched enough to nudge me towards DSLR cameras...but honestly, I don't even know what that means. I've also been convinced I need to look at the Nikon or Canon products.

What I'm hoping for is a good suggestion on a camera, then will need a good telephoto lens to accomplish what I want - and that's high resolution crisp photos at a distance max of 50-75'.

Weather sealing isn't all that important to me if it saves on cost.

Thanks in advance!

TJ, the big question is what are you looking to spend... I really got into photography when I took a week long class for my work and purchased a nice camera shortly after with the advice of some of our crime scene tech guys who take photos at our crime scenes. A couple of them own side photography businesses.

The problem with most people who buy a DSLR(Digital single-lens reflex) camera, is people spend a lot of money for a lot of features they will never use. DSLR cameras are not overly challenging to use with some basic knowledge. If you decide to go that route, give me a ring and I will walk you through the basics. There are MANY very good books out there as well.

For around $1000, you can have a very good set up with a couple capable lenses and accessories to take most photos you would want.

For long range zooming in, don't forget to get a good tripod or window mount for the camera, plus even a remote shutter button. The more wobbly you are, the blurrier the pictures will be. (And I know you're wobbly from you shooting the rifle that weekend ;))

Just like racing or other things, the level of performance you see is related to the cubic dollars you spend, although I'm sure there are bargains out there.

I used to own SLR cameras, but I seek simplicity in all I do nowadays. Several years ago I bought a "bridge" camera, kind of a cross between a point & shoot and a digital SLR, but it gives very good quality pix, with a 20x optical zoom lens, wide angle lens and an image stabilizer. Mine is a Canon Powershot SX10IS (10MP) but the current iteration is the Canon Powershot SX20IS (12.1MP). Not too spendy at $499 here at Amazon;

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-SX...canon+powershot

I take all my pix with this or my IPhone.

One thing to consider as well, is a camera is only good if you take it with you. A large dSLR will tend to get left home on walks, hikes, etc especially with telephoto lenses as they are HUGE and heavy. A compact super-zoom with the same or greater reach can be <1/2 the size and much less weight, and still take great photos in good light.

I would take this into very high consideration and one of the most common posts I see on the micro 4/3 forums (small interchangeable lens system) is people, even pros, ditching their dSLR systems due to the difficulty of lugging that heavy equipment around.

It is also a common misconception to purchase Nikon/Canon only. Sure they have great market penetration, but in many ways they artificially limit the performance and features on the lower-end cameras to leave a market for the higher-priced units. I don't like how they roll with that.

Given what I know about you, I would say a high-end super-zoom would be a way to get your feet wet first, and learn as much as you can. If the camera cannot deal with what you are trying to do, later upgrade to a larger full-function camera. Give the super-zoom to the wife or kids. It is much more difficult to go the other way as it is quite an investment on bodies and zoom lenses worth their salt for wildlife.

For super-zooms, Panasonic and Sony have some of the best, with abundant useful features an are easy to navigate and use the interfaces.

For dSLR, look at Canon and Nikon. It is a religion to select one or the other. Sony makes extremely nice ones, but it is difficult to get service in the US.

For what I have, the micro 4/3. Panasonic bodies for beginners as the menu system is by far better than Olympus. Olympus has GREAT glass, and amazing Sony sensors that lately compare very well with dSLR sensors (if not passing some up!). Lenses from both Oly and Pana are interchangeable so there is a huge selection to choose from.

If I were able to spring on a new Camera, I would choose this one:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympus...mp;ref=mainmenu
As I already have lenses in this system. Otherwise if I tripped over a winning Lotto ticket, this one would be my first choice:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/olympus/slrs/oly_em1
Weather sealing a plus.

-Mark

TJ, CJB is right about setting a budget. It's very easy to start creeping up lens by lens. I've got an older Nikon SLR and I just can't find a reason to upgrade because of the cost.

The new Nikon 1 AW1 looks appealing, but I have no reason to buy one.

B&H is where I shop when I shop online.

B&H is definitely a top notch source. Their customer service is top notch. If you are even in NYC, stopping in their shop will blow you away if you are into cameras.

Scott is 100% correct, a good tripod for your camera is a must. Especially for distance and lower light photos. There are other options as well, but a tripod is the primary go to item.

I desire simplicity...I will likely never read the manual and will never use additional features. I want a camera that can zoom to a 4" Goldfinch on a thistle tube feeder 70' out. Simpler the better...just want clear and detailed photos.

I prefer light weight and mobility - not because I'll be walking a lot with it, just prefer those merits. I likely see this sitting by the sliding glass window on the kitchen counter looking out on my backyard so I can take shots of birds on the feeders or drinking on the birdbath. I will use my IPhone for all fishing photos like I currently do, but taking a few high quality shots of sunsets with this camera might be nice sometime, too.

So, simple and easy, lightweight and mobile and ability to take great photos from a distance - which I suppose is a function of the lens. So, I'll need lens suggestions too please.

Price - I'd like to stay below $1000 for a camera I'll only use a few times monthly on birds. Let me know your thoughts and thank you for the feedback thus far!

OK, a couple of more things, then I'm out of this before I buy something too.

I have an older Manfrotto tripod, and have been very happy with it. I think it was around $150 when I bought it.

TJ, cameras and lens are a very personal thing, and sometimes you just need to put your hands on them to get a feel for what you're getting. I might hit the local camera shops and get some recommendations from them also. Non chains may be more help, and prices pretty much have to be competitive to stay in business.

I shop at Competitive Camera in Dallas, and love going in there. They clean the sensor on my Nikon D80 for free, and that's a big plus when buying local. Building a rapport with a local camera shop ain't a bad option at all.

Teehjaeh57, with camera equipment there are a lot of different ways to get you what you want, but there are trade offs you will have to accept. A high end lens to shoot 4" birds at 70 feet, that is probably going to be heavier and more costly than you may be comfortable with. I would suggest an alternate idea of getting a little closer and using cover such as tent. The cost of a quality lens shooting at 20 feet is a lot less than 70 feet. And get a quality tripod, worth every penny.

I really like my Nikon D3100. Its a DSLR but is simple to use. Never read the manual but just used it a lot and found what works for me.

Just read pretty strong recommendation from a birder who loves his inexpensive Canon SX50. Zoom apparently is pretty amazing...looks entry level, not too complex. Any feedback on something like this?

Manfrotto makes some nice tripods!

Al, that tripod that I brought to Nebraska for the spotting scope came with the spotting scope when I bought it, I forget the brand. It is heavy, but stable. I bought a carbon fiber tripod for carrying around in the backpack. Both extend far enough to be used while standing. The metal one is a bit more stable, but I can add a bag of rocks to the center of the CF one and that brings the wobble down. I think the spotting scope weighs more than the CF tripod, and the metal tripod weighs more than the spotting scope.

TJ, if you are going to use the camera there at the house, put it on a tripod and leave it together by the door if the photos will be a spur of the moment thing. They do take some time to set up.

I'd be willing to bet I have at least a half dozen different tripods. From big to small 8" tall tabletop ones. I have a 35mm Cannon AE-1 in a bag with a buttload of lenses and filters, but since the pocket sized digital cameras hit the market, it's never seen the light of day. There's a lot to be said about portability. A friend who is "comfortable" is into photography. IIRC he has 3 cameras with him whenever he's on the farm, so instead of changing lenses, he just grabs a different camera. He loves the digital age. He said his problem is looking at all the pictures that he takes, and weeding out the worst ones. In the film age, he'd limit the number of picures he took and feels that he missed out on some great ones by doing that.

Chris, I have a Nikon D3100 also...and I love it. Like you, I just opened the box up, started using it, and have gotten to a comfortable level for what I do with it.

If you are up to it, and in sync with all the WIFI stuff, the next level up has that feature, allowing for streaming your pix to the computer without any effort. For me, taking the memory card out and sticking it in the computer isn't too much trouble, so the D3100 is great and the price is right for an entry-level DSLR.

Here is the way I get close up pictures without an exceptional camera. This picture was taken with 1.5 MP with a 12 power zoom Panasonic CMC FZ5 that cost under $200 six years ago. I just bought a cheap Canon PowerShot ELPH 130 IS 16.0 MP Digital Camera with 8x Optical Zoom for less then $100 that I think will take even better long range picture.

The picture of the ducks was taken from my kayak at such long range that all I could tell was that there was some kind of movement almost out of my sight. The top picture is at 12 power zoom. Then I zoomed in with an old PhotoShop 7 program given to me to the two ducks on the right. and came up with the much closer bottom picture. The new Cannon camera has only 8x zoom but with the far greater 16 MP resoulution I can get much more detail before I use PhotoShop for a final closeup. I use this cheap technic a lot.

I'll add my camera thoughts...

My wife and I are point and shoot only, no fancy f stop changes or using multiple scenes, no RAW shooting, no post picture photoshopping etc. We have young kids so we want INSTANT ON AND READY TO GO. We also want no lag when you push the button. This also is very important when shooting moving wildlife, fish, etc. Also when shooting multiple shots of a moving bird for example, it is nice to squeeze off photos as fast as you can push the button. Some cameras offer a 'burst' mode to shoot 30 shots in a second or so which can help as well.

WE need long zoom with good image stabilization to be able to catch action that is a little off in the distance. We didn't want exchangable lenses.

We were OK with a little bigger camera body size rather than the ones that slip into your pocket.

We have always had canon cameras but probably didn't tap a tenth of their real potential.

We had a SX1 which was great, but we wanted the new DIGIC processing power as they went from DIGIC 3 to 4 to 5. This gave better low light pictures and prevented the 'noise' in the pictures amongst other improvements. The SX1 was heavy due to needing 4 AA batteries.

About a year ago we traded up to the SX40HS. We love it. Better processing and low light pictures, awesome and SMOOTH HD video clips with stereo sound (stereo mics helps a lot!) We have a lithium battery pack that is small and takes lots of shots. For about $5 on ebay I can buy some extra battery packs and I never have to worry about running out of juice and carrying AA batteries with me. Zoom is awesome, performance is great.

If you need about everything you could want in a camera for both 'just turn it on and push the button' and later all the manual controls, this wouldn't be a bad place to start.

About $350 new yet, but I imagine on ebay lots of refurbished and used ones for less.

I recommend you get the optional AC adapter which goes into the battery compartment. This is nice if you have it on a tripod and are doing prolonged video recording or if you have it set up to capture birds on a feeder and want to keep it powered on all the time ready to go.

Lots of reviews here:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-Stabilized-2-7-Inch-Vari-Angle/dp/B005MTMFHU

They next camera up from this, the 50HS has better zoom but many reviews say it was a step back in terms of ease of use and some other unwanted changes. I have not tried the SX50HS as we don't feel we are lacking in any features.

One problem many with canon cameras still face is that the H.264 compression coded that they use to record the video requires SERIOUS graphics card horsepower to decode and play back on your computer. Most older computers, most laptops that have onboard graphics capability only (and not a stand alone graphics card or chip) have very jerky playback with audio not syncing with video. This makes it a pain to deal with the video clips when all you want to do is load them in your computer and watch them. Solutions range from buying expensive new computers, buying expensive software that attempts other ways to decode the video (professional video editing software), or to take every clip and downgrade it to lower quality video (say DVD quality) which your computer can play easily.

For a long time we couldn't play back our video clips and I didn't want to downgrade them all to DVD quality and then play them (double work) So eventually we got a computer with higher end graphics capability (we happened to get a new mac mini) and now they play back smooth as silk.

This is a down side but the downside comes out of the upside that the camera can pack so much data into those videos that the computers groan under the load of unpacking nearly 10MB/sec of data and displaying it on the screen on the fly with no delay or hiccups!

I don't know much about Nikon, panasonic, and other brands but I'm sure they have equally good cameras as well.

Thanks fellas, great feedback! I'm close to making the decision and appreciate your direction.

TJ - Whatever you buy come back and share some of the pictures with your new camera and some customer feedback.

Pulled the trigger on the Canon SX50 yesterday for $329. I will let you know my experiences...seemed a simple and affordable solution with 50X zoom which should more than serve the functions I need it to. Thank you all for the feedback and direction - as always, you guys taught me a lot and saved significant research time for me!

Congrats on your purchase, it is likely a good one for what you want to do! I was afraid you would go the dSLR route and find it cumbersome due to size, and expensive to get close to wildlife with a lens worth the camera body.
Lets see some samples!
I still need to get a zoom lens for mine more than 400mm, though I find I'm not all that keen on wildlife photography. I guess I would rather watch it first hand.

Cannon's can take good pictures. Wife uses a G15. Picture of Juvenal seahorse in macro mode.

Sorry, not a pond fish.

Thanks Mark for your feedback on the DSLR...I would not have been happy with a cumbersome camera with multiple lenses to manage...at least not at this stage of my budding photog interest.

TJ, I'm glad you found the camera you wanted. I hope it works out well for you. It sounds like a great camera.

Soon, it'll be time for software talk, so I'll throw the opening salvo out there.

Adobe Photoshop Elements is a pretty good package, and it's around $70. It does a lot of what Photoshop does, but is far easier to learn and manage. Also in the Adobe line is Lightroom. It does more batch style stuff, but it's a pretty cool program as well and does much more.

Another company that has some useful filters and other stuff is OnOne Software. They have a product called Perfect Resize that lets you enlarge pics to gallery wraps, wall pics etc., and the pics stay really sharp. It's the renamed version of Genuine Fractals, and if you've ever seen a city bus wrapped with an ad, that's the program they most likely used. Perfect Resize is around $50.

For software I would start with Picasa from Google. It is free, and easy to share photos on Google drive and Google plus. It is a great program, especially if you are not going to process RAW images.
I used it for a long time until I finally started developing RAW files, and then I move to Adobe Lightroom. I still use Picasa for the sharing part and parsing of whos who in photos.

Ugh, what does the software enable me to do? Crop and brighten and sharpen and things like that? Be gentle, please.

Picasa is an alternative to Photobucket and Flickr.

I concur on Picasa. I also use Paint Shop Pro for more sophisticated photo editing.

Yeah, pretty much. I've never used Picasa, but I know it's popular and the price is right. Free.

Dwight's going old school. PSP has been a solid photo editing program for years and years. I had forgotten Corel bought them from Jasc.

Now that I think about it, I agree with the other guys. Try a free program, and see if photo editing is even something you want to do. I've just used Adobe so long, I forget there's other stuff out there.

Another excellent free tool that most of us have already is Microsoft Office Picture Manager. It is quick and easy and I most often use it for cropping, resizing, rotating, brightness & contrast. That accounts for about 90% of my photo editing anymore.