# Recommendation for a Digital Camera?



## Jeffzhear (Dec 2, 2006)

I've seen some wonderful pictures of honeybees on this forum and was wondering what camera would be the "Best Bang for the Buck" for taking everyday pictures of honeybees? Today someone posted closeups of honeybees bringing in pollen; will a Kodak Easyshare camera take pictures like those?


----------



## newbee 101 (May 26, 2004)

That was me and that is the camera I use. : ) I have the z740, it is a couple years old. 10x optical zoom
Good camera for the money, but it is time for me to upgrade to an SLR.


----------



## Jesus_the_only_way (Mar 17, 2006)

I just ordered this one and should have it by Wednesday.

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/10495/norcent_dc1020/

Seems like a good deal and all the reviews were very good. I also found a promo code for another $15 off. So the total was only $139 including shipping from HSN.com . Good luck
Tom


----------



## flathead (Nov 1, 2006)

*How much bang do you want?*

I use a Nikon D-100. 6+ megapixels and the original "fine" setting on large is about 2.5 MB per pic. I bought a Microdrive(1 gig) so I can take about 300 shots on fine-large. On basic over 1200. It also takes a Compact Flash card.
Resolution is bang.

When choosing a camera some things that will make a difference later: 

Battery: They are expensive for the most part. I have an older Nikon 990 and it will take 4 AAs if you are off somewhere and the battery(s) go down. Most have special batteries. Digital cameras are power hungry. The Nikon batteries are the best and I have the same two I bought with the camera. 

Storage- I like to look for something that is easy to find and pick up anywhere. Compact Flash works for me but may be a little dated now. Being able to download straight from the camera is a plus.

Lenses: There are some good point and shoot cameras out there. We went with interchangable lenses. Single Lense Reflex (SLR) is where the bucks come in.

View finder- Our camera has a SLR finder. You are looking through the lense. The Nikon 990 has an electronic viewfinder and it hard to see in daylight.

Flash- A popup flash really helps with redeye. That is one reason we bought the D-100 and relagated the 990 to second fiddle.

There are several sites out there that review cameras. Look around and compare.
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

I had a couple of different digitals but recently bought a digital SLR. The problem for me with conventional digitals is that there is a short delay between what's happening in front of the camera and what you see in the viewfinder. When shooting pictures of moving objects, like bees, when you see the picture you want to take in the viewfinder, the event has often already passed.


----------



## Gregory and Susan Fariss (Aug 19, 2006)

flathead said:


> I use a Nikon D-100. 6+ megapixels and the original "fine" setting on large is about 2.5 MB per pic. I bought a Microdrive(1 gig) so I can take about 300 shots on fine-large. On basic over 1200. It also takes a Compact Flash card.
> Resolution is bang.


I like the Nikon D series too, Flathead. I have the D70. It does an exceptional job.

Susan


----------



## Lively Bee's (Dec 9, 2004)

I bought my father a easy share and it takes great photos but it does not have a great macro. but he loves it 

My wife and I shoot with a Nikon d200 with 3 different lens it takes wonderful shots but the set up is over 4000.


----------



## bluegrass (Aug 30, 2006)

Nikons are the best, but not for the buck.....easyshare is what has taken all the photos I have posted as well as the video which is a really great feature to have. Cost wise they are only 200.00 or so depending on where you get it. I have a nikon as wll, but that will run 400-600 on the cheap end depending on which model you get. Then you have to buy the lenses which can run just as high.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

I have a Sony Cybershot DSC-H1, it's a 5.2 megapixel camera with manual override on everything. I like it. Before this one I had an old junker someone gave me, I liked that too.

I think, for taking pictures of bees, it's not so important what you have for a camera, but how you use it. Bees are tough subjects- they're small, they're detailed, and they're moving. Focus is the trick as is lighting and shutter speed. Autofocus has it's problems and is only so good. Depth of field- or usually, the lack thereof- can be a real problem. 1/4 of an inch can make the difference between a good shot and an out of focus one.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

I've always had Nikon cameras...ever since I was a teenager. Caddied for my first Nikorrex F, at $5 a loop. Things were cheap then, huh. 

My N90S film camers has been usurped by my daughter, for her college photo classes. So...

I've been saving up the money I received for all my speaking engagements over the last two years...first savings account for me since I was a kid. Have my eye on a Nikon D-200. Amazing digital camera. 10.1 megapixels, and it accepts my collection of lenses and extension tubes. 

Now, I just have to justify buying it when I need so many other things, and amcontemplating a line of credit to run my business this year.

Probably oughta just do it, yes? Spending the $1600 on bills would be dumb. Wouldn't it?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Probably oughta just do it, yes? Spending the $1600 on bills would be dumb. Wouldn't it?

Infinitely.


----------



## bluegrass (Aug 30, 2006)

Michael Palmer said:


> My N90S film camers has been usurped by my daughter, for her college photo classes. So...


Real photogs use film, digitals are for Scientific records and weddings


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

>Real photogs use film, digitals are for Scientific records and weddings

Yes, I suppose that's so. But, with the price of film and developing, and the lag time in getting slides back...don't know for two weeks if what you shot will turn out as you intended...digital is attractive. I have read that 7 megapixel is film quality. The Nikon D-200 has 10.1, and so many features that it's hard to pass up.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> Real photogs use film, digitals are for Scientific records and weddings


I don't think that's really a true statement any more. It used to be and there's still a class of photographer for whom traditional film is the medium of choice, but digital cameras aren't just for weddings any more 

Film pictures are now routinely turned into digital images for post processing. A lot of professional photographers have decided to just skip the whole film step altogether. Artists still prefer traditional film. Almost everyone else has gone digital and with multi-megapixel cameras, it's gotten really hard to tell the difference. Most people can't.

The only real difference between a 5 megapixel camera and a 10 megapixel camera is the usable size of the resutling image, not the image quality per se. A 10 megapixel image might make a good 400 dpi printed picture of say, 8" x 10" format whereas a 5 megapixel image might only produce a 4" x 5" picture of similar resolution. It also matters whether you intend to print your pictures or if they'll primarily exist in digital form to be displayed on a computer. Given the normal constraints on image size and monitor resolution, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a picture taken with a 5 megapixel camera and the same picture taken with a 10 megapixel camera.

There is a similar correlation with film cameras and size of the negative. My father who I mentioned earlier used to be a news paper photographer and used a 4"x5" format camera. Back in the darkroom, they'd blow these negatives up from 4" x 5" to 4' x 5' on huge horizontally mounted enlargers and then make a 3" x 3" print of a tiny part of the image for publication in the paper. Try that with a 35 mm camera


----------



## Troutsqueezer (May 17, 2005)

There are a number of parameters one needs to take into acount when choosing a new camera. I'll focus on one or two here, no pun intended. 

Once you reach a certain pixel count, you can get a diminshing return on increasing the number of pixels but it does depend on what you intend to do with the photo once you've taken it. 

For computer screen viewing and home print outs, 4 megapixels will work fine but to me the size of the lens is the most important. A larger lens captures more light. If you compare two photos, one with a small lens at 8 megapixels to one with a large lens at 4 megapixels, the latter will give the better picture. 

Large pixel count cameras do give you an option to zoom and crop and not lose much resolution but if your camera has a macro button for close ups (and it will if you buy one with a larger lens), you probably won't need to zoom on your computer much.

my two cents.


----------



## Troutsqueezer (May 17, 2005)

>Real photogs use film, digitals are for Scientific records and weddings 

I know a number of professional photogs, including my brother. None of them use film anymore. The advantages of digital are too numerous to list including the fact that it is a good business decision, especially if your livelyhood depends on it.


----------

