cameras

[flytire]

either my eyes are getting worse or my pentax optio w30 is on its way out

the quality of my fly photos just havent been what they used to be

i'm waiting for the fedex driver to deliver my new nikon coolpix s9900 camera. i hope this new camera will take better photos than the pentax. it has hd video capabilities.

so my question is for only those of you who take fly photos, what camera do you use?

how about a photo on your setup

thanks in advance

norm

 

[Ard]

Hi Norm,

Not familiar with what you have coming but the macro mode on most P&S cameras today will do for the casual shots we post to forums and such.

If I am going to try to take a really good picture I use a Nikon D-80 with a 50mm Sigma 1:1 Macro on it. I put that on a tripod and use an infra red remote to work the shutter. I use that because I can tighten down the aperture to f22 and slow the shutter to about 1/4 second. I use my fly tying lamp so I also set the white balance for Florissant lighting so the colors come through accurate.

Don't get them too good or you'll never see a picture you like. The fly below looks perfect when viewed by the naked eye. Under that macro every imperfection shows through.

 

[bruce m]

In for the info.
I too would like to know what you all are using to take the macro pics, I've been using my iphone and it's just not suited for the task.

 

[flytire]

yes the new camera has the macro setting that focuses to 3/8 inch but i rarely use it. i mostly use manual focus.

i also post process my photos using photofiltre software

 

[fishiowa]

My fishing camera is a Canon SX230HS, it has a strong zoom but the picture quality is just okay. Kind of hoping a drop it in the drink some time so I can justify getting a waterproof one

At home I have a Nikon 9700 which I think is the previous version of your new camera. To my non-professional eye I think the automatic macro function is great, turn off the flash hold it steady and great detail.

Here is the only sample I already had loaded:

 

[JoJer]

This was shot with the macro setting on my Coolpix 8700 on a tripod. I often take a dozen photos adjusting the lighting as I shoot, then edit on the computer. Sometimes the light from my (incandescent bulb) tying light is OK, sometimes a bounce with a piece of white cardboard (from the built-in flash) helps.

This camera is 6 or 8 years old and only 8 Megs.

If you look at the DIY tying thread, you can see more photos taken with the same setup. All of the shots of flies I've posted were also taken with this setup.

 

[planettrout]

flytire,

I have been using my Pentax WG-1 for most of my shots but will probably be using my Panasonic DMC-LX7 more often, in the future...



WG-1



DMC-LX7


PT/TB

 

[audax]

Almost every picture I've posted on various boards over the years has been taken on a 5.0MP Cybershot from 2003/4 or its 7.2MP Cybershot replacement from 2007. The latter, despite being a lower quality camera with ample use and a few knocks and bruises, still takes okay shots with some basic editing.

I received an LX7 last Christmas as a replacement (same as planettrout). Good little camera, but I've shamefully spent very little time with it. Here are a few shots.

The LX7 is also good for snapping pics of family members

I don't really have a set-up for fly pics. I can't remember when I used a tripod for fly photos, and I don't use special lighting or backgrounds. I'm sure doing so would improve the results, but I've just gotten used to what I do.

I suspect there are very few P&S cameras on the market, even budget models, that aren't capable of producing very good end results. I just looked at the specs on your new camera, flytire, and they look really good.

 

[JoJer]

Both of the cameras in the previous posts have hugely better depth than mine. There may be a way the do this with my CP 8700 ( the instruction book is half an inch thick) but I doubt I'll ever figure it out.
Nice work, guys!

 

[bruce m]

Anyone have the fujifilm P80.
It's a water proof point and shoot that has my interest because I could use it on the water also.
I'm sure it'll take the fish pics fine on the river but how is it in the macro mode.
It's a 16 mega pixel camera with wifi so it should be easy to upload pics from also.
Any experience with this one?

 

[flytire]

are you talking about the finepix xp80?

FinePix XP80 | Fujifilm Global

 

[bruce m]

Yes, that's the one.

I know next to nothing about photography, the last camera I bought was a Minolta 35mm camera that used film circa 1986

 

[audax]

Bruce,
The specs for the XP80 look more than adequate for great fly photos. It may not pull in as tight on tiny flies as some other cameras, but you have enough resolution to crop and still end up with a great image.

 

[j1973s]

Would recommend trying different cameras as suggested your posters. Lot's of good advice. My recommendation from someone who is cheap (prudent with my purchases) is to buy something that is not the latest model. Prices of cameras drop quite a lot as soon as the newer model comes out.
At present, I use a Nikon D90 or D300 for my in house pics. Usually a 28-80 lens or 55-200 (?). For pics outdoors at streamside I use a Sony DSC-W70 which can be picked up for $50 or sometimes less on EBay. I am hard on the outdoor cameras having dropped one which landed hard on a fly box and dunking another.

 

[bruce m]

Bruce,
The specs for the XP80 look more than adequate for great fly photos. It may not pull in as tight on tiny flies as some other cameras, but you have enough resolution to crop and still end up with a great image.

Thanks, I'm close to pulling the trigger on this one, I can get it with a mini tripod and spare battery for a decent price and it seems as though it'll be a decent out doors camera

 

[ptarmigan]

I purchased a Canon G16 a month or so ago. I know several folks that carry them all over from sheep hunting to fishing trips. It's not WP but seems fairly resistant. Picture quality is excellent and it has many features to play with for both the casual and experienced photographer. It's a bit pricier but like with anything, you get what you pay for in either quality or features or both. If it was WP it would be off the charts.