A camera to photo moving target

AquaGirl

I've done a little light reading and found that it's not just all about the megapixels with bigger numbers automatically meaning better cameras but that's about as much as i learned.
I read that good DSLR cameras will give out great image quality but then i saw their prices.

Basically we keep fish as a hobby and like to photograph them. Only thing is that photographing them with a camera phone doesn't give out very good quality images. The 2 biggest problems we're facing is focusing on close up shots and obviously the fact that fish will rarely stay still. It happens but the moment you grab the camera they're often off. A lot of people in the groups i'm on tend to take bursts and pick the best shots.

So i'm really looking for a good camera suitable for this but get lost in the terminology. Something that will take good up close photos through the glass and something that can handle their movement and still produce a decent shot.I don't so much have a budget in mind but i don't really want to be touching £200 though i'm not sure how much i need to spend to achieve what i want.

onomatopoeia99

For a moving target a DSLR is what you need. Phone cameras are compromises, great for stuff that's still, but the delay between pressing the "shutter" and the photo being taken while they sort our light levels and focus means they are hopeless for action pictures.

There are also "bridge" cameras which look a bit like DSLRs but don't have interchangeable lenses and these tend to be cheaper but still work much more like a DSLR and less like a camera phone.

Le_Kirk

A DSLR will certainly give you the ability to make the adjustments/settings to help you. What you really need is plenty of light (to enable the smallest aperture possible) and a fast shutter speed.

Heedtheadvice

Certainly for moving targets, as posted above you need a camera with low shutter delay and a combination of good light and a sensitive camera. Large apertures help with the light but they produce a corresponding low depth of field making focussing on the object more difficult.
Small format sensors produce a bigger depth of field reducing the chances of the target being out of focus.
The big advantage of a DSLR is that they allow easy and quick focussing via a manual lens control ring. Even though they have in general a lower depth of field it can make it easier to get the subject in focus. There are now smaller format sensor DSLRs too.

Bridge cameras usually have a smaller sensor size so give a greater depth of field (not always an advantage when you desire an out of focus region!) but bridge cameras are more difficult to use on manual settings being a bit more fiddly. I have a Panasonic and like most cameras on auto settings a sheet of glass between camera and subject can play havoc with auto focus ruining shots. I have not found it easy to use manual focussing to fast moving objects with a lot of estimation required!

Burst shooting can be very beneficial but on mine this is compromised by a poorer resolution in that mode.
Great to carry and some terrific shots produced.
I am a fan of mine especially it's lightweight / portability quality of photograph, lens and zoom range....but realise its limitations too!

Provided you are happier with the poorer range of a zoom lens and higher weight of a DSLR I would suggest trying one out in a shop, trying out a bridge camera and deciding which you like best. If the DSLR, then there are good second hand ones available within your price range (body plus lens). Searching threads on MSE will give suggestions.

AquaGirl

If either of you get some spare time would you be able to link me to something suitable?
I'm interested in the fixed lease option you mentioned as I don't really want to shell out big money right now. In fact I can't but i'd still like to take good photos.
What about the point-&-click cameras? I know many are likely to be unsuitable but I'm thinking from a cost perspective when asking if any of these would be suitable.

Heedtheadvice

Did you mean fixed lens?

Point and shoot cameras usually only work on auto and can have the same focussing limitations as a bridge (most auto settings). There are some very good pocket sized cameras but most tend to have a longer shutter delay (shoot and the subjects gone or moved) so you need to find one with the minimum shutter delay and a manual focus option......again well worth trying out in a shop than buying unseen!

Debbie_Savard

TBH I'd say £200 isn't going to improve on a modern phone camera unless you go 2nd hand.

I use a Pentax Q with different lenses, which is a mirrorless system. These do come up on t'Bay in the £250ish range.

Mr_Toad

AquaGirl wrote: »

I've done a little light reading and found that it's not just all about the megapixels with bigger numbers automatically meaning better cameras but that's about as much as i learned.
I read that good DSLR cameras will give out great image quality but then i saw their prices.

Basically we keep fish as a hobby and like to photograph them. Only thing is that photographing them with a camera phone doesn't give out very good quality images. The 2 biggest problems we're facing is focusing on close up shots and obviously the fact that fish will rarely stay still. It happens but the moment you grab the camera they're often off. A lot of people in the groups i'm on tend to take bursts and pick the best shots.

So i'm really looking for a good camera suitable for this but get lost in the terminology. Something that will take good up close photos through the glass and something that can handle their movement and still produce a decent shot.I don't so much have a budget in mind but i don't really want to be touching £200 though i'm not sure how much i need to spend to achieve what i want.

The part I've highlighted in bold.

To do this reliably and get the quaity you want you will need a macro lens, these are designed specifically with close work in mind.

Heedtheadvice

From the which reports within your price range the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX60V scores well and includes manual functions a fair shutter delay at one third a second (not ideal!) -I do not know this camera personally.
All the other cameras at the better end of their reviews are either more expensive or have drawbacks for action shots that might be best avoided.
Of the bridge cameras listed only the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ72 would appear to be better but comes in at £218 but has a very impressive shutter delay figure.

I would hope you can get more input to your post from contributors with specific camera experience!

Heedtheadvice

Yes also as per toad! How close do you need to be?

Jackmydad

What do you use the photos for?
At what size do you use them?
What quality do you need?
Do you need "perfect" glossy magazine quality image with little or no "grain" or do you just need a reasonable recognisable image?
For instance, do you use them full screen on a high resolution monitor, or as smaller images in a blog or on a FB page?
Also how big are the fish? and how far away from them are you?

I'd go for a dslr of some kind. Second hand at your budget. As new as possible to allow higher ISO numbers "faster" digital film if you like allowing faster shutter speeds.

"Macro" can be done with a dedicated macro lens. (probably above your budget)
You can also use a"reversing ring" for a standard lens, which allows a normal lens to be put on the camera backwards, and it will then work as a macro, or "extension tubes" which again allow a "normal" lens to be used for macro.

Macro photography, as already said will need plenty of light, a small aperture (higher F number) and probably a higher ISO number.

If you can use flash with the fish you have (and there seems to be a lot of opinions about this), then to do the job properly, you'll need some sort of off camera flash (ie, not the built in one), and probably something to "soften" the light output.