Maybe I was wrong?

[JBW]

Good Luck with your choice.

The good thing here is that I am not rushed. The S4200 does nice work and still has a lot to teach me.

[Manfred M]

Brian - something else to consider is the "design point" that manufacturers are looking at hitting with a specific piece of hardware.

Bridge cameras and point & shoot cameras are primarily aimed at the occasional shooter who is looking for a step up from your basic camera phone. Shutters, image stabilization mechanisms, autofocus motors, etc. will all be specified to provide a certain number of shot before the camera wears out. I probably average around 20,000 - 30,000 shots a year (although I was closer to 40,000 last year). I know that a pro level camera is going to last me in the 7 - 10 year period before it wears out; a prosumer camera is going to be designed for about half that many shutter actuations.

I'd be very surprised to see any superzoom with a design point of more than 20,000 - 40,000 actuations before it wears out.

One thing to consider is how heavy a user you are; a superzoom might be less money; but how often are you going to have to replace it?

[jcuknz]

Panasonic FZ's have had manual focusing and RAW for years and the later FZ70 has enough zoom for your purposes and is around US$250 .... though from what I have seen of your work I would think you are a prime candidate to look for MFT if Myra can see one at a good price, that is s/h of course, from somebody giving up a perfectly good camera for a few different bells and whistles along with a set of auto extension tubes. With the idea at a later stage you might find a longer legacy lens and appropriate adapter to work manually, no great hardship, bit like working in A mode with manual focusing.
Though for somebody restricted in movement ability [ comments you have made in the past ] the fully flexible LCD screen of your choice might be a better one than the FZ70 which is TFT, whatever that means, but looks fixed.
Just a few thoughts which do not muddy the water I hope.

[jcuknz]

I doubt if I have reached 12,000 shots today with about ten digital cameras. You must have a total for you activities ?
My ten year old Nikon bridge is working as well as when I bought it with most of that total taken by it ... I was younger and more enthused, more active back then in my 70's.
With regard to your wish for manual focusing it does depend on how good or poor the AF is and the size to the 'target area' being used to focus with ... manual focusing with a bridge is separating mush from mush IMO** and I never do it ... BUTgiven the adjustable size of my Panasonic MFTs G3 and GH2 now I was delighted to find it could be adjusted to a single very small area [ anywhere on the LCD ] which enables AF used properly to select a point which I require to be sharp and focus there, not leaving it to the whim of the camera ... with my limited knowledge of cameras I am not aware of other cameras with this feature which makes AF considerably superior to MF even with the larger MFT area ....I never [almost] manually focus ... YUK ... that's old fashioned tradition

**years ago I realised that the LCD needed about four or five times the resolution of today's screens to really be an effective tool ... for all those who laud the magnification feature of OLy MFTs.

[jcuknz]

Sorry to continue but 'Flash' ....
With a US$20 trigger and an old and simple ditto price flash from way back you could have flash with the 4200, simply partly mask its on-board so enough escapes to work the trigger ... I ideally I'd suggest a YoungNuo which has its own built in trigger but an older flash like my Sunpak Auto 28 would serve you well and for maybe another $30 you could branch out to work with two flashes and possibly the on-board not heavilly masked as fill light, a three light set-up .... it is all there if you get the advice [ damm it I forget the 'name' which has a huge following and advice website ... hopefully somebody will tell us ]

https://www.google.co.nz/?gws_rd=ssl...ash+techniques
and
https://www.google.co.nz/?gws_rd=ssl...evid=858149093
and
https://www.google.co.nz/?gws_rd=ssl...techniques+pdf
probably would give you plenty of info but the name I wanted still escapes me

edit and plugging something I did years ago http://jcuknz-photos.com/LIGHTING/LIGHT.html
could give you some ideas ... it is decades since I worked in a studio and most of this is very basic home use stuff. The 'one light' is most appropriate at this stage but barely scratches the surface of possibilities.

[jcuknz]

Further to #24 this is an example of what I did with my first MFT the G3 ...
setting up a suitable focus point on the LCD I swung it around so I could see it from the front of the camera and positioned myself, my eye, in the proper place ... and using a cable release with a similar two stage trigger to how the camera's trigger works let AF do its job



edit ... been looking for the original file but seems it is lost but I do not remember cropping very much to get the above

edit #2 I have always been intrigued by this shot that my eyebrow is soft but the view out the window appears sharp and I don't think the difference in magnification accounts for all of it.

[JBW]

Brian - something else to consider is the "design point" that manufacturers are looking at hitting with a specific piece of hardware.

Bridge cameras and point & shoot cameras are primarily aimed at the occasional shooter who is looking for a step up from your basic camera phone. Shutters, image stabilization mechanisms, autofocus motors, etc. will all be specified to provide a certain number of shot before the camera wears out. I probably average around 20,000 - 30,000 shots a year (although I was closer to 40,000 last year). I know that a pro level camera is going to last me in the 7 - 10 year period before it wears out; a prosumer camera is going to be designed for about half that many shutter actuations.

I'd be very surprised to see any superzoom with a design point of more than 20,000 - 40,000 actuations before it wears out.

One thing to consider is how heavy a user you are; a superzoom might be less money; but how often are you going to have to replace it?

After due consideration I would say that I shoot an average of 20 shots a day which means roughly 7500 in a year. So it would last 3 to 5 years? I will look into this side of the equation. Thanks.

[xpatUSA]

Brian, John mentioned his Panasonic manual focus. I've just given my GH1 (micro four thirds, interchangeable lenses) to my son and the 10x manual focus system is awesome, not to mention the in-lens stabilization. I already miss it, so I discovered a brand-new G1 for just over 300 USD on eBay - snapped that right up (comes with the excellent 14-45mm kit lens).

Have you considered micro four thirds at all?

[JBW]

Brian, John mentioned his Panasonic manual focus. I've just given my GH1 (micro four thirds, interchangeable lenses) to my son and the 10x manual focus system is awesome, not to mention the in-lens stabilization. I already miss it, so I discovered a brand-new G1 for just over 300 USD on eBay - snapped that right up (comes with the excellent 14-45mm kit lens).


Have you considered micro four thirds at all?

I do not know enough about them could you suggest a good place to learn on the web?

[DanK]

Brian,

I will sound as though I am channeling Bill here.

Like you, I do a lot of macros of bugs and flowers. I have looked at a lot of your images over the past few years. You have a very good eye, and it's clear that you are putting a lot of work into building your expertise in macro.

Given that, I would recommend two things:

1. Lighting. Lighting in some macro work can be difficult, but it is also really essential. If I were in your shoes, I would not even consider a camera that lacks a hot shoe and the capability of TTL metering (that is, the camera meters based on the actual flash output). Most macro photographers with whom I have traded notes rely on this. You diffuse the flash, set a reasonable aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, add flash exposure compensation as needed, and then and let the camera figure out when the exposure is adequate.

2. A dedicated macro lens. I know very little about bridge cameras. I do know that there is at least one little Fuji, I forget which one, that will do true macro, at the cost of a tiny working distance. However, most cameras without a dedicated macro lens will not get to 1:1, and you need interchangeable lenses to be able to use extension tubes. This is why virtually all serious macro photographers I know use DLSRs. Most modern dedicated macro lenses are very sharp. The main choice will be focal length. for mixed macro work, I would recommend something in the range of 90 to 105 mm. For bugs, some people go longer for greater reach, but I never have. For flowers, 60mm is just fine, but it is much harder for bugs. One detail: some macro lenses are not internally focusing--that is, the barrel extends and retracts as you focus. This matters not at all if you are moving the camera to achieve focus, but if you are using AF at all, it may scare the bugs.

Re which DSLR: for the most part, I don't think it matters all that much. In my opinion, the cheaper crop sensor cameras are superior to FF cameras for 1:1 macro, especially for bug hunting. In fact, even though I splurged on a Canon 5D3, I still use a crop sensor camera for hunting bugs. It's nice to have a fairly high pixel count so that you can crop more, but most modern DLSRs have this. And you would definitely want one that allows you to take the focus control off the shutter so that the camera doesn't keep trying to re-focus. However, for most macro, you don't need a lot of the bells and whistles that come on more expensive cameras. If you look at the macros on my site, almost all of them were taken with a Canon 50D, which sells used for $250-325. (I recently sold mine, in mint condition, for about $300.) Some were taken with a 12-MP Canon rebel XTi, which 7 or 8 years ago was the second cheapest consumer DSLR that Canon made at the time.

Dan

[xpatUSA]

I do not know enough about [micro four-thirds] could you suggest a good place to learn on the web?

This is the place:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system

It is a system with a standardized lens mount and a fair-sized sensor "half-way" between point-and-shoots and 35mm - in fact the crop factor is 2, more or less and the standard aspect-ratio is 4:3 as opposed to 3:2.

Well worth a look and well within your price range.

Here's a link to mine which comes with an excellent 14-45mm (28-90mm equivalent) kit lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1

Main manufacturers are Olympus and Panasonic. There's a forum here:

http://http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1041

You should certainly take a look at these links before a final decision!

P.S. for macro with the m4/3 system, I can heartily recommend the Panasonic-Leica macro Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 (90mm equivalent).

Hand-held, up a wobbly ladder, cam pointing upward:


.

[William W]

I think Dan Kortez has given you top drawer advice.

I was quite reserved in my advice to you. That's my nature to be reserved especially in giving advice to spend other people's money, unless I believe that I am absolutely correct (which I did believe I was) and when also I have a raft of personal experience to back up my statements. (which I do not have regarding Macro)

I don't shot much macro at all, never have done. It drive me nuts.

Dan does. He has the disposition and also the love of it, that's obvious. And he certainly knows his stuff. And he can produce the evidence to prove it.

WW

[rpcrowe]

I had no inkling of what the Fujifilm-Finepix-HS50exr is like. I do know many of the capabilities of the Canon SX50 HS camera because my son-in-law and his father both own one.

That would not be exactly my choice as an only camera but, I wanted a small carry around camera that was very reasonable in cost and still produced decent imagery. The Canon USA Store has a refurbished Canon SX50-HS camera on sale for $179 U.S. Dollars.

I did a google search on the comparison between the Fuji and the Canon and this was the result.

http://www.cameradebate.com/2013/fuj...rshot-sx50-hs/

[jcuknz]

Unfortunately I think Dan speaks, and admits, that he knows little about bridge cameras [#30 ] whereas like yourself Brian I have been using bridge cameras since I started in digital around 2003 and only in the last couple of years did I add MFT to overcome the main problem of the bridge ... its small sensor. So now with my 14-140 lens I have effectively a large sensored bridge camera and it is used as such with one small but useful alternative of using extension tubes. This is marrying the advantage of the bridge with that of the ILC.
To copy me is beyond your budget but getting a larger sensor will help you and hinder you so looking at the SX50HS it seems quite a reasonably priced camera for your needs though I wrote suggesting possible alternatives for when Myra goes shopping for you.
As for your interest in flash you should find even the 4200 will be clever enough to handle things for you and you do not NEED TTL which is what modern photographers are used to but is simply a convenience tool like macro lens [ actually I suspect the 4200 has it anyway]... and there are older ways for the less financially flush or simply not wishing to spend up because of other interests. I could be shooting FF today if I chose

A small suggestion that when Myra goes shopping she knows the outer diameter of the front of the 4200's lens so she can possibly find a two dioptre / 500mm close-up lens [B&H <$25 ] that can easily be cellotaped to the 4200 lens, as suggested last year, which I am sure will open up new possibilities for you. Instead of being limited to 16 inches if Dpreview is correct in "normal' rather than "macro" mode you will be able to come in to 8.5 inches ... 222mm by my calculations. You have written about limitations the camera has in macro mode when people have made suggestions.

Dan writes [#30-2] as if he has fallen into the trap of thinking you have to get close for tight framing when the bridge user knows to use his long lens after overcoming the inability of the long lens to focus close with either a CU lens or better as I found recently an extension tube if you have an ILC as I now do with auto tubes but CU lens are fine for small objects where if the edges of the frame are soft it doesn't really matter. Though beware of the $15 sets of CU lens from China which are rubbish.
I think either '50' from Fuji or Canon would be good for you, so many people make good and valid suggestions which would eat up twice you budget with just part of the answer

[JBW]

[QUOTE=DanK;521757]Brian,

I will sound as though I am channeling Bill here.

Like you, I do a lot of macros of bugs and flowers. I have looked at a lot of your images over the past few years. You have a very good eye, and it's clear that you are putting a lot of work into building your expertise in macro.

Given that, I would recommend two things:

1. Lighting. Lighting in some macro work can be difficult, but it is also really essential. If I were in your shoes, I would not even consider a camera that lacks a hot shoe and the capability of TTL metering (that is, the camera meters based on the actual flash output). Most macro photographers with whom I have traded notes rely on this. You diffuse the flash, set a reasonable aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, add flash exposure compensation as needed, and then and let the camera figure out when the exposure is adequate.

2. A dedicated macro lens. I know very little about bridge cameras. I do know that there is at least one little Fuji, I forget which one, that will do true macro, at the cost of a tiny working distance. However, most cameras without a dedicated macro lens will not get to 1:1, and you need interchangeable lenses to be able to use extension tubes. This is why virtually all serious macro photographers I know use DLSRs. Most modern dedicated macro lenses are very sharp. The main choice will be focal length. for mixed macro work, I would recommend something in the range of 90 to 105 mm. For bugs, some people go longer for greater reach, but I never have. For flowers, 60mm is just fine, but it is much harder for bugs. One detail: some macro lenses are not internally focusing--that is, the barrel extends and retracts as you focus. This matters not at all if you are moving the camera to achieve focus, but if you are using AF at all, it may scare the bugs.

Thanks for sharing your expertise Dan. I have just wandered through your photos and I am impressed. You have both higher skills and better equipment so your shots show me what is possible with more practice and better equipment. I shall think on your suggestions.

[jcuknz]

Ted ... if I am the 'john' you are writing about .... I did NOT focus manually for my eye simply got near enough from a composition point of view and let AF find focus with first [ half] trigger of the cable release. Have not manually focused for yonks

Panasonic cameras can shoot in all four formats people seem to like 4x3,3x2,16x9 and 1x1

last edit It is fun reading what DSLR owners think is best about shooting macro with some choosing the short 50 or 60, others go for a moderate 90 or so to save on the price of the 180 ... as a bridge user I use 430 and a bit sad I only have 280 with MFT and found increasing the power of my CU lens x2 to x4 was unsatisfactory but found true joy with auto extension tubes.

[JBW]

Brian - something else to consider is the "design point" that manufacturers are looking at hitting with a specific piece of hardware.

One thing to consider is how heavy a user you are; a superzoom might be less money; but how often are you going to have to replace it?

Manfred, yesterday or the day before i was out shooting in the sunlight and noticed mold on the inside of the LCD. I know it is there because it does not show up on any of my shots.

Where I live high humidity and serious dust (people here make, use and sell coconut charcoal) are more likely to destroy a camera than simply having it wear out.

Fujifilm makes a bridge that is water and dust resistant (the Finepix S1) All things being considered this is a major plus.

[xpatUSA]

Ted ... if I am the 'john' you are writing about .... I did NOT focus manually for my eye simply got near enough from a composition point of view and let AF find focus with first [ half] trigger of the cable release. Have not manually focused for yonks

I humbly beg your pardon.

Panasonic cameras can shoot in all four formats people seem to like 4x3,3x2,16x9 and 1x1

Yes, my recently donated GH1 did all those but my G1 doesn't do the 1:1. A pity, that . . 1:1 is just right for eBay pics . .

last edit It is fun reading what DSLR owners think is best about shooting macro with some choosing the short 50 or 60, others go for a moderate 90 or so to save on the price of the 180 ... as a bridge user I use 430 and a bit sad I only have 280 with MFT and found increasing the power of my CU lens x2 to x4 was unsatisfactory but found true joy with auto extension tubes.

To add to your fun, a "short 50" works quite well on my 1.7 crop Sigma DSLR. Somehow, I don't find myself craving a "430" at any price

[jcuknz]

OK Ted, fair enough but I have a choice 35-430 or 25-280... But we are using different bodies and I work the way best for that body as you believe, though others believe differently.
One point is I am using the longer lens from a bit further back than your 50 for the same item which I consider a benefit though I too have a 50 and it enabled me to get 10mm filling the 17mm sensor with tubes and an adaptor [MFT to M42].

One day I am going to play and put all my options together and see what I can get which I am sure will be more than what I posted awhile back of a Biro tip This will of course be with my ILC rather than a bridge. I wonder what you would say to a 1000mm or 1200mm macro lens which is what Brian will have with his 50 if he gets the camera of his first choice ... different 50 though from us.

[JBW]

OK Ted, fair enough but I have a choice 35-430 or 25-280... But we are using different bodies and I work the way best for that body as you believe, though others believe differently.
One point is I am using the longer lens from a bit further back than your 50 for the same item which I consider a benefit though I too have a 50 and it enabled me to get 10mm filling the 17mm sensor with tubes and an adaptor [MFT to M42].

One day I am going to play and put all my options together and see what I can get which I am sure will be more than what I posted awhile back of a Biro tip This will of course be with my ILC rather than a bridge. I wonder what you would say to a 1000mm or 1200mm macro lens which is what Brian will have with his 50 if he gets the camera of his first choice ... different 50 though from us.

I know I will love it. Some of my best shots come from using a combination of macro/telephoto settings. These will only get better with a better lens.

I do loose out on the ultimate detail of a dedicated high quality macro set-up but for a good all around camera at a reasonable cost that does good work in most areas it is hard to beat a good bridge.