For a low end bridge camera the fly's eyes are fabulous?

[JBW]

[Kodiak]

Very dramatic light, Brian!

[JBW]

Very dramatic light, Brian!

the sun does great work... with just a bit of help from pp.

[Shadowman]

Nicely done.

[dabhand]

Brian - modesty is fine but when you can produce the images you do - take some credit man.

steve

[ajohnw]

The bridge camera has a big advantage Brian. Most things shot are reduced more in size on the sensor than cameras with larger sensors so you get more depth of field and can use faster apertures than I can for instance on m 4/3.

John
-

[JBW]

Brian - modesty is fine but when you can produce the images you do - take some credit man.

steve

I do take some. But I still lack consistency. Out of 20 shots I don't often get many keepers. But I must admit that now I am trashing shots that a a few months back I would have been thrilled with.

[JBW]

The bridge camera has a big advantage Brian. Most things shot are reduced more in size on the sensor than cameras with larger sensors so you get more depth of field and can use faster apertures than I can for instance on m 4/3.

John
-

Which is why when this one wears out it will probably be another bridge (albeit a little higher up the pecking order) for me.

[Tom Barry]

Which is why when this one wears out it will probably be another bridge (albeit a little higher up the pecking order) for me.

You get a lot of bang for your buck with bridge cameras. I bought the Lumix FZ1000 when it first came out a couple of months ago and my DSLRs and M4/3rds outfits are getting rather petulant from being ignored.

[JBW]

You get a lot of bang for your buck with bridge cameras. I bought the Lumix FZ1000 when it first came out a couple of months ago and my DSLRs and M4/3rds outfits are getting rather petulant from being ignored.

That would be further up the pecking order.

[DanK]

Nice capture. There are a number of species of flies that have weird, ornate eyes. I have never read an explanation.

Out of 20 shots I don't often get many keepers.

Neither do I, and I have been shooting macro pretty seriously for 5 or 6 years. It's part of the package.

Which is why when this one wears out it will probably be another bridge (albeit a little higher up the pecking order) for me.

When you get that far, it might be worth a thread discussing the pros and cons. I'm not an advocate of becoming a gearhead, but literally none of the serious macro photographers I know use a bridge camera. My own opinion is that if one is serious about macro work and wants high-quality images, one needs a macro lens and good lighting. I don't think one needs expensive equipment--many of the best use very cheap crop-sensor DSLRs (more DOF, and you don't need fancy things like good AF), home-made brackets and diffusers, mid-level flashes, etc.--but you need a camera and lens that can reproduce fine detail at very close distances and well-controlled lighting. One can see the difference clearly even at the low resolutions of postings on the web, but it is even more of an issue if you want to print, even at fairly small sizes, like A4 (8 x 10).

[JBW]

Nice capture. There are a number of species of flies that have weird, ornate eyes. I have never read an explanation.



Neither do I, and I have been shooting macro pretty seriously for 5 or 6 years. It's part of the package.



When you get that far, it might be worth a thread discussing the pros and cons. I'm not an advocate of becoming a gearhead, but literally none of the serious macro photographers I know use a bridge camera. My own opinion is that if one is serious about macro work and wants high-quality images, one needs a macro lens and good lighting. I don't think one needs expensive equipment--many of the best use very cheap crop-sensor DSLRs (more DOF, and you don't need fancy things like good AF), home-made brackets and diffusers, mid-level flashes, etc.--but you need a camera and lens that can reproduce fine detail at very close distances and well-controlled lighting. One can see the difference clearly even at the low resolutions of postings on the web, but it is even more of an issue if you want to print, even at fairly small sizes, like A4 (8 x 10).

Printing is not part of my passion. I keep everything on the computer. (in the tropics in a non air conned house prints dissolve rather quickly) I may well end up with a studio set up but now outdoor shooting with natural light is what has my interest. I have certainly noticed the added detail that a DSLR is capable of. I have two main problems with a DSLR; one is the cost and the other is my clumsiness. If I trip or some other way damage my Fujifilm I am out a few hundreds. If I do the same with a DSLR, flash, and lens it could be thousands.

[ajohnw]

The biggest problem with bridge and macro is that many of them insist on putting the lens very close to the subject - a few cm might even crop up and often they don't give usable information - just has a macro mode.

I've had a nose around now and again. Best source of comments seems to be dpreview via google probably on certain camera models rather than just macro.

John
-

[JBW]

The biggest problem with bridge and macro is that many of them insist on putting the lens very close to the subject - a few cm might even crop up and often they don't give usable information - just has a macro mode.

I've had a nose around now and again. Best source of comments seems to be dpreview via google probably on certain camera models rather than just macro.

Certainly some of my best shots have been from within 3 cm.




John
-

[Rebel]

Nice shot, the lighting is very nice.

[DanK]

I have two main problems with a DSLR; one is the cost and the other is my clumsiness.

Fair enough. It wouldn't necessarily be thousands, but it would likely end up being considerably more than a bridge camera.

[JBW]

Nice shot, the lighting is very nice.

the sun created a nice shadow and I managed to enhance it a bit in Rawtherapee.