High quality camera

Hey guys I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions for a good camera to buy If you want to be able to take really high quality pictures of your pets. I want to be able to take a close up picture and see all the little details, but I dont want to spend over $300. Can anyone point me in the right direction. Thanks

Not for that kind of money.

I've had good luck with my nikon coolpix S550, but it doesn't do well in low light. I was waffling between that one and the fuji finepix, and should've went with the finepix. These point-and-shoot cameras are nice because they're lightweight and easy to just stick in your pocket. They do not, however, take the best macro shots.

If you want really good pictures, you'll have to invest in a DSLR, which will run you ~$500 for the body, plus lenses (which can easily top $200 a piece). Well worth the investment if you plan on doing advanced amateur/semi-pro shots.

There are quite a few options out there for you. This article may help you get started on doing some research.

As Kaysie says, you'll struggle to get anything that takes decent macro shots in that price range. Most compact cameras come fitted with a lens that has to cope with the widest range of scenarios possible, and whilst they usually do a very good job for general use, good macro photography is usually beyond thier capability. You may notice that the latest batch of hi-tech compact cameras now come with interchangeable lenses to try to combat the limitations of the "all in one" lens.

For good quality close-up shots of newts you'll need a DSLR with macro lens - sadly this will cost way in excess of $300.... even secondhand.

For what you're describing you want to do, others have mentioned... SLR + macro lens. For a good quality SLR, you're looking at $1000 + whatever the cost of a macro lens is. I paid $1150 for my K5 body + $700 for my macro lens for example, but can capture things like this:



She's maybe 2.5" at the most

K5 = Jealous!!

All of my cameras have been birthday/Christmas gifts. I knew the previous digital was wearing out, but it took me several years to finally be forced to a decision. My options included a more expensive camera with two lenses. Ultimately, I chose something in your price range [the store CEO is also a frogtographer, and he, I, and my father had phone calls, emails, and examination and testing of various choices.

I chose the Canon SX20IS. More recent versions of this include the SX30IS.

Ok...Canon...has a better sensor for low-light situations than other makes. This is important for terraria, forest, nighttime, etc. It also focuses *to the lens surface*. In other words, so long as you have good light, you can TOUCH the frog and it will be in focus. It has 20x zoom [30 for the newer model]. It's usually easier to get a LARGER picture, using flash and zoom from a meter away, than no flash or zoom in macro mode. Built in flash and focus-assist light. 14Mp is good - that's poster-sized without cropping, or stupidly zoomed and cropped to still get a good sized picture - more than this is almost pointless in my view. Storage - multiple types, including SD. HD output, USB output, AA batteries [very important if you can't recharge or replace a proprietary battery in the field]. HD stereo video [!]. Easy to use settings, programmable functions, and a style which corresponds to traditional comfortable SLR style.

It's usable straight out of the box without much fuss. Some things need to be read-up on or practiced. I still have a lot to learn about its use, many thousands of photos later, but it's been producing quality images from day one.


These aren't the best photos...but I like them because they're good, and can be animated by flipping back and forth [lucky coincidence]. Taken with flash from a couple feet away, post-processed for standard corrections, no cropping, huge reduction in resolution.



Taken in the dark with LED lighting over the animal instead of flash worked much more nicely.

Various processing, plus the usually reductions for online use:

Uroplatus malama


Boophis goudoti


Lampropeltis leonis


Gekko gecko


Monocentropus lambertoni


Atelopus hoogmoedi

Part of what makes SLR's "high quality" is the sensor size. The Canon PowerShot (SX20IS) has a sensor size of 6.17 x 4.55 mm, whereas the Pentax K5's sensor size is 15.7 x 23.7mm. A bigger sensor means you let in more light and you're able to bump your ISO down to reduce noise and increase sharpness of your images. Good quality lenses also play a HUGE part in sharpness of photo's. Cheap lenses = cheap glass = not as good quality photo's.

I totally forgot, which Mark pointed out, that there's the newer mirrorless camera's on the market. They're the happy medium between your SLR and your P&S with interchangeable lenses! Sony's NEX-5n has a sensor size of 23.4 × 15.6mm, is in it's 3rd generation of production and is reasonably priced. Might be something for you to look into?

Pixel count isn't too important unless you're planning on doing more than 100% crops and giant posters.

While that is true, I would point out that the first picture you provided could have been done with a far simpler and less expensive camera...but with more of the subject actually in focus. Plus, the OP is interested in something in the vicinity of $300. Even the SX exceeds that cost...in Canada. Many people pay a small fortune for cameras and equipment, but aren't actually able to capitalize on the potential advantages that euipment offers, and are probably better off saving some of that money until such time as their abilities start to exceed the limits of the camera.

Hey guys thanks for all the detailed responses I have looked into a few of the cameras mentioned. Hey FrogEyes for some reason those photo's aren't working on my computer, can you please upload them with the websites file attachment. I looked into the Canon that you were talking about and it looks really nice, but im not sure I wanna pay $500 for it. The fuji finepix is a pretty nice camera for the price. Will I need to buy a macro lense seperately to get the really close up shots. Can you please give me some input on this seeing as you know much more about camera's than me. Thanks again

I would also look into the mirror-less cameras - Panasonic make some good ones, I think. The lenses are expensive but you can use cheaper Olympus ones and probably some other brands as well. I would recommend the Digital Photography Review website - it has very extensive reviews and tests. If you are interested in photo editing, make sure you get a camera which can produce RAW images so you can really get the most out of it.

The problem (once again) you'll run into with P&S over mirrorless or SLR is noise. Here's a (poor) example of P&S vs SLR. I don't believe the Canon PowerShot (SX20IS) has interchangeable lenses.

First photo taken with a Canon PowerShot 10MP on macro mode, cropped and blown up. All the grainy stuff is noise caused by the small sensor that isn't capable of allowing much light in to capture fine detail. Scales around the mouth seem to blend in as well.

Second photo is with my 16MP K5 with a macro lens, cropped and blown up. Yes, there is "blur" due to too shallow a depth of field, but every scale in focus is sharp and able to be cropped and blown up much more.

I'd seriously look into the Olympus PEN, Samsung NX or even the Sony NEX3. I'm sure you'll find sales where they're closer to your price range and what you're looking for.

Same photos as before:
Laotriton laoensis - two photos which can be animated.
Uroplatus malama
Boophis goudoti
Lampropeltis leonis
Gekko gecko, orange phase
Monocentropus lambertoni
Atelopus hoogmoedi

I would not dispute the advantages of of a DSLR. I have two SLRs, with multiple lenses and a ring flash. I still have undeveloped film in the primary from several years ago, as my original single-lens digital proved much more reliable [ie, unlimited photos, and no waiting to come home from vacation and find out half the pictures were **** for one reason or another].

I find I use zoom far more than I use macro - it gives me a larger, closer image before cropping, it gives me better lighting [too close and the flash creates a shadow from the lens itself], and it panics the animals less. Moreover, I can switch instantly from scenery to zoom to macro and back, without swapping lenses while the animal patiently waits for me. Few of the hundreds of species I've photographed, especially in the wild, are willing to sit there while you park a lens in their face. Ironically, in macro mode I get a larger image [wider angle of view] with less depth of field at a closer approach distance and with less available light; when what is desireable is the reverse of all those. Granted, with my SLR I used the macro lens all the time, rarely swapped to the telephoto, and I often used a macro-zoom lens and the 50mm. Lighting was frequently an issue in macro shots, and I don't do light-box photos. The ring flash has it's uses, and I can use it on my SX, but I think it has a shorted wire and I don't often resort to macro mode anyway. I considered a DSLR, but for the flexibility and range of features I wanted, it would simply be too expensive. at the time.

One of the cameras I considered was the Fuji. In fact, The Camera Store has given me several, which have gone out as prizes for TARAS competitions. I don't recall the specifics of why I didn't choose the Fuji, but these would be among the factors: the Canon sensor was best for low light, the Canon focused to the surface of the lens [as macro as you can possibly get]. Compared to other cameras, the Canon also has a fully rotatable and invertable view screen, which allows me to hold the camera in almost any position, well away from my face, and still see what I'm shooting.

A related trick, which influenced my decision to buy a portable DVD player, was that I can connect my [previous - Minolta] digital to the video input of the portable DVD player by cable, allowing me to use the DVD player as a larger, remote viewscreen for extra-difficult positions. I haven't tried this with the Canon, but the latter DOES have both HD and A/V out ports [most decent cameras should now] and a DC power port. I should be able to set the camera up on a tripod, connect to an external recorder and power plug, and use it as a high def stereo movie camera for longer videos. But these are tricks far from unique to this model and style of camera.

Any photos I have posted, which would mainly be in the field-herping threads, are taken with the Canon. All have been processed in Paintshop Pro, sometimes cropped, and greatly reduced in size for web use. They're normally linked to my Photobucket, rather than uploaded here.

I note that while the difference in images in the previous post are attributed to inherint differences between a P&S and an SLR [which may be true], the two cameras specifically differ GREATLY in their resolution. The P&S is only 10Mp while the SLR is 16Mp. Were they both the same resolution, you would likely have a much harder time seeing the difference.

Thanks for all the great, informative responses in this thread. I had the same questions as the OP and this helped me.