Hi all. I have a 16 year old son who is showing signs of interest in iNaturalist - birds and butterflies mainly. His phone isn’t much use for photos. Any recommendations for a reasonable camera I could get him that will easily upload photos to iNaturaiat (via card or cable or wifi)?
what kind of phone does he use? how much are you willing to spend on a camera? are you okay with buying a used camera?
1 Like
Hey! He’s using an android (Samsung). Probably I’d lean towards new rather than second hand but price limited to a few hundred dollars (Australian).
I have a Nikon P-1000 that has been great for wildlife photos. It has an amazing 3000 mm zoom. It is big and not something you would put in a pocket though. The P950 will zoom to 2000 mm, so also very good. It is lighter and a bit less bulky. There are many YouTube videos that will help with setting it up for different types of shooting.
1 Like
I used a Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ80 for several years. It’s a superzoom, AKA bridge, camera, so more zoom and better range than you can get with a DSLR unless you buy a really expensive lens, with a small tradeoff in image quality. Mine did eventually break due to overuse of the zoom mechanism, however. I liked it a lot for birds and insects. It looks like they’re available for $200-400 (USD) on Amazon and eBay.
5 Likes
(Sorry, I overlooked the bit in your post where you indicated what he was interested in. I have edited the following accordingly but I think it is still helpful to consider what you need in terms of functions before making a purchase, rather than just looking at models that people recommend.)
You probably want to think about choosing something with a good zoom if things like birds are an interest.
If you think he is likely to want to photograph small organisms (insects, mosses/lichens), having macro or close-up capacity is really useful.
You might also want to consider camera size – a camera is useful only if you actually have it when you need it. Depending on where and when he is out observing, he may or may not find it practical to carry around a large camera. (For example, I often go out looking for insects after work, so it was important to me to have something fairly light that fits in my handbag and I can have with me all the time for spontaneous photos; if I am going on an outing to a local nature reserve, I can plan ahead and take a larger camera set-up). Note that there may be a tradeoff between small size and zoom capacity.
1 Like
Based on this information, I think a good zoom is the most important thing.
Hi, @barrymanilow, and welcome!
I’m going to add my vote to the bridge camera / good zoom column.
For what it’s worth, I’ve primarily used superzoom bridge cameras since I first went from film to digital in 2002. I’ve used several different makes and models since then, and can recommend some of my favorites. (My general recommendation: don’t get too hung up on megapixels. Image size is good, but high-quality glass and manual settings are better.)
Click Here to show the Great Wall o' Text!
The Olympus SP-800 and 820UZ models still have a lot of adherants, which is not a bad trick for a cameras that were released before 2015. Both have 14MP resolution; the 800 has a 30x wide-angle zoom, and the 820 a 40x. Neither are quite point-n-shoot in that you’ll have to read the manual and play around to get the best images, but both produce nice shots once you’ve got them figured out. Downsides are the learning curve (not too frustrating, but not instant), slow autofocus, and long write times in some modes. The SP-820 has the same 14 MP resolution, but better marks for picture quality and a longer zoom.
The Olympus SZ-14 also scores well on image quality, ease and speed of shooting, resolution (14MP), and relatively sleek design even with a 24x zoom lens. The biggest con is that the settings are accessed with a slippery scroll wheel on the back, instead of a dial or buttons.
Canon is the only manufacturer in the list where I haven’t used one of the cameras for a week or more. I know several people who have, though (and were nice about letting me borrow), so I feel confident recommending the PowerShot line. The SX 20, 30, and 40 are all solid; the zoom ranges between models from 20x to 35x, and the glass has a coating to cut down on purple fringing at full zoom. This series also handles more like a DSLR, which I like. Best value out of the group is probably the SX 30. I wouldn’t go for the SX 50; it has an even bigger zoom, but the image stabilization can’t keep up with full extension, and none of the other factors are different enough to justify it.
I tried out a couple of Fuji’s FinePix line, and was deeply unimpressed. Part of the problem is that the sensors that Fuji used in this line are small, so you need a lot of light to begin with. The more you zoom out, the less light hits the sensor, the worse the inage quality. I will give a cautious “on the other hand” to the FinePix S9900w; I haven’t used it, but the reviews I’ve read seem to indicate that Fuji made some serious positive changes. Lighting conditions can still be a problem, but not like earlier models.
Sony Cyber-shot: both the H and HX series are serviceable cameras; not earth-shaking, but solid. There’s a range of zoom lengths and features, so this might take a litle comparison work, but all of the models have a good reputation as ‘throw in your bag and go’ cameras for a wide range of shooting situations. My current backup camera is a Cyber-shot H300, and I was eyeballing the H400 at one point.
Nikon CoolPix: despite my frustration with the lack of manual settings, my backup camera used to be a CoolPix P330, which was stolen last year. I ‘replaced’ it this spring with the P520, which has become my primary camera—mostly because it has a very DSLR-like feel. Manual settings allow for a whole lot of flexability, and the 42x zoom gets me close to my subjects without spooking them. Neither the P520 nor @PattiEdens P-1000 (or the 950 & 900 models) are exactly beginner cameras, though, and while I got a good deal on my P520, the higher numbers in the series are still fairly pricy for a beginner camera.
None of the cameras that I’ve mentioned were baseline models when they were released; if your son gets serious about iNat—or photography in general—chances are that he’ll outgrow a basic model pretty quickly. (I got my first film camera when I was 10, so I’ve been there.) All of the cameras that made the list, though, are old enough that you should be able to find a working model at a reasonable price, and maybe a ‘parts’ camera to cannibalize should the need arise. None of them are so complicated or simplistic that he’d give up on them easily (except maybe the less feature-heavy CoolPix), but they should allow his skills to grow beyond the Automatic settings.
Hope that this gives you something to start with. And again, welcome!
6 Likes
I use a Canon EOS Rebel T7 and it is great.
1 Like
if he will be taking photos only (no video), i think these days, oksanaetal’s recommended T7 is hard to beat for at that price point. you can get the body and two kit lenses (including a 75-300mm, which is good for distant birds and butterflies) for $600 USD. but you have to accept that this camera is limited to 3 frames per second, which could be too limiting for fast-moving subjects like birds and butterflies. on the plus side, this camera works with a ton of good reasonably-priced lenses out there on the market if you ever want to go beyond the kit lenses.
there is a slightly cheaper T100, but that one probably sacrifices too much in terms of its screen and resolution to be worth buying over the T7.
a phone like the Samsung S23 Ultra (replaced by the S24 Ultra but still available) is above your price range. but maybe if your son needed to upgrade his phone from an older model anyway, it might make sense to buy this instead of a standalone camera. it has a 10MP 10x optical zoom lens, which is pretty good range for a phone camera, though it might still not be enough for some distant subjects like birds in the sky. (the S24 Ultra has a 50MP 5x optical zoom lens, which might actually be a step down in this case.)
this segment of the camera market used to include lots of good point-and-shoot cameras, including “bridge” cameras, but most traditional camera makers have abandoned this segment since they can no longer reasonably compete with smartphone cameras.
if you can even find a bridge camera in this range, it’ll probably be in the secondary market and / or at a relatively high price. for example, the FZ80 that fluffyinca had good results with would have been available back in the day new for $300-$400 USD, but now you’ll probably have to pay closer to $500, if you can even find it, and it’s hard to justify a purchase at that price.
i personally use a Panasonic FZ2500 bridge camera because it’s just so versatile for my needs, which are video-heavy, but i think this camera recently went out of production, and there’s nothing else quite like it in the current market for a similar price. so i’m just hoping that whenever mine inevitably breaks, there will be some new cameras out there that will be able to fill that niche.
1 Like
I barely use the smaller one.
I have used one of these. It’s not what you want if you’re looking for high-quality images of distant subjects, but it can give you high-quality images of closer subjects and identifiable ones of flying birds and such. All the photos in this observation were taken with an S23 Ultra. I would recommend it as a phone upgrade for someone who wants to use it for iNatting; however, a dedicated camera is a better option in this case given the focus on birds and butterflies.
I received a new Fuji FinePix at the age of 16, and then a refurbished later model a few years later, the S4380. This was quite a while ago, so remarks I have about it will be outdated! I agree with the above statement that it handled low-light conditions poorly. The refurbished one did have issues that never that never went away ( it liked it to change my settings spontaneously. ) I did use it for many years, although I stopped using it when phones started taking better pictures. I photograph plants mostly so it became impractical to carry around something as large as an actual camera once a phone would do the job (or surpass the job, these days!) I do miss having zoom.
At the time when I used to chat with more experienced photographers, they’d ask me “Are you shooting Canon or Nicon?” as if those were the only two possibilities, and then they’d have nothing to say about Fuji.
Another thing I liked about it was that it ran on AA batteries. I had rechargeable AAs and I could carry multiple sets incase I was shooting so much I drained them. It did also happen once or twice that I was on vacation, ran out of charge, and rather then go back to the hotel to wait a few hours for charging, I just bought some regular AAs.
1 Like
Oh, man. Did nobody tell them that the reason that sports photogaphers glommed onto Olympus’ Camedia C-2100 UZ, despite it only having 2MP, was that the zoom lens blew everything else away?* And, while Fuji’s digital cameras were somewhat underwhelming at the time, their film cameras—and scientific imaging equipment—were (and are) fantastic. And if we’re talking film, I’d put my vintage Pentax Pentaflex SLR up against anything available even now. Disregarding Minolta, Leica, Zeiss …oh, well. Nobody ever claimed that shutterbugs were less prone to tribalism than any other cultivar of H. s. sapiens x neanderthalis.
I hear you about the readily available batteries. That’s one of the reasons that I keep the Sony ready to go. It takes AAs as well, so I can keep going if I manage to suck all of the batteries for the Nikon dry. Tracking focus and burst shooting eat up a lot of power. I wish that dragonflies held as still as your plants! 
*(Not just sports photographers; I still have one as well. Doesn’t get much use now, because I’ve gotten spoiled by a 300+ pixels per inch resolution.)
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.