Haha, that would be fitting!
Not enough options. I need at least 4.
It varies enormously depending on where I am, what I’m doing, and what I have with me.
I use my almost 10 years old EOS 600D for most observations. However, since I now live in not so secure colombia and I would not feel comfortable carying a DSLR around, I leave it at home most of the time and use my phone camera more often. I don´t even know what kind of phone it is… Huawei something I think… not sure… something not too expensive so if it gets stolen it´s not a complete desaster. Photos are ok for identification.
I use a Nikon D60 (DSLR) with a 70-300 mm lens. I also use a tripod with it.
My phone camera has a macro lens so I sometimes use that with smaller subjects.
Canon 60D here too, 10 yr in January. I don’t know if it is just worn out or it’s human error causing my photos to be less than I’d like. Still it’s better than my phone camera or some other compacts I’ve had.
Depends on where I’m going, what I’m shooting and the weather. On rainy days, I only take my underwater camera, period. On birding trips I take my DSLR. On bug walks I take my mirrorless camera with a macro lens, plus a DSLR with a different lens. For snorkeling, there’s the underwater camera. For mothing there’s the mirrorless plus macro lens. And then there’s the phone camera for unexpected finds and a backup when there’s trouble with the real camera I have with me. Or for when I want to use my clip-on macro lens.
Ring video camera is doing the most for me. Not on your list!
I had to google that one. It just goes to show that the old saying that the best camera is the one you have is correct :)
For the Canon 100mm macro it really depends on what you want to achieve. If you use it on one of the crop bodies (60D, 90D etc) you will get slightly more magnification. On a full frame camera it’s a bit more versatile because you can take photos of things without having to stand so far away (100mm doesn’t sound like a lot but when you’re trying to take a photo of leaves, for example, it does make a difference). As for quality, it doesn’t matter… the 100mm macro is one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes in my opinion and any Canon body will produce great results. There are other macro lenses for Canon and two of these I’ve rented but do not own. The MP-E65mm I found very very hard to use and I don’t think I got a single good shot (I couldn’t focus it even on a tripod). I also rented the 180mm for a bioblitz weekend and it was fantastic for insects from a distance
Edit: Oh I forgot, although it’s not a macro lens I also use the 50mm with extension tubes. It’s not even an L-series lens, but produces images that are very sharp (probably because it’s a prime lens). I’ve even used a wide angle 16mm lens with extension tubes with good results. But, yes, the 100mm macro is a great lens
As for wasps. Maybe the 180mm macro would be a better choice for them but it’s not cheap (which is why I rented it) and the cropped bodies (APS-C sensors) (60D, 90D etc) may be the way to go. The extra “magnification” on the APS-C sized sensors is not a huge amount but it’s noticeable.
Mirrorless vs. DSLR: On a mirrorless camera you can get insane frame rates… hold down the shutter and it’s like a machine gun and you’ll capture up to 20 shots per second with the electronic shutter, compared to about 10 shots per second with something like a 90D (mechanical shutter only). If that’s an advantage for wasp photography then mirrorless is the way to go. There are some disadvantages to electronic shutter but you can set it to mechanical with a reduced frame rate. That said, I’ve never actually seen the disadvantages of electronic shutter (e.g. rolling shutter) in the field for still shots. There are advantages to electronic shutters as well (frame rate, silence, etc) and you’d need to read some articles to make up your own mind. I’m shooting on a mirrorless camera now and would never go back to a DSLR just because of the frame rate and the better focus
The reason I rented the 180mm was to get photos of dragonflies and damselflies was because on that weekend I was with a person and that was his advice (to not scare them away as you say). I mainly take photos of plants though so, for me, the 100mm is a much better lens for the reasons you state.
These are handheld with the 100mm and a 90D but with flash, so probably not the best examples but all I can come up with on short notice (both (1/60 sec at f 9.0):
https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/observations/97705404
https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/observations/97623636
With the 100mm I can generally handhold (without flash) all the way down to about 1/30th of a second shutter speed. I’ve heard reports of people doing even better than that.
On a tripod it’s a different story. These fruit are about 2mm (0.08 inches) across. I could have gotten closer but it’s good enough for me. Again, using a 90D
Recently I purchased Canon ELPH-360 for my daughter as birthday gift, and she was very happy with it. It’s a relatively inexpensive point-and-shoot, and it has 8X zoom, which makes it quite effective for wildlife photography. It has 20 MP resolution, which is plenty for taking good photos.
I actually also start to observe that the focus is getting less and less crisp and it is harder to get the focus at all in my macro photography… but then again, 10 years can do quite a bit to the steadiness of ones hand I assume :-) … anyway, probaby time for a new one at some point. It did quite the job actually. The first few years I basically went out photographing every single day and every day there were at least several 100 photos taken and it also did some trips where I easily surpassed this quota.
Valid point. I use a superzoom sometimes.
For the record I use Cannon Power Shot SX50HS. I don’t call myself a photographer and use it mainly for documenting things “for the record”. I’m resonably satisfied I’m reasonably satified with it altough I sometimes have trouble with focus on macro shots.
Since this seems to be a forum with more knowledgeable photographers than I, I’d like to ask a question about the size of photos being posted to iNaturalist. It seems that more often than not the quality of the photo is limited by optics and not digitally. Despite this most photos seem to be posted at full digital resolution which takes up more memory than needed. Because I live in a rural area where internet access is limited it sometimes takes a condsiderable amount of time to open a photo to ID it ( sometimes over a minute for one photo) and the clarity is no better than a photo of half the size. Has there been any discussion to downsize photos before they’re posted to save storage space and make opening a photo faster? If this is an inappropriate form for this question can anyone direct me to a better one?
Thanks!
You may be interested in checking links from https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/improving-site-speed/24606
iNat already downsizes photos, it takes a lot to edit photos, creating separate copies for iNat would be too much of a hassle and can lead to mess in folders or wrongly applied sizing.
Thanks Marina! I don’t submit a lot and have a filing system for keeping track of submitted photos so downsizing before submitting hasn’t been a problem for me. Thanks for the references. If nothing else, it’s good to know I’m not the only one finding it slow sometimes. Stay safe!
Paul
I started using a Nikon D100 with macro lens this year (50mm I think) and there’s a lot of factors that separate a good shot from a great one. I had issues with adapting settings to bright sun. For example, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/93528105 vs https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/99812001
Mostly, getting close enough to fast and shy insects is tricky. I started using a gardening kneel pad for prone shots.
Any photography tips, fellow naturalists?
Most of my images are still shots from Ring cameras. For “serious” work, I love my Canon Powershot SXX50 HS, which is old but wonderful because of the long lens. But I also occasionally us my iPhone 11 if I’m out and about. Here are two samples. The woodpecker was almost full telephoto, braced against the roof of my car.
