4 So far away, so near
As
I mentioned in the introduction, bridge cameras are also known as
super-zoom cameras. Super-zoom sounds corny but is the feature that's
most likely to win the arguments you'll almost certainly get into
with DSLR owners.
Be
gentle with them: They can't help it, especially as virtually every
How-to-do-photography-properly book starts with some variation on the
theme of “You-need-a-DSLR.”
 |
| The moon - January, 2014 |
I
stop short of chanting “You can't do this! Nah-nah-na-na-nah!”
because I'm a grown up, but my inner child (that's the bit of every
man that still loves boy's toys) is yelling it joyously.
Why?
Because, without an astronomical telescope to use as a lens, they
can't take that picture with a DSLR. I'll try not to inflict numbers
on you too often in this book but that photograph was taken in
1/250th of a second, which is why I managed it hand-held,
with just a little help from a convenient lamp post to brace my hand
against.
Even
if you're not into astronomy, the moon has a certain fascination for
photographers and there are many websites dedicated to photographing
it. I googled lunar photography and visited the top ten sites. They
all told me I needed a DSLR, a big lens and a tripod. One told me I
could hire a 500mm or 800mm lens from a local camera shop, which
requires a lot of premeditation. None of them seem to have heard of
bridge cameras. Poor fellows.
 |
| From the Greenwich Observatory website. Copyright John Scouros |
This
photograph, from the Royal Greenwich Observatory's own website, was
taken with a DSLR attached to a 1200mm focal length telescope. It's
pretty much exactly the same photograph I took. Personally, I reckon
the bridge camera just pips this for clarity and sharpness.
 |
| Greenwich versus The Author |
My
image (on the right) is still sharper, even after it's been
down-sized and rotated to match the Greenwich Observatory one.
My
point being... There is a snobbishness among 'serious' photographers
that blinds them to the potential of bridge cameras. It's become very
apparent in the first 3 months with this camera that I'm getting
results at high magnification as good as many DSLR users.
Full
disclosure: Photographing the moon is actually one of the very few
times when my camera isn't on full auto. I did manually set the
shutter speed at 250. I won't go into why right now because it's
covered in a later chapter.
Lots of things worth
photographing are far away (albeit not 250,000 miles away) so I use
my zoom lens a lot. Because it's not massively bulky, it isn't hard
to hold and there is usually a post, a wall or a tree to lean against
for extra stability. The built in image stabilizer helps a bit too.
 |
| Pacific Osprey off Rhyl – February, 2014 |
That
ship was nearly 8 miles from the camera. At that range, haze is
inevitable, but it was clear enough at full magnification to read the
name on the stern.
No,
I have not photoshopped it out of the water. It's a ship with legs.
It's a big ship too, which will be obvious to anyone who knows just
how enormous those turbines are.
Of
course, the all time favourite use for long lenses , is wildlife and
nature photography. Where I live, in North Wales, the wildlife is
generally quite small and quite timid. The camera gets closer than I
ever could.
 |
| Little Egret on Rhyl Beach, February, 2014 |
Egrets are seriously timid and Rhyl Beach offers no possibility of cover so approaching it was never going to work. Enter the super-zoom. Leaning against the sea wall with the camera in full Peeping Tom mode, I got lots of shots of this elegant bird.
 |
| Nuthatch in Bethesda - March, 2014 |
 |
| Common Kestrel in Dyserth - January, 2014 |
One
of the real joys of this sort of photography is the element of
surprise. You never know what you're going to see so catching a
decent snapshot always feels like an achievement.
One
of the most compelling arguments for bridge cameras is that they're
easier to carry so more likely to be with you. Those last two
pictures (nuthatch and kestrel) both happened because my camera was
actually around my neck. In both cases, the window of opportunity was
less than 10 seconds. Both were taken on full auto at full zoom.
None
of these shots required any more know-how than a camera phone. The
only real difference is the ability to get closer to the subject.
It's a simplicity that appeals to a lot of people, me included.
If
I'd had to change lenses, or even change settings, I would never have
caught the kestrel or the nuthatch. Which is the main selling point
(and the main criticism) of bridge cameras: one lens does it all, but
not perfectly.
I've taken to describing
it as an 8 out of 10 compromise. A DSLR in the hands of someone who
knows what they're doing (not me then), with time to set it up
correctly and with the right lens, can take pictures that are 10 out
of 10. My camera scores 8 out of 10 all day, every day.
In
all honesty, since I don't have any inclination to learn about all
the settings and twiddly bits, I probably couldn't do any better with
a top-end DSLR than I do with my bridge camera. Probably rather less
well, in fact.
The
other end of the scale for a bridge camera is the wonderful world of
macro. That's close-ups to you and me.
DSLR
owners need a special lens for this but a bridge camera on full auto
doesn't even need to be told. My older camera had a button for macro
mode but the new one figures it out all by itself.
 |
| Common Carder Bee - April, 2014 |
OK,
my phone will focus at about 100mm from the lens and take close-up
photos. Why do I need a bridge camera for that? Well, that bumble bee
picture was taken from about a metre away. Not only do bridge
camera's allow you to do macro photography, they allow you to do it
without getting in your own way because you can use the zoom lens
too.
That's
handy because one of the perennial problems of macro photography is
the camera itself getting in the way of the light. This clever
innovation means I'm no longer ruining close-ups with the shadow of
my lens.
Obviously,
it's also handy if you're photographing something that might object
to a big chunk of glass hovering over it, like that busily working
bee, who wasn't disturbed by my attention.
Here's
where I have to introduce a note of, if not caution, then managed
expectations. Do not expect a bridge camera to stop a hummingbird's
wings at 50 yards on a cloudy evening. It may be possible, but not
with a £250 camera with an all purpose lens.
If
you want to do that, Nikon make a 1200mm-1700mm lens for only £48,500
but it weighs 16kg, not counting the very strong flight case you'll
want to keep it in for safety, or the heavy duty tripod it absolutely
has to be mounted on. Oh, and don't forget to budget for a really top
notch Nikon camera body to put on the back of that monster lens.
I
know that's a ridiculous example but do try to remember that those
pictures you see in David Attenborough documentaries and wildlife
magazines are more often than not the results of a massive amount of
experience and an equally massive investment in hardware.
That
said, if you have decent light, zero wind and an obligingly friendly
dragonfly, then you can still do this.
 |
| Common Hawker Dragonfly hovering - September, 2014 |
Its
not as difficult as you might think. These guys like to hover and, in
calm air, they present a stationary target to focus on. This one was
about 3 metres away.
When
I say my camera is usually on full auto, I mean FULL auto. Mostly, my
camera is set to take 11 frames per second, so I don't even have to
be that good at timing when to push the button. I got 1 shot out of 6
with the wings not blurred.
So
manage your expectations but always try for the shot. You never know
your luck.
One
of the few bad reviews I found when researching my own buying choice
said simply, “Noise. Noise. Noise.” The guy who made the comment
clearly had unrealistic expectations.
Noise
is something all digital photographers have to deal with, to a
greater or lesser degree. It's what you get if you have a small
sensor and not enough light.
Try
photographing a plain sheet of paper in a not very bright room.
You'll get a grey image, instead of white. If you zoom into the image
until you can see the pixels, you'll notice that there are lighter
and darker shades of grey next to each other. This random variation
in intensity is 'noise'.
If
you have to magnify to that level to see it, is it really a problem?
Well, it can be, not least because it makes your files much bigger,
but there are solutions too. There's a whole chapter on noise later.
Just
to finish off this chapter, here's a macro photo that didn't need any
zoom. As I said, you never know your luck.
 |
| Common Darter Dragonfly on my finger - September 2014 |
I
believe in letting the camera do as much of the work as possible but
sometimes it gets things a bit... not wrong, but not as I'd like.
That's
why far more of this book is dedicated to the use of Photoshop than
to the use of the camera. The camera is easy, as I hope I've
demonstrated.