I once thought that I would stay with film for most of my photo work, using my (then new) Nikon 995 digital camera. After all, I have quite an investment in film cameras and a lenses. But it was hard to stay with that film idea for very long after I started seeing how much nicer it was to see my images immediately (more on this in a minute), and maybe even more fun, having the crazy close-up ability that many digital cameras provide without spending more money on a macro lens. I ended up selling my darkroom equipment!

For several years I was quite pleased with my Nikon Coolpix 995. While cameras now shout about 5 or 10-megapixels (mp), the Nikon, with only 3.5 mp, helped me take many shots of rare plants that I am still very pleased with. Click this image of Lewisia serrata to see the 8x10 image posted on Calflora. I have managed to capture pictures from Death Valley to the alpine Sierra and never had any trouble with the camera, the memory card, or the batteries.

As with everything else computer-based, improvements in products eventually leave you wanting to catch up; after years with the 3.5 mp Nikon, I bought a 5mp Canon S2 camera (in early 2006; see note below) because I saw the main features I wanted all wrapped up in this stylish brushed silver body...

Why I bought a Canon S2 IS

The Canon S2 offers the TV-monitor viewing, plus a viewing back that swings out and rotates for low-level shots. You will likely need to shade the LCD viewing screen with your hand. The S2 operates on rechargable AA batteries and gets huge use (like 500 shots!) out of a set; it can use standard AAs in a pinch but they deliver way fewer shots (like 100+). It has a 12x optical zoom which is very good but you will really need a tripod to get much out of this. Hint: 12x means 12 times the shake of hand-held, then there's the problem of keeping the 12x image centered in the finder. It gets really hard at the forced 48x: see this bird picture for an example. The camera also offers image stabilization (that's what the IS stands for), meaning that hand-held shots at low light or slower speeds should be sharper but I can't swear to ever noticing that.

[Written in early 2006] It is a comfortable camera to hold (see that big ol’ grip on the right side? I guess lefties are left out!) and it seems so far to be good with auto focus. Oh, and did I mention that it can shoot movies? In stereo? Yes, 600x480 or 300x240 Quicktime movies at 30 frames per second. I expect to get some samples of wind on grass, of waterfalls, of bugs in flowers. This should be fun.

Initial Field Report: After using the S2 for a few trips (early 2006), I am happy with it for many things and will still recommend it (more or less) in general— as a very nice camera for recording trips and flower finds. This picture of Yosemite, taken from the Wawona viewpoint, is one of the first shots I made with the S2. The weather was winter gray and I exposed for the gray wall of El Cap (on the left, under the artful pine bough). I did boost the color somewhat in Photoshop and I like my result. It looks good for a web page, might even make a decent picture for the SqFt Gallery, but I still want better.

After leaving the Wawona vista, we went on up to Turtleback Dome. I concentrated on getting pictures of the Lewisia disepala that was just starting to be revealed by melting snow. My close up photos were just adequate, no better. Note that my desired close-ups are probably closer than most would care to take. The Canon does a good job but does require more fooling around to get the focus. It has two (yes, two) different settings for macro use, and it is very distracting to need to stop and change a setting if I am closer than 3.9 inches, then change back if I am between 3.9 and 16 inches! I just push it a little far when I try for really close focusing: check this example. Note that the foreground is a little blurry! I do like this one however.

The Canon S2 would be a nice camera for many people. I see on dpReview that it was given a Highly Recommended rating, and that the camera is now down to around $275; I paid $400!

Now It's 2008. What Has Changed?

I finally made the big jump: a Nikon D80 with an 18–135 lens and a sweet 60mm micro Nikkor. But that's what I decided I wanted. I have gone too long trying to get by without spending the big bucks on a dSLR. Result: I've missed several years of excellent opportunities to come back with really good pictures. Instead I have a large collection of acceptable, not really excellent photos. That changes this season.

What Should YOU Do?

I have to suppose that many people just want a nice photo of a place. Certainly a majority of shooters will never want to stick a camera up within two inches of a flower. If you don't care about incredible macros or taking 100+ photos on every adventure, the hottest deal might be to look on eBay for a used Nikon 995 and discover that you can get this nice camera for as little as $75, maybe even less! I found one listed with the tele and wide lenses ($100 each when new) for an additional $10 each. I wanted to cry.

If you are shopping for a digital, plan to spend at least a few hundred dollars and get a camera that will work very well in most normal circumstances. The Canon S2 is going to stay with me for that very reason: I will want to use it for movies and such. It is capable of getting nice results. There are lots of small cameras with excellent features, even some that are waterproof. If you are interested in documenting your trips, adding some general habitat shots and if "close up" to you means two or three feet away, you will be fine with most any name brand.

Problems with Taking Digital Pictures

When it comes to flower photos, a common list of things done wrong would start with people not taking the time to actually look at what they're shooting. I manage an outdoor website where people will post messages asking, "Can anybody ID this flower?" The image is usually blurry because the camera was too close to a bloom, and either the person didn't know that there is a close-up setting that wasn't used, or the breeze was too much for a slow shutter speed. [Note that setting different speeds or apertures is not usually part of the menu on a less expensive digital camera.]

If you want to use your camera as a useful tool to record plant finds and habitats, get one with an option to use manual settings. You may not think you want to learn to set f/stops or shutter speeds but having the chance to do so will give you controls that increase your odds of getting the best picture.

One of the better things now available in a digital camera is the option to move a sensor area indicator around in the finder to define where the focus should be, or the exposure evaluation point. If this is not available you will have a slightly harder time composing a shot with correct close-up focus.

Investigate the minimum focusing distance; some will list a macro focus distance, often in mere centimeters! Even if you are not planning to poke the lens into an open flower, realize that there is a setting (typically a flower icon) that tells the camera that you are closer to something and to focus accordingly.

[back to top]