Travel Photography - Galapagos: trusty Point-and-Shoot or try a SLR?

Hi all -- first post in the photography forums. I'm going to the Galapagos in about a month and want some advice.

I'm no photography pro, but I really enjoy travel photography and am usually able to get some pretty good shots through experience / trial-and-error using my high-quality point-and-shoot camera (Canon SD980IS). I'm wondering if I should stick with this approach for the Galapagos or invest in an SLR.

I'm afraid that my point-and-shoot will fail because capturing movement is one of the most difficult things for me with this camera. When I'm shooting sports or animals, I often get a blurry image and I can't find a mode that gives me a fast-enough shutter speed to avoid this. (I don't know what if anything I'm doing wrong, or that's just how it is.) Also, the camera has a 5x zoom that's pretty good for landscapes, but I'm afraid that it will be terrible if moving animals are far away.

I'd be willing to invest in a low end SLR and start learning how to use it, but I'm wondering if I'm better off using the point-and-shoot because I'm comfortable with it and know how to make it work in most situations. I know a SLR is objectively better than a point-and-shoot, but what would be the best thing for this situation? Thanks.

How long before you go?

If you have enough time, get the SLR & spend as much time as you can learning how to use it. Take a photo class.

If the trip is next week, you may want to stick with what you've got.

Personally, if it were a place I were going to only once in my life, I'd want to take the best pictures I could. For me, that means an SLR.

Feature-wise, there is not a huge difference between a P&S and a low-end DSLR if you leave the DSLR on Auto. The DSLR has much more options, but you don't have to learn them all to get good results. I think I kept my first DSLR on auto for 18 months before I started to explore its options further.

Usage-wise, there are at least two major differences that you should get comfortable with before your trip: composing with the optical viewfinder instead of the LCD and using the zoom ring on the lens instead of the zoom lever on the camera.

Most DSLRs have live view, which is similar to composing on a P&S but the optical viewfinder is typically the better option and you should get comfortable using it.

P&S cameras have motorized zooms that you operate with a lever on the camera body. DLSR lenses typically have zoom rings (some older lenses have a pump zoom that you push and pull) that you twist to achieve the focal length that you want. This is very intuitive but still different from a P&S.

While there are a lot of other differences, these are really the ones that stand out the most in learning to use a DSLR.

Size-wise, the P&S wins hands down. To get the real benefits of a DSLR, you need the body and at least two lenses, which weigh at least four times as much as the P&S. There is also the the process of changing lenses, which you need to be comfortable with (not that it is difficult). You can avoid these issues by getting an 18-200 mm or similar superzoom lens. A lens like this does not provide the best possible quality but it is very convenient (and the quality is still OK).

If you think learning these things and the loss of convenience are something you can live with, you are probably going to be very happy with a DSLR.

Personally, I'd make the switch in a heartbeat (but I am biased, I switched from a P&S to a DSLR seven years ago).

Cheers,
T.

How are you going to use/view the pictures? Unless you are going to print >11x14, you will be hard pressed to see the difference in image quality for pictures taken under good conditions

I would assume there will be PLENTY of light in the Galapos to drive a fast shutter speed. Of course, there are new p&s like the Olympus XZ-1 with bright f/1.8 lenses that will help also. The last option is to turn up the ISO one stop, from 100 to 200 - that will double your shutterspeed. If your camera is reasonably new, ISO200 shouldn't have too much noise ... if it's older, then maybe so.

Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn't recommend a mirrorless camera in your situation, something like the Panasonic G3 or Olympus PEN series. Considerably smaller than a DSLR:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/Panasonicdmcg3/images/sidebyside2td-001.jpg
but with DSLR AF speed, much less shutter lag than a compact, and the benefit (also the drawbacks) of interchangeable lenses.

Interesting responses, all. Re the comment that auto mode on an SLR might not be better than my good P&S -- I wonder if there's something I'm doing wrong with my P&S such that I'm having trouble capturing movement. I use the "kids and pets" mode, and it seems I can't shoot with a shutter speed faster than 1/60 and usually get blur. Any tips?

> If you have enough time, get the SLR & spend as much time as you can
> learning how to use it. Take a photo class.
>
> If the trip is next week, you may want to stick with what you've got.

+1

If you have enough time, get the SLR & spend as much time as you can learning how to use it. Take a photo class.

If the trip is next week, you may want to stick with what you've got.

Anyway, spend some time with the camera you'll use. P&S or SRL.
Perhaps you have just to discover how to use high shutter speed.

You must judge your camera by yourself; perhaps you could consider a P&S camera that allows you to go full manual or Av and Tv.
I had an old one with those features and I was happy. I had to purchase a new one just because it was stolen. :(

http://a.img-dpreview.com/products_data/products/canon_s90/shots/top.jpg?v=855

I highly recommend the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Petersen to explain the interrelation between ISO, aperture, and shutter speed.

I highly recommend the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Petersen to explain the interrelation between ISO, aperture, and shutter speed.

+1. An excellent book, indeed.

Cheers,
T.

If you do go with an SLR try to get a Tamron 28-300 or 18-270 lens.

Buy it used or rent it for the trip.

The picture quality isn't as great as having two separate lenses for that range, but the convenience is worth it in that situation.

You could go from shooting a crab close to you and then snap to a seal very far away, for example.

Although "shutter lag" has gotten much better on high-quality, newer P&S cameras, that is still going to be one of the discriminating factors between the two for many photographers. With a DSLR, you're typically limited in catching motion by only your reaction time, whereas a P&S adds a tenth to quarter of a second due to "shutter lag." (I missed many a great action shot with my otherwise-then-high-quality Canon G5 for exactly that reason.)

There are other pros & cons to consider for any trip, but to me and for many of my photographic subjects, the shutter lag is an important enough consideration so as to nix P&S out of hand.

Feature-wise, there is not a huge difference between a P&S and a low-end DSLR if you leave the DSLR on Auto.

Even then the DSLR is going to do a better shot than the P&S.

The DSLR has much more options, but you don't have to learn them all to get good results. I think I kept my first DSLR on auto for 18 months before I started to explore its options further.

Having a DSLR and not using anything but auto should be a crime.

Usage-wise, there are at least two major differences that you should get comfortable with before your trip: composing with the optical viewfinder instead of the LCD and using the zoom ring on the lens instead of the zoom lever on the camera.

Note that through-the-viewfinder means you'll never get glared out trying to see. It also means you can compose a shot that's below what the sensor can handle and then open the shutter for long enough to get the image. (Obviously a tripod is needed to do this.)

While there are a lot of other differences, these are really the ones that stand out the most in learning to use a DSLR.

A question: One feature I routinely use with my DSLR is to take the exposure (and focus) off a more suitable nearby surface (very often I aim at the ground by my target) and then shift my aim with the trigger at the first detent--a lot easier than trying to correct the exposure for a backdrop that's going to confuse the camera. Have P&Ss caught up with this?

Size-wise, the P&S wins hands down. To get the real benefits of a DSLR, you need the body and at least two lenses, which weigh at least four times as much as the P&S. There is also the the process of changing lenses, which you need to be comfortable with (not that it is difficult). You can avoid these issues by getting an 18-200 mm or similar superzoom lens. A lens like this does not provide the best possible quality but it is very convenient (and the quality is still OK).

Even the superzooms (my only DSLR lens is a 18-200) do far better than any P&S I've ever used.

Interesting responses, all. Re the comment that auto mode on an SLR might not be better than my good P&S -- I wonder if there's something I'm doing wrong with my P&S such that I'm having trouble capturing movement. I use the "kids and pets" mode, and it seems I can't shoot with a shutter speed faster than 1/60 and usually get blur. Any tips?

1/60th of a second won't cut it with anything moving much.

Although "shutter lag" has gotten much better on high-quality, newer P&S cameras, that is still going to be one of the discriminating factors between the two for many photographers. With a DSLR, you're typically limited in catching motion by only your reaction time, whereas a P&S adds a tenth to quarter of a second due to "shutter lag." (I missed many a great action shot with my otherwise-then-high-quality Canon G5 for exactly that reason.)

There are other pros & cons to consider for any trip, but to me and for many of my photographic subjects, the shutter lag is an important enough consideration so as to nix P&S out of hand.

DSLRs also let you fire multiple shots quickly--when faced with shots that are that tightly timed you can shoot a series in order to increase your odds of getting a good one. (Note that you'll still be limited in how many you can shoot before it fills it's memory and has to wait on the card.)

Even then the DSLR is going to do a better shot than the P&S.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "better". A poorly composed shot is crap whether it was made on a fisher price or a hasselblad, and the best camera is the one you have with you (which is rarely a large SLR)



Having a DSLR and not using anything but auto should be a crime.

Not as big a crime as close minded lack of realization of the forward march of technology. Auto mode is appropriate for the vast majority of photos taken. Make that P mode and throw in exposure compensation and program shift and you're up to 99%, the only real exception being off camera flash.



through-the-viewfinder means you'll never get glared out trying to see. It also means you can compose a shot that's below what the sensor can handle and then open the shutter for long enough

Actually an EVF is superior to OVF in all those situations.



question: One feature I routinely use with my DSLR is to take the exposure (and focus) off a more suitable nearby surface (very often I aim at the ground by my target) and then shift my aim with the trigger at the first detent--a lot easier than trying to correct the exposure for a backdrop that's going to confuse the camera. Have P&Ss caught up with this?

Actually, I would venture to say more compacts have this than SLR. It is interesting to see the half-press vs AF lock button debates - they almost 100% tie to peoples previous experience. Compact users half press, SLR use AF lock

the superzooms (my only DSLR lens is a 18-200) do far better than any P&S I've ever used.

In what scenario? How are you viewing the images? Yes, in poor light at 100% crop or blown up to a billboard, the DSLR has an advantage. In normal situations, though, you will be hard pressed to reliably identify which camera took which picture in a blind test.

Actually, I would venture to say more compacts have this than SLR. It is interesting to see the half-press vs AF lock button debates - they almost 100% tie to peoples previous experience. Compact users half press, SLR use AF lock

More? I thought it was universal amongst SLRs.

I do it more for exposure than focus--I've never seen a SLR that can cope with a subject against a bright background unless the subject comprises a good portion of the shot.

First time post. Traveled to Galapagos Oct 2010 incl Santa Cruz & Isabella. Day trip to Plazas is a MUST, esp in fall as colors are amazing there.

I would highly recommend an SLR, but the key here is lens length more than anything else. While the wildlife in Galapagos is pretty tame by most standards, you're not going to get closer than 10ft to anything other than lizards and turtles. That means if you want to shoot birds, you'll need 300mm - 400mm focal length, only really available on SLR with pricey lens. Landscapes will work fine in wider angles.

My attitude is expense be damned...Galapagos is once in lifetime experience, so make sure to capture it.

You will be taking most of your pictures in bright daylight, so you should have good luck with even moving targets. One of the best things about the Galapagos, however, is that the animals really don't move. They just kind of sit there and look straight at ya'.

Personally, I'd recommend you just use your trusty camera you are familiar with and concentrate on enjoying the sights rather than on trying to manipulate all the gadgets on a new high tech camera. You'll get plenty of great shots, don't worry.

More? I thought it was universal amongst SLRs.

I do it more for exposure than focus--I've never seen a SLR that can cope with a subject against a bright background unless the subject comprises a good portion of the shot.

DSLR's can cope fine with a subject against a bright background – provided that you use spot metering. Learning to use spot metering has had a bigger impact on the quality of my images than just about anything else I have done over the years (with the possible exception of switching from JPEG to RAW).

Cheers,
T.

DSLR's can cope fine with a subject against a bright background – provided that you use spot metering. Learning to use spot metering has had a bigger impact on the quality of my images than just about anything else I have done over the years (with the possible exception of switching from JPEG to RAW).

Cheers,
T.

Spot metering works fine when the target is big enough but in my experience it's still too wide at times.

Interesting responses, all. Re the comment that auto mode on an SLR might not be better than my good P&S -- I wonder if there's something I'm doing wrong with my P&S such that I'm having trouble capturing movement. I use the "kids and pets" mode, and it seems I can't shoot with a shutter speed faster than 1/60 and usually get blur. Any tips?

> If you have enough time, get the SLR & spend as much time as you can
> learning how to use it. Take a photo class.
>
> If the trip is next week, you may want to stick with what you've got.

+1

I think this is the best advice. If you know how to use an SLR and have the right lens, a long zoom, you will get better pictures with the SLR. I have both an SLR and an P&S but I often use the P&S in aperture priority mode or even manual mode.

I have never used the preset things like "kids and pets". I am guessing that is some kind of portrait mode rather than an action mode and so it is stopping down the lens a lot to get better sharpness and depth of field and slowing the shutter to the slowest speed. For action you actually want to do the reverse of that, especially if your target is far away as will be the case with many action photos or the Galapagos.

I havent been there but in Africa I shot with an SLR and many of the shots were done manually with spot metering and a long (100 mm to 400 mm zoom with image stabilization) and almost always at the longest length. A lot of others with either shutter or aperture priority. Doing shutter priority and setting a fast shutter speed (to catch action) will force everything else to adjust to it. A point and shoot would have been bad if only for the lens. The book mentioned above looks good as well. I think generally, if you have time, you have to 1) figure out exposure as in the book mentioned above 2) Get a camera that you can control and know how to control and 3) get a long lens. If you dont have the time at least figure out how to use your P&S or if it does not provide adequate control of exposure (lens opening and shutter speed) get another point and shoot that does.

I just checked on that camera and it doesnt give you a lot of control of exposure. It does have spot metering but doesnt have shutter priority or aperture priority modes. It does have a very fast maximum shutter speed though. I also checked the "kids and pet" setting and it is supposed to use maximum shutter speed so I'm not sure what is going on with that.

Hi all -- first post in the photography forums. I'm going to the Galapagos in about a month and want some advice.

I'm no photography pro, but I really enjoy travel photography and am usually able to get some pretty good shots through experience / trial-and-error using my high-quality point-and-shoot camera (Canon SD980IS). I'm wondering if I should stick with this approach for the Galapagos or invest in an SLR.

I'm afraid that my point-and-shoot will fail because capturing movement is one of the most difficult things for me with this camera. When I'm shooting sports or animals, I often get a blurry image and I can't find a mode that gives me a fast-enough shutter speed to avoid this. (I don't know what if anything I'm doing wrong, or that's just how it is.) Also, the camera has a 5x zoom that's pretty good for landscapes, but I'm afraid that it will be terrible if moving animals are far away.

I'd be willing to invest in a low end SLR and start learning how to use it, but I'm wondering if I'm better off using the point-and-shoot because I'm comfortable with it and know how to make it work in most situations. I know a SLR is objectively better than a point-and-shoot, but what would be the best thing for this situation? Thanks.

Most of the time, SLRs are far more capable cameras than P&S cams. There are some exceptions, such as if you compare a low-end SLR to a very high-end P&S or bridge camera, but for the most part, SLR is the way to go when presented with a once in a lifetime photo op.

Your problem is that you only have a month to learn how to use an SLR before your trip. Using it in full auto mode (commonly called Green Box Mode because of the symbol on the Mode dial) eliminates the biggest advantage that SLRs have over most P&S cams, namely the ability to manually adjust exposure parameters.

But you can still make take great pics with an SLR, even if you don't have much time to learn all of the intricacies. A few hours reading up on basic SLR operation and playing with the camera could be enough to give you the basic skills you need to get some wonderful pics on your trip.

I bought my first SLR in 1999, 3 months before my first solo trip to Disney World. The first three rolls of film I shot were garbage; I was devastated that this expensive camera I had bought was not producing better images. But then I got an hour or two of instruction from a friend, and over night my pics improved; the pics I got on that trip were the best I had ever shot.

So, my recommendation is simple - getting the SLR is a great idea, but ONLY if you are able, and willing, to take some time to learn A) basic SLR operation, and B) become familiar with the basic concepts of exposure and composition. Since wildlife photography is your aim, additional techniques specific to that type of photography will also be a tremendous benefit.

Incidentally - you can also RENT a long lens for your trip, rather then buy one. There are a number of online companies that rent camera equipment at fair prices for situations like yours; if you buy an entry-level SLR with a basic kit lens and get to know the basics, you can then rent a long lens for your trip, and save yourself the expense of a 400mm lens till you've become more familiar with SLR photography and can decide for yourself what lenses you need to buy.

I've decided to bring along a DSLR to the Galap. I have a little bit of experience shooting with DSLRs and understand the basics of ISO/aperture/shutter speed, but I'd like some tips on things I'd need to practice. I'm definitely not going to shoot on Auto, but I don't know if I'm ready for full M either. I'm okay using a DSLR for normal landscape or city scenes, but nothing artistic. So, I'm looking for tips on just doing a good job at capturing the animals without being Nat Geo artistic quality. Since the lighting is good (as people say), should I do most of my shooting in ISO100 / 200? Should I try to use shutter priority mode rather than P mode as much as I can so I can capture movement better? If so, what are good shutter speeds to aim for especially if I'm at 300mm on the tele? When would I want to use aperture priority mode? Thanks so much.

I've decided to bring along a DSLR to the Galap. I have a little bit of experience shooting with DSLRs and understand the basics of ISO/aperture/shutter speed, .

Um maybe not so much based on these questions...

. Since the lighting is good (as people say), should I do most of my shooting in ISO100 / 200? Should I try to use shutter priority mode rather than P mode as much as I can so I can capture movement better? If so, what are good shutter speeds to aim for especially if I'm at 300mm on the tele? When would I want to use aperture priority mode? Thanks so much.

If you are trying to control motion, S mode. If you are trying to set a particular DOF, A mode. If you cant get a proper exposure at the desired shutter speed or iso, then start bumping up the ISO, understanding it will add noise.

Shutter speed should be the reciprocal of the equiv focal length. So on a canon crop sensor (1.5x), you will need a shutter speed of 1/450 (1/500 on most cameras) or faster with your 300mm lens Image stabilization can reduce that a bit, maybe 1/250 or 1/125 if you're photographing stationary subjects and just fighting camera shake.

Be sure to take lens hoods and polarizing filters to make sure you get all the color saturation you can in the bright light!

Um maybe not so much based on these questions...



If you are trying to control motion, S mode. If you are trying to set a particular DOF, A mode. If you cant get a proper exposure at the desired shutter speed or iso, then start bumping up the ISO, understanding it will add noise.

Shutter speed should be the reciprocal of the equiv focal length. So on a canon crop sensor (1.5x), you will need a shutter speed of 1/450 (1/500 on most cameras) or faster with your 300mm lens Image stabilization can reduce that a bit, maybe 1/250 or 1/125 if you're photographing stationary subjects and just fighting camera shake.

Be sure to take lens hoods and polarizing filters to make sure you get all the color saturation you can in the bright light!

Thanks for the response. Helpful. Can you please dumb down the reciprocal part a little bit more for me (or let me know something good I can read). First, how does the crop factor work with Nikon (DX)? Also, at any particular focal length, shouldn't I use a faster shutter speed when I'm shooting something that's moving than I would when shooting something that's stationary?

The crop factor essentially reduces the field of view. Imagine you have a full frame lens on your camera, the projected image circle is considerably larger than the sensor. So you only "see" the central part of it, making it seem like you have a longer lens on.

In the case of DX, I believe the factor is 1.5x. So a lens marked 50mm on a DX body will have the same field of view as a 75mm lens on a FX body. Because of the tighter field of view, shake becomes more apparent, so you need a faster shutter speed.

By reciprocal, I mean "one over". So a 300 mm lens x 1.5 crop factor = 450 mm equivalent. The recommended shutter speed is then 1/450 or faster.

Note that this shutter speed is independent of the object motion. When you set your 1/450 (most cameras will not have that as an option, you would use 1/500 instead), it will be plenty fast to stop all but the fastest moving subjects. Note that a bit of motion blur on a moving object can actually be quite attractive. I think there is far too much emphasis these days on stop motion. This picture would downright suck without the blur of her tail. With it, I'm willing to overlook the major white balance issue:
http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a0cf03b3127ccefbf960aa368e00000030O08AbNWLJszZOA e3nw0/cC/f%3D0/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D550/ry%3D400/

The crop factor essentially reduces the field of view. Imagine you have a full frame lens on your camera, the projected image circle is considerably larger than the sensor. So you only "see" the central part of it, making it seem like you have a longer lens on.

In the case of DX, I believe the factor is 1.5x. So a lens marked 50mm on a DX body will have the same field of view as a 75mm lens on a FX body. Because of the tighter field of view, shake becomes more apparent, so you need a faster shutter speed.

By reciprocal, I mean "one over". So a 300 mm lens x 1.5 crop factor = 450 mm equivalent. The recommended shutter speed is then 1/450 or faster.

Note that this shutter speed is independent of the object motion. When you set your 1/450 (most cameras will not have that as an option, you would use 1/500 instead), it will be plenty fast to stop all but the fastest moving subjects. Note that a bit of motion blur on a moving object can actually be quite attractive. I think there is far too much emphasis these days on stop motion. This picture would downright suck without the blur of her tail. With it, I'm willing to overlook the major white balance issue:
http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a0cf03b3127ccefbf960aa368e00000030O08AbNWLJszZOA e3nw0/cC/f%3D0/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D550/ry%3D400/


Interesting stuff, and cute dog too. One clarification about how you say that shutter speed is independent of object motion. If you're taking a normal photo of your dog inside your house / in the backyard from not too far away -- using say a 18mm focal length. Doing the math (1 / 1.5 x 18), the rule says a minimum shutter speed of ~1/30. If he's moving around and not posing / playing dead, wouldn't you want to bump up the shutter speed to much quicker than 1/30 to avoid motion blur that ruins the pic? Aren't you much more likely to get a good pic at 1/125 than 1/30? I guess what I'm asking is how you know what's a good shutter speed to use if you want to shoot quicker than the minimum according to the formula.

Interesting stuff, and cute dog too. One clarification about how you say that shutter speed is independent of object motion. If you're taking a normal photo of your dog inside your house / in the backyard from not too far away -- using say a 18mm focal length. Doing the math (1 / 1.5 x 18), the rule says a minimum shutter speed of ~1/30. If he's moving around and not posing / playing dead, wouldn't you want to bump up the shutter speed to much quicker than 1/30 to avoid motion blur that ruins the pic? Aren't you much more likely to get a good pic at 1/125 than 1/30? I guess what I'm asking is how you know what's a good shutter speed to use if you want to shoot quicker than the minimum according to the formula.

The main function of the reciprocal rule is to prevent motion blur caused by the camera and lens moving during the exposure. Your own breathing, heartbeat, and natural unsteadiness when hand-holding a camera all contribute to a certain amount of motion blur. The longer the lens, the more these tiny tremors are amplified at the front element of the lens, hence the reason why the minimum exposure time has to be shorter and shorter as the lens gets longer and longer, to compensate.

Think of it like holding a pencil in your hand and writing on a wall. Pretty steady. Now tape the pencil to the end of a 6' pole and hold it at the far end - the pencil is not as steady now, and your writing will be jerkier. Same thing happens with the lens.

Motion blur of the subject is an entirely different phenomenon that requires its own minimum shutter speed, independent of the reciprocal rule. Something moving needs a faster shutter speed depending on the speed of motion; for things like gliding birds or running children, 1/500 or faster is good. For rabbits or galloping horses, 1/1000 or faster. Note that a galloping horse or running child's legs will probably still be blurred until your shutter speed gets faster than 1/1000.

If you are shooting a lot of fast moving stuff outdoors in bright sunlight, you can try Shutter Speed Priority mode and set your shutter speed to 1/1000 or 1/2000 and try a few shots to see if they blur badly, then adjust upward as necessary. 1/1000 will definitely be above the minimum for the reciprocal rule, and should be fast enough to freeze most motion.

The main function of the reciprocal rule is to prevent motion blur caused by the camera and lens moving during the exposure. Your own breathing, heartbeat, and natural unsteadiness when hand-holding a camera all contribute to a certain amount of motion blur. The longer the lens, the more these tiny tremors are amplified at the front element of the lens, hence the reason why the minimum exposure time has to be shorter and shorter as the lens gets longer and longer, to compensate.

You're utterly off target here. It has nothing to do with the physical size of the lens. My 18-200 (28-300 effective) zoom is *FAR* longer than a 18mm fixed lens but 1/30 of a second is fine for handholding with either. It won't grow all that much when I zoom it all the way but now I would be pushing it on whether the vibration reduction would be enough to save the shot if I were to shoot at 1/30.

Rather, as the focal length goes up the angle of the view represented by each pixel goes down. Thus a smaller angle of wiggle is needed to move the camera by enough pixels to cause noticeable blurring.

Motion blur of the subject is an entirely different phenomenon that requires its own minimum shutter speed, independent of the reciprocal rule. Something moving needs a faster shutter speed depending on the speed of motion; for things like gliding birds or running children, 1/500 or faster is good. For rabbits or galloping horses, 1/1000 or faster. Note that a galloping horse or running child's legs will probably still be blurred until your shutter speed gets faster than 1/1000.

Yeah--I have a shot of a wingless butterfly. IIRC it was something like 1/300. He was flitting around and I kept trying to get a shot and I finally got one when he landed on a bush. Oops--he was still flapping his wings and they were moving fast enough that they basically aren't in the shot at all.

Yeah, I guess my wording was a little confusing.

In the example above, the 1/500 was purely to stop the stability blur of the camera. If the object is moving very fast, you may need to go faster than that. If you want to go slower, IS will help, but a tripod is a better option.

Yeah, I guess my wording was a little confusing.

In the example above, the 1/500 was purely to stop the stability blur of the camera. If the object is moving very fast, you may need to go faster than that. If you want to go slower, IS will help, but a tripod is a better option.

I was giving my wingless butterfly as an example of target motion. I expected a bit of blur, I didn't expect to see no wings.

You can blur out people walking with a slow enough shutter speed ...

I've been to Galapagos. Two things you must take, whatever camera you use:

1. Tripod. A cheap one, about $20 on Amazon with a quick-release head. You will be walking a lot over very broken ground. You will want to put the camera down when you need both hands. You will need the tripod to steady telephoto shots. You can just not hand-hold a long telephoto shot and get anything but blur. Frigate bitds, eagles, penguins will pose, but you will need to telephoto.

2. An underwater housing for your camera. Or a second camera with an underwater housing. The water is amazingly clear. The underwater photo opportunities are amazing. Sea Lions, sharks, penguins, tropical fish, iguanas , dolphins. They will swim right up to you as you snorkel.

3. An insulated camera bag. You are at sea level. The air is warm and humid. But the boat is air-conditioned. Protect the camera from the AC, unless you want the lens to fog and the electronics to short out from condensation.

That's three. You will have an amazing good time. Take bug repellant.

1. Canon S95

2. Canon G12

You can buy a low en srl but if you want quality photos, you need to invest in good lens ;)