Bridge Camera's

[exeter_uk]

Hi all,

I was hoping to get your thoughts on "Bridge Camera's" in general, as well as specifically the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28

I am not intending to get into photography in any serious way, and to someone who's knowledge about digital camera's consists of surfing the net for the last few days the option of a bridge camera seemed very appealing

Thanks in advance

James

[MichaelF]

bridge camera
Those the things that the police sometimes put on bridges to catch speeding motorists?

[Joe stockwell]

i have sent you a PM on bridge cameras

[Colin Key]

James,

First of all, I absolutely hate this term "Bridge Camera"; the implication is that it is "neither one thing nor the other" (i.e. not a compact digital or a DSLR), which in many ways is the case.

Without knowing exactly what you are going to do with this camera, it is not easy to make any further comment. I presume, since you are here, that you intend to photograph birds? The Panasonic model you refer to is a good "general purpose" (landscapes, portraits, macros, etc) camera but, in my opinion, would be totally useless for bird photography.

Do you have a telescope? If so, you would be much better off using a good P&S compact in a "digiscoping" set-up.

I would be interested to know what top secret info Joe has PM'd you!! :ohdear:

Colin

[exeter_uk]

Hi Colin

No i do not have a telescope, and i assume these are quite expensive? I would be interested to know why you think this type of camera would be no good for bird photography? I wouldn't be buying the camera specifically for photographing birds, but it is something i can see myself using it for!

lol no top secret info from Joe, just trying to avoid advertising!

Many thanks

James

[Odonate]

James

I have been using the Panasonic FZ18 since Christmas now and have got on really well with it. I am not in any way a photographer but find it perfect for record type shots and sometimes something a bit better when the light is good and the birds are close. I have actually had more success with Dragonfly photos - see my blog (http://www.surfbirds.com/blog/billington/)

If you are looking for a good all-purpose camera for different types of wildlife shots then this type of camera is ideal (is also relatively small and light). If you are looking to take high quality bird shots then I would recommend something more professional.

Odonate

[Colin Key]

Hi Colin

No i do not have a telescope, and i assume these are quite expensive? I would be interested to know why you think this type of camera would be no good for bird photography? I wouldn't be buying the camera specifically for photographing birds, but it is something i can see myself using it for!

lol no top secret info from Joe, just trying to avoid advertising!

Many thanks

James

Hello James,

Yes, a "top end" 'scope with the quality of optics required for digiscoping is VERY expensive - you would be looking at not far short of £2,000 (the soon to be released new Leica will be £2,500). But, to make an analogy with conventional DSLR photography, it is the optics (i.e. the lens) in front of the camera sensor which "makes" the image - good lens, .... camera rather than vice versa is always the way to go.

There really is no cheap introduction to bird photography. The Panasonic model you refer to is a fine piece of kit but it simply does not have the "reach" (magnification) for wild bird photography and I think you would be very disappointed with the results. There is no opportunity of changing to a longer focal length lens with this type of camera.

In my opinion, the cheapest set-up would be (and I am quoting Canon rather than Nikon because that is the brand I use, and there really are no contenders to these two brands) a Canon 40D (used are coming on the market at reasonable prices with the introduction of the 50D) combined with a 400 mm f/5.6 lens and a x1.4 Teleconverter. If you also managed to get the 50 mm "kit" lens with the 40D you would also have a very good general purpose set-up which is "streets ahead" of the Panasonic, and would last you a long time. The Canon "L" series lenses also hold their re-sale value extremely well. But, we are talking about a cost in the region of £1,200 at least, and that may be well beyond your budget.

In general (i.e. "artistic") photography it is often said that it is what is behind the camera (the photographer) which matters, and a talented photographer can produce fabulous images with any gear; in bird photography I'm afraid that this is not the case and it is the idiot with the "dosh" who gets the best images. :cry:

Colin :beer:

[w_tanager]

I currently use the Panasonic DMC-FZ28 and think it's a terrific camera. Will you get magazine quality bird photos? Probably not. I should also say that I am a complete amateur when it comes to photography, and find the camera quite easy to use. It's maybe not as good for bird shots as a good digiscope set up, or a dSLR with telephoto lens, but then again it's also a small fraction of the price. You can add a 1.7x teleconverter as well for that extra reach (either the Olympus TCON-17 or Panasonic DMWLT55). I don't know how to attach pictures here, but will try to get some online for you to see over the weekend.

Cheers,
Nathan Hentze,
British Columbia, Canada

[Colin Key]

I currently use the Panasonic DMC-FZ28 and think it's a terrific camera. Will you get magazine quality bird photos? Probably not. I should also say that I am a complete amateur when it comes to photography, and find the camera quite easy to use. It's maybe not as good for bird shots as a good digiscope set up, or a dSLR with telephoto lens, but then again it's also a small fraction of the price. You can add a 1.7x teleconverter as well for that extra reach (either the Olympus TCON-17 or Panasonic DMWLT55). I don't know how to attach pictures here, but will try to get some online for you to see over the weekend.

Cheers,
Nathan Hentze,
British Columbia, Canada

Hello Nathan,

And welcome to the Forum.

I (and probably James as well) would be very interested in seeing some of your images taken with this camera posted here.

If you have any problems as to how to post images please get back us - always happy to help.

Regards,

Colin :smile:

[exeter_uk]

Thanks everyone for your replies

Odonate, thanks for the links to your photos, and advice, i wouldnt be looking to get particularly high quality shots, and general wildlife shots would probably be what i take.

Colin, i am afraid as a third year university student £1200 for the set up you suggest would be more then a little out of my reach, as would a telescope, but thankyou for the advice. I (as someone with very limited camera knowledge) thought the 18x zoom on the camera i mentioned could get me close enough for some half decent shots?

Nathan, as colin said i would be very interested to see some of the results you are getting with this camera. out of interest, what sort of price would a teleconverter for this camera cost?

Many Thanks, James

[w_tanager]

Nathan, as colin said i would be very interested to see some of the results you are getting with this camera. out of interest, what sort of price would a teleconverter for this camera cost?



James and Colin, I've put some photos up online now. There's a few random shots of scenery, etc. and I made one set with just my bird photos. In the description I tried to include a little about how far I was from the bird, and any post-processing I did. All the non-bird shots (and some of the bird ones as well) are straight out of camera. I have little to no clue what I'm doing in terms of photography, so most shots were taken on auto, and settings are as they come out of the box. Any post-processing was limited to cropping, and in a few cases zooming slightly or clicking the "auto enhance" button on the software that came with the camera. I just got the camera recently, and work prevents me from getting out during daylight hours, so the number of sample shots is limited. They aren't magazine quality or award-winning shots by any means, but good enough for my purposes. The link is http://flickr.com/photos/16632850@N06/

As I'm in Canada I don't know if the prices for teleconverters will translate to anything you could expect across the pond, but I can find the Olympus TCON-17 1.7x teleconverter for about $118 CDN, the Panasonic DMW-LT55 1.7x teleconverter for $227 CDN, and the adaptor ring (DMW-LA3) for about $37 CDN. I haven't yet had the opportunity to use a teleconverter with this camera.

Hope that helps,
Nathan

[exeter_uk]

Hi Nathan

Thanks very much for getting those photo's online, some nice shots, i particularly like the one of the robin! :smile: . I think your shots are fairly representitive of what i would be trying to achieve, i.e 20 to 30m away, and personally, I would be very happy with shots of that quality.

Having done a bit of my own research, the panasonic teleconverter would set me back around £125, and could be something i may get at a later date, as reviews of it are pretty good, and the extension of the zoom is appealing!

Thanks again.

James

[Colin Key]

I was also impressed with some of these shots Nathan. I looked at the robin shot and, although what you have posted is good, if you attempt any post-processing then you find that there is just not the necessary amount of digital data.

This presents a bit of a dilemma for James; this package looks reasonably O.K. (but with many reservations) but will never produce the sort of images that a DSLR will. One must also factor-in the reality that this type of camera will be superceded and become redundant within a couple of years (and hence have almost zero value), whereas some now ancient (almost) Canon 20D's are still capable of incredible images with current lenses.

A difficult decision indeed (and I have enough redundant cameras in my possession to be able to say that). My advice would always be wait and save for some gear of "proven quality" rather then buying what appears to be a great piece of kit which might lose its value extremely quickly and not give the results you had hoped for.

Honestly don't want to pi$$ on your purchase, just being realistic!!

Best,

Colin :smile:

[exeter_uk]

Colin, i appreciate what your saying, but i would not be looking to produce excellent quality images, and shots such as Nathan produced would satisfy me perfectly. As i said i am not a photographer, but would like to take some photo's purely for my own enjoyment. Also in my current situation (student) it may take me a very long time (at least a few years) to save enough money to let myself spend £1200 on a camera set up!

As for what you say about the camera becoming redundant, i do appreciate that it will not be worth much at all in a few years (but thats the same when buying most electronics, laptops etc) if in a few years, when i have a bit more money, i decide i want to get into photography more seriously. i can always invest in a DSLR then, and i would have had some practice!

Many thanks everyone for your thoughts and advice!

James

[w_tanager]

Colin, I don't disagree with what you said, but think this is a good entry-level camera that can still provide decent results while being relatively cheap and compact. But I, and am sure James, appreciate the input.

James, I had a couple other final thoughts on the matter. One is that these types of cameras typically don't do well for capturing birds in flight. The auto focus just isn't fast enough usually (and manual focus too cumbersome for this kind of action shot). Just another one of the limitations of this type of camera. But for me personally, the financial aspect of it, the ease of carrying this camera as opposed to a heavier, bigger DSLR with many lenses, and the opportunity to learn about photography now before moving up to the DSLR range were all big selling points. Finally, if you're interested in this camera or others, and in photography in general, there are some good forums at http://dpreview.com

Hope you enjoy whatever purchase you end up making. Good birding all.
Nathan

[Colin Key]

......there are some good forums at http://dpreview.com

Nathan

If you are happy with what you have, and it suits YOUR needs, than that is all that really matters. As I said, I was impressed with some of your images from this camera.

I think that introducing James to DPReview is a bit unkind - rather like throwing Christians to the lions!!! :laugh:

Cheers,

Colin :beer:

[MichaelF]

I think that introducing James to DPReview is a bit unkind
Never heard of DPReview - does it only cover items suitable for the filthy rich??

[Colin Key]

Never heard of DPReview - does it only cover items suitable for the filthy rich??

You are obviously not a photographer Michael! DPReview is the world's largest on-line photography forum. It was British-owned and run by Phil Askey, but he recently sold-out to Amazon (although he still runs the site).

Its membership is international but, like many such forums, has become mainly populated by N Americans who are, I have to say, the most vitriolic bunch of people I have ever encountered (that is not aimed at all Americans, I am just referring to those on the DPR forum).

I used to visit that forum for information on gear and techniques, etc. - now I just dip in for the entertainment value.

Colin :eek:

[MichaelF]

You are obviously not a photographer
Nope! And more to the point, like James, not exactly rolling in money

has become mainly populated by ....
Reminds me of certain other websites I can think of!!

[Colin Key]

Nope! And more to the point, like James, not exactly rolling in money

I spent six years at university in London - I know what poverty is :cool:

Reminds me of certain other websites I can think of!!

Don't get us going about THAT forum again :realmad:

Colin

[Tim Blackburn]

I won't comment on the interesting thoughts and suggestions from previous posters, but if anyone wants to check out some more shots taken with a Panasonic FZ28, I have just added some to the World Birding photo site. They were taken in South Africa, where the birds were admittedly very obliging.

Tim

[Joe stockwell]

I am about to say somthing really scary..... i like the new casio! with a 20x optical zoom it should sound appealing, but this isnt the main attraction it captures 210 frames per second in movie mode, when in play back it plays in realtime and WOW its good!

normaly i wouldnt recomend a casio but it is worth its pricetag i havent had the oppertunity to try it out on some wildlife, im sure it will be good

hopefully i will have some videos to upload to youtube tommorow so ill post a link

joe

[Colin Key]

Look forward to seeing this Joe (I thought Casio only made calculators :wink:).

If you have seen the video capabilities of the new Canon 5DII as posted by ace bird photographer (probably the best in the world) Romy Ocon, aka "Liquidstone", you would go bury your head in the sand. The quality is literally unbelievable. I will try to find the link to some of his clips from the Phillipines (where he is based).

Colin :smile:

[john c]

An interesting topic. I've been called many things, but never a photographer! However, I've got a Panasonic FZ30 with which I've managed some reasonable shots of various birds (none online and I've no idea whether or how I could post any here). I've found it hard to grab much beyond 'record shots' of small passerines (although some obliging birds have allowed half decent shots). I've been more successful with some larger species though - certainly not 'magazine quality', but perfectly acceptable. What I have found, though, is that I can get good shots of plants/insects and still get an opportunistic photo of passing larger birds whilst SLR equipped friends have struggled to change lenses. A big advantage if you don't have aspirations to produce 'great' bird shots.

It has also been a useful to learn about taking photos with something more than a point-and-shoot, but less than an SLR. It's persuaded me that I'd like to get a SLR type camera in the not so distant future. I say 'type' as Panasonic's mini 4/3rds G1 attracts, but thats another story. (And, yes, I appreciate the disadvantages of this system but smaller camera bodies and lenses are a big pull for me).

I would also add that I would be circumspect about getting converter to bump up optical magnification - I got an Olympus converter and was VERY disappointed by the high level of colour fringing it induced.

So I'd go with the Panasonic range use it as a learning tool until you can afford something better (and I wager it'll be a lot better in 3-4 years!). You might not get much of a second hand price down the line, but think of the extra fun and knowledge you'll have gained,

John

[Colin Key]

[QUOTE=john c;10220..... However, I've got a Panasonic FZ30 with which I've managed some reasonable shots of various birds (none online and I've no idea whether or how I could post any here).

John[/QUOTE]

John,

Posting photos here is very simple, and I hope you will share some of what you have taken (especially in Spain).

To post photos in your own forum gallery just go to "upload photos" which will then allow you to search for the image on your hard-drive, give it a name and any other data about equipment used, location, etc.

To embed an image in a post you need to have your photos already uploaded to a web-hosting site ("Photobucket" is a simple one to use and, in my opinion, better than "Flickr" which degrades the image in downsizing - Google it) which will assign each one a unique URL. If you then copy (Ctrl + C) that URL and paste it (Ctrl + V) into the "insert image" drop-down box (click on the message menu icon which looks like a postcard of two mointains with a stamp on it) hey presto, the image appears in your message.

Any problems, please come back to us (or send me a PM).

If you are uploading to the gallery I would advise you to resize the image to no larger than 800 pixels maximum dimension but at maximum JPEG quaility.

Cheers,

Colin

[Colin Key]

Joe,

Just take a look at this (especially the Brown Shrike):


http://www.vimeo.com/user804041/videos


Colin :cool:

[Joe stockwell]

thanks colin, makes me want to buy the mk2!

but ive got my eye on a "sigmonster" first, just not sure i want to spend that much money on a hobby lens:err:

j

[beltonbirder]

I am a freelance photographer mainly Landscape and Wildlife also the odd local news story. I have been using a bridge since going digital and my photographs still sell. As my old art teacher told me it is not the Fiddle but the Fiddle player that makes a musical instrument sing.

Mine is a Fuji.
I may buy a DSLR but only if my bridge breaks down.

[Colin Key]

I am a freelance photographer mainly Landscape and Wildlife also the odd local news story. I have been using a bridge since going digital and my photographs still sell. As my old art teacher told me it is not the Fiddle but the Fiddle player that makes a musical instrument sing.

Mine is a Fuji.
I may buy a DSLR but only if my bridge breaks down.

Very true, but a Canon 1DMk3 "Stradivarius" does make a beautiful sound!! :biggrin:

http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/103066748.jpg

Colin

[MichaelF]

While the sort of tin whistle most of us can afford doesn't . . . :hmpf:

[Colin Key]

While the sort of tin whistle most of us can afford doesn't . . . :hmpf:

The image quality is not too good on that shot Michael - are they Whistling Ducks? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Colin :wink:

[john c]

Thanks for coming back to me on this issue - I'd have put money on you doing so! When I can work out what it all means (!) I'll investigate the process,

John


John,

Posting photos here is very simple, and I hope you will share some of what you have taken (especially in Spain).

To post photos in your own forum gallery just go to "upload photos" which will then allow you to search for the image on your hard-drive, give it a name and any other data about equipment used, location, etc.

To embed an image in a post you need to have your photos already uploaded to a web-hosting site ("Photobucket" is a simple one to use and, in my opinion, better than "Flickr" which degrades the image in downsizing - Google it) which will assign each one a unique URL. If you then copy (Ctrl + C) that URL and paste it (Ctrl + V) into the "insert image" drop-down box (click on the message menu icon which looks like a postcard of two mointains with a stamp on it) hey presto, the image appears in your message.

Any problems, please come back to us (or send me a PM).

If you are uploading to the gallery I would advise you to resize the image to no larger than 800 pixels maximum dimension but at maximum JPEG quaility.

Cheers,

Colin

[john c]

Thanks (I hope) to Colin's tuition I've now managed to load up some images taken with my Panasonic FZ30 camera (except that of the Dabchick which was taken with a FZ20) on to 'Photobucket'. I make no claims whatsoever for their photographic quality, but post them merely to show what can be achieved with a bridge camera by a clueless technophobe who's never bothered to manage all that his camera is capable of!

Go to (once more in hope) photobucket.com/alcala4birds

John

[Colin Key]

John,

The link to your Photobucket site is not working. Can you log-in to your account and copy (Ctrl + C) the entire URL link (http://.......etc.) and then paste it (Ctrl + V) into a new message here.

Colin

[Colin Key]

But I did find your blog - you have some nice images there.

Do you recognise this?:

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/EgyptianVulture-1.jpg

Copyright ©John C

I took the liberty of doing a little processing (highlights & shadows, then some sharpening) on it.

Colin

[john c]

Thanks, Colin - can you process all of my photos for me?

Typimng in the link as given seems to work for me, but once typed in the relevant address seems to be:-

http://s463.photobucket.com/albums/qq357/LancelotJohn/

- hope this works. You wouldn't believe that I work in a Technology School would you?

John

[Colin Key]

It works John!

You have some very good images, and you could improve them by honing your post-processing skills.

I liked this one of the Lesser Kestrel very much (it took me 30 seconds to improve it in Photoshop, and I could make it much better if I had the original "out of camera" file to work on).

You also have a good "compositional eye" in the way that you place the subject in the frame - most people just crop it to a "bird in a box".

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/LesserKestrel.jpg

Keep at it, it is worth it!!

Colin

P.S. I think that we met once, 12 or more years ago, in one of the hides at the Swale Reserve (Shellness) - I have very fond memories of that place (apart from the "nudist" beach!!).

[Colin Key]

You wouldn't believe that I work in a Technology School would you?

John

Knitting or woodwork John? :laugh:

Only joking,

All the best,

Colin :beer:

[beltonbirder]

Interesting about birds on boxes, I think we are all guilty of this, The bird is just a bird but to frame it in an artistic way is unknown to most bird photographers including me. a nice winter project me thinks

[Colin Key]

Interesting about birds on boxes, I think we are all guilty of this, The bird is just a bird but to frame it in an artistic way is unknown to most bird photographers including me. a nice winter project me thinks

Totally agree,

and John's shot of the Lesser Kestrel (which I did some processing on but did not alter the "crop") is all the better for having that free space in front of the bird.

Colin

[john c]

Thanks again, Colin, both for the processing and compliment. I admit I'm a little nervous of processing images. As for my compositional skills, it's all the crude aplication of our old friend the 'golden section' plus the fact that I always like to allow birds space to move into. Incidentally, I hope my efforts at least show that you can get some reasonable shots with a bridge camera,

John

[Bobolink44]

Colin, what would be your quick 30sec approach to improve a photo. Is there a brain-dead approach some of us newbies could take such as: "auto contrast" and "unsharp mask" or do you prefer to manually adjust contrast and something other than unsharp mask eg "sharpen more"?

[MichaelF]

"bird in a box"

The RSPB do some good boxes for Blue Tits :ohdear:

[Colin Key]

Colin, what would be your quick 30sec approach to improve a photo. Is there a brain-dead approach some of us newbies could take such as: "auto contrast" and "unsharp mask" or do you prefer to manually adjust contrast and something other than unsharp mask eg "sharpen more"?

There is no simple answer to this Bobolink, hence the reason for copious books written on the subject. It also depends on which post-processing software you use; I use Photoshop Elements 6 on a Mac (there is a version 7 for PC at £57.47 from Amazon) rather than the full-blown Photoshop CS4 which is very expensive (£570) and extremely complicated and aimed as much at graphic designers as photographers. But all the other packages ("Paint Shop Pro", "Light Room", etc.) do the same job but in slightly different ways. I also use "Neat Image" as "plug in" (i.e. works within Photoshop) since the noise reduction tools in Photoshop, etc. are rather limited.

I also always shoot in RAW, convert to TIFF (this is the file which I would work on in Photoshop) and finally save as JPEG for web publication. I don't know whether a "Bridge" camera allows this, but I think I am correct that none of the best "Point & Shoot" cameras used in digiscoping do. If RAW is not possible then always shoot in Large Jpeg to produce the biggest possible files with the most digital data.

The most basic steps to follow are:

1. Adjust the exposure to compensate for overexposed whites and underexposed shadows. Do not use any "auto adjust" tools; they sometimes work for landscapes, portraits, etc, but never for birds. Photoshop Elements has "Levels" and "Adjust Lighting" (there will be similar tools in other programs) - it takes seconds to adjust the sliders and watch the preview of the effect on the image. The purists using Photoshop CS4 would say that this is crude and they would be using "Curves" - you could spend the rest of your life tweaking with that!

2. Use Neat Image to remove noise if necessary (especially if the image was taken at high ISO), but use sparingly as you can also remove detail.

3. Possibly adjust Colour (a little increase in saturation is usually all I do), and a slight increase in contrast if the image looks "flat".

4. Sharpen (this should always be the last operation) using "Unsharp Mask" - you need to experiment with settings before you get this right. PS Elements has a new tool called "Adjust Sharpness" which is less complex than "Unsharp Mask" but allows more control than "Auto Sharpen" - it is what I normally use. NEVER oversharpen at this stage or you will produce artifacts (bright edge-fringing) in the final image.

5. Reduce the image size for publication (after saving the image at full size in another folder for future printing, etc). I prefer 800 pixels maximum dimension, or 1000 if it is a panoramic shot. After reducing the image should then be sharpened again with a weaker pass in "Unsharp Mask", "Adjust Sharpness" or whatever, but not Auto Sharpen. This final sharpening is very important in the way your image appears on a web page.

6. Save this final reduced image but do not use the "Save for Web" option; that compresses the data and undoes some of what you have achieved above. Instead, use "Save As" and save the image as a JPEG at "Maximum Quality" (level 12 in Photoshop).

In reality it takes much less time than this makes it sound, but it does require a bit of practice so that the actions become almost automatic.

Colin

P.S. Most cameras will come with their own Image Editing software. Canon's is DPP (Digital Photo Professional) which is actually quite good (and I do use it to convert from RAW to TIFF files) but I think that cost of Photoshop Elements (and the additional $35 US for Neat Image, as a download) is well worth it.

P.P.S. If you are taking the original image in L Jpeg format do not program the camera to do too much in-camera processing (sharpening, colour saturation, etc). Also, remember that JPEG is not a "lossless" format like RAW and TIFF so each time you make any adjustment and save the file there is some image degradation. Always copy your original file and work on that - that way, if you make a hash of it, or as your processing skills improve, you can always go back to your original and start again.

[exeter_uk]

I don't know whether a "Bridge" camera allows this, but I think I am correct that none of the best "Point & Shoot" cameras used in digiscoping do.



Hi everyone,

Colin, i know the panasonic i mentioned when i started this thread (DMC-FZ28) can shoot in RAW, one of the reasons i picked it out. i have copied and pasted your guide to processing into a word file, should come in handy!

I have decided on the camera, and will hopefully be getting soon, looking at the (really good) photo's that have been posted on this thread is just making me itch to get the camera and have a go myself!

James

[Colin Key]

Hi everyone,

Colin, i know the panasonic i mentioned when i started this thread (DMC-FZ28) can shoot in RAW, one of the reasons i picked it out. i have copied and pasted your guide to processing into a word file, should come in handy!

I have decided on the camera, and will hopefully be getting soon, looking at the (really good) photo's that have been posted on this thread is just making me itch to get the camera and have a go myself!

James

Great stuff James,

I hope that it is a success for you and that you enjoy using it. I must say, I was very enlightened by the images that John C has produced with this type of camera. The two images which I have "fiddled" with were shot as JPEGS, but if I had the original RAW files (which his camera is capable of producing) then I could have made these into real stunners - they are pretty good as they are.

Look forward to seeing some of your photos posted here.

Regards,

Colin