What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Macro camera

  • Thread starter Mannex17
  • Start date
I currently have a HP Photosmart R707. It's a great digital camera with a lot of features, but I have to hold it pretty far away to take macro shots. What's your favorite camera for macro pictures?
 
Sonys have excellent macro abilities, as do several other brands. Just look at the specs before buying one. Look for something in the 2-3cm range.
 
My vote is for Nikon. I am considering either the 5700 or the 8800 although I got a report that the 8800 isn't as easy to use as the 5700.
 
I agree with the Sony's and there macro ability.
That is why my first camera from them was a 3MP DSC-505F I believe, and now I have the Sony 5MP DSC-707.
Love the camera.
I've been slowly saving for my next upgrade in a few years. I'd love to get a SLR Digital. The problem is the lens I want cost big $$.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (endparenthesis @ June 10 2005,12:08)]Olympus has great macro modes.
I have an Olympus digital (Stylus 410) (as well as a few Olympus film cameras). The macro mode allows much better closeups than I would have expected for a camera of this caliber (basically a Point & Shoot).

However, I have a fair amount of difficulty getting decent macro shots because of the ASA of the photo sensor. Unless you are using a tripod or taking picts in mid-day strong sun, the shutter speed is very slow so most shots will not be crisp. I usually end up taking 5-20 shots and just delete all but the best 1 or 2.

The ASA is not something that most digital camera manufacturers have readily available - so you may have to dig to find it (mine is ASA 64).

It also depends on what you are looking for. A more expensive, larger 35mm digital w/ interchangeable lenses will offer much more flexibility/options than a simple put-in-the-pocket Point & Shoot camera. But you pay for that with $$$, weight & complexity....
 
i recomend the canon pro 1. it has a canon L lens (top of the line canon lenses, sharper than nikon lenses imo) 8 megapixels and the super macro mode lets you shoot 1/2 and in from your subject. you can find it for around 600 dollars and it's the closest thing to a digital SLR (interchangeble lenses) which cost thousands.

Canon Pro 1
B&H : Canon Pro 1
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (elgecko @ June 10 2005,1:08)]The problem is the lens I want cost big $$.
tell me about it
smile_n_32.gif
the lenses cost more than the cameras
 
  • #11
Haha - I just got bonked for my ENORMOUS macro shots on a Nikon - see other thread - *WARNING - HUGE MBs*. I think they came out OK. If you look, you'll see some came out better than others.

~ Brett
 
  • #12
Hi Brett

Which Nikkon do you use?
I was the one that "dissed" the newest Coolpix to Plantakiss.

I had the 5700 and it was the bees knees, loved it.
It died on me a few months ago and I had to replace it so I went looking for exactly the same model. I couldn't find anywhere that still stocked the 5700 so, with some reservations, I got the new 8800VR.
The 8800VR is a lot more complicated, the auto focus is not anywhere near as good as the 5700 and in general I don't like it as much.
Even the white balance needs adjusting nearly every time I pull the camera out of it's bag.

Cheers, Troy.
 
  • #13
And I was the one who BONKed Nrbelex for the huge photos. lol
smile_l_32.gif
It is my duty to BONK those who post monster photos. hehe
 
  • #14
Those macros were from a coolpix 5600. That's not actually my camera though and I've only used it a little so I can't say much about it. I'm using a circa 2001 Coolpix 775 which has a mere 2.1 megapixels but for my occasional photos it's fine; I rarely print real photos from it. But from what I've found through my limited use of the 5600, it's really incredible for its size and price. It has TONS of settings but is still easy to use and produces really nice photos, the same is true for the macro mode. Good luck with whatever you wind up with!

~ Brett
 
  • #15
I shoot with an Olympus C-750 UZ ($415) which not only has great macro capabilities but has a 10 power zoom...equivilent to a 360 mm telescopic lens.  Here are a few examples.
Both photos were cropped.

One of my Drosera eating some kinda' fly it caught.
perfect_landing.jpg



An example of its ability to "reach" out is this photo taken from about two miles away.  They were staging at ten thousand feet for an airshow fly by.
P_51_and_escorts.sized.jpg
 
  • #16
Both pics are awesome!  I wish my drosera had tentacles.  I sort of baked them outside and now they're regrowing. Gradually getting used to change is for sissies. Baking them builds character.
 
  • #17
I love my Sony DSC F-717. Insanely close macros.  If I need some distance between subject and camera, I just screw on a macro filter.

Unless you have a lens specifically made to do macros, don't use a slr.  I tested a Canon 350XT on my plants, and the results were horrible.  Depth of field was practically non existant, everything was out of focus (i used the crappy lens that came with the kit).  And it seems digital slr's are 2 stops less sensitive than the compact digital cameras.  I find myself having to shoot at ISO 800 and above to get usuable shutter speeds(indoors, no flash).  I will be hanging on to my sony.  If you're used to super sharp photos from digital cameras, you'll find it a shock how soft the images produced by digital slr's are
smile_h_32.gif
 
  • #18
[b said:
Quote[/b] (larry @ June 11 2005,6:43)]And it seems digital slr's are 2 stops less sensitive than the compact digital cameras. I find myself having to shoot at ISO 800 and above to get usuable shutter speeds(indoors, no flash).

If you're used to super sharp photos from digital cameras, you'll find it a shock how soft the images produced by digital slr's are
smile_h_32.gif
all that is on account of the lens. the 18-55mm ef-s lens that comes with the XT shouldn't even be called a lens. it's crap. The thing with digital SLRs are that you need a good lens in order to take advantage of them and canon L (the highest quality) lenses cost 2,000 dollars on average.

Pictures taken with the same Canon Rebel 350D XT but with the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM:
44033176._Z1Y6018.jpg


43868248._Z1Y4731.jpg


44567342._Z1Y7081.jpg


43555999._Z1Y4419.jpg

(Photographs by Paul Keates)
 
  • #19
So I wasn't going to ask because this is kind of off topic, but now that SLRs have come up I might as well... What's a good digital SLR? I was looking at (drooling at) the new Rebel XT but I was counting on just going with the kit lens to keep myself in budget. What do you think about it (besides your shining opinion of the lens? :) ) What are they like for backward compatibility? I have some fairly good lenses for my clunky old T70, but I really don't know much about photography except what I've learned from experimenting with just that T70... I've seen that the XT uses EF lenses - are these incompatible with the DF lenses for the T70?
Thanks,
~Joe
 
  • #20
[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ June 11 2005,8:56)]So I wasn't going to ask because this is kind of off topic, but now that SLRs have come up I might as well... What's a good digital SLR? I was looking at (drooling at) the new Rebel XT but I was counting on just going with the kit lens to keep myself in budget. What do you think about it (besides your shining opinion of the lens?
smile.gif
) What are they like for backward compatibility? I have some fairly good lenses for my clunky old T70, but I really don't know much about photography except what I've learned from experimenting with just that T70... I've seen that the XT uses EF lenses - are these incompatible with the DF lenses for the T70?
Thanks,
~Joe
The XT is an awesome digital SLR (as you can see from the pictures) but only as good as the lens. If you want a advanced camera you should get the canon 20D (about 1,000 for the body only). The 20D is geared towards more advanced camera users, and its heavier and bigger than the XT. If you're just a person who likes photography but doesn't want to fuss with setting every dial or need all the extra features, the XT is for you. You can't use your old FD mount lenses on it (you may be able to find an adapter though). Even so i can't stress enough the importance of a good lens. If you're buying an SLR which whos main feature that separates it from point and shoots is the fact that you can change the lenses albeit you purchase a crappy lens, why purchase the SLR? You'll get images that will be worse than point and shoots and pay a thousand or two more in the process, so i guess it's either go big or stay point and shoot. Also expect to pay more for the lenses than you did for the camera
smile_n_32.gif
 
Back
Top