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!

Camera Shopping... looking for advice

jimscott

Tropical Fish Enthusiast
I've been borrowing cameras for the past 4 years but would really like to get a decent one of my own. It doesn't have to be the top of the line thing, that comes with a user manual 2" thick. I just want to be able to take clear, crisp pictures of something along the lines of pygmy sundew.

Question 1: What is the difference between 'zoom' and macros?

Question 2: If given a choice between emphasizing zoom and macros, which would be best for small, rosetted sundews?

Question 3: What's a decent megapixel for capturing small sundews?
 
Question 1: What is the difference between 'zoom' and macros?

Zoom is just used to take pictures of things far away in the distance, but not very good for close up shots. Macro is only really good for close up shots, but many cameras have a "macro" feature with a zoom lens. For example, I have a camera with about 8x zoom, but also a macro mode. In this case, you can only zoom a little for the macro to be efficient, but the zoom has a much longer range.

But, if you're looking for like a digital SLR, a macro lens will be a much better choice than a zoom lens for taking pictures of smaller plants. Although, since these cameras are digital, they will often have a macro mode anyways.

Question 2: If given a choice between emphasizing zoom and macros, which would be best for small, rosetted sundews?

Definitely macro.

Question 3: What's a decent megapixel for capturing small sundews?

Megapixels don't have much to do with what you're wanting to photograph; it has more to do with how you want the quality of your picture to be. So, a 4 megapixel camera will still have good quality, but a 12 megapixel will have even better. It just makes the pictures clearer and show more detail. But I mean nowadays most cameras have around 10 megapixels, but anywhere from 5-10 is pretty dang good. The more megapixels your camera has, though, the larger the picture will be.

-Ben
 
Jim, for your purposes, I'd recommend that you look in to the Canon Powershot series. They vary in price, and a good number of them include Image Stabilization which can be very handy.
Furthermore, these have been pretty extensively worked on by the community and can be easily modified by putting a file on to the memory card, allowing you to unlock certain features normally only reserved for more expensive cameras.

1) Ben explained this, but I'd like to add in a few things. When looking at cameras you may find that they mention Optical zoom and Digital zoom. Digital zoom is garbage and should be ignored, it's the Optical zoom that matters.

2) Ben got it. The macro option will be your best option (unless someone made a really wacky camera.)

3) Note that megapixel number alone is not a good way to determine if a camera takes good pictures. Find reviews online (very easy to do via google.) You want a camera that'll give you sharp pictures and doesn't have any problems with the macro feature.

The pixel number is the number of dots that make up an image. While more is better, less isn't necessarily worse. The number of megapixels isn't realy a big deal, we've gotten to the point where you can get very large pictures on any given new digicam. So now the factors you really need to consider are sharpness, focal-length, and aperture size (a camera that was a wide "f-stop" range is what you want.)

It sounds a bit technical, but it's real easy after you've had it explained and used it a bit. To avoid confusion, it would be good to post the cameras that you're interested in, and we'll give you some pointers.
 
1.true macro is 1:1 or more.
zoom is how far you can go.
macro makes the pic life size or bigger.
look at this
http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/camera/lens/macro.shtml
macro
closeup-dragonfly.jpg

true macro
macro-dragonfly-thumb-500x487.jpg



2. Definitely Macro
3. Megapixel....... much is not needed unless you want to print poster size or bigger.
i'd say 8MP is good enough for everything. but the more the better, just not a big requirement.
 
I've been borrowing cameras for the past 4 years but would really like to get a decent one of my own. It doesn't have to be the top of the line thing, that comes with a user manual 2" thick. I just want to be able to take clear, crisp pictures of something along the lines of pygmy sundew.

Question 1: What is the difference between 'zoom' and macros?

Question 2: If given a choice between emphasizing zoom and macros, which would be best for small, rosetted sundews?

Question 3: What's a decent megapixel for capturing small sundews?


I personally would go the Nikon route, whether it's a point and shoot or SLR. I have been using them for years and the lenses are simply great, bar non. Splurge on a decent tripod. You won't regret it . . .

As others have mentioned, 5-10 megapixels is fine (my first digital was a 5 mp and I often still use it, even with a D2x); most have discreet macro settings and zoom lenses and reasonably low f-stops (= fast lenses) to capture images in low light situations . . .
 
I personally would go the Nikon route, whether it's a point and shoot or SLR. I have been using them for years and the lenses are simply great, bar non. Splurge on a decent tripod. You won't regret it . . .

As others have mentioned, 5-10 megapixels is fine (my first digital was a 5 mp and I often still use it, even with a D2x); most have discreet macro settings and zoom lenses and reasonably low f-stops (= fast lenses) to capture images in low light situations . . .

canon's better :-)) jk jk, just because i have a canon
 
I want to thank you all for your help. I'm going to print the advice and walk in there (presumably Walmart) and speak with them about macros, small plants, and brand names. Having worked at Home Depot I also realize that not everybody in a given department truly knows what they are working with. I've already been told to stay away from Polaroid by one person in the department.
 
If you're getting the small point and shoots, you don't really need anything larger than a 6 megapixel. The problem with larger megapixels is that they don't increase the size of the sensor. So the more megapixels they pack into that tiny amount of space, the more noise your pictures will have. 6 megapixels seems like a good compromise between picture size and image noise.
 
Thanks, Larry! For the lark of it I'm going to run this by Michelle. She was the first one to help me with that garbagy "complimentary" Earthlink camera. I got what I paid for - nothing. The best it could do was this, taken 4 years ago:

U.jpg


I'd really love to have the camera that produced these:

AR000102.jpg


AF002801.jpg


But that camera was my supervisor's and it came with a manual that was 2" thick and automatically adjusts to light and distance. It also cost a few hundred bucks!
 
  • #10
stick with the canon powershot series... but as mentioned previously, get a tripod for these exposures...

they make tiny tripods for macro use... they work wonders for these guys...
you'll also want to make sure you use your timer function to shoot these guys... most digitals dont have cable release shutters like old 35mm, but the timer function keeps you from pushing the actual button to take the picture... when your macro'd in that close your finger pushing moves the picture frame and causes more blurring...

just a small tip...

if you need help using the camera shoot me a PM.

I think I've got a pretty good photo education ;)

Chris
 
  • #11
Thanks, Chris! I'm used to using a camera that has me depress the shutter partway, to focus, before actually clicking. Is that related to what you are talking about?
 
  • #12
yeah exactly, for most photo's it doesn't matter becuase the shutter speed will be quick enough to compensate for your moving the camera that tiny amount...

in some macro's though since you dont want to use an overhead flash in order to cut on "washing out" your photo's, ( photo looks too bright due to the flash being too powerful and too close to the subject ).

so without that flash your shutter speeds drop your more likely to deal with blurring photo's... with a tripod and a timer you shouldnt have to worry about anything other than a leaf blowing :)

hope that was alittle easier to understand?
 
  • #13
I'll have to get back to you on that. Gotta get to work!
 
  • #14
Back
Top