digital camera for macro work

[Anonymous]

Yes, Masonjar has has a excellent point. On the camera I use I can send 10 photoes via email as attachment, the sum total of these photos come out to 2 megabyte or just less depending on lighting.

Another overlooked item is the lens. I dont pretend to be a pro but the camera has a 9mm lens.

The flash in the macro mode gives it full power. Some of my shots were destroyed by massive HO Nuclear Bomb flash effects. I am eyeing a sort of a syrene plate that is angled towards the top and will protect the subject from the full effects of a direct flash.

[jwmurrayjr]

Useful features that are sometimes not mentioned are aperture and shutter priority. Aperture priority is almost essential for good scenery close-ups. This allows you to determine the depth-of-field.

[:)]

[Anonymous]

Lee (Highiron) makes a good point about the potential use of the images you capture. You can get away with the low end (even less than 1MP) camera if you are only posting your pictures on line or emailing images to friends. Even a 3MP camera will make decent 4x6 prints, especially when done by the store, rather than on your printer at home.

But when you get up to the 4+MP cameras, you are looking at images that are really too huge (either file size, or actual dimensions in pixels) to show on a screen anyway. So then you are downgrading your images to email or post, which defeats the whole purpose of getting the 4+MP resolution in the first place.

Many of the pictures I put online, I have shot with my "old" Epson camera at the 640x480 setting. At 30 - 40KB each, they are just right for super fast uploading and emailing to people who will only ever see them on screen.

Andrew

[bcammack]

One of the Fuji FinePix 3mp cameras has an insane "super macro" mode that is good for something like 9cm closeups. Just remarkable. It's the one I'd like to get.

[Anonymous]

I bought a concord 3.1 mega pixel Q3042 AF at walmart for 85 dollars. And a 64 meg memory stick for it for about 25 dollars on sale.

I am capable of macro shots at about 9 inches or regular lens shooting at 2 feet and beyond.

I use rayovac double A rechargeable batteries with it's own charger. My Windows XP pro treats the camera as a "Lexar" drive which you can access using the supplied firewire cord. You can transfer the images onto your computer as JPEG files and from there upload them to the web, email to others or print them as well as burn onto CD.

There are photo developers that advertise pictures from digital cameras on CD or prints if you supply the images with the memory stick. I think I dont need to worry about that. I can do everything except create prints here at home.

The money savings with the rechargeable batteries and no film use has more than paid for the camera.

I am capable of taking about 316 pictures or 313 seconds of video. There is no sound on the video.

Some of my shots are not the best, I am at the moment working to assemble a site on the web for them.

Final word is that this camera serves me well however there are "better" cameras out there that will do zoom and other features. So I consider the camera I have a "Entry Level" one.

Edited to comment about cd's that come with these cameras. Most of the stuff on CD is not needed. What you need is the actual driver file that helps your computer understand the camera and transfer pictures etc. In my case I dont use a driver since my XP Pro treats the camera as a "drive" when I have it connected.
Lee

[Anonymous]

I agree on the concept of you can't go wrong with a decent digital camera. I have an Olympus with a 3.0 MP resolution and a macro lens setting. I get great shots. At this point 3.0MP is obsolete! My rule of thumb when first looking was, get the most MPs you can afford, the functionality will follow.

And I also agree on the close-ups. I couldn't believe the amount of dust on my engines! They look better from the 4 to 5 foot range.

[jfugate]

Don't know how much you are looking to spend, but the Canon Rebel Digital is a great option. I own it's big brother, a Canon 10D, and it's a honey of a digital camera (6.3 MegaPixel). As far as I'm concerned, with a top-end digital camera, film's obsolete.

Here's a test photo taken with the 10D.


Or to see a much larger image:
http://siskiyou.railfan.net/images/CRW_9924_RJ.jpg

BTW, like your handle, Siskiyou!

[Anonymous]

Thank you, Andrew; very good point. I'm a novice, so I appreciate all advice.

[Anonymous]

The Nikon is a good camera, but almost all cameras are equivalent these days (at least in the mid to top range where you are looking). The best piece of advice I got on searching for a camera - get one that feels good in your hand and you find easy to use.

As far as macro shots - you don't necessarily want to get in super close. Sometimes it is better to back up and zoom in. The macro might reveal a little too much about your modelling (good or bad... [;)]).

Andrew

[Anonymous]

I'm an N-scaler who wants to get back into indoor close-up and macro photography - but digital this time. Can anyone recommend a digital camera with (a) good macro capability, (b) small f-stop for depth of field, (c) manual control options, and (d) at least 4.0 MP at a "reasonable" price? I'm considering the Nikon CoolPix 4500 for its macro, f10 and full manual control, but I'm wondering if there's a better camera available with these features. I'll welcome any advice!