I need a digital camera for closeups. I currently use a Fujifilm mx-1200. I am pleased with it except for closeups, its fuzzy.
I have read about the sony mavicas and one of the older versions FD-73. I looked it up but the resolution appears to only go up to 640 x 480. Don't you need a higher resolution to get nice sharp pictures?
Does anyone have a recommendation for something selling for under 300.00 even an older version would be fine.
posted on January 13, 2001 11:09:29 AM
Joyce: Whatever you get, make sure it has macro focus capability. Also be sure to use a tripod. Two years ago, I bought a Sony Cybershot that produces results that amaze my friends. I have the model # DSC-F55, whoich cost about $800. It's discontinued now, though. I recommend a Sony with 2+ megapixel image quality. Good luck!
posted on January 13, 2001 11:43:42 AM
JLADY ... "Don't you need a higher resolution to get nice sharp pictures"
NO. You just need a camera with the ability to focus close-up. It's called a MACRO setting. I do most of my auctions on 640x480 setting, and it's fine for closeups.
"Megapixel" cameras are wasted on Web pictures because they are HUGE and by the time you change their size you lose any extra detail you thought you got with the megapixel ... you are better of shooting closer to the final desired size and not having to shrink them so much.
posted on January 13, 2001 12:24:10 PM
I do have a macro setting, but it still comes out fuzzy, I don't use a tripod though, do you think a tripod will be the answer and I can still use my camera, the macro setting says it can shoot as close as 3.9".
posted on January 13, 2001 03:29:12 PM
JLADY, you must buy a cheap tripod! Does your 1200 have a small threaded socket on its bottom? If so, then you can mount it on the tripod. Does your 1200 have a self-timer? Use the self-timer and you won't move the camera when taking those closeups!
posted on January 13, 2001 04:59:03 PM
What it sounds like to me is that the particular camera you have right now cannot focus up as close as you need for it to. That is why you can only get fuzzy macro shots.
My first dig cam was an HP that was a very nice little camera but I couldn't focus closer than 8" from the subject. I really needed the ability to take super closeups. After I FINALLY figured that out I got the Sony Mavica FD73 and it's prob was the lack of resolution. Sold that one and upgraded to the Sony Mavica FD90 which is outstanding.
I can focus for a macro shot 1" from my subject! Awesome.
PS...Sorry to those who have already heard me rave about this camera repeatedly!
posted on January 13, 2001 06:30:30 PM
Save your money!!
It's not the camera that is making the pictures fuzzy--it's you
Yes, a tripod makes a huge difference. Try resting your camera on a stack of books or a table & take a close-up in macro mode--if you do the self-timer thing also as was already suggested I think you will be very pleased!
For a cheap alternative for closeups, get a Logitech quick cam. You can get one almost anywhere (including Ebay) for about $60. It does a great job on closeups, but that's about it, it's not too great for the longer shots. I used one for small objects and closeups right up until I bought my Olympus 360DL, which also does great closeups but costs about $300. While it does help to hold the camera steady, I don't believe it's entirely your fault. My father has a cheaper Kodak (under $200) and he can't get any closer than about 15".
posted on January 13, 2001 10:13:25 PM
Sony Mavica Easier than any other to use (just pop the floppy disk into your computer & voila!), and able to do good close-ups.
posted on January 13, 2001 11:48:30 PM
Last spring I was also shopping for a new digital camera. While I sincerely feel the people who post here are more helpful, articulate and generally a better class of people than those over at ebay, I asked this question over there. Why? Because when someone over there discusses what camera they use, you can check out their auctions and see what kind of pics they are actually getting.
BTW, I bought an Olympus D-360L for around $300 and am very happy with it.
posted on January 14, 2001 08:43:04 AMjlady: Although I'm sure a tripod is a good idea, personally I find them rather inconvenient for close-up photography, especially if I am in a hurry and have a lot of pictures to take. Regardless, I disagree with the sentiment that you NEED to use one to get good close-up shots. I have now taken scores of close-ups with my Sony Mavica and all it takes is decent lighting and a reasonably steady hand. Here's a close-up shot I took last night using a desk lamp for illumination and no tripod:
And here is an extreme close-up I took of the silver hallmarks on one of my watches:
blondesense: That's why, when I recommend a camera, I always provide sample pictures I took with it!
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Jan 14, 2001 08:47 AM ]
posted on January 14, 2001 10:27:37 AM
WOW, those are awesome pics godzillatemple. I, on the other hand, not only need a tripod, but tend to get my finger in the pic if not careful. LOL
posted on January 14, 2001 10:35:46 AM
jlady - The "fuzzy" picture is coming from your hands shaking.
TRIPOD is the answer, and you can get a decent one at any pawn shop and thrift store for $10-50 ... go for the heaviest one you can find, with adjustable legs.
posted on January 14, 2001 10:53:59 AMabacaxi: Why are you so sure that a tripod is the answer? My old digital camera supposedly had a "macro" feature, but I was rarely able to get a clear close-up shot. The images were simply out of focus, and that had nothing to do with not holding the camera steady. I now take GREAT close-up shots, and the only thing that has changed is that I have a better camera. I still don't use a tripod, and really can't see how it would help. Especially since I photograph items on my desktop using a desk lamp, and any type of tripos would really just be too awkward.
I'm sure a good tripod wouldn't hurt, but I don't think it's necessarily the answer to blurry close-up shots. Sometimes you really do just need a better camera.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on January 14, 2001 10:59:05 AMjlady: Can you actually post an example of one of your "fuzzy" close-up pictures? It should be fairly easy to tell whether the problem is camera shake or focus. As has been pointed out, if the problem is camera shake you probbaly need a tripod. If the problem is focus, though, all the tripods in the world aren't likely to help much....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on January 14, 2001 02:47:13 PM
while we are talking cameras, which is better, the Mavica FD-73 or FD-85. I see Best Buy has the FD-85 on sale for 399. I was planning on the FD-73 but it isn't on sale at the moment, the 85 has 3x optical,6X digital, the 73 has 10X optical. So which is better for the closeup mode?
posted on January 14, 2001 03:31:10 PMhhonp: Well, I think the most important difference between the two is that the FD73 has a maximum resolution of 640x480, while the FD85 has a maximum resolution of 1280x960. For most pictures you want to put on the Internet, 640x480 is fine, although you really need the higher resolution if you want to be able to print out the pictures.
One other difference is that the FD73 allows you to store images on the internal floppy disk as either compressed jpeg ["normal"] or uncompressed bitmap ["fine"], but with the FD85 you can only save images as compressed jpegs. These compressed jpegs are by their nature "lossy", which can result in blotchiness [especially around straight lines]. And this can especially be a problem if you want to edit the picture at all after taking it; editing an uncompressed image and saving it as a compressed jpeg doesn't affect quality too much, but editing an already compressed image and then saving it again as a further compressed image can be a problem
With my FD85, I have solved the problem by taking the original picture at higher resolution [1024x768], which seems to be a lot less lossy, making my edits, and then using a GOOD graphics program [Adobe Photoshop] to resize the image to 640x480.
In general, though, if you never want to print out a high quality picture, you can probably save a bunch of money and get excellent close-up shots with the FD73.
Good luck!
Barry
[Edited to add: Best Buy has the FD85 on sale for $399????? HOLY CRAP!!!! I just paid $597 for mine a few weeks ago at one of those "wholesale" clubs. If you can get an FD85 for that price, GET IT!!!]
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Jan 14, 2001 03:33 PM ]
Thanks to all of you that answered me on this issue. I finally took a test shot with my camera using the timer and placing the camera on a table, and the picture came out great! So I don't need to get another camera, I will just get a tripod.
posted on January 14, 2001 08:14:46 PM
I have a Sony Cybershot 2.1 MegaPixel Camera its awesome for closeups. I sell my own stuff plus I do listings for friends of mine, they sell Swatch Watches and these pics are amazingly crystal clear. You can litterally get right on top of the item, read the fine print. Its in the $500-600 range. Kinda expensive but well worth it! Heres a pic I shot of one of the watches:
http://imagehost.auctionwatch.com/preview/sw/swatchlady/hyppocampuscuba.jpg
[ edited by lunagirl11 on Jan 14, 2001 08:17 PM ]
