posted on August 8, 2004 08:00:08 PM new
Does anybody have a suggestion for a good digital camera for close-up work? Every digital camera I have used so far is not good with close-ups.
posted on August 8, 2004 08:09:52 PM new
Sony Mavica-Sony Mavica-Sony Mavica-Sony Mavica-Sony Mavica-Sony Mavica-Sony Mavica-Sony Mavica-Sony Mavica-Sony Mavica-Sony Mavica!
posted on August 8, 2004 08:12:36 PM new
Amen to Max's reply, above! I have a Sony Mavica 73, which they don't make anymore, and it takes great closeups. You'll get other suggestions for cameras, too, but we Mavica users are verrrrry loyal.
posted on August 8, 2004 08:16:17 PM new
When you say "close up" are you refering to a close up of an automobile, or a closeup of a backstamp on a piece of fine china? If it's the latter, I have had extremely good results with my old Polaroid PDC640. Better so than with my new Kodak. You can probably pick one up pretty cheap at a swap meet or yard sale. Another thought is to use a scanner. If it's the former, there are several that work quite well. I've heard a lot of good things about the Olympus. I'm sure several others will jump in, but it would help if we knew what it is you sell and what kind of closeup you need.
A $75.00 solid state device will always blow first to protect a 25 cent fuse ~ Murphy's Law
posted on August 8, 2004 08:36:00 PM new
Thanks for your input. I am primarily interested in photographing saints medals, so close up detail is important. I have used a scanner but a camera would be so much better (easier).
posted on August 8, 2004 09:00:56 PM new
Hi CAKeen,
I'd suggest you look for a manual zoom and, if possible, the ability to add separate close-up lenses for good focus on the really close shots.
A while back I checked out some new cameras just to see if I could do better than my almost-antique HP-C200.
Most of the cameras I tested fell short in the macro department. I found the manual zooms were fiddly and awkward to use. Decided my veteran HP was better and easier.
To me, what's important is the ability to manually focus on your object rather than use a zoom.
posted on August 9, 2004 04:13:55 AM new
Agree. I've had my Mavica for 5 years now. Takes great pictures, including close-ups. And they're sturdy--mine has been bumped and dropped many times and survived with nary a glitch or scratch.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on August 9, 2004 05:27:32 AM new
how many cameras have you tried??
have you tried Leica??
if you really want professional results,stay away from digital .
-sig file -------we eat to live,not live to eat.
Benjamin Franklin
[ edited by stopwhining on Aug 9, 2004 05:28 AM ]
When you're looking for a digital camera that can handle good close-ups... you need to take several things in to consideration. Close-ups require not only a camera with a good Macro function, but also good lighting, a way to steady the camera, and a white-balance control. Honestly... almost all cameras on todays market are going to give you a good close-up shot... IF you know how to take the pictures properly.
1) Look at the technical specs of the camera. Find out what the focusing range is using the Macro function. This will be how close your camera can focus under GOOD lighting conditions. When taking pictures, do not have the lens any closer to the object than this recommended distance. Any camera with a Macro range of up to 2-4 inches should be fine.
2) Good lighting is the key to good photography. The cameras flash is going to be a handi-cap for macro photography. Chances are you'll get wash-out and hot-spots if you use the flash. So, turn the flash off on the camera... and then use external lighting to light the subject. In your case since you're photographing medals... a copy stand would be a great investment (Testrite makes some inexpensive ones around $100-150.) A copy stand has lights on the sides and a pole with a camera mount that moves up and down. This allows you to light your object and keep the camera steady.
3) That brings us to the need to keep your camera steady. Since you're photographing objects at a higher scale... any little shake you may create becomes magnified. So... you need to have either a tripod to hold the camera... or use a copy stand as previously mentioned. In addition... rather than taking your picture with the shutter release button... you should use the self-timer on your camera. (this will eliminate any possibility of you shaking the camera as you release the button)
4) Finally... you'll need to adjust the white balance of your camera. Since you'll likely be using normal incandescent lighting for your external lights... your pictures would normally get a yellow cast. By adjusting your white-balance... your camera can compensate for the yellow lighting and give you the correct coloring.
You could spend over a thousand dollars on a digital camera and still come out with horrible close-up pictures if you don't follow these steps. Or... you could spend a hundred dollars and get excellent results. All you need to look for is a camera with: Built-in Macro with a maximum focus range of 2-4 inches, ability to turn flash off, self-timer, and white balance controls. My personal recommendations are for Fuji, Pentax, or Canon. (Fuji and Pentax have excellent products AND service... while Canon has a slightly better product, but so-so service) In my experience Sony cameras, while they works fairly well when the cameras work, has a pretty bad service track record. (high repair charges, difficult reps, and slow turn-around) Hope that helps!
posted on August 9, 2004 06:06:03 AM new
By the way... I just went through all this at my real-job as an Academic Technology Trainer & Consultant at a college. We have a faculty member interested in close-ups... who thought she needed a $1k camera to take good close-ups. I made the following powerpoint presentation to illustrate the differences between a Canon A70 (about a $250 camera) and a Canon Powershot Pro 1 (about a $1000 camera):
The different slides illustrate different settings and lighting conditions. Personally, I thought the A70 did a much better job. Just thought you all might be interested in the results. (by the way... I had powerpoint automatically create the website... so it compressed the images further than I would have... and saved them as GIF's. Under normal circumstances the quality of the pictures would be better, using a JPEG compression.)
[ edited by eauctionmgnt on Aug 9, 2004 06:06 AM ]
posted on August 9, 2004 09:25:37 AM new
I have used a Kodak for several years that had a close-up feature but sometimes it wasn't close enough. Since I recently had to buy a new computer and XP won't support my old camera I had to get a new camera also. I again went with Kodak so it would be a little familiar. Sometime else to remember is most Kodak cameras won't work with the newer versions of Adobe Photo...bummer. But then I hate the new version and use Kodak's software.
Sometimes the close-up just isn't quite good enough though. What I do, which may seem crazy is use a regular magnifying glass or a jeweler's loop in front of the camera lens for super close-ups. You have to have the view screen on so you can see if you have the object focused before taking the actual photo. You have to use a tripod or steady your hand though or it is blurry. I guess it is the poor man's way but hey, it works. Here is a picture where I used a magnifying glass in front of the lens.
posted on August 9, 2004 10:15:41 AM new
paws4God
Simpler way is Sony Mavica---Shot autofocus, hand held (OK, I steadied my wrist)
I own a $500.00 Olympus, guess which camera I use for eBay?
posted on August 9, 2004 10:27:03 AM new
Eauctionmgnt's post says it all...
"Close-ups require not only a camera with a good Macro function, but also good lighting,
a way to steady the camera, and a white-balance control."
I use a tripod, autofocus and/or closeup lenses. My antique HP doesn't have white-balance
control but I've learned how to adjust the tint with Picture It! in two clicks, which is a decent workaround for me.
(I hope this post doesn't spread all the way across the page.)
posted on August 9, 2004 10:30:27 AM new
I think that reducing camera movement and of course lighting control are more important considerations than the cost of a camera or lens.
posted on August 9, 2004 10:39:59 AM new
I guess I will chime in and agree. I have been nothing but happy with my Sony Cybershot. My father also bought a Sony Cybershot (although a different model) and his works as well as mine. The macro mode is quite impressive.
I often use it to take very closeup pictures of coins and the resolution is quite amazing.
posted on August 9, 2004 10:51:54 AM new
One other thing I forgot to talk about was Aperture Priority. If you are photographing 3D objects... a camera with an Aperture Priority setting is a good idea. One of the problems with Macro photography is if you use automatic settings, you'll often have a narrow depth-of-field (the portion of your object closest to the lens will be in focus... but portions of the object further away will not) You can compensate for this by using an Aperture Priority mode on your camera to set the f/stop manually. A higher f/stop number (f/16, f/22, etc...) will create a smaller opening of light, which in turn broadens your depth-of-field letting more of your subject remain in focus. It's definately worth playing around with when you have different depths in your 3-D objects. Just another suggestion!
posted on August 9, 2004 11:42:16 AM new
question of eauctionmgt-
testrite copystand-deos the price 150 include all 3 lites??
and what light bulbs are the best to use with this stand??
-sig file -------we eat to live,not live to eat.
Benjamin Franklin
You can also get a cheaper CS-1 for around $75 with just two lights.
The wattage on these stands, I think, can only go up to 75watts. But... what I've done is bought Flourescent Light bulbs (available at SAM's club) that give 100 Watts of light, and only use 23 Watts of power. So... they're nice and bright... but don't exceed the wattage safety limit. It really works out pretty nice. Hope that helps!
posted on August 9, 2004 12:40:59 PM new
I love my Sony DSC-85, but they don't make it any longer. The macro (close up) is excellent with the Carl Zeiss lens.
Here are my suggestions:
1) Stick to these few manufacturers: Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus.
2) GLASS LENS!!!!! Do not settle for a cheap plastic lens. Sony uses Carl Zeiss on their higher end cameras, Nikon uses Nikkor, etc. Glass lenses will give the clearest photos without distortion or more importantly, flares. You end up wasting too much time editing flaws out of your photos, or your photos look like crap. Plastic lenses scratch too easily.
3) Pixels are not important unless you plan to blow up real photographs. Anything above a 1.3 megapixel is a waste if all you are doing is posting photos on the internet. The problem with finding a good 1.3 camera is that they are made too cheaply to include important features like the glass lens, white balance, etc.
4) White Balance is extremely important in order to get color true to what you are photographing.
5) Aperature: Important for close ups. This is the amount of light that the camera can read digitally. the lower the number, the better clarity in lower light. Anything 2.8 or lower is best.
6) A larger camera with a good grip is better than a tiny pocket camera that can be easy to fumble and drop it.
7) Bring the smallest possible item that you will be photographing with you to a camera store and test the cameras you are looking at. See which feel better in your hand, and see which takes better photos on the macro/close up setting. See how close you can get to your photo. Also, make sure to check how clear the photos are using the regular lens vs. the digital magnification. There is usually a difference between the two, and the regular lens magnification is going to be clearer than when you start to zoom in.
[ edited by rustygumbo on Aug 9, 2004 12:45 PM ]
posted on August 9, 2004 06:17:07 PM new
Thanks everybody for a wealth of information! Your responses have been tremendous. Eauctionmgnt, your post has given me a lot to consider that probably explains why I have had problems with the very expensive cameras I have tried so far.
All of this brings up another question. If you were in this situation, where would you purchase the camera that you decide to use? At a B&M store or online (perhaps even eBay?)
Thanks,
Chris
Edited to correct spelling errors.
[ edited by CAKeen on Aug 9, 2004 11:22 PM ]
If I was in your situation... I would definately be doing my shopping at a B&M store. Not a discount store (like Walmart, Target, Best Buy, etc...) but at an actual Photography Store. It would be best if you stayed away from chains (like Ritz, Wolf, etc...) where you don't always know the qualifications of the people you're talking with (they could be high-schoolers at min wage!) The best thing to do is find an established photography store in your area that's been in business for awhile (10+ years). If you can't find some in the yellow pages... you can try calling up some of the photographers in your local papers to see who they deal with or recommend.
The reason I recommend this is simple. Knowledge. You will undoubtedly pay more for the camera equipment. BUT... if you go to a good camera shop... you'll walk away knowing how to use the camera... and have an open invitation to return with questions. Like rustygumbo suggests... bring in some of your objects that you want to photograph. Have them show you the right camera and lighting equipment for your work. Let them teach you the correct settings for your camera to take good pictures with. Then keep returning to the store with your questions... and continue to support the store with more purchases. There's nothing wrong with paying more for a product if you get good advice and support with it.
