"Inexpensive Digital Camera to take Miniature photos?" Topic

The photos I've recently posted were taken with a borrowed camera.

Sensing that I must "take the plunge" into the world of digital cameras, what would you recommend as an inexpensive, yet useable, camera.

It must be:

- Inexpensive
- Idiot proof (that's me…)
- currently available.

I know this topic has been posted on before, but that was about 2 years ago. In technology terms, it may as well be 100 years ago!

All suggestions welcome!

GregS

PS I'm in the US, so USD amounts would be the most useful!

link

Your definition of 'inexpensive' might have to be defined a bit more.
I have of of these Fuji's which are a step between small compacts and bigger DSLR's gives good definition.Almost all digital cameras have an 'automatic everything' setting, this is useful for getting started and when you feel lazy.
I suggest you approach it from another angle…
define your budget
narrow down the tasks you want to achieve
walk into a camera store with this info and the staff should do some of that work for you,most however will have a personal preferance for one brand or another (mine was for Canon, but I couldn't justify replacing my old film SLR with a new digital one so the Fuji was my compromise,that said,I've been very impressed with it)
Then do a search on the internet to get comparison prices and go from there,if your methodical about what you want then you'll be surprised how quickly the choices will narrow for you.

I use a Fuji FinePix F20, which I bought on clearance from Target. It cost $120. USD I'm still struggling to get good lighting, but I'm very happy with its macro mode. You can see some of it's work on my blog link

I usually crop and rescale my photos to 30% of original size before I upload to blogger, which then makes them even smaller. If you click on one of my pictures, viewing the source file, you can see what 30% of original is. I don't need any more detail than that.

Here's a cheap refurbished F20: link

And here's a cheap new one: link

I should have specified that "cheap" is under $200 USD

Thanks!
GregS

I've got a Nikon Coolpix 3200 which takes dandy photos in micro mode and is currently going for $65 USD on Amazon.

link

I paid about 3x that new a few years ago. Very simple to use, but it has a lot of nice features if you want to do camera tricks. I've dropped it several times and dragged it halfway around the world and been very satisfied with it. Uses regular batteries so you can always get fresh ones in a pinch if your rechargeables die.

There's a number of other similar Nikon digitals ranging from 5 to 8 megapixels and still under your $200 USD mark.

link

I've never used them myself, but have known photographers that have said good things about Canon's A5xx series. The A570 IS is currently available for around $150: link

There are also a 580 and 590 coming soon at under $200: link
link

If you don't like the prices at B&H you can probably find them cheaper on Amazon; I just used these links because B&H tends to provide more comprehensive information than most other sites.

If you're going to go bargain hunting, checking here first can help you avoid potential scams: link

I second the Canon A series – and the Canon Ixus series (which is a bit more expensive). Canon has a reputation for a very good lens and good macro.

Try eBay – I bought an Ixus very cheaply recently, it had hardly been used. Canon UK also has an eBay outlet where it sells reconditioned, returned and ex-shop display cameras.

I had a realy cheap FufiFilm about 6 to 7 years ago that took the best damn macro shots. The thing it did great was it had a huge depth of field for a macro shot. I could have 2 figures seperated 8 to 12 inches and the back minature was in as good of focus as the front one. I had to try to take a bad shot. I miss that camera. With my new camera I take several frames of the same picture and hope one of them will look ok.

Same scale figures, but different cameras.

Old Camera – Just point and shoot once
link

New Camera – Best shot out of 10 or twenty
picture

Somebody told me the big difference was that the first camera had a fixed focus and the second did not. He said the way the lenses were ground made the difference. He said the fixed focus lens was ground to have a better range of focus since it could not move. The one with the adjustable focus was ground to make the area in focus sharper since it could move.

I know that when I replace the camera I plan to look at fixed focus cameras first. It isn't that the new camera will not take a decent shot it will. It is just I have to, put it on a tripod, play with it, move it back and forth, change the lighting, etc. I got spoiled with that first camera I would just sit it down on the game table, set the auto timer, and BAM good shot right out of the gate. I like painting, I like gaming, I like having photos of both, but I hate having to dink with a camera.

Hope I remebered what I was told, and that it is good advice. If I am way off somebody correct me before I lead somebody wrong.

LLC aka Ron

>Hope I remebered what I was told, and that it is good advice. If I am way off somebody correct me before I lead somebody wrong.

You're mostly right. It's easier to build a high quality prime (fixed focal length, which is different from fixed focus) lens than it is to build a zoom of similar quality.

A fixed focus means that it has a fixed focusing distance, or might allow very limited choices. Most of these tend to be rather cheap (disposable cameras, or my not-very-good polaroid digital and my plastic Holga); however if you had one with a quality lens it would probably tend to give better depth of field simply because it was designed to render everything past its minimum focusing distance in relatively sharp focus.

But there's more to depth of field than either apeture or focal length. Medium size, and in this case I mean the size of the medium an image is recorded on rather than something that is medium sized, plays an important role. The smaller the medium the greater the depth of field will be when compared with a similar apeture and focal length on another camera. So a digital p&s will have a greater DoF than an APS-C dSLR, which will have more DoF than a full-frame dSLR/35mm film etc. So the Fuji in question might have merely used a smaller sensor than your current camera.

Sensor size also plays another role in DoF in the form of maximum effective apeture. As a general rule of thumb digital p&s are limited to about F8, APS-C to F16 and Full-frame/35mm to around F22. You can use smaller apetures in each case, but it tends to cause problems and loss of image quality.

You need to shop around and look at the 'features' that you need. Obviously a 'Macro' mode, the closer and bigger focus range the better.

And I'll second the 'runs on AA batteries' – you will pretty much always be able to find 'AA' batteries for that 'must have' shot and you don't have the problem of automatic obsolescence in a few years when the rechargeable pack dies & there are no more available in that size.

If you are a Costco member (or have a friend who is) check out the latest coupon book. They have a $30 USD off coupon for a 10 MP Kodak with a 3X optical zoom that normally lists there at $169. USD I'm not familiar with that particular model, but it's worth checking out.

If you're going to check out reviews of different cameras, look at the closest focusing distance given for the macro element – some of them don't get you all that close to the subject and that can affect the exposure, because the further away you are, the more general light is getting in so the figures might be overexposed.

I wouldn't want anything which doesn't focus down to at least 4 inches.

There's not much to be said that hasn't been said already. Nonetheless, I don't actually think the camera will be as important as the person behind it. So, for starters stick with the main camera manufacturers (Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Pentax, Fuji). All of them will have something that will be right for you. It's a pretty crowded market segment.

A good macro shot requires 3 core elements- magnification, lighting and stability. For magnification in the p&s campact market, the best option will be something around the 10x optical zoom. I'd also look at something with very good manual focus control.

Stability means you want to look at a small table tripod (probably). Plus, if the camera you have has the option for a remote shutter control (wireless or cable), that would be good. If you don't have to touch the camera physically when you take the shot, you lessen the risk of shake.

Another otpion would be an external flash mount, as this can offset lighting problems (also, cheap LED lights from a haredware store can also be used).

Then practice a lot…:)

Thanks 'jbenton'. I just wish I understood more of what you wrote.

"p&s" = point and shoot, like the old camera I had?

"APS-C dSLR" = no idea at all.

"dSLR/35mm film" = huh?

"digital p&s are limited to about F8, APS-C to F16 and Full-frame/35mm to around F22" = you just warped my fragile little mind.

Is the bottom line that, a p&s with a small sensor will be more likely to yield my longed for DoF at a cheap price, and without me having to fiddle about? Can you share how the great unwashed can check the specs on a camera and determine this small sensor size and good quality fixed lens? Or am I so off the mark that I couldn't hit a barn?

Sorry if my ignorance and thick skull is making this more difficult than it should be 'jbenton', but I'd really love to understand how to find another camera that works like my old one did. Would getting you the model and make of the old camera help any?

LLC aka Ron

Sensors are made to different sizes. Digital SLR's use much larger sensors than the compact p&s (point-and-shoot). The difference is you can blow up an image into a much larger print if you start with a larger sensor (the images has less noise/grain). The APS-C is one of the main industary standards, and it is about 10x the size of sensors used in p&s. The APS-C sensor is still smaller than a full-frame or 35mm sensor. Olympus, Pentax and Panasonic use a 4/3 sensor which is slightly smaller than the APS-C sized sensor.

The two normal tricks to getting a good DOF is to shoot with a small aperture. I do macro-photography with a DSLR, and will often be shooting at f25. Also, the further away you are from the subject, the more DOF you have.

For sharpness however, fixed focal length lenses (primes) generally bet zooms (there are exceptions). Plus you need a good piece of glass in front of the cametra. You are trying to focus rays of light with pin-point accuracy onto a sensor. A poor lens will disperse the light more, resulting in a softer and fuzzier picture.

>Sorry if my ignorance and thick skull is making this more difficult than it should be 'jbenton', but I'd really love to understand how to find another camera that works like my old one did. Would getting you the model and make of the old camera help any?<

Sorry if I did indeed warp your "fragile little mind." The truth is you don't need to know most of what I wrote. :) I just got on a roll and couldn't help myself.

p&s is indeed shorthand for point and shoot. As Cthoniid points out APS-C is an industry term for the type of sensor used in most dSLRs (digital Single Lens Reflex, which technically means what you see in the viewfinder is exactly what the lens sees – a less technical term would be "expensive camera you can change the lenses on"). Whereas full-frame/35mm is just shorthand for digital cameras that use a sensor equal in size to a frame of 35mm film, or an actual 35mm film camera.

As for checking the senor size, most of the camera listings here: bhphotovideo.com include a fairly comprhensive list, but don't tend to actually explain what you're reading. dpreview.com can also provide a good starting point, and the folks over at photo.net tend to be helpful, and quite likely are both more knowledgeable and better able to explain things than I.

And yes, a digital point & shoot with a good lens and decent macro mode is quite likely the best way to get the depth of field you're looking for at a decent price.

I appreciate the discussion here. I went ahead and bought the Canon 570 based on what I read and the talk here. Need a better camera to take macro pics.

Thanks guys!

John

Thanks as well. I have to work tomorrow, and I will have to check out some of those links while the code is building.

LLC aka Ron

Something that improved my mini photos was a tripod and a remote. I just can't hold the stupid camera steady enough to get clear close-ups without those items. Generally I can get away with resting it on a chair or something. Macro mode requires a tripod for me. Pretty bad for a guy that is an excellent shot with a rifle, eh? :)

Paul