Best camera?

[wombat1]

Ok, I'll shoot this ? out there too. I want a digi camera for taking mostly up close shots of coral colonies and such (macros?), and I'm trying to decide the best brand. Consider me a "What's the nitrogen cycle?" type of newbie. I've used a Nikon coolpix at work and it seems really great. My roommate's Sony cam, however, takes pretty crappy pics of my reef. (if you want to compare, look at the two different links in my sig. The 30g is with the sony, the 6g is with the nikon.)

What's the best camera for color, detail, etc. at a reasonable price?

 

[Anonymous]

I'll spout my (biased) praises for the Minolta DiMage 7i. The new model (7hi) came out a few months ago, so according to Minolta's website, the 7i is retailing at $999, but I picked mine up for $585, and that was around Christmas, so it's probably come down some since then. I went to www.directsource.com and got great service, about 1000 times better than www.cameratopia.com .

 

[wade1]

I own a coolpix and the new Olympus... I still lean toward the coolpix on the macro side of things, but Olympus has finally figured it out. I think Nikon makes the best macro cameras as of yet though. Just my biased opinion. I have used the Sony (lower cost ($3-500)) cameras and don't regard them as being anything near to the same quality.

Wade

 

[Anonymous]

I own a coolpix and the new Olympus... I still lean toward the coolpix on the macro side of things, but Olympus has finally figured it out. I think Nikon makes the best macro cameras as of yet though. Just my biased opinion. I have used the Sony (lower cost ($3-500)) cameras and don't regard them as being anything near to the same quality.

Wade

Which olympus do you have? I was looking at one...I think the E-10. Ended up with the Minolta because of cost. I agree about the Sony. I used to have a CD-1000, which 3 years ago was their top of the line model. It did a great job, but it was $1200 at the time and now my $500 minolta totally outshines it. Basically I look at it that the Sonys are more 'Best Buy' cameras, whereas the Olympus and Nikon and Minolta are more 'real' cameras.

 

[Len]

I've never used a consumer camera that does macros better then the Nikon 900 series (now 4500). But I've never used olympus either or the Dimage either, so consider my experience limited

 

[NKT]

I'm going to have to second Len's suggestion about the coolpix (990, 995, or 4500). Having owned the 995 I find it hard to imagine another camera with better close-up capability. FWIW, 995/4500's are routinely used by many laboratories for taking microscopy photos simply because they offer outstanding close-up performance. In fact, the lab I work at (a pathology liver research lab) just installed a coolpix 4500 for our microscope purposes.
But, another thing you should consider is how much you'll be using the camera outside of reefing. The 4500, though it takes great pictures, can be a bit on the slow side in terms of shutter lag (time between pushing button and picture actually taking). There are other cameras that handle this area much better than the nikon 4500 (the minoltas or olympus, for example). HTH!

Here's one of my older shots taken with a Nikon 995

 

[Anonymous]

I've never used a consumer camera that does macros better then the Nikon 900 series (now 4500). But I've never used olympus either or the Dimage either, so consider my experience limited

I've done some really extreme macro work with the Minolta. When I got the camera I also bought a wide-angle lens. Well just from playing around with it I saw that the WA lens comes apart. With just the first stage on it, it makes for a really weird, monstrous macro. Example:

That's part of one of my wife's rosaries. The face in the image is smaller than the face on a dime! The weird circular blur is a by-product of the lens. It's useless as a good macro for doing tank work, but it makes some interesting pseudo-abstract shots.

-John

 

[Anonymous]

Dang. That image link isnt' working right. Here's the URL:
http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=700816

-John

 

[wade1]

I just bought a 5050z. Seems to work really well, and aside from having to change modes to get it into "super macro" (which is equal to normal macro on Nikon's coolpix series) its been great. Just learning how to use it though... so I'l keep you informed.

Wade

 

[Pineapple House]

What's the best camera for color, detail, etc. at a reasonable price?

The Canon Powershot G3 seems like an exelent buy. From what i've heard, it's an exelent camera, for a fairly good price. I've seen some great Macro shots taken with that camera.
Features include:
* High Resolution 4.0 Megapixel CCD

* High Speed 35-140 f/2.0-3.0zoom lens.

* 4x optical 3.6x digital14x combined

* Max resolution 2272 x 1704

*Low resolution 1600 x 1200, 1024 x 768, 640 x 480

*Image ratio w:h 4:3

*Effective pixels 3.9 million

*Sensor photosites 4.1 million

*Sensor size 1/1.8 "

*Sensor type CCD

*Colour filter array G-R-G-B

*Sensor manufacturer Unknown

*ISO rating 50, 100, 200, 400

*Zoom wide (W) 35 mm

*Zoom tele (T) 140 mm (4 x)

*Digital zoom Yes, up to x3.6

*Auto Focus Yes

*Manual Focus Yes

*Auto focus accuracy TTL, FlexiZone

*Normal focus range 50 cm

*Macro focus range 5 cm /15 cm

*White balance override Yes - 6 positions & manual

*Aperture range F2.0 - F3.0 / F8

*Min shutter 15 sec

*Max shutter 1/1250 sec

*Built-in Flash

*Flash guide no. 5.0 m (16.4 ft) 0 m

*External flash Yes, hot-shoe

*Flash modes Auto, Fill-in, Anti-red-eye, Slow Sync,

*Focal length multiplier

*Exposure compensation -2EV to +2EV in 1/3EV steps

*Metering Evaluative, Center Weighted, Spot

*Aperture priority Yes, full range manual

*Shutter priority Yes, full range manual

*Continuous Drive, 1.5 fps, 2.5 fps (max 14 frames)

*Movie Clips, max 91/242 secs

*Remote control InfraRed included

*Self-timer 2 or 10 sec

Storage included 32 MB CompactFlash
Specifications:
lens/wide/zoom 35 mm - 140 mm (4x) (dig: 3.6x) focus/min/macro auto | manual / 50 cm / 5 cm metering mode evaluative / center-weighted / spot aperture auto | manual / F2.0W / F3.0T white balance auto | manual - 8 presets shutter auto | manual / 15s - 1/2000s exposure mode +/- 2EV in 1/3EV steps flash unit/mode internal / hot-shoe - 9 modes / 0.7m - 5m viewfinder optical iso rating 50 / 100 / 200 / 400 image size 2272x1704 / 1600x1200 / 1024x768 / 640x480 image format raw / jpeg (exif 2.2) image compr. super fine / fine / normal remote control self timer 2s / 10s video options Qt m-jpeg / 320x240 / 160x120 (15fps) - 180/180s audio options WAVE (mono) connectivity usb / video (NTSC/PAL) storage compact flash I / II platform Windows 95/98/2000/ME/XP, Mac OS 8.1-9.04

Graham

 

[Anonymous]

What's the best camera for color, detail, etc. at a reasonable price?

The Canon Powershot G3 seems like an exelent buy. From what i've heard, it's an exelent camera, for a fairly good price. I've seen some great Macro shots taken with that camera.
Features include:

Graham

What kind of prices does it run?

 

[mkirda]

Ok, I'll shoot this ? out there too. I want a digi camera for taking mostly up close shots of coral colonies and such (macros?), and I'm trying to decide the best brand. Consider me a "What's the nitrogen cycle?" type of newbie. I've used a Nikon coolpix at work and it seems really great.

What's the best camera for color, detail, etc. at a reasonable price?

The Nikon Coolpix series are good. I've seen some great pics from the DSC-F707 (since replaced by F717, I think), as well as the G2/3. Was not that impressed with the Coolpix 5700. But I have to admit that I am biased- I mostly take macro shots with my SLR, and the results blow away any of these consumer-level digicams. Use Velvia at ISO40, a good tripod coupled with good glass and the results will blow away the digicams, IMO. At least until you get a professional level body that mates with good glass...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

The Nikon Coolpix series are good. I've seen some great pics from the DSC-F707 (since replaced by F717, I think), as well as the G2/3. Was not that impressed with the Coolpix 5700. But I have to admit that I am biased- I mostly take macro shots with my SLR, and the results blow away any of these consumer-level digicams. Use Velvia at ISO40, a good tripod coupled with good glass and the results will blow away the digicams, IMO. At least until you get a professional level body that mates with good glass...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but sure you're going to get great shots when you use a high quality film like velvia and run it at such a low ISO. The problem I forsee though (and correct me if I'm wrong...my film experience is very limited) is that at such a low ISO you're going to end up wasting a ton of shots that come out with motion-blur. Your water would have to be just about completely calm and even then you're only able to shoot completely or near-completely sessile organisms. Shooting fish is right out. Am I way off base there?

Also there's a little bit of apples-to-oranges effect going on when you compare film to digital. You have to level the playing field--are you talking film images that have been scanned and thus converted to digital, or comparing a printout of a digital image to a printed film image? The former would hinder the quality of the film, the latter would hinder the quality of the digital.

 

[mkirda]

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but sure you're going to get great shots when you use a high quality film like velvia and run it at such a low ISO. The problem I forsee though (and correct me if I'm wrong...my film experience is very limited) is that at such a low ISO you're going to end up wasting a ton of shots that come out with motion-blur. Your water would have to be just about completely calm and even then you're only able to shoot completely or near-completely sessile organisms. Shooting fish is right out. Am I way off base there?

Also there's a little bit of apples-to-oranges effect going on when you compare film to digital. You have to level the playing field--are you talking film images that have been scanned and thus converted to digital, or comparing a printout of a digital image to a printed film image? The former would hinder the quality of the film, the latter would hinder the quality of the digital.

Sharkey,

What is required is a flash, and a powerful one. That makes all the difference.

Scan a Velvia image on a good scanner and the difference is readily discernable.

I do tend to mostly shoot sessile creatures via macro because of limitations in my equipment. When I shoot macro, I focus with the lens wide open, then manually stop down. All while on a tripod and while using a macro rail. I have do not have any other equipment to allow me to shoot skittish fish. I keep saving for that 105mm Nikkor and a good scanner.

James Wiseman also calls me the slide snob. {grin}
I've seen some nice digicam photos, and much better ones taken with good equipment. A lot of it comes with experience, and learning how to shoot within your equipment's inherent limitations.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

Sharkey,

What is required is a flash, and a powerful one. That makes all the difference.

That's a very good point. I only have an on-camera flash at the moment, so I haven't had time/opportunity to really experiment with using flash to shoot aquariums. The on-camera washes out the image too much for me, so I rarely use it, and instead rely on balancing ISO settings with shutter and aperture control (as you allude to later).

Scan a Velvia image on a good scanner and the difference is readily discernable.

I do tend to mostly shoot sessile creatures via macro because of limitations in my equipment. When I shoot macro, I focus with the lens wide open, then manually stop down. All while on a tripod and while using a macro rail. I have do not have any other equipment to allow me to shoot skittish fish. I keep saving for that 105mm Nikkor and a good scanner.

I think the real key with good macro photography is probably the simplest here--the tripod. Working with macros is virtually impossible without a tripod. Even a little $25 wal-mart tripod will work, but a decent sunpak or bogen just makes life easier.

James Wiseman also calls me the slide snob. {grin}
I've seen some nice digicam photos, and much better ones taken with good equipment. A lot of it comes with experience, and learning how to shoot within your equipment's inherent limitations.

Agreed 110%. I had an old 2.0MP sony that I could get really good pictures out of (the frogspawn shot I have in this week's contest is an example) because I had used the thing so much I knew exactly what would turn out. When I got my new Minolta 5.0MP I was a little disappointed at first because so few of my images were coming out like I had envisioned. There's definitely a learning curve to conquer with new equipment, and that seems to be magnified in the digital realm. With so many different manufacturers of the various electronics, each works with the light just a little bit differently.

Cheers,
John

 

[Pineapple House]

What's the best camera for color, detail, etc. at a reasonable price?

The Canon Powershot G3 seems like an exelent buy. From what i've heard, it's an exelent camera, for a fairly good price. I've seen some great Macro shots taken with that camera.
Features include:

Graham

What kind of prices does it run?

I've seen it anywhere from $400.00-$750.00. Most likely the average price would be around $500.00-$700.00, depending on the store that you buy it from.

I've seen some great pics from the DSC-F707 (since replaced by F717, I think)

FWIW,
I am using the Sony F707, and am very fond of the camera. I can say that it doesn't take the best macro shots, but the pictures that it does take are pretty good. The F717 seems to be just the same as the F707. I think the F707 has a weaker digital zoom, compared to the F717.

Graham

 

[Marcosreef]

I'm going to have to second Len's suggestion about the coolpix (990, 995, or 4500). Having owned the 995 I find it hard to imagine another camera with better close-up capability. FWIW, 995/4500's are routinely used by many laboratories for taking microscopy photos simply because they offer outstanding close-up performance. In fact, the lab I work at (a pathology liver research lab) just installed a coolpix 4500 for our microscope purposes.
But, another thing you should consider is how much you'll be using the camera outside of reefing. The 4500, though it takes great pictures, can be a bit on the slow side in terms of shutter lag (time between pushing button and picture actually taking). There are other cameras that handle this area much better than the nikon 4500 (the minoltas or olympus, for example). HTH!

Here's one of my older shots taken with a Nikon 995

NKT,

Do you remember what settings you use on your 995? I have never been able to take a macro that clear and crisp on mine.

Thanks, Marco

 

[NKT]

Hi Marcosreef, the settings I used for that particular shot were Aperture Priority, no flash, f4.1, shutter 1/21 in matrix metering. I think I also had the powerheads off, and I believe I did it handheld. It also helped that this worm was relatively close to the glass, so there wasn't much water in between to distort the shot. hope this helps, and keep shooting

 

[wetworx101]

I have used many of the cameras mentioned. I own a nikon 5700 and 4500. The 4500 is the best macro camera I have ever used, with some of the sony models being great because of their low light requirements without nightshot even. The 5700 is alright, but not very good in low lighting despite it's ability to focus through the glass because of it's long zoom lens. It's electronic viewfinder and 1.5" LCD lack the size or resolution to give accurate manual focus detail when in manual mode. The worst macro camera made has got to be the Minolta 7i group. They arent even speced for closer than a foot!! (good cameras beyond that) I used a friends and was glad i went with the 5700 that time!! I find canon cameras to be overpriced and not very 'pro'. Then again, despite lacking an entry into the 'pro-am' class (ie nikon 5700, minolta 7i, olympus e20, sony f717) they do make great compacts...but compacts often dont make the best macro/tank cameras due to being automatic-control oriented. I'll bet that new sony DSCP32 will be a great macro. The old nikon 5000 is awesome as well. Features to look for are: not alot of zoom. the best macro cameras have 4x optical or even less. A bigger zoom requires slower shutter speeds and larger aperture settings (resulting in poor focus depth of field) to get the same light as a camera with a smaller zoom.
A look through lens viewfinder is a very good idea, although it often is only on more expensive cameras.
A viewfinder that is NOT electronic is best to tell image clarity in manual/macro settings.
A mini tripod is needed to hold the camera steady for those lower light shots...or when waiting for you fish to come out.
If you prefer to use the LCD screen, get one that is bigger than a 1.5"...like a 1.8"... because those 1.5" are a painain the a**!!
A camera with an external flash port for variable angle extra flash use...the only reason I dont like the nikon 4300, despite being incredible in macro mode, is it's lack of many manual controls and a external flash hookup.
If you have the money, spring for a 6+ Megapixel Digital SLR like the Nikon D100 or Canon D1s...you will never need another camera again...or film!!