Canon makes some of the best digital cameras around - here's a website that shows macro shots using some of its latest models:
www.cameras.co.uk/html/sample-images-4.cfm
Reducing photo file sizes is straightforward if you use Windows; just right click on a photo file(s) you wish to send to e-Bay and you can choose the level of reduction.
I would suggest the A570 IS for all round usefulness; the IS represents Image Stabilisation, which will make it easier to shoot close-ups, or you can buy a small tripod for under a tenner at, for example, www.7dayshop.com
In fact I got an 7DayShop branded tripod from this outlet for just £2.50 - its quality and finish is quite outstanding.
The A570IS also features a proper viewfinder as well as the viewing screen.
Googling for an A570IS will bring up the lowest prices available, although there are not many around now because of the remarkable value for money.
Edited by Stuartli on 03/02/2008 at 23:31
|
If you need a camera for good close-ups and use for ebay (so reduced resolution) forget mega pixels (as we all should). You need good macro facilities and a good lense.
I said this before but checkout www.dpreview.com.* You can enter your criteria and it can suggest a model/make.
* Amazon was so impressed they bought the company ;-) And still they plug other websites like Calumet ;-)
Edited by rtj70 on 03/02/2008 at 23:34
|
I have just bought a replacement Fuji F450 via ebay from USA for $100
I had to smile as it came with a free " lead lined " camera bag to protect film from airport scanners. :-))))
It was a replacement for my previous one ( Just the flash failed and £100 repair bill was not acceptable).
I was and am very pleased with it's macro performance. It had a good write up but I guess it is now no longer "cool". It is quite small but does have a a viewfinder.
I like it else I would not have two of them.
|
|
|
|
Here's a photo of the Canon A570IS:
tinyurl.com/2vk5vz
Not all that long ago it was £180+..:-)
Many of the Canon models share the same solid body - the differences are in the features, megapixels and optical zoom coverage provided.
|
BobbyG not sure where you are in the country but have an "old" Canon compact (A95) and a DSLR. If you were on the way to/from somewhere on business you could compare. Okay a DSLR is big and images are high mega pixels but the benefits of SLR come into play - e.g. good lenses.
I do get down to Slough or thereabouts every now and then. And therefore places on route.
|
Cheers for advice so far. I must admit I am a fan of Canon myself. My own camera is a Canon SD600 which I believe is the exact same as an IXUS model, I think the IXUS 60. Very easy to use etc but cost me about £175 if memory serves me right.
I have been using this for taking the photos but want to get a work camera specifically for this use rather than trailing mine in all the time. I have been happy with the macro on the Canon although I wasn't sure if I should expect better performance? I find it very easy to use, press one button and you have macro, press another to switch flash on/off without having to go through screeds of menus.
My camera prior to this was also a Canon, a Powershot something or other from a few years ago!
I will have a look at the recommendations so far, maybe even compare the specs to my current Canon, maybe I would be as well trying to get another the same as mine if I know it already!
rtj, thanks for your kind offer but I am in Glasgow, slightly more Northern than Slough :)
|
I concur re the A570IS quality and features though they have had problems with the battery level indicator system, afflicted cameras are being replaced. That being said it is brill for the money.
If budget is an issue the similar A550 and A560 are under £100 in some places.
|
|
|
|
|
Still some of these available at £109.99:
tinyurl.com/2yhlln
An bargain, good optics, macro down to 20mm (2 cm, 0.02m), can take small pictures (640x480) if you want, feature rich, very good guarantee which is honoured if you need it.
|
FT, which model Traveller is that as I saw one still available in my local Aldi at the weekend, think it was the 10mp one but not sure?
I had bought a Traveller before xmas but found that when I took photos then they had lines all the way through them, esp under office lighting. I took it back to aldi and got a refund.
Maybe that was just that particular camera and not a feature of them all?
|
BobbyG
A good quality optical lens is equal or more important than sheer number of MPs.
My six-year-old 2MP Minolta E203 takes stunningly detailed shots that comfortably enlarge to A4 (or more) if required - a shot of my other half's front door hanging basket last year, for example, is quite remarkable as an A4 print.
Re the Canons. My youngest offspring has the 6x zoom A710IS, now replaced by the A720IS; the image stabilisation feature is especially useful at full zoom.
The best mate bought the A570IS two or three months ago (just missing out on the Canon cash back offer). He paid £104 plus delivery. Equal to the A710 in most respects except it's a 4x zoom.
Both cameras deliver first class images and accurate colour.
Edited by Stuartli on 04/02/2008 at 14:16
|
A good quality optical lens is equal or more important than sheer number of MPs.
That could be true. Fortunately with my "unbranded" camera, both the optics and the MP are fine! I seem to remember posting a picture or two taken with the thing in the pre-Christmas thread. Do you remember seeing it/them?
|
"Fortunately with my "unbranded" camera, both the optics and the MP are fine!"
Until you need to take pictures at higher ISO levels and get lots of noise. Cannot comment on your camera but even branded cameras with high MP the sensor is tiny. And then the noise reduction algorithms make a mess of images in low(er) light conditions. Most will be fine in good lighting.
|
Cannot comment on your camera
Quite.
(edit)
Sorry, that was perhaps terse. If you've something that could be done, so as to enable an impartial comparison of a no-name camera with another, then I'm all ears.
Edited by FotheringtonThomas on 04/02/2008 at 23:35
|
so FT your Aldi camera can take images with no noise artifacts in very low light needing maybe ISO 800+ without bluring hand held? And likewise at the edge of pictures in bright light has no purple fringing?
Interested to know. Your camera is okay for you and probably for op but not for me. But I do have a dslr now :-)
|
so FT your Aldi camera can take images with no noise artifacts in very low light needing maybe ISO 800+ without bluring hand held? And likewise at the edge of pictures in bright light has no purple fringing?
I have no idea. Give me a scenario, and I will try to take a picture, and post the result. You can then come to a reasonable conclusion. Regard my camera as "a camera", rather than "an Aldi camera", which it is not (unless "badge engineering" is valid), and be impartial.
Your camera is okay for you and probably for op but not for me. But I do have a dslr now :-)
That is not, of course, a valid comparison (DSLR v. P&S, various), especially considering the OP's requirements.
|
try going to say a church with low light. Take a picture of a fresco without flash handheld without a tripod.
With a good camera (not dslr) with high ISO it's possible. Image stabilization helps but with high mp you can get lots of noise. Or lower ISO means blur.
With my older Canon in St Peter's the Piata was blurred. Camcorder was okay as a camera. Same position and excellent photos with fine detail with a dslr.
|
try going to say a church with low light. Take a picture of a fresco without flash handheld without a tripod.
Can you give me a precise spec.? I will have a go - this is of interest. Perhaps others with different cameras will join in, if there's something reasonably standard (even an artificial standard) that we can all photograph!
With a good camera (not dslr) with high ISO it's possible. Image stabilization helps but with high mp you can get lots of noise. Or lower ISO means blur.
I don't know. My current camera has an anti-shake setting that reduces the effective pixels to 5M, which is supposed to help in low-light conditions. I need to get to grips with exposure/backlight compensation for conditions where the lighting is sub-optinal, I suppose.
|
|
FT which model Traveller
That link points to the 10.1MP one. There's a 7.1 (I think) one too in my local. No idea what that's like, or what it does, but it's physically small, 3x optical zoom, £79.99.
I had bought a Traveller before xmas but found that when I took photos then they had lines all the way through them esp under office lighting.
That seems to be a problem with digital cameras in general, AFAIK. Mine does it if you've a subject standing in front of the sun, bright indoor lights, etc), a friend's Sony & Canon do, and my old Panasonic NV-M7 camera does it too!
Perhaps someone else with a digital camera would comment on this behaviour?
|
There is absolutely no way you need a 7+ MP camera for taking pictures to go on ebay. My old Nikon Coolpix would have done the job superbly and that was only 3MP. I've never seen the lines referred to above, so I'm not sure what to do about that - perhaps adjust the white balance to indoor/tungsten lighting might sort it?
I've got a Canon Ixus 75 and I love it. The macro mode is fine, and it has image stabilisation (important for macro unless you're getting a little tripod/gorilla pod) and a massive screen on the back that can be read in all lights. The Ixus 70 is basically the same camera but it has a viewfinder and no image stabilisation, and the screen on the back isn't so big.
Both fab cameras and both less than £120 on Amazon when I bought mine (price seems to have crept up again recently though.)
|
|
PG, neither the Ixus 70 or 75 have IS though I agree both are superb, I have thought about buying a 70 (I would want a viewfinder) as a pocketable camera though there is an 8MP Ixus 80 due in March, more like the 70 with a viewfinder and it does have IS, also it is available in a range of cool colours, perhaps a non-viewfinder/larger LCD Ixus 85 will follow.
|
If size is not important, can I recommend the Fuji S5600 (it looks like a smallish SLR)- now available for just over £100 if you Google it.
www.fujifilm.co.uk/consumer/digital/digital-camera...5
Has a macro function and the lens seems pretty good to me even at full 10x zoom. Also has an "anti-shake" function - not same as IS I think but pretty effective. I was a bit dubious about such a cheap (for the functions) camera having been a Pentax and Canon fan in the past - but was very pleasantly surprised by the quality of photos from the Fuji.
Couple of examples here - flower/beetle on macro and the woodpecker on full zoom, hand held through a window.
s33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/PhilRW/Examples/
|
Thanks for advice so far. Re one of my criteria for being able to take macro detail shots eg of hallmarks, engravings, markings etc, am I right to be looking in the specs of these cameras for the minimum focus distance under the macro specification? Looking at these, the cameras suggested so far are
Canon A570 IS - 5cm
IXUS 70 & 75 - 3cm
Finepix S5600 - 10cm
Traveller - 7cm
Fuji F450 - 3.6 inches
Does this then suggest that the IXUS is better for macro settings or am I being totally stupid? I suppose you could hold camera further away and zoom in (not under macro setting) but would that give better detail? I am sure there would be more risk of camera shake etc? I do have one of those miniature flexy tripod thingies which is quite good, I suppose that and a timer would eleiminate movement?
|
"Does this then suggest that the IXUS is better for macro settings or am I being totally stupid?"
Would I be being even more stupid in suggesting that it might depend on the focal length of the lens of each camera? What I mean is that a wide angle lens might get closer but give less of a close up than a longer focal length lens - but that might just show that I know nothing about it! I suppose you could go to a camera shop and try a few cameras. You might also want to see how you get on with the viewfinder/screens for real closeups - SLRs might have a real advantage here - or am I just confusing the issue??
Regards
|
>>SLRs might have a real advantage here>>
In the days of film, yes that would be correct.
However, digital cameras have viewing screens...:-)
A zoom lens has the advantage, in macro mode, of being able to use the camera further away from the subject than if using a fixed lens, which makes even lighting much easier.
|
|
am I right to be looking in the specs of these cameras for the minimum focus distance under the macro specification? Looking at these the cameras suggested so far are Canon A570 IS - 5cm IXUS 70 & 75 - 3cm Finepix S5600 - 10cm Traveller - 7cm Fuji F450 - 3.6 inches
Perhaps you've missed a macro setting. The Traveler in the link (at £109.99) has a macro setting from 20mm to 400mm, as well as one from 70mm to 400mm (tele enabled). I myself have taken a few snaps of ladybirds, etc., that nearly fill the screen. I am not suggesting that this camera is superior to "brand name" ones; merely that it does the job - and well.
|
|
|
Does this then suggest that the IXUS is better for macro settings >>
I would say the the A570 is because it is a longer focal length at that setting thus is magnifying more.
|
|
|
|
|
FT i have had a number of digital cameras and none of them (and three mobiles with cameras for that matter) do not suffer with bright light ever. Indoor or outdoor. Worst case is over exposure like with film. Dynamic range processing can help keep highlights and shadows.
You get whst you pay for but major brands have affordable cameras that do not do what your camera does. But it must be acceptable for you. So happy with that. You shuld borrow a dslr to see the difference for any photo regardless of
MP
|
FT i have had a number of digital cameras and none of them (and three mobiles with cameras for that matter) do not suffer with bright light ever.
What?
You get whst you pay for but major brands have affordable cameras that do not do what your camera does. But it must be acceptable for you. So happy with that. You shuld borrow a dslr to see the difference for any photo regardless of
OK - you state that DSLR cameras do not exhibit this effect, but are happy that Sony & Canon do cameras do, as my old Panasonic NV-M7 VHS camera, which was flippin' expensive at the time, does. Is that right? Are not Sony, Canon, and Panasonic "major brands", by the way?
I still think that photographing an object, with a digital camera, against a bright light, will lead to a problem. Perhaps you will disabuse me of this notion by uploading an image, to an appropriate site, of a mug, lemon, or other still life composition, at about 3 metres range, just in front of an unshaded 60W incandescent bulb.
|
ft none of my digital cameras have had this problem. All Canon. As auto mode the brightness might overwhelm the image but not the issue you or op say.
Now to get a good pic you might then need some manual intervention such as changing spot metering, point of focus, etc. Dslr is no different but images are better due to lens and sensor size being much bigger.
|
ft none of my digital cameras have had this problem. All Canon.
Please post a shot somewhere, then - as I say, I am interested, technically. A friends recent shot "on the piste" with a new-ish (<1yr) Sony camera exhibits this effect. I cannot believe that one brand is immune to this - most makes employ the same technology, do they not?
|
I'll try to sort something. All my posts via my ipod tonight. But in bright light they would just show white. Might try setting up your lemon and lamp test :-)
If you've not discovered the dpreview site take a look. I've learned lots reading about technology and reviews
|
|
|
|
>>against a bright light, will lead to a problem.>>
I used to do a lot of weddings and portraits professionally - the trick was to use "fill-in" flash to gently reveal more detail as well as reduce the contrast levels, especially for wedding shots.
It applies equally to my digital camera; in fact quite a few models feature fill-in flash.
|
>>against a bright light will lead to a problem.>> quite a few models feature fill-in flash.
I thought mine had that, but it could be the Sony - I are have been looking in the manual. Mine has, however: "Pre-Flash "The ?Pre-flash? mode allows you to brighten the subject prior to taken the final picture and firing the flash." Not sure what that does. It's also got "flash offset", which seems to mean that you can vary the flash "power" ("The flash power becomes strong when selecting ?+? values. The flash power becomes soft when selecting ?-? values"). When should I use these, I wonder?
|
>>The ?Pre-flash? mode allows you to brighten the subject prior to taken the final picture and firing the flash>>
More likely to be to prevent "red eye". You can't "brighten the subject" prior to taking the final picture as the flash is just that - a fractions of a second output of light.
Fill-in flash is generally used for taking subjects against the light and is normally set at a level below the normal flash output.
Another trick (with a flash gun) is to point it at the ceiling or similar reflective surface to soften the subject i.e. not use direct flash; some flash guns came with a translucent cover, again to soften the harsh effects of flash.
Edited by Stuartli on 05/02/2008 at 13:44
|
>>The ?Pre-flash? mode allows you to brighten the subject prior to taken the final picture and firing the flash>> More likely to be to prevent "red eye". You can't "brighten the subject" prior to taking the final picture as the flash is just that - a fractions of a second output of light.
I don't think so. There is an entirely separate red-eye reduction mode (modes are auto, red-eye reduction, pre-flash, flash off, forced flash). I had the thought that perhaps the "brightening" effect was to do with one exposure and two flashes, but... I don't know.
|
|
But to do fill-in flash well you need a good flash, possibly not even on the camera itself don't you. Flash on cameras, including dSLR are not great.
One clever bit on mine is it can wirelessly control other flash units using the inbuilt flash - not that I have tried. You could set a few compatible flashes up in the room and then they listen and it flashes quickly to communicate. Quite cool.
|
I use an old SLR flash on a tripod, that has an optical trigger
The camera flash triggers the off camera flash. I use the flash on the camera to fill in on sunlit from behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FotheringtonThomas
You said: "That seems to be a problem with digital cameras in general.... Mine does it if you've a subject standing in front of the sun, bright indoor lights, etc" and "Perhaps someone else with a digital camera would comment on this behaviour?"
Well dug out my old Canon A95 (only 5MP) and took a photo of the energy saver bulb in my office ceiling light. It's a 100Watt equivalent and it's rarely on because it is so bright - you cannot look at it directly for too long.
So set to Macro mode put camera very close and... I get a picture of the bulb without any fine lines etc. Take pictures of things close to lamps with bright light behind and still no lines.
|
You said: "That seems to be a problem with digital cameras in general.... Mine does it if you've a subject standing in front of the sun bright indoor lights etc" and "Perhaps someone else with a digital camera would comment on this behaviour?" Well dug out my old Canon A95 (only 5MP) and (it doesn't do it)
Hmm! Curiouser and curiouser. I tested mine again with an Anglepoise lamp, silver inside, 60W. Results:
Still photos: Vertical line seen on LCD monitor, this line runs from top to bottom of camera screen, as the camera is rotated, the line keeps the top-bottom orientation on the screen, which is quite odd! The vertical bar does NOT appear on the digital image at all, though!
Video: Vertical line as before. This line does however appear on the video clip, and when the camera is rotated, the line rotates with it (i.e. is always up/down on the video).
So, I was wrong about that. I'd just assumed that the display accurately depicts what will be on the image.
This is interesting, as my friend's new Sony camera *does* show vertical bars when it takes video (no idea about stills, I will try & get a test).
A phone camera I just borrowed does not show vertical lines on the display, and vertical lines don't come out on stills or video.
My old Panasonic VHS does show vertical bars when (for instance) filming someone with the sun behind them.
Does your A95 show a bar when it takes a video?
What on earth could be causing this? Oh, and is photographing bright lights likely to damage cameras!
|
The display showed a wide purple line briefly until it had started focusing and setting aperture. Just tried rotation the camera and it did the same as yours with the line not rotation - but within a fraction of a second you can hear it adjusting and it goes. It did not stay on screen for long and did not appear on the photo - maybe your camera does not adjust aperture until you fully press the shutter button?
Also tried video this time and once focused and aperture set correctly no band and I could rotate the camera and no line. Nothing like lines appeared on the taken video either. Maybe yours simply was taking video with the wrong aperture setting?
With the price of cameras low now I still would say the OP cannot go wrong with a Canon and no more than 5MP is really needed. May dSLR happens to be 10MP but that is not why I chose it.
|
maybe your camera does not adjust aperture until you fully press the shutter button? (video with) wrong aperture setting?
I have just tested a Casio Exilim 7.MP camera.
Still: Vertical line on display - not recorded onto image.
Video: Vertical line on both screen and recorded onto video.
|
|
|
|
AFAIK, the line is a result of the preview shot on the screen being taken with the aperture wide open. This is to give the most light in to the sensor to give you a nice useable image to line the shot up with. When you take the shot then it adjusts to something appropriate to get a high quality image, and hence no line.
My optical engineer explained it properly to me a while ago, but I can't recall more detail now I'm afraid!
|
Mine adjusts the aperture before any button is pressed. But agree it's aperture - odd it does not rotate with the screen/camera though.
Any thoughts on what you will get for a works camera. I've never bought from these but stumbled across the site when looking for my dSLR. It appealed because it's not that far away to go there for me.
www.buyacamera.co.uk/xsearch.asp?RecId=SONCA910&pt...k
They have the Canon 570is for £94.99 but reminds me when I got the Canon (and any camera!) you need to get a camera case.
EDIT: And Amazon have it with a memory card and case for £117. And I assume your company will get the VAT back.
Edited by rtj70 on 05/02/2008 at 16:04
|
|
|
Found this (it's written a while back but still appears completely relevant):
www.acecam.com/photography/2907.html
Seems the pre-flash feature, if available, is to set the white balance; it may prevent the intended use of a slave flash unit.
|
The comment: "Any thoughts on what you will get for a works camera..." was obviously for the OP - two replies in one.
Thinking about it I like the Canon UI on a camera and if you already have that on your own then I'd go Canon for the works one too. Selfish but there is not much in it cost wise to go for a non-branded one. Most cameras ought to be fine and will do what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
