Which digital camera for flower photos

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What camera is currently best for taking close-ups of flowers and plants
which I will publish on a website?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42eccafb$0$14653$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
"Pat" <glass_patrick@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What camera is currently best for taking close-ups of flowers and plants
> which I will publish on a website?

Many cameras will work fine for that purpose. You need something with
macro capability. All the major digital camera companies make one or
more models that do what you need. The big question is price. The more
you pay, the more features you will get, so what's your price range?
Check out http://www.dpreview.com and see what they say about the
cameras in your price range that have macro capability.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pat" <glass_patrick@hotmail.com> writes:
> "Shawn Hirn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Pat" <glass_patrick@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> What camera is currently best for taking close-ups of flowers and
>>> plants which I will publish on a website?

>> You need something with macro capability.

> What is meant by macro capability?

Photospeak for the capability to make close-ups.

The currently *best* camera for your specific application is
the Canon EOS 1Ds MkII w./ EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM AF lens.
You might also want to get the Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX flash
and Macrolite Adapter 72C.

If this falls outside the price-range you had in mind, please list
what sort of price you would be willing to pay.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:51:31 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

>>>>> What camera is currently best for taking close-ups of flowers and
>>>>> plants which I will publish on a website?

>> The currently *best* camera for your specific application is
>> the Canon EOS 1Ds MkII w./ EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM AF lens.
>> You might also want to get the Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX flash
>> and Macrolite Adapter 72C.

> The stated application is for publishing "on a website". Don't
> you think the 1Ds MkII is gross overkill, especially for a
> photographer that hadn't yet learned what macro capability is?
>

>> If this falls outside the price-range you had in mind, please list
>> what sort of price you would be willing to pay.

> You should have mentioned the price, as Pat is probably unaware
> how expensive a 1DS MkII, lens and ring light is, and that for the
> price of one of these, several dozen very capable P&S cameras could
> be purchased. The typical web picture is fairly small in size, so
> it's pretty unreasonable to recommend as a starting point one of the
> highest resolution, most expensive digital cameras ever made.

It was a joke.

I get a tad annoyed with people asking for advice about finding
the *best* equipment for this and that is - without as much as
mentioning what sort of budget they are on. Well, IMHO the
1Ds MkII is *the best*. Wish I could afford one myself.

As the previous poster mentioned, there are literally hundred
of different digital cameras that can take this type of
photographs, and picking the right one is mostly about finding
a reasonable compromise between price, features, and performance.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:17:49 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

> It was a joke.

I thought so, but it seemed to be an 'inside joke' that may have
eluded the inexperienced OP.


> I get a tad annoyed with people asking for advice about finding
> the *best* equipment for this and that is - without as much as
> mentioning what sort of budget they are on. Well, IMHO the
> 1Ds MkII is *the best*. Wish I could afford one myself.
>
> As the previous poster mentioned, there are literally hundred
> of different digital cameras that can take this type of
> photographs, and picking the right one is mostly about finding
> a reasonable compromise between price, features, and performance.

Right. But determining the most suitable camera for macro
photography isn't something that's easy to pick up from reading the
usual sites such as dpreview.com. I was wondering (even though I
might be totally wrong here) if this might be one of the few cases
where a P&S with the smallest sensor might provide an advantage.
It's one thing to take macro shots of extremely small objects, where
the entire object will be in reasonably sharp focus. But most
flowers are large enough that you'd want the greatest depth of field
possible. This isn't to say that DSLRs can't be used effectively to
take macro shots of flowers. But I was wondering if a small sensor
would provide an advantage by getting more of the flower in focus?
A high resolution LCD or better, the very high res. (900,000 pixel)
EVF of the K/M A2 should help getting the object in perfect focus
too (don't refocus - adjust position of subject or camera instead),
which might tip the scale away from getting a camera that uses an
optical viewfinder, or one with a low res. LCD.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:17:49 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
>
>
>>It was a joke.
>
>
> I thought so, but it seemed to be an 'inside joke' that may have
> eluded the inexperienced OP.
>
>
>
>>I get a tad annoyed with people asking for advice about finding
>>the *best* equipment for this and that is - without as much as
>>mentioning what sort of budget they are on. Well, IMHO the
>>1Ds MkII is *the best*. Wish I could afford one myself.
>>
>>As the previous poster mentioned, there are literally hundred
>>of different digital cameras that can take this type of
>>photographs, and picking the right one is mostly about finding
>>a reasonable compromise between price, features, and performance.
>
>
> Right. But determining the most suitable camera for macro
> photography isn't something that's easy to pick up from reading the
> usual sites such as dpreview.com. I was wondering (even though I
> might be totally wrong here) if this might be one of the few cases
> where a P&S with the smallest sensor might provide an advantage.
> It's one thing to take macro shots of extremely small objects, where
> the entire object will be in reasonably sharp focus. But most
> flowers are large enough that you'd want the greatest depth of field
> possible. This isn't to say that DSLRs can't be used effectively to
> take macro shots of flowers. But I was wondering if a small sensor
> would provide an advantage by getting more of the flower in focus?
> A high resolution LCD or better, the very high res. (900,000 pixel)
> EVF of the K/M A2 should help getting the object in perfect focus
> too (don't refocus - adjust position of subject or camera instead),
> which might tip the scale away from getting a camera that uses an
> optical viewfinder, or one with a low res. LCD.
>
For images like this:
http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/snowdrop.jpg
Then a small sensor ZLR or P&S should be fine or could even be better
and easier to use. (that shot at 105mm f11)
For images like this:
http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/tulip.jpg
Then use of DOF to accentuate compositional detail is not possible with
a small sensor camera to anywhere near the same degree as a dslr. (that
shot at 105mm f2.8)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42eccafb$0$14653$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Pat
says...
> What camera is currently best for taking close-ups of flowers and plants
> which I will publish on a website?

Almost any camera will be fine, even a compact one.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1122849399.922437@ftpsrv1>, frederick says...

> For images like this:
> http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/snowdrop.jpg
> Then a small sensor ZLR or P&S should be fine or could even be better
> and easier to use. (that shot at 105mm f11)
> For images like this:
> http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/tulip.jpg
> Then use of DOF to accentuate compositional detail is not possible with
> a small sensor camera to anywhere near the same degree as a dslr. (that
> shot at 105mm f2.8)

I'm not so sure. DOF is very shallow even with a small sensor camera in
macro photography, and it gets shallower the more you magnify (i.e. in
supermacro mode it you have less DOF than in macro mode).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:

> In article <gnvpe1l361026m4eeevc59v0qmi6b7kg6n@4ax.com>, ASAAR says...
>
>
>> You should have mentioned the price, as Pat is probably unaware
>>how expensive a 1DS MkII, lens and ring light is, and that for the
>>price of one of these, several dozen very capable P&S cameras could
>>be purchased.
>
>
> Besides flower macro photography is an area where compact cameras with
> small sensor and good enough lenses outperform DLSRs (except for noise
> levels). Better DOF and no need for expensive macro lenses.

"Better DOF"?
You are incorrect - much larger DOF is correct.
This shot is not possible with a compact:
http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/shell.jpg

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pat" <glass_patrick@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42eccafb$0$14653$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> What camera is currently best for taking close-ups of flowers and plants
> which I will publish on a website?
>
>

FWIW

I shot this with a Canon A70
http://www.tequila-stuff.com/digit [...] -small.JPG

There are a few more flower shots here
http://www.tequila-stuff.com/digital-photos

Jay

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1122857049.486511@ftpsrv1>, frederick says...

> "Better DOF"?
> You are incorrect - much larger DOF is correct.
> This shot is not possible with a compact:
> http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/shell.jpg

That shot suffers from very poor DOF.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:51:31 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

>
> The stated application is for publishing "on a website". Don't
> you think the 1Ds MkII is gross overkill, especially for a
> photographer that hadn't yet learned what macro capability is?
>

And a smaller sensor has better DOF which is good for this application. I
know I'm getting nicer macro shots hand held with avalible light using an
E300 w/ 50F2 macro than I ever did with 35mm film cameras. Some people like
"flash macro" shots done with a ring light, I personally think avalible
light shots look better, they show the environment.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/200 [...] owweb3.jpg

--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thus spake Alfred Molon unto the assembled multitudes:
> In article <42eccafb$0$14653$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Pat
> says...
>> What camera is currently best for taking close-ups of flowers and plants
>> which I will publish on a website?

> Almost any camera will be fine, even a compact one.

IMHO if you're only publishing on a website and not making high quality
prints, pixel resolution isn't all that important and you just need a lens
capable of taking close-ups. Unless of course you're using the website
pictures to sell high-quality prints of your photos :-)

--
Andy Clews University of Sussex IT Services
(Remove DENTURES if replying by email)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Some great advice from you all. Thanks!

Sorry I did not elaborate with regards price range, perhaps something in the
region of £300

For the record I currently own a Nikon Coolpix 775 which I think is not
suitable for what I want.

Pat


"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:sJidnZYuAI0qGXDfRVn-jA@giganews.com...
> news wrote:
>> "Pat" <glass_patrick@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:42eccafb$0$14653$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>>> What camera is currently best for taking close-ups of flowers and
>>> plants which I will publish on a website?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> FWIW
>>
>> I shot this with a Canon A70
>> http://www.tequila-stuff.com/digit [...] -small.JPG
>>
>> There are a few more flower shots here
>> http://www.tequila-stuff.com/digital-photos
>>
>> Jay
>
> There may be some information to be gleaned from these hand-held photos
> made within a few minutes of each other. In open shade, very little
> post-processing, almost no cropping. The Nikon has an excellent macro
> capability, and could have gotten much closer. The 24-70 2.8L was about at
> the short end of its focus capabilities, at the long end of its zoom. The
> pelargonia are maybe an inch in diameter, the (I forgot what the
> red/yellows are) are two to three inches in diameter.
>
> Depending on the size of flowers, and the amount of empty you want around
> the subject, and the depth of focus you want, lots of choices. DSLRs give
> more control; after a certain point, P&Ss are going to give you greater
> DOF under similar conditions, DSLRs less.
>
>
> Nikon Coolpix 8700:
> http://www.fototime.com/5823BC3ED1026B7/orig.jpg
>
> Canon 20D 24-70 2.8L:
> http://www.fototime.com/3F96DA66DD4532B/orig.jpg
>
> Nikon Coolpix 8700:
> http://www.fototime.com/76CE3592ED1F336/orig.jpg
>
> Canon 20D 24-70 2.8L:
> http://www.fototime.com/90EC1EE80CDD86E/orig.jpg
>
> Nikon Coolpix 8700:
> http://www.fototime.com/39EE7CC65CEE167/orig.jpg
>
> Canon 20D 24-70 2.8L:
> http://www.fototime.com/1850198993562A4/orig.jpg
>
>
> --
> Frank ess

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pat,

Just for ver/clar-ification, which camera and site were you impressed
with?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:

> In article <1122878193.833871@ftpsrv1>, frederick says...
>
>
>>>>"Better DOF"?
>>>>You are incorrect - much larger DOF is correct.
>>>>This shot is not possible with a compact:
>>>>http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/shell.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>That shot suffers from very poor DOF.
>>
>> >
>>Using your criteria, it could have been *perfect* if only I'd used my
>>webcam.
>
>
> Low DOF is useful when you want to focus attention on the subject. In
> your photo the subject is the shell, not the tip of the shell. Almost
> everything in the image is blurred, which is why the image is not much
> of an image.

The shell is not a forensic artifact, and is of no interest on it's own.
Flowers are the same - they are of no interest (to me) as accurate sharp
isolated specimens, except on flower packets or textbooks. But, each to
their own. A point and shoot camera appears to suit your ambitions and
desires adequately.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <1122930566.91608@ftpsrv1>, frederick says...
>
>> A point and shoot camera appears to suit your ambitions and
>>desires adequately.
>
>
> What do you know about my desires and ambitions ?


"Too much DOF can be _easily_ reduced by software, by selectively
blurring the background."
Which is very bad advice...
....and your insistence that a huge DOF is "better".

Your ambition seems to be to attempt to convince people that the things
that a small format P&S camera cannot do compared to a larger sensor
camera are not worth doing, and the things that a P&S camera can do that
a larger format camera cannot do represent the pinnacle of excellence.
You seem to take offense at any mention of the limitations of the small
sensor P&S format, be it noise, acutance/sharpness, fringing / CA,
distortion, etc. You don't come across as someone offering impartial,
reasoned, or accurate advice. You seem to be a zealot.

Most dslr users also own and use P&S cameras. The reverse is not true.
You don't seem to have a grip of the difference between formats - if you
want to find out more, then go defend the poor olympus 4/3 system users
who are constantly flamed at in r.p.d.dslr-systems, for the small
limitations (and some advantages) of their format vs 35mm, let alone
APS-C size formats.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <1122878193.833871@ftpsrv1>, frederick says...
>
>>>> "Better DOF"?
>>>> You are incorrect - much larger DOF is correct.
>>>> This shot is not possible with a compact:
>>>> http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/shell.jpg
>>>
>>> That shot suffers from very poor DOF.
>> >
>> Using your criteria, it could have been *perfect* if only I'd used my
>> webcam.
>
> Low DOF is useful when you want to focus attention on the subject. In
> your photo the subject is the shell, not the tip of the shell. Almost
> everything in the image is blurred, which is why the image is not much
> of an image.
I would rather have the whole subject, such as a hibiscus blossom, in
focus, and then blur distracting backgrounds in Photoshop, if necessary.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:53:09 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Are you implying that a DSLR can't have good DOF? If so, you need to do
> a bit of research. What DOF one prefers is strictly up to them, neither
> is 'better' or 'worse' than the other, and it is ridiculous to
> pontificate on the value of a photographer based on his choice of
> equipment, or whether he likes deep fields, or shallow, out of focus ones.

I agree that no particular type of DOF is always superior. Small
vs. large depends on the effect you're looking for. But I think
that in this case if you re-read what frederick said, you'll see
that in no way is he criticizing DSLR's DOF.


> So, tell me who is the zealot?

There do seem to be more of those around these days. Either that
or someone's been spiking their tea. There should be a bit more
tolerance for differences of opinion, but this is usenet and what
you see is what you get. It's funny seeing some recent criticism of
recently announced P&S models that have not only not yet been seen,
but haven't been reviewed, where the criticism boils down to "they
can't take pictures that are as good as those that can be taken by
current DSLRs". Boy, that sure took an awful lot of insight.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pat" <glass_patrick@hotmail.com> writes:
> For the record I currently own a Nikon Coolpix 775 which I think is
> not suitable for what I want.

Why not?

It is a bit old, but its max resolution is 1600 x 1200 (2 Mpx),
which is more than you need to for puttings photos on the web.
For web use, I would say 640 x 480 is fine and 1024 x 768 is
maximum.

It also happen to have a "macro" mode that lets you focus as
close up as 4 cm - which is probably still among the best macro
modes found on a compact.

If your main application for a new camera is to take close-up
pictures of flowers to put on the web, I would say that the
camera you already own is just the ticket. Pull out that old
manual and read up on its macro capabilities!
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <1122945223.614507@ftpsrv1>, frederick says...
>
>
>>The "better" or "worse" judgements are not mine, they are the OP's.
>>"Different" is my opinion. Try re-reading the thread, before jumping
>>down my throat.
>>
>>The OP is a zealot for expressing a value judgement on subjective matters.
>
>
> This proves you know nothing about me. My next camera will very likely
> be a DSLR.

Great. Then you might learn about DOF, bokeh, composition, and why the
comments frequently made in here about the ability to create DOF using
photoshop are garbage.
Just another tip, for floral photography with a dslr, an expensive macro
lens is not essential. Extension tubes work or even diopter close-up
adapters work quite well, and there is often little or no advantage in
having the edge to edge sharpness and lack of distortion that a macro
lens offers anyway.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:53:09 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Are you implying that a DSLR can't have good DOF? If so, you need to do
>> a bit of research. What DOF one prefers is strictly up to them, neither
>> is 'better' or 'worse' than the other, and it is ridiculous to
>> pontificate on the value of a photographer based on his choice of
>> equipment, or whether he likes deep fields, or shallow, out of focus ones.
>
> I agree that no particular type of DOF is always superior. Small
> vs. large depends on the effect you're looking for. But I think
> that in this case if you re-read what frederick said, you'll see
> that in no way is he criticizing DSLR's DOF.
>
>
>> So, tell me who is the zealot?
>
> There do seem to be more of those around these days. Either that
> or someone's been spiking their tea. There should be a bit more
> tolerance for differences of opinion, but this is usenet and what
> you see is what you get. It's funny seeing some recent criticism of
> recently announced P&S models that have not only not yet been seen,
> but haven't been reviewed, where the criticism boils down to "they
> can't take pictures that are as good as those that can be taken by
> current DSLRs". Boy, that sure took an awful lot of insight.
>
Quite true. For me, the primary factor between P&S and DSLR (other than
price) is that the DSLR is just too big for me to carry around, and a
camera on a shelf at home doesn't take very good pictures....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> Are you implying that a DSLR can't have good DOF? If so, you need to
>>> do a bit of research. What DOF one prefers is strictly up to them,
>>> neither is 'better' or 'worse' than the other, and it is ridiculous
>>> to pontificate on the value of a photographer based on his choice of
>>> equipment, or whether he likes deep fields, or shallow, out of focus
>>> ones.
>>>
>>> So, tell me who is the zealot?
>>>
>>
>> You need to do some research.
>> The _shallowest_ DOF from any small sensor digicam (ie - at widest
>> aperture) is approximately equivalent to the _deepest_ DOF (ie at
>> minimum aperture) available from aps-c sized sensor, before resolution
>> begins to be lost to diffraction (above about f11). End of story.
>>
>> The "better" or "worse" judgements are not mine, they are the OP's.
>> "Different" is my opinion. Try re-reading the thread, before jumping
>> down my throat.
>>
>> The OP is a zealot for expressing a value judgement on subjective
>> matters.
>
> Which you just did, again.
>
>
What?
By saying that you needed to do some research to realise that what I say
isn't a subjective matter at all?
Get a life.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42ef1ca5$0$14684$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
"Pat" <glass_patrick@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Gisle for pointing out that my camera has got greater capabilities
> than what I first thought. I will need to (as you say) dig out the manual.
>
>
>
> "Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
> news:q5k6j4nci2.fsf@nelja.ifi.uio.no...
> > "Pat" <glass_patrick@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> For the record I currently own a Nikon Coolpix 775 which I think is
> >> not suitable for what I want.
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > It is a bit old, but ...

I'd second Gisle's suggestion. If your 775 is like my Coolpix 995 - as
far as it's macro features are concerned, I think you'll be very
satisfied with the results.

I'd never done macro photography until I got the 995. Since it came with
this capability, I decided to see what this was all about. Pictures of
flowers seemed to be the perfect way to "test the waters". So, whenever
the occasion arose, that's what I did.

The results were surprisingly very good (to me).

As one example: When a friend saw the pictures that I had taken of her
begonias, she took all the photos and used them as a slide-show
screen-saver on her Mac at work. She subsequently received a lot of
positive comments about the images from colleagues who happened to have
seen her screen-saver running.

Give your 775 a try. You may find it more than satisfactory - at least,
for starters.

ron