Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Do I need an DSLR?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:53:33 AM

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

The type of shots I really want to take are very good extreme closeups of
the small insects that live in mosses and fungi, closeups of shy or
aggressive insects and animals at a distance of a few or several feet, and
long distant photos of scenery.

My old digital would take fair macro shots, but nothing for telephoto, and
of course most telephotos are not very good for middle distance.

So I have been thinking that I will need to swap lenses. But some of the new
zooms are much better, and some macros are near microscopic. If I can buy a
point and shoot, I can get one of the better ones. If I buy an SLR, I have
to go lower end.

Should I spend my limited funds on features or on SLR?

TIA

More about : dslr

August 11, 2005 7:23:00 AM

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

Bill,

I was using a Canon G5 for quite sometime before moving to the SLR
world.I will however go back to my G5 when I have to shoot macro.The
reason being,with carefully selected add ons,(macro lenses+tube
extenders+flash) you will be able to get excellent macro results with a
camera as this.I know of many macro enthusiasts who have found the G
series (latest being G6) to be a good one for macro.

Please have a look at the following tutorial which also talk of
euipment on macro
http://www.mplonsky.com/photo/article.htm

I ordered my addons from the same links as mentioned in the above
tutorial and have enjoyed the results.One thing that I may have to
mention though is that unless your point and shoot camera has a decent
reach you will find yourself within a feets distance of the subject to
get the best shots.Having an SLR and adding a macro lens might help
here since you can buy a 105mm or 185mm kind of macro lens which lets
you shoot from well out of the insect's personal space (2-4 m) :) 

Some of my macro pics from G5 are here for your ref

www.pbase.com/deepakr

Cheers
Deepak
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 8:26:15 AM

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

In article <aMKdnZ2dnZ255-ySnZ2dnbRRZ9-dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@adelphia.com>,
Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net says...
> If I buy an SLR, I have
> to go lower end.
>
> Should I spend my limited funds on features or on SLR?

The entry level 6 megapixel DSLRs will give you great performance. Most
of them have affordable 1:1 macros and the requisite flash systems
available. One of the Nikon or Canon models will probably fit your
needs best.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Related resources
August 11, 2005 8:33:33 AM

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

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:53:33 -0400, "Bill DeWitt"
<Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote:

>The type of shots I really want to take are very good extreme closeups of
>the small insects that live in mosses and fungi, closeups of shy or
>aggressive insects and animals at a distance of a few or several feet, and
>long distant photos of scenery.
>
>My old digital would take fair macro shots, but nothing for telephoto, and
>of course most telephotos are not very good for middle distance.
>
>So I have been thinking that I will need to swap lenses. But some of the new
>zooms are much better, and some macros are near microscopic. If I can buy a
>point and shoot, I can get one of the better ones. If I buy an SLR, I have
>to go lower end.
>
>Should I spend my limited funds on features or on SLR?
>
> TIA
>


I got what I considered good macro shots with my Nikon 990. whatever
the latest iteration of that is mught be good. You can get add-ons
for greater telephoto, wide angle, and close up effects. I got a
DSLR because I couldn't control the focusing on the 990. It would
take excelent pictures of something, sometimes what I wanted,
sometimes not. that to me was the reason for change.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 2:48:33 PM

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

While these photos are okay you will be able to get much closer and get much
greater DOF with a suitable macro lens or extension tubes and an SLR.

"Deepak" <deepak.ravindra@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123755779.891638.271730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Bill,
>
> I was using a Canon G5 for quite sometime before moving to the SLR
> world.I will however go back to my G5 when I have to shoot macro.The
> reason being,with carefully selected add ons,(macro lenses+tube
> extenders+flash) you will be able to get excellent macro results with a
> camera as this.I know of many macro enthusiasts who have found the G
> series (latest being G6) to be a good one for macro.
>
> Please have a look at the following tutorial which also talk of
> euipment on macro
> http://www.mplonsky.com/photo/article.htm
>
> I ordered my addons from the same links as mentioned in the above
> tutorial and have enjoyed the results.One thing that I may have to
> mention though is that unless your point and shoot camera has a decent
> reach you will find yourself within a feets distance of the subject to
> get the best shots.Having an SLR and adding a macro lens might help
> here since you can buy a 105mm or 185mm kind of macro lens which lets
> you shoot from well out of the insect's personal space (2-4 m) :) 
>
> Some of my macro pics from G5 are here for your ref
>
> www.pbase.com/deepakr
>
> Cheers
> Deepak
>
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:18:32 PM

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

In article <aMKdnZ2dnZ255-ySnZ2dnbRRZ9-dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@adelphia.com>,
Bill DeWitt says...
> The type of shots I really want to take are very good extreme closeups of
> the small insects that live in mosses and fungi, closeups of shy or
> aggressive insects and animals at a distance of a few or several feet, and
> long distant photos of scenery.
>
> My old digital would take fair macro shots, but nothing for telephoto, and
> of course most telephotos are not very good for middle distance.
>
> So I have been thinking that I will need to swap lenses. But some of the new
> zooms are much better, and some macros are near microscopic. If I can buy a
> point and shoot, I can get one of the better ones. If I buy an SLR, I have
> to go lower end.
>
> Should I spend my limited funds on features or on SLR?

Unless you need the low noise levels or the higher operation speed of a
DSLR, a compact camera with a long zoom will be the better choice,
especially for what concerns macros. Due to the smaller sensor size
compact digital cameras (I'm not talking here about credit card sized
cameras however) will perform better than DSLRs. With a DSLR in order to
get the same magnification level you will need a dedicated macro lens -
that's what some people noticed when they switched from compacts to
DSLRs.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
August 11, 2005 3:34:58 PM

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

Per Charles:
>I couldn't control the focusing on the 990. It would
>take excelent pictures of something, sometimes what I wanted,
>sometimes not.

I had the same experience with my own 990. Frustrating at times.
--
PeteCresswell
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 10:25:33 PM

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

Bill DeWitt wrote:
> The type of shots I really want to take are very good extreme
> closeups of the small insects that live in mosses and fungi, closeups
> of shy or aggressive insects and animals at a distance of a few or
> several feet, and long distant photos of scenery.
>
> My old digital would take fair macro shots, but nothing for
> telephoto, and of course most telephotos are not very good for middle
> distance.
>
> So I have been thinking that I will need to swap lenses. But some of
> the new zooms are much better, and some macros are near microscopic.
> If I can buy a point and shoot, I can get one of the better ones. If
> I buy an SLR, I have to go lower end.
>
> Should I spend my limited funds on features or on SLR?
>
> TIA

maybe a stupid thought, but...
new Canon S2 can shoot from zero distance (yep, you can actually touch an
object with the lens and still get a perfect photo), while it has 12x zoom
for telephoto you need. Also 5M pixels. It's high-end of compact cameras,
and still appr. half of the price as solid SLR. Just check out.
If you want, drop me a mail or post here and i could make some close shots
and put them on my web page, but for now only some test shots of converters
are there (you can check out: http://sleeperman.topcities.com )
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 10:40:55 PM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <aMKdnZ2dnZ255-ySnZ2dnbRRZ9-dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@adelphia.com>,
> Bill DeWitt says...
>
>>The type of shots I really want to take are very good extreme closeups of
>>the small insects that live in mosses and fungi, closeups of shy or
>>aggressive insects and animals at a distance of a few or several feet, and
>>long distant photos of scenery.
>>
>>My old digital would take fair macro shots, but nothing for telephoto, and
>>of course most telephotos are not very good for middle distance.
>>
>>So I have been thinking that I will need to swap lenses. But some of the new
>>zooms are much better, and some macros are near microscopic. If I can buy a
>>point and shoot, I can get one of the better ones. If I buy an SLR, I have
>>to go lower end.
>>
>>Should I spend my limited funds on features or on SLR?
>
>
> Unless you need the low noise levels or the higher operation speed of a
> DSLR, a compact camera with a long zoom will be the better choice,
> especially for what concerns macros. Due to the smaller sensor size
> compact digital cameras (I'm not talking here about credit card sized
> cameras however) will perform better than DSLRs. With a DSLR in order to
> get the same magnification level you will need a dedicated macro lens -
> that's what some people noticed when they switched from compacts to
> DSLRs.

Another factor is shutter lag with non DSLRs, although with the type of
shooting described it may be a non-factor.

--
John McWilliams
August 12, 2005 3:16:30 AM

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

Pete D wrote:

> While these photos are okay you will be able to get much closer and get
> much greater DOF with a suitable macro lens or extension tubes and an SLR.


No you won't. A larger sensor means less DOF all other things being equal.



--

Stacey
August 12, 2005 6:03:05 AM

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

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:25:33 +0200, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:


>maybe a stupid thought, but...
>new Canon S2 can shoot from zero distance (yep, you can actually touch an
>object with the lens and still get a perfect photo),
>

No argument with the post, but this made me wonder about how to light
something like that.
August 12, 2005 7:20:49 AM

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

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:16:30 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Pete D wrote:
>
>> While these photos are okay you will be able to get much closer and get
>> much greater DOF with a suitable macro lens or extension tubes and an SLR.
>
>
>No you won't. A larger sensor means less DOF all other things being equal.


How? what I got from an old Kodak book was that useable depth of
field (they called it depth of detail) was dependant of aperture
(f-stop) and magnification (everything from the subject to the final
print, what went on in between didn't matter too much)
August 12, 2005 7:20:50 AM

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

Charles wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:16:30 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Pete D wrote:
>>
>>> While these photos are okay you will be able to get much closer and get
>>> much greater DOF with a suitable macro lens or extension tubes and an
>>> SLR.
>>
>>
>>No you won't. A larger sensor means less DOF all other things being equal.
>
>
> How?

Do the math (plenty of web sites with coverters for different formats) or
better yet, use the cameras. Shoot the same scene with 35mm and then with a
4X5 with the same FOV and good luck trying to get even close to the same
DOF with the 4X5 at any fstop. What's happening is at the same subject
distance you have to use longer lenses to get the same magnification with
the larger format. It's the same reason it's harder to get those shallow
DOF shots with the smaller sensor camera. Even at their largest Fstop they
have fairly deep DOF. This becomes a bonus when shooting macro. I've tried
shooting macro with large format cameras and even with the movements they
have, it's almost imposible to get decent DOF even at F45.


> what I got from an old Kodak book was that useable depth of
> field (they called it depth of detail) was dependant of aperture
> (f-stop) and magnification (everything from the subject to the final
> print, what went on in between didn't matter too much)

They assume you are using the -SAME- camera format.


--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 10:30:29 AM

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

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 03:20:49 +0000, Charles wrote:

>
> How? what I got from an old Kodak book was that useable depth of
> field (they called it depth of detail) was dependant of aperture
> (f-stop) and magnification (everything from the subject to the final
> print, what went on in between didn't matter too much)
It wasn't a very good book:-)
Depth of field is dependent on aperture, focal length of lens and focal
distance. The longer the focal length, the larger the aperture and the
shorter the focal distance the less the depth of field.

--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 10:38:37 AM

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

"Charles" <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net> wrote in message
news:r75of1h642rd42apcbbdscnra5568meo62@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:16:30 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Pete D wrote:
>>
>>> While these photos are okay you will be able to get much closer and get
>>> much greater DOF with a suitable macro lens or extension tubes and an
>>> SLR.
>>
>>
>>No you won't. A larger sensor means less DOF all other things being equal.
>
>
> How? what I got from an old Kodak book was that useable depth of
> field (they called it depth of detail) was dependant of aperture
> (f-stop) and magnification (everything from the subject to the final
> print, what went on in between didn't matter too much)

It does but what he says is only half right because nothing else is equal,
most P&S cameras only go down to F8 while any macro lens will go to at least
F22 and maybe F32 or more, add to that the bulb mode and longer available
shutter speeds and the ability to use a variety of lenses on the D-SLR and
it will win every time, try a Tamron 90mm macro and you will win every time,
mind you they are only available for the better cameras.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:31:59 PM

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

Charles wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:25:33 +0200, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>
>> maybe a stupid thought, but...
>> new Canon S2 can shoot from zero distance (yep, you can actually
>> touch an object with the lens and still get a perfect photo),
>>
>
> No argument with the post, but this made me wonder about how to light
> something like that.

That's a good question. I guess the whole point of it is just to show off
with it and show you can shoot ANYTHING as long you can get correct light.
For instance, you can shoot flowers from very close, since they won't cover
whole lens and light do come through it somewhat.
I think that more good of it is the fact that in old S1 you could shoot from
30 cm, while here you can do it closer. I just wanted to tell that it's
pretty good camera for decent cheaper than SLR, however the choice is on
poster.
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 12:54:21 AM

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

Neil Ellwood wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 03:20:49 +0000, Charles wrote:
>
> >
> > How? what I got from an old Kodak book was that useable depth of
> > field (they called it depth of detail) was dependant of aperture
> > (f-stop) and magnification (everything from the subject to the final
> > print, what went on in between didn't matter too much)
> It wasn't a very good book:-)
> Depth of field is dependent on aperture, focal length of lens and focal
> distance. The longer the focal length, the larger the aperture and the
> shorter the focal distance the less the depth of field.
>
> --
> Neil
> Delete delete to reply by email

Not quite. DoF is ultimately dependent on the reproduction ratio of the
image to the subject. The smaller the image is in relation to the
subject, the greater is the dof. This is why digi P&S's have too much
dof - because the sensor is so small. At a ratio of 1:1 - the image
size is the same as the object size - the dof is dependent only on
aperture. Film/sensor size, lens focal length, are irrelevant.
Actually, this holds for any subject/image ratio. The reason that
larger film/sensors apparently have less dof is because the
subject/image ratio is smaller with the larger format. This can be
offset though, by needing greater magnification when viewing or printing
the image.

Colin D.
!