Up close and personal.....

[marbleman]

Hello, first time poster, didn't see anything about my needs in a quick review of past topics so here we go.....


I'm looking for a digital camera that can take extremely high quality photos of glass marbles from 2" away. Presently I use a Fuji E900 with 9.0 megapixels who's best feature I utilize is the "macro mode" which allows for up close pics. All my photos are taken outdoors utilizing a sunlight diffusing "tent" and just the flash of the camera set to it's lowest light output. I mount the camera to a tripod and use the timer feature to help eliminate shake. I use manual settings where I can manipulate the exposure depending on the natural light conditions. My only use for this camera is the taking of pics that are then posted on my web site where we offer vintage glass marbles at auction. Because of this my needs seem very specific, money is and isn't an issue although I would like to stay within 1000.00 dollars, with my specific needs I don't need alot of bells and whistles. I'm not against a gently "used" camera so if there are any suggestions along those lines please feel free to share them.

Here are some examples of what I can accomplish with this camera.....

http://www.marqueemarbleauctions.com/15th%20marbles/AD%20FOR%20ANTIQUE%20WEEKLY%20copy.jpg

http://www.marqueemarbleauctions.com/15th%20marbles/13th%20auction%20ad.jpg

Please excuse the "ad" it's all I had at my disposal. The pictures seem decent enough and sufficient for my needs, but I think I can do better. Some of the issues I have is pixelation and fuzziness is clearly seen when the raw photo is brought into Photoshop for cropping, true colors being washed out or not accurately depicted, (especially transparent blues and reds) and just an overall impression of not very good quality that I would expect to see out of a 9 megapixel camera. Granted, improvements could be made via my photo taking skills and "tools" like proper lights, back ground colors, and camera settings - however I have experimented with all these in different combinations with mixed results. I'm sure a post in the "photo tips" forum would garner me much useful information.

My assumption is that I have basically done as good as I can with the limitations of a "point and shoot" camera in natural lighting conditions. I've seen others get high quality photos of glass marbles with "macro lens" mounted onto Canon or Sony cameras with mixed results and somewhat "over produced" via Photoshop pictures. I'm thinking I might move into the SLR field but besides not knowing what the heck the acronym stands for, I obviously don't have a clue on where to start my research - hence my first step by posting here. Thank you in advance for your time should you decide to respond. :)

[LBGChris]

It's all about the lenses brother. If you have a decent camera, upgrade to a lens that's capable of taking close-ups and you're set.

[TheWengler]

I suggest you get a cheap body and a macro lens. Most of the macro lenses are pretty good. Which one you get depends on what kind of working distance you want and how much you want to spend. The body probably doesn't matter too much except the Nikon D40/40x/60 won't autofocus with most of the macro lenses that are available.

Something like the Canon XTi and the Tamron 90mm macro lens would probably do a wonderful job. There are certainly plenty of other options that would work well for you. Choose a camera body that you're comfortable using. Go somewhere where you can try them out.

[AndyfromVA]

SLR means single lens reflex. An SLR uses a mirror so that you can see through the lens exactly what your camera's going to be shooting. Once you press the shutter, the mirror lifts out of the way to allow the picture to be taken.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

SLR stands for single lens reflex camera because the light is entering the lens is split, it goes to both the sensor and the viewfinder. SLR's have a real advantage if you want to change lenses to use the best lens for each type of photography.

Isn't there some sort of point and shoot that excels at macro shots? The smaller sensor size of a P&S should make it easier to keep the whole marble in focus.

With an SLR you use the viewfinder to frame the image not the screen because the sensor is turned off until the shutter is opened except for a few models with live view).

Lastly you don't need more pixels. Old 3 mega pixel cameras are more than ample to post images to the web that will fill a computer screen even after cropping. Mega pixels have been grabbed onto by the marketting tossers and pushed as the "more is better spec" onto the public. When you resize your photos for the web I bet you make your images something like 500x500 pixels ie you use 250,000 pixels for your image. What's the point of taking 9 million pixels and removing 95% of them in photoshop.

When you're in that camera store don't rule out the point and shoots if the salesperson can recommend one that's great at macro. I'm not saying don't get an SLR they're great too but they can be more work with a bigger learning curve to get an "optimal" image.

[AndyfromVA]

Canon point and shoot cameras, even the cheapest one (A470), take good macros.