I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an adjunct to
a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I have terrible trouble
shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have finally found the method that
yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)
no flash
macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights
shoot multiple images - bracket exposures
use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus

but it's still pretty miserable. I want to know if there exist any digital
cameras in the under $200 price range which can actually shoot closeups. I don't
care about much else, as the cameras we have now can handle other jobs.

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT general
suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or "google on reviews".
There are about a trillion review sites but it's a whole boatload of work to
sort through them all and I'm hoping one of you has a camera, knows what I'm
talking about, likes their camera, knows it's still currently available, and is
willing to post the exact model number.

Thanks!

GWE

I take great close-ups ( about 9" away) with my 3 year-old Olympus
C4000Z. Not a $200 camera, but you may find used ones on ebay.

Ed

In article ,
Grant Erwin wrote:
I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an adjunct to
a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I have terrible trouble
shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have finally found the method that
yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)
no flash
macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights
shoot multiple images - bracket exposures
use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus

but it's still pretty miserable. I want to know if there exist any digital
cameras in the under $200 price range which can actually shoot closeups. I don't
care about much else, as the cameras we have now can handle other jobs.


What model are you using?

Can you post some URLs so we can see what your results are?

I was a film photographer and when I started selling on ebay and I
bought the cheapest P&S that had a macro setting and pruduced some
fine shots.

Have you played with the lighting? a couple standard 100w bulbs in
aluminum reflectors can do lots.

I now know that *lots* of the nice things about digital photography
happen in the computer and I am a decent Photoshop driver. I'm not
recommending it (big $$$) but Adobe Elements is cheap and can do a
great job. Even the older version (PSE 2) which you can probably find
real cheap.

What software came with the camera. When you get a shot you want
to these steps in this order. Most cameras come with software
that can do this;

- crop
- resize to pixel size depending on where the shot is to be used
(ie web is very different from print)
- set upper and lower levels
- color balance
- "sharpen" (last step and something specific to digital photography.)
- save jpg with appropriate compression for what the shot is to be used for.


If you want to come up to speed on digitial photography you might want
to tune into rec.photo.digital.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:24:16 -0800, Grant Erwin
wrote:

I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an adjunct to
a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I have terrible trouble
shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have finally found the method that
yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)
no flash
macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights
shoot multiple images - bracket exposures
use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus

but it's still pretty miserable. I want to know if there exist any digital
cameras in the under $200 price range which can actually shoot closeups. I don't
care about much else, as the cameras we have now can handle other jobs.

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT general
suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or "google on reviews".
There are about a trillion review sites but it's a whole boatload of work to
sort through them all and I'm hoping one of you has a camera, knows what I'm
talking about, likes their camera, knows it's still currently available, and is
willing to post the exact model number.

Thanks!

GWE

See if you can find a Nikon Coolpix 950 or 990 on EBay or a camera
store. They are excellent at macro work at distances as small as an
inch or so. These are no longer in production. I recently saw one
on EBay but quit bidding at $150; don't know what it went for.

The Olympus C-2500L single-lens reflex also does OK, but it's not as
good as the Nikons mentioned. That's what I have. This one is also
out of production, has been for a while. Good used cameras do turn
up as folks want the latest and greatest with more megapixels.

Neither of these are high-res cameras by today's standards, but they
get the job done. I think the Nikon 990 was 3.3 megapixels or so,
the Oly is 2.5 megapixels. Guy Lautard does a lot of nice macro work
for his books with the Nikon 990. Fitch says his works well with a
microscope too.

I didn't like the Nikon when I was camera shopping because it looked
fragile and flimsy -- not like a Nikon! But it was/is an excellent
choice for macro work and was/is a pretty good camera in general.

Current production: very pricey, but those that use interchangable
lenses would accept extension tubes like a 35mm camera. Extension
tubes work very well. I've done a lot of macro work with a Canon A-1
(35mm film) , extension tubes and the standard 50mm lens.

Illumination for good macro work can be a challenge. Some hints:

1: wrap the flash head in a couple of thicknesses of white cloth,
like a handkerchief. That'll reduce it's output some and diffuse it a
bit.

2: Hold a piece of white paper above and slightly behind the work to
reflect the flash and provide some top and back lighting to fill in
shadows.

3: The best setup: use an aux flash meant for use with the camera,
point it up at an aluminized umbrella -- available at photo stores for
about $30. That really works well! That's how the pro's do a lot
of macro work. Some, e.g. dentists, use a ring strobe that
surrounds the lens. (Pricey)

Go to a camera store, not a Walmart or a Target store with your list of
requirements and talk to the sales clerk, they will find you a camera that
will do what you want, probably with at least a couple of compromises as no
consumer level camera will do everything that everyone wants.

One other tip, in your description you mentioned setting the minimum
aperture to f2.8, you've got that backwards, the smaller the aperture
number, the larger the aperture, less depth of field, harder to get
everything in the field in focus. What you need to do to do macro or other
close up photography well is to stop the lens down as far as possible, to
the extent where you add additional light in order to maintain a workable
shutter speed. You should also be using a tripod as any camera shake will
only be increased as you get closer to your subject and if you're using a
small shooting aperture with it's requisite slower shutter speed.

Sorry I can't give you a specific recomendation as I haven't kept up with
the specs. of consumer digital cameras. I will say that Canon produces a
good line of consumer digital cameras as does Olympus. I would think that
you should be able to find something made by one of those companies that
will satisfy your needs. I would seriously look at getting some additional
lighting. You're also going to have to increase your budget if you truly
want good quality equipment. Forget about megapixels and ask about lens
resolution, it's far more important than how big a file the camera creates.

John Emmons

"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an
adjunct to
a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I have terrible
trouble
shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have finally found the method
that
yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)
no flash
macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights
shoot multiple images - bracket exposures
use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus

but it's still pretty miserable. I want to know if there exist any digital
cameras in the under $200 price range which can actually shoot closeups. I
don't
care about much else, as the cameras we have now can handle other jobs.

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT general
suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or "google on
reviews".
There are about a trillion review sites but it's a whole boatload of work
to
sort through them all and I'm hoping one of you has a camera, knows what
I'm
talking about, likes their camera, knows it's still currently available,
and is
willing to post the exact model number.

Thanks!

GWE

Grant,

I am going to break your rule by suggesting a camera that is no longer
made but can be had within your price range on Ebay. The camera is the
Olympus C-2500L. It is a 2.5 megapixel camera, and in super macro mode
will focus down to 0.8 in. Of course at extremely short distances the
lens shades the flash so external lighting is required. It is a SLR so
you look through the lens which I believe is better for close-ups. I
own the camera and this is my 2 cents.

Grant Erwin wrote:
I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an
adjunct to a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I
have terrible trouble shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have
finally found the method that yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)
no flash
macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights
shoot multiple images - bracket exposures
use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus

but it's still pretty miserable. I want to know if there exist any
digital cameras in the under $200 price range which can actually shoot
closeups. I don't care about much else, as the cameras we have now can
handle other jobs.

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT
general suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or
"google on reviews". There are about a trillion review sites but it's a
whole boatload of work to sort through them all and I'm hoping one of
you has a camera, knows what I'm talking about, likes their camera,
knows it's still currently available, and is willing to post the exact
model number.

Thanks!

GWE
Grant, I think you have your minimum aperture and depth of field
reversed. You should be shooting at maximum aperture for greatest depth
of field.
Michael

I have had pretty fair success with the Kodak 3.2 MP I bought several years
ago. It isn't the best model I am sure but I am happy with my experience
with it. I think they are about $175 now for a comparable model. It has a
dial setting for close-ups that doesn't use the flash. Since I bought a
tripod most of the problems I was having are solved. The C330 is the closest
to the model I have.
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...q-locale=en_US




wrote in message
oups.com...

I take great close-ups ( about 9" away) with my 3 year-old Olympus
C4000Z. Not a $200 camera, but you may find used ones on ebay.

Ed

Grant,

I am going to break your rule by suggesting a camera that is no longer
made but can be had within your price range on Ebay. The camera is the
Olympus C-2500L. It is a 2.5 megapixel camera, and in super macro mode
will focus down to 0.8 in. Of course at extremely short distances the
lens shades the flash so external lighting is required. It is a SLR so
you look through the lens which I believe is better for close-ups. I
own the camera and this is my 2 cents.

You may laugh but I find the older Sony Mavicas cameras to be the
ticket.

Good macro, real zoom, auto/manual control, decent detail for photo
file size and you can take the disk with the photos and throw it in a
drawer for achival purposes.

I really don't understand why people feel that they need to shoot a
large megapixel file when a 1-2 megapixel photo will do just fine.

An example....

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2001_reviews/fd75.html

TMT

Grant Erwin wrote:
I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an
adjunct to a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I
have terrible trouble shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have
finally found the method that yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)
no flash
macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights
shoot multiple images - bracket exposures
use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus
I got a Kodak DX7590 which has 10 X optical zoom. It is the best
I've seen in the lower-price range. There is no optcal finder
at all, you have your choice of the outside LCD screen or a
peep-hole electronic viewer. I'm still learning how to use the
thing, I've seen some hints that it can do even better than what
I usually get. On a couple of occasions I have seen it freeze an
incredibly clear shot in a VERY dark room, WITHOUT the flash.
I haven't yet figured out how to get it to store such a frame,
however. But, it will take a great picture of items down to
a couple inches across, filling the entire frame. There is an
accessory lens for extreme macro work that should let it take
pictures of a small screw, for instance, but I don't have it (yet).

It also has a custom Lithium battery that REALLY holds a lot of charge,
and for a long time. With my earlier camera with AA Ni-MH batteries,
if you let the camera sit for a week, the batteries were dead.
With this one, you can let it sit for 3 months, and the battery is
at 80%. I've let my kids play with it for an entire weekend, and
it hardly depleted the battery at all. Amazing!

This is one of those darn things with the 1" thick manual with 25,000
modes of using it, and I don't want to read the whole thing! But, I
am discovering how to use it, and it is awfully good. I got it as a
"factory refurb" which I think means a customer return to a store.
I couldn't tell the difference from new. There are a bunch of people
selling these on eBay.

Here's a web page with a photo I'm sure was shot on this camera.
http://jelinux.pico-systems.com/japservo.html

Jon

its me wrote:
I have had pretty fair success with the Kodak 3.2 MP I bought several years
ago. It isn't the best model I am sure but I am happy with my experience
with it. I think they are about $175 now for a comparable model. It has a
dial setting for close-ups that doesn't use the flash. Since I bought a
tripod most of the problems I was having are solved. The C330 is the closest
to the model I have.
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...q-locale=en_US




wrote in message
oups.com...

I take great close-ups ( about 9" away) with my 3 year-old Olympus
C4000Z. Not a $200 camera, but you may find used ones on ebay.

Ed




Grant, I, too have a Sony Mavica and it's served me well for several
years with NO problems or glitches. Macro shots are quite simple to
make and I've never had to use external additional light sources for
shooting.
The Mavicas are now selling in the $100-150 range on ebay now and well
worth the money if they are in decent condition. Gimme an email and I
can send a few .jpg pix made in macro for your perusal.....

Cheers!! Bill in Phx.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:00:01 -0600, the renowned MKnott
wrote:

Grant Erwin wrote:
I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an
adjunct to a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I
have terrible trouble shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have
finally found the method that yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)
no flash
macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights
shoot multiple images - bracket exposures
use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus

but it's still pretty miserable. I want to know if there exist any
digital cameras in the under $200 price range which can actually shoot
closeups. I don't care about much else, as the cameras we have now can
handle other jobs.

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT
general suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or
"google on reviews". There are about a trillion review sites but it's a
whole boatload of work to sort through them all and I'm hoping one of
you has a camera, knows what I'm talking about, likes their camera,
knows it's still currently available, and is willing to post the exact
model number.

Thanks!

GWE
Grant, I think you have your minimum aperture and depth of field
reversed. You should be shooting at maximum aperture for greatest depth
of field.
Michael

'e wants smaller aperture = higher f-stop, right?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Grant Erwin wrote:

I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an adjunct to
a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I have terrible trouble
shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have finally found the method that
yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)
no flash
macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights
shoot multiple images - bracket exposures
use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus

but it's still pretty miserable. I want to know if there exist any digital
cameras in the under $200 price range which can actually shoot closeups. I don't
care about much else, as the cameras we have now can handle other jobs.

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT general
suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or "google on reviews".
There are about a trillion review sites but it's a whole boatload of work to
sort through them all and I'm hoping one of you has a camera, knows what I'm
talking about, likes their camera, knows it's still currently available, and is
willing to post the exact model number.

Thanks!

GWE

I can't suggest a specific model camera, but I can say that I've had
excellent results with my cheap 3.1MP Kodak DX4330. To a very large
extent the issue is in technique, not equipment.

As a number of people have mentioned, good closeups require a good
external lighting (not flash), a tripod and a little computer work
afterwards.

A digital camera without a fancy macro mode like mine (does have a
closeup setting) may not be able to fill the entire frame with the
detail image you want, but the resolution is there to allow cropping to
get the area you want and when viewed 1:1 has plenty of detail. A newer
5 or 6 MP camera has even more capability.

As Iggy mentioned for flat stuff a flatbed scanner does exceptionally
well. I once tested a new flatbed scanner ($100 model) by scanning a
box from an Intel CPU that was nearby. The detail it captured from the
hologram sticker was amazing.

Pete C.

HI,

Grant is correct that he wants a smaller aperture
for greater depth of field. The point of
confusion is that aperture size is actually given
as f/ number. So large numbers give small
apertures.

Thanks
Roger

***********************************************
Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:00:01 -0600, the renowned MKnott
wrote:

Grant Erwin wrote:
I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an
adjunct to a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I
have terrible trouble shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have
finally found the method that yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)

Snip

Thanks!

GWE
Grant, I think you have your minimum aperture and depth of field
reversed. You should be shooting at maximum aperture for greatest depth
of field.
Michael

'e wants smaller aperture = higher f-stop, right?

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Grant Erwin wrote:
I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an adjunct to
a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I have terrible trouble
shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have finally found the method that
yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)
no flash
macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights
shoot multiple images - bracket exposures
use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus

but it's still pretty miserable. I want to know if there exist any digital
cameras in the under $200 price range which can actually shoot closeups. I don't
care about much else, as the cameras we have now can handle other jobs.

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT general
suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or "google on reviews".
There are about a trillion review sites but it's a whole boatload of work to
sort through them all and I'm hoping one of you has a camera, knows what I'm
talking about, likes their camera, knows it's still currently available, and is
willing to post the exact model number.

Thanks!

GWE

I think your issue may be that $200 is probably the point where
super-macro features start to become available. I bought a used Nikon
990 for telescope work and also use it for macros but my other camera
also has super macro and probably many or most over-$200 cameras now
offer super macro features.

http://home.att.net/~galt_57/halfnuts02.jpg

Grant Erwin wrote:
I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an
adjunct to a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I
have terrible trouble shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have
finally found the method that yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)
no flash
macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights
shoot multiple images - bracket exposures
use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus

but it's still pretty miserable. I want to know if there exist any
digital cameras in the under $200 price range which can actually shoot
closeups. I don't care about much else, as the cameras we have now can
handle other jobs.

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT
general suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or
"google on reviews". There are about a trillion review sites but it's a
whole boatload of work to sort through them all and I'm hoping one of
you has a camera, knows what I'm talking about, likes their camera,
knows it's still currently available, and is willing to post the exact
model number.

Grant
I own a HP 315, which is a cheap consumer-grade 2.0 mp camera from a
few years ago ($199 w/printer). I have been amazed at the quality of
photos it takes, including closeups.
The last couple of winters here have been very wet, producing an
amazing variety of fungi on our property. I have been photographing them
whenever I run across something new. Generally, I am about 1 foot from
the subject. The results are almost magazine-quality.
I'm going to buy a newer, fancier camera for general purpose and
sports photography, but the HP goes to the shop.

YMMV etc

Rex

"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners...
Grant,
An inexpensive alternative is to use a basic digital camera with diopter
close-up lenses. I had good luck with this older model Agfa camera,
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec.../agfa_1280.asp, because it has a
threaded lense hood where you can screw on filters or relatively
inexpensive close-up lenses like these http://www.fwnp.com/article1010.htm.
Many of the current crop of digital cameras don't have threaded lense hoods,
but you might be able to come up with an adapter.

According to the expert at http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=macro
"Generation after generation, Nikon Coolpix digital cameras delivered the
'best in class' macro performance without add-on lenses."

I love my Canon PowerShot S2 ($500) because it will focus down to where the
target is touching the front of the lense.

For best depth of field, you need a small aperture, which means a large
f-stop number. I have a lense for an SLR that is nothing but a pin hole, no
glass. Looking through the lense it is so dark that you can't see what you
are doing, but with trial and error you can get neat effects with lighting
and exposure time. They are used for taking close up shots with great depth
of field, like these model HO trains at http://www.nmra.org/photo6.html.

An inexpensive alternative is to use a basic digital camera with diopter
close-up lenses. I had good luck with this older model Agfa camera,
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec.../agfa_1280.asp, because it has a
threaded lense hood where you can screw on filters or relatively
inexpensive close-up lenses like these http://www.fwnp.com/article1010.htm.
Many of the current crop of digital cameras don't have threaded lense hoods,
but you might be able to come up with an adapter.

Carl Joplin

My Canon Powershot G2 does very well with close-up shots. Takes some
tweaking, as you are familiar with. DOF is a bitch with macro mode, you
need to be aware of elements of your subject that will be out of focus
due to being closer or farther away from the lens than the focal point.
Many times, orienting the subject or camera with DOF considered will
yeild better results.
G2s are down to 2-3 hundred for a used one.
JR
Dweller inm the cellar

Grant Erwin wrote:

I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an
adjunct to a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I
have terrible trouble shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have
finally found the method that yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)
no flash
macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights
shoot multiple images - bracket exposures
use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus

but it's still pretty miserable. I want to know if there exist any
digital cameras in the under $200 price range which can actually shoot
closeups. I don't care about much else, as the cameras we have now can
handle other jobs.

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT
general suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or
"google on reviews". There are about a trillion review sites but it's a
whole boatload of work to sort through them all and I'm hoping one of
you has a camera, knows what I'm talking about, likes their camera,
knows it's still currently available, and is willing to post the exact
model number.

Thanks!

GWE


--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth
If you're not the lead dog, the view never changes
Doubt yourself, and the real world will eat you alive
The world doesn't revolve around you, it revolves around me
No skeletons in the closet; just decomposing corpses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dependence is Vulnerability:
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Open the Pod Bay Doors please, Hal"
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.."

Grant Erwin wrote:

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT
general suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or
"google on reviews". There are about a trillion review sites but it's a
whole boatload of work to sort through them all and I'm hoping one of
you has a camera, knows what I'm talking about, likes their camera,
knows it's still currently available, and is willing to post the exact
model number.

Thanks!


I just shot the bottom two pictures at
http://www.abrasha.com/misc/heater_536.htm with my trusted Canon S400 a
few minutes ago, from a distance of about 4". They are not great,
because they were shot quickly and hand held. Take a look.

The following pictures were all taken with the same camera, with the
help of a tripod. And I could not shoot them from very close. I shot
at about 12 - 24" distance and zoomed in. the images were then cropped.

http://www.abrasha.com/slideshow/rin...ire%20ring.htm
http://www.abrasha.com/slideshow/rin...ned_ring_6.htm
http://www.abrasha.com/slideshow/rin...ned_ring_5.htm
http://www.abrasha.com/slideshow/rin...et%20bands.htm
http://www.abrasha.com/slideshow/rin...it%20bands.htm
http://www.abrasha.com/slideshow/pen...20pendants.htm
http://www.abrasha.com/slideshow/jud...udic%20era.htm

I love that little camera, but as with all cameras it has it's pluses
and minuses.

It's a great point and shoot camera, that I can take with me everywhere
I go, because I can hang it on my belt in it's own pouch. The newer
ones are even smaller.

One of the down sides is, that I cannot set aperture or exposure
priority. It's mostly automatic, with only minor exposure adjustment
possibilities. I have been able to work around that, but it is rather
clumsy. And the flash, like with all digital cameras this size, sucks.

My three main priorities at the time I bought the camera, we small,
small, small. I really wanted a very small camera that I can take with
me at all times. At the time, this was one of the smallest and best
cameras around.

Your choices today are much broader. I still think Canon has great
little cameras. They continue to be top rated.

If close up is really important though, you are most likely going to
have to get a decent SLR camera, either with a fixed lens or replaceable
ones.

I know you don't like reviews, but I do suggest you check out
dpreview.com. He has fantastic in depth reviews as well as great forums.

Also check in rec.photo.digital and/or rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
and/or rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

Good luck

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

You can probably rig up some method for using regular photographic
closeup lenses on just about any cheap camera, this being a
metalworking group and all. Just don't cheap-out on the closeup
lenses.

I've got a Canon G3, myself. The G-series has a macro mode that gets
down to 2 in, plus a manual focussing mode. An f2.0 lens makes it a
little faster than most of the competition. Has an external flash shoe
and you can get accessory bayonet snoots for using regular screw-in
filters and close-up lenses. I've been happy with it. Was about $200
or so as a factory refurb a couple of years back. You might be able to
find a good deal on the net looking for refurbs or the usual places for
used gear. The latest G6 has exactly the same glass as my G3, just
more features and a higher pixel-count sensor. At the time I got my
G3, Canon's G series had the most bang for my buck for the features I
was looking for.

One thing I know that Canon does have is remote control via USB cable
through the PC, not sure if anyone else has that. You can use your
computer monitor for composing and focussing that way instead of that
dinky LCD panel. Might make macro shooting a little easier. That
program is on the web site. They also have an SDK available for making
up camera interface software, if you want to customize the PC side.

Stan

In article ,
Abrasha wrote:
Grant Erwin wrote:

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT
general suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or
"google on reviews". There are about a trillion review sites but it's a
whole boatload of work to sort through them all and I'm hoping one of
you has a camera, knows what I'm talking about, likes their camera,
knows it's still currently available, and is willing to post the exact
model number.

Thanks!


I just shot the bottom two pictures at
http://www.abrasha.com/misc/heater_536.htm with my trusted Canon S400 a
few minutes ago, from a distance of about 4". They are not great,
because they were shot quickly and hand held. Take a look.

The following pictures were all taken with the same camera, with the
help of a tripod. And I could not shoot them from very close. I shot
at about 12 - 24" distance and zoomed in. the images were then cropped.

http://www.abrasha.com/slideshow/rin...ire%20ring.htm
http://www.abrasha.com/slideshow/rin...ned_ring_6.htm
http://www.abrasha.com/slideshow/rin...ned_ring_5.htm
http://www.abrasha.com/slideshow/rin...et%20bands.htm
http://www.abrasha.com/slideshow/rin...it%20bands.htm
http://www.abrasha.com/slideshow/pen...20pendants.htm
http://www.abrasha.com/slideshow/jud...udic%20era.htm

I love that little camera, but as with all cameras it has it's pluses
and minuses.

It's a great point and shoot camera, that I can take with me everywhere
I go, because I can hang it on my belt in it's own pouch. The newer
ones are even smaller.

One of the down sides is, that I cannot set aperture or exposure
priority. It's mostly automatic, with only minor exposure adjustment
possibilities. I have been able to work around that, but it is rather
clumsy. And the flash, like with all digital cameras this size, sucks.

My three main priorities at the time I bought the camera, we small,
small, small. I really wanted a very small camera that I can take with
me at all times. At the time, this was one of the smallest and best
cameras around.

Your choices today are much broader. I still think Canon has great
little cameras. They continue to be top rated.

If close up is really important though, you are most likely going to
have to get a decent SLR camera, either with a fixed lens or replaceable
ones.

I know you don't like reviews, but I do suggest you check out
dpreview.com. He has fantastic in depth reviews as well as great forums.


For closeup work with a tripod a camera with a good LCD screen (2
inches or more) may be better than a consumer grade SLR as these don't
show 100% of the frame in the eyepeice and it may be easier to view
the LCD. I find I can't look thru the optical finder half the time
when it's positioned where I want it in the tripod.

I guess some cameras have always-on LCD displays which would make
setup and positioning nice. dSLRs don't do this. I've never played
with one and I expect they suck batteries.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:38:58 -0700, BillP wrote:

worth the money if they are in decent condition. Gimme an email and I
can send a few .jpg pix made in macro for your perusal.....

Cheers!! Bill in Phx.

Bill:

Perhaps you could post some pics to the Dropbox (www.metalworking.com)
so the rest of us could see you work.

Just a thought.

Errol Groff

Errol Groff

Instructor, Manufacturing Technology
H.H. Ellis Technical High School
613 Upper Maple Street
Danielson, CT 06239

New England Model Engineering Society
www.neme-s.org

I've got a Canon G3, myself. The G-series has a macro mode that gets
down to 2 in, plus a manual focussing mode. An f2.0 lens makes it a
little faster than most of the competition. Has an external flash shoe
and you can get accessory bayonet snoots for using regular screw-in
filters and close-up lenses.

Sure would be nice to adapt a bayonet lense mount to a moderately-priced
digital. I'd love to use my old Pentax-mount SLR lenses on a digital
body. Anybody here tried that?

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:26:28 GMT, Ignoramus22094
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:23:44 -0800, xray wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:15:55 GMT, Ignoramus22094
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:08:54 -0800, xray wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 10:03:24 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

I really don't understand why people feel that they need to shoot a
large megapixel file when a 1-2 megapixel photo will do just fine.

Or less, even. For most web stuff pics of 800 x 600 are more than enough
for most stuff and thats about .5 MP.

Pity the poor dial-up surfers.

I would think that even poor dial-up surfers would prefer to be able
to see very detailed, highest quality pictures of the items that they
are buying.

Sellers (like myself) can include clickable thumbnails in their
auctions. That lets users see things at a glance and, at the same
time, see great detail by clicking on thumbnails.

i

I the real world, I rarely see a picture over 1 MP in size that is taken
well enough to justify the extra bits. Usually, I can just tell in great
detail that the picture is out of focus or poorly lighted. I much prefer
a good picture to a big picture.


True but it's hard to find a good camera that doesn't have a rather
large MP size now days. I usually shrink my images to half there size
before posting to my home page. Even then I get a few who complain
about size.

Do you think that these pictures are excessively large? Or do you
think that they do the best job at describing the item's visual
condition?

The last is definitely to large. Even with DSL it took time to load.

Mind you, the buyers see 5 times smaller thumbnails and can expand
them by clicking on them.

http://yabe.algebra.com/~ichudov/mis...A/dscf0003.jpg
http://yabe.algebra.com/~ichudov/mis...B/dscf0001.jpg
http://yabe.algebra.com/~ichudov/mis...w/dscf0000.jpg

Wayne Cook
Shamrock, TX
http://members.dslextreme.com/users/waynecook/index.htm

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:24:16 -0800, Grant Erwin
wrote:

I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an adjunct to
a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I have terrible trouble
shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have finally found the method that
yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)
no flash
macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights
shoot multiple images - bracket exposures
use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus

but it's still pretty miserable. I want to know if there exist any digital
cameras in the under $200 price range which can actually shoot closeups. I don't
care about much else, as the cameras we have now can handle other jobs.

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT general
suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or "google on reviews".
There are about a trillion review sites but it's a whole boatload of work to
sort through them all and I'm hoping one of you has a camera, knows what I'm
talking about, likes their camera, knows it's still currently available, and is
willing to post the exact model number.

Thanks!


I'm using a Kodak Easyshare DX6490 currently. It does a good job.
It's a older model now. The new ones have even more pixels which is a
waste for posted photos IMHO. I have to shrink my images in half to
get a pic that's decently viewable in a web browser. The main reason I
bought it was for the 10x optical zoom which based on my old cameras
performance was absolutely essential for a all around camera. The nice
thing was that it came with all the manual modes allowing full control
when needed. I take some pretty good macros with it and I don't even
have to be close with that much zoom available (like 24" away and
still fill the screen with a 3" object).

Looking on ebay it seems that they're going for $225-250 range new
and less used. Slightly over your budget but well worth it IMHO.

As others have stated the real key is a tripod and use external
light (no flash) for macros.


Wayne Cook
Shamrock, TX
http://members.dslextreme.com/users/waynecook/index.htm

Ignoramus22094 wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:08:54 -0800, xray wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 10:03:24 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

I really don't understand why people feel that they need to shoot a
large megapixel file when a 1-2 megapixel photo will do just fine.

Or less, even. For most web stuff pics of 800 x 600 are more than enough
for most stuff and thats about .5 MP.

Pity the poor dial-up surfers.

I would think that even poor dial-up surfers would prefer to be able
to see very detailed, highest quality pictures of the items that they
are buying.

I'd much rather see five 100kbyte photos taken from five different
angles, views, and distances than one 500kbyte photo. Always crop and
resize the originals and then use an appropriate level of Jpeg
compression. An excellent and very popular freeware tool for preparing
photos is available here; http://www.irfanview.com

"I would think that even poor dial-up surfers would prefer to be able
to see very detailed, highest quality pictures of the items that they
are buying.

Sellers (like myself) can include clickable thumbnails in their
auctions. That lets users see things at a glance and, at the same
time, see great detail by clicking on thumbnails. "

Ig, I have a rule that anyone who makes something should be forced to
use their creation....anyone who sends LARGE files should have to
receive them on a 20K dialup.

The last numbers I saw indicate that over 60% of Internet usage is
still dialup. So one can assume that 60% of Ebay users are dialup. That
means the majority of your prospective buyers are dialup. Ever try to
look at an auction that has LARGE pictures, graphic content, popups
over dialup? You can't...the Ebay connection will hang on you. By using
LARGE pictures in an Ebay auction you are effectively reducing your
prospective buyer pool by 60%. Does this sound like a good return for
your effort? Add the extremely slow loading that Ebay is (it is the
slowest site I visit with page refreshes of several minutes) and using
LARGE pictures and you will substantially reduce the final selling
price of anything you sell on Ebay...the people with the money can't
see your auction.

And another example....I was trying to buy some tools from a seller who
insisted on sending me multi megabyte pictures that took HOURS to
download. The seller would not/could not send me smaller pictures The
end result....no sale.

Don't even get me started about people who send video clips...



TMT

In article ,
Wayne Cook wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:26:28 GMT, Ignoramus22094
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:23:44 -0800, xray wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:15:55 GMT, Ignoramus22094
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:08:54 -0800, xray wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 10:03:24 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

I really don't understand why people feel that they need to shoot a
large megapixel file when a 1-2 megapixel photo will do just fine.

Or less, even. For most web stuff pics of 800 x 600 are more than enough
for most stuff and thats about .5 MP.

Pity the poor dial-up surfers.

I would think that even poor dial-up surfers would prefer to be able
to see very detailed, highest quality pictures of the items that they
are buying.

Sellers (like myself) can include clickable thumbnails in their
auctions. That lets users see things at a glance and, at the same
time, see great detail by clicking on thumbnails.

i

I the real world, I rarely see a picture over 1 MP in size that is taken
well enough to justify the extra bits. Usually, I can just tell in great
detail that the picture is out of focus or poorly lighted. I much prefer
a good picture to a big picture.


True but it's hard to find a good camera that doesn't have a rather
large MP size now days. I usually shrink my images to half there size
before posting to my home page. Even then I get a few who complain
about size.


The jpg you post is a product of the PeeCee software you use to crop
and resize the shot from the camera. Any camera.

You shoot at the highest quality setting the camera allows, which
produces the biggest file. Copy it to the computer any way you can
and start up the software that came with the camera.

Pick the desired use for the picture. Most computer screens are 75dpi
(aka pixels/inch). A fancy screen is 100dpi. Good printing is
200dpi-300dpi. With that in mind you crop and then resize the picture
to the size, in pixels.

You can do a bunch of stuff after that but finally you want to save
you work. Look for a "save for web" command and you can pick a quality
level, lower quality producing a fuzzier picture of smaller size.
You have to experiment.

One tip; Never when working with jpg files, never
save-open-edit-save on the same filename. You will get "compression
artifiacts" due to the decompression/recompression.. Always save on a
new file name. Always work from the original. TIFF and RAW formats
are not compressed but yoiur camera probably doesn't produce those.

If you have no software look for irfanview (free)
(http://www.irfanview.com/). It can do most or all of what you need.
If you want a step up, buy Adobe Photoshop Elements.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

I used to own a sony mavica, don't recall which model.

I photographed a hook rule, with the rim around the lens touching the rule.

That's fairly close-up




"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an
adjunct to a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I have
terrible trouble shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have finally
found the method that yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)
no flash
macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights
shoot multiple images - bracket exposures
use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus

but it's still pretty miserable. I want to know if there exist any digital
cameras in the under $200 price range which can actually shoot closeups. I
don't care about much else, as the cameras we have now can handle other
jobs.

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT general
suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or "google on
reviews". There are about a trillion review sites but it's a whole
boatload of work to sort through them all and I'm hoping one of you has a
camera, knows what I'm talking about, likes their camera, knows it's still
currently available, and is willing to post the exact model number.

Thanks!

GWE

Ig, no offense meant towards your auction efforts....my comments are
directed towards Ebay....they know they have a big problem with too
much content and not enough bandwidth.


" The last numbers I saw indicate that over 60% of Internet usage is
still dialup.

That is not true. I can dig up references. "

Ig, if you can supply some links I would like to read any information
that you might have.


"" the Ebay connection will hang on you. By using LARGE pictures in an

Ebay auction you are effectively reducing your prospective buyer
pool by 60%. Does this sound like a good return for your effort?

That is false on many levels. Not as many dialup users, as well as the
fact that big pictures are optional. "

Ig, if the dialup folks cannot see LARGE pictures they can't/won't bid
on the associated auctions.

""Again, if you do not want to see you, you do not have to click on
the
video link. "

Ig, it is not that I and other dialups don't want to...it is because we
don't have the bandwidth available and because of locations nothing
faster within economical reach is available.

Everyone should try surfing Ebay with a slow dialup....it is a real
eyeopener as to how much lost revenue occurs because of Ebay bloat and
ill prepared auctions.

TMT

"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an
adjunct to
a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I have terrible
trouble
shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have finally found the method
that
yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)
no flash
macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights
shoot multiple images - bracket exposures
use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus

but it's still pretty miserable. I want to know if there exist any digital
cameras in the under $200 price range which can actually shoot closeups. I
don't
care about much else, as the cameras we have now can handle other jobs.

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT general
suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or "google on
reviews".
There are about a trillion review sites but it's a whole boatload of work
to
sort through them all and I'm hoping one of you has a camera, knows what
I'm
talking about, likes their camera, knows it's still currently available,
and is
willing to post the exact model number.

Thanks!

GWE

Hi Grant.
In another thread I posted a link to a series of shots I took on some lathe
and mill work:
http://faxmentis.org/html/tripod.html

These were all taken with a Pentax Optio S50, (5Mp), which is in your
ballpark for price.
Most were flash, some were not.
Most in macro mode.
Auto exposure - and very satisfactory at that.
Your points on autofocus noted, and agreed.
Ditto the multiple shots

I reckon the results are pretty passable.
I have all the SLR stuff, but choose to use this little Pentax in the
workshop.
I can hold it with one hand, while I feed the tool with the other.
The flash works remarkably well at 12-24" range.

This isn't a "Pentax rocks" post - I use many brands (loved the Mavica, but
time marches on), but this little point&shoot is a beauty. The S50 has been
superceded by a 6Mp model, which I believe is similar in price.

HTH

--
Jeff R.

Grant Erwin wrote:

I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an
adjunct to a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I have
terrible trouble shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have finally
found the method that yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)

Whoa. That would be the _maximum_ aperture on most digitals. Minimum would
be down around F/8 or F/16. That might be part of your problem.

no flash

Good close up work needs careful lighting--doesn't necessarily mean
_expensive_ lighting--when you're working down around the dimensions of a
quarter for example a good LED flashlight properly placed can be quite
adequate, and a little larger than that a halogen desk lamp or two can be
plenty--the big problem is holding them in position and positioning them so
the camera doesn't cast a shadow. The lighting does two things--by
positioning carefully you put shadows where you need them to show whatever
you're trying to show and with enough light you can use short exposures.

macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights

Does it have a manual focus setting? If so, then set the focus to give you
the field-size you need and then move the camera to get the focus and that
problem goes away.

shoot multiple images - bracket exposures

Always if circumstances permit.

use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus

but it's still pretty miserable. I want to know if there exist any digital
cameras in the under $200 price range which can actually shoot closeups. I
don't care about much else, as the cameras we have now can handle other
jobs.

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT general
suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or "google on
reviews". There are about a trillion review sites but it's a whole
boatload of work to sort through them all and I'm hoping one of you has a
camera, knows what I'm talking about, likes their camera, knows it's still
currently available, and is willing to post the exact model number.

I've been using a Nikon Coolpix 990 for years--it's good for anything down
to about the size of a dime. Set for aperture-preferred and stop it down
to F/9, set for manual focus and set the focus to give me the field size I
need (with macro photography standard practice is to set the focus and then
move the camera instead of the other way around). With enough light and a
good brace I can get decent handheld shots, otherwise it needs a tripod and
either the remote release (wired and expensive, not infrared) or the self
timer. A while back I picked up a neat little Manfrotto clamp mount that
lets me position it just about anywhere I want that's very handy for
getting into odd places.

No longer being made, but you can find them for around $250.

Thanks!

GWE

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Grant Erwin wrote:

I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an
adjunct to a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I
have terrible trouble shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have
finally found the method that yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)

Whoa. That would be the _maximum_ aperture on most digitals. Minimum
would be down around F/8 or F/16. That might be part of your problem.

The maximum aperture is when the lens is all of the way open (lowest F
number) and provides the minimum depth of field. When the lens is at the
minimum aperture (highest F number) you get the maximum depth of field.

Typical full f-stops are numbered:

1.4 2.0 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16 22

and for every F-stop increase you halve the light reaching the film/sensor.
That means that you need to increase either the flash power or the exposure.
You probably don't want to increase the exposure as you can introduce camera
shake which will blur your photos.

-- Geoff

Geoff Schultz wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Grant Erwin wrote:

I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an
adjunct to a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I
have terrible trouble shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have
finally found the method that yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)

Whoa. That would be the _maximum_ aperture on most digitals. Minimum
would be down around F/8 or F/16. That might be part of your problem.

The maximum aperture is when the lens is all of the way open (lowest F
number) and provides the minimum depth of field. When the lens is at the
minimum aperture (highest F number) you get the maximum depth of field.

Typical full f-stops are numbered:

1.4 2.0 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16 22

Are you trying to clarify or to disagree? I can't tell.

Very few digitals other than interchangeable lens SLRs have apertures above
2.8--a digital set on 2.8 is generally wide open.

and for every F-stop increase you halve the light reaching the
film/sensor. That means that you need to increase either the flash power
or the exposure. You probably don't want to increase the exposure as you
can introduce camera shake which will blur your photos.

Yes, with macro photography you _do_ want to do that--insufficient depth of
field will blur your photos for sure but camera shake you can deal with
either with a good tripod or with a firm brace.

-- Geoff

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

I freely admit I had the f numbering backwards in my list of steps, but it was
the smallest aperture that was important. I have now got that. Firmly.
Permanently. Thanks.

GWE

Geoff Schultz wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
:


Grant Erwin wrote:


I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an
adjunct to a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I
have terrible trouble shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have
finally found the method that yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)

Whoa. That would be the _maximum_ aperture on most digitals. Minimum
would be down around F/8 or F/16. That might be part of your problem.


The maximum aperture is when the lens is all of the way open (lowest F
number) and provides the minimum depth of field. When the lens is at the
minimum aperture (highest F number) you get the maximum depth of field.

Typical full f-stops are numbered:

1.4 2.0 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16 22

and for every F-stop increase you halve the light reaching the film/sensor.
That means that you need to increase either the flash power or the exposure.
You probably don't want to increase the exposure as you can introduce camera
shake which will blur your photos.

-- Geoff

I recently asked pretty much the same question on a couple of metalworking
and camera sites, right down to the under $200 limit. Although I had
specified that it use cf memory cards as that's what my other gear uses.

I was expecting quite a variation in suggestions, but interestingly enough
there was one camera that came up much more often than others. That would be
the Nikon model 5400. Unfortunately, while I am "an owner" of the camera, I
have not had a chance to use it yet as it is wrapped up under the tree. But
I thought I would pass on the info none the less.

One other consistent piece of input that came back was that a foldout lcd
screen was often very handy for close up work were you may not be able to
get square with the camera to clearly see the screen. I was also told that
this camera had a good quality wide angle lens adapter available if needed
as well. Anyway, this is the one I ended up purchasing off of ebay.

Wayne

http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-COOLPIX-54...c mdZViewItem


"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an
adjunct to a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I have
terrible trouble shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have finally
found the method that yields the best results:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:24:16 -0800, Grant Erwin
wrote:

I often want to shoot a picture of some detail just to post it as an adjunct to
a discussion, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". I have terrible trouble
shooting closeups with digital cameras. I have finally found the method that
yields the best results:

use minimum aperture for max depth of field (f2.8)
no flash
macro mode
manually adjust exposure
autofocus takes a long time, wait until macro focus lights
shoot multiple images - bracket exposures
use LCD display to adjust exposure, focus

but it's still pretty miserable. I want to know if there exist any digital
cameras in the under $200 price range which can actually shoot closeups. I don't
care about much else, as the cameras we have now can handle other jobs.

I'm looking for precise model suggestions from actual owners, NOT general
suggestions like "nikon rocks" or "have you tried sony" or "google on reviews".
There are about a trillion review sites but it's a whole boatload of work to
sort through them all and I'm hoping one of you has a camera, knows what I'm
talking about, likes their camera, knows it's still currently available, and is
willing to post the exact model number.

Thanks!

GWE

Olympus C-740, 3.2 megapixel, 10x optical and 3x digital zoom. At 3",
a business card fills the screen with no zoom. Uses XD card. Downloads
with USB cable. Uses AA batteries. New on eBay in June; $204. Here is
a BIN for $149 item# 7574432259 factory refurb

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:06:09 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"wrace" quickly quoth:

as well. Anyway, this is the one I ended up purchasing off of ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-COOLPIX-54...c mdZViewItem

Best of luck to you, Wayne. Let's hope this is NOT a gray-box special
from another country which will never be warrantied/worked on by Nikon
US camera techs. That was one of the things I was made aware of when I
bought my Nikon 995 about 5 years ago and I stayed away from eBay as a
result. I adore the camera, BTW.

-
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

You cannot go wrong with the Nikon Coolpix 9xx series. they can go
from .8" to anything else with no trouble. I have owned a "raft" of
cameras and overall, for macros these are the most versitile in your
stated price range. Spend a little more and you can get a 995 or 4500
on e-bay with 4x nikor zoom and battery life that will surprise you.
Metalworking content: The cases are (mostly) pressed Mg.! I have a 950
that has been dropped, twice, badly, still works, although there are
dings.