I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically correct NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

Grant Erwin
Kirkland, Washington

Might be the camera. I've got an Olympus 340R that shoots macro at about 4"
and pictures come out real well. Sometimes you have to turn the flash off
to prevent wash-out.

--
Gary Brady
Austin, TX
www.powdercoatoven.4t.com


"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything
clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically correct NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

Grant Erwin
Kirkland, Washington

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 11:29:54 -0700, Grant Erwin wrote:

I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically correct NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

Some cameras, although they include a "macro mode", just aren't good at
macro-photography. Usually the limitation is in how close you can get to
the subject you're trying to photograph, and this is a limitation in the
lens system in the camera. If you have a standard 50MM lens from a 35MM
film camera you can try placing it in front of your digi camera and shooting
through it. The 50mm lens acts as a (super) "macro adapter". Use manual focus
in this case.

Grant Erwin wrote:

I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything
clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4
permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically
correct NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

Grant Erwin
Kirkland, Washington

You probably need higher resolution (more megapixals) to get the detail
you want. To get the most from what you have, use lots of light and
a tripod to keep the camera steadier. The more light available, the smaller
the aperature and hence more depth of field.

fred

"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything
clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically correct NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

I use a Fuji FinePix 2400Zoom which I bought a few years ago; it wasn't
expensive. The macro facility on that works very well - I often use it for
photographing PCBs for my web site.

Leon

Turn on macro mode and turn off the flash. Shine some bright but diffused
light at the object. Then use a tripod or somehow hold the camera still
(for example by piling up some books and resting the camera against them).

"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything
clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically correct NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

Grant Erwin
Kirkland, Washington

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:26:13 GMT, the renowned "AL"
wrote:

Turn on macro mode and turn off the flash. Shine some bright but diffused
light at the object. Then use a tripod or somehow hold the camera still
(for example by piling up some books and resting the camera against them).

Here's a good setup for photographing small stuff:

http://www.abrasha.com/misc/photography.htm


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

Your camera manufacturer may have aftermarket screw on lenses that will give
you better close up focusing.


ART

"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything
clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically correct NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

Grant Erwin
Kirkland, Washington

I am also new to didigal cameras but I have found this works fine: Just get
the object in the viewfinder and snap the picture. When I go to edit the
picture is so huge it won't fit on the screen anyway, I just crop the
section I want and it comes out as a closeup. I am guessing that this has
to do with resolution... the more you have the bigger the picture comes out,
at least that holds true for me.

LB


"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything
clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically correct NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

Grant Erwin
Kirkland, Washington

Try reading the instruction book. For example, on my Sony, I have to have the
zoom in wide angle mode for the macro to work correctly. Sometimes trying to
use macro need you need to use the rear screen instead of the viewfinder. You
should be able to judge for accruate focusing then.

Earle Rich
Mont Vernon, NH

Teaching another digital photo class in a couple of weeks.

Grant Erwin wrote:

I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically correct NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

Grant Erwin
Kirkland, Washington

Its the camera. I have a Casio with that sort of limitation. That is one reason
why the professionals still prefer to get a standard 35 mm camera fitted with a
digital imager instead of film.

Besides this common limit on digital cameras, they are also sharply limited on
speed. Film has been greatly improved towards the end of the century, with the
result that color high speed films are common. With digital, you need to
have lots of light, or no movement in the image, and the dark pictures are
really bad. The problem is that the camera makers have been pushing resolution
above all else, and the response time of the current imagers is very bad.

--
Samiam is Scott A. Moore

Personal web site: http:/www.moorecad.com/scott
My electronics engineering consulting site: http://www.moorecad.com
ISO 7185 Standard Pascal web site: http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal
Classic Basic Games web site: http://www.moorecad.com/classicbasic
The IP Pascal web site, a high performance, highly portable ISO 7185 Pascal
compiler system: http://www.moorecad.com/ippas

Being right is more powerfull than large corporations or governments.
The right argument may not be pervasive, but the facts eventually are.

This may sound stupid, but you never know.

Is there wheel or something with a face, a mountain, somebody running, etc.

Make sure that wheel or whatever is not set to the mountain.

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
news:t9aWc.168325$8_6.116429@attbi_s04...
Grant Erwin wrote:

I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything
clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4
permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's
the
camera, what other camera works better?

BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically correct
NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

Grant Erwin
Kirkland, Washington

Its the camera. I have a Casio with that sort of limitation. That is one
reason
why the professionals still prefer to get a standard 35 mm camera fitted
with a
digital imager instead of film.

Besides this common limit on digital cameras, they are also sharply
limited on
speed. Film has been greatly improved towards the end of the century, with
the
result that color high speed films are common. With digital, you need to
have lots of light, or no movement in the image, and the dark pictures are
really bad. The problem is that the camera makers have been pushing
resolution
above all else, and the response time of the current imagers is very bad.

--
Samiam is Scott A. Moore

Personal web site: http:/www.moorecad.com/scott
My electronics engineering consulting site: http://www.moorecad.com
ISO 7185 Standard Pascal web site: http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal
Classic Basic Games web site: http://www.moorecad.com/classicbasic
The IP Pascal web site, a high performance, highly portable ISO 7185
Pascal
compiler system: http://www.moorecad.com/ippas

Being right is more powerfull than large corporations or governments.
The right argument may not be pervasive, but the facts eventually are.

Grant Erwin wrote:
I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It

to, in effect, "force" your camera to autofocus on _your_ object, cut a
hole in some junk flat stuff (eg: corrugated cardboard) that very nearly
'fits' your object outer edges, then suspend, or place, your object
"halfway into" that surface, so half of it is above, and the other half
below, the smooth surface. the camera will be left "no choice" but to
focus correctly. admittedly not a 'dream solution', but one that works.
to 'class it up' a bit, cover the cardboard with a clean bath towel...

or drop your object into a soft feather pillow, or surround it with
planks at the same level, etc.

my camera has the 'option' to hold a 'forced focus' but I'd have to wade
thru 90 layers of menus (and six hours of reading) to accomplish it -
this is far simpler :-)

dave

--
to reply, please remove the "weird stuff" from my email address. thanks.

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:26:13 GMT, the renowned "AL"
wrote:

Turn on macro mode and turn off the flash. Shine some bright but
diffused
light at the object. Then use a tripod or somehow hold the camera still
(for example by piling up some books and resting the camera against
them).

Here's a good setup for photographing small stuff:

http://www.abrasha.com/misc/photography.htm


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


And another...

http://www.worth1000.com/tutorial.asp?sid=161040

Subject: closeup digital photos - ??
From: "Leon Heller"
Date: 22/08/04 20:54 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything
clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically correct NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

I use a Fuji FinePix 2400Zoom which I bought a few years ago; it wasn't
expensive. The macro facility on that works very well - I often use it for
photographing PCBs for my web site.

I have the Finepix 1400 Zoom and everything on that works great too. I don't
use it much these days but I did try the macro facility when I first got it and
it had no problem with focus. I suspect the problem is the OP's camera. Maybe a
fault with that particular one or maybe it's not a highly regarded model.

I did a lot of reading up of online tests and reviews before choosing what to
buy. The Finepix series seemed to come out top for the price in most reviews of
the time 2 years ago and I've certainly not regretted the choice.
--
Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk)

In article ,
Grant Erwin wrote:
I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

One thing which I have found is that the autofocus on my older
digital (A Nikon CoolPix 950) is *very* slow in macro mode -- but is
speeded up significantly by taking a small high-intensity lamp (Tensor
or similar) and using it to pre-illuminate the object to be
photographed.

I've now moved to a Nikon D70 (interchangeable lenses that also
fit the film cameras), and the zoom lens which I am using (28-104 mm) has
a macro mode which only can be enabled at 50 mm or longer, but it does a
much quicker job of focusing in macro mode (or normal mode, for that
matter) than the CP 950. My wife now uses the CP 950.

While you've gotten lots of suggestions (of which I consider the
best to be more illumination and put the camera on a tripod or some
other form of source of stability), I think that you might get more
finely focused (so to speak) advice if you told us what the camera make
and model are -- so those with experience with that particular model can
offer advice from their own experience. After all -- it *might* be that
the macro mode on the camera is simply lousy.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

The CoolPix 950 (no longer in production) works down to 0.8"
distance -- so it can make images on its focusing screen larger than the
object being focused. It also quenches the flash when enough light has
arrived at the CCD sensor so you don't get over-exposed. I have a tiny
table-top tripod for the 950 (which I also sometimes use for
microphones), which might be just what you need with your camera. A
major problem with low light close up photos in particular is that if
you aren't *very* careful to press the shutter relase slowly and gently,
you will jostle the camera just at the moment that the image is being
formed.

BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically correct NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

Well ... if you're shooting a die filer, I think that this
qualifies. :-) But there is rec.photo.digital which might give a lot
more advice, with more experience with a wider list of cameras.

What kind of die filer are you photographing?

Good Luck,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Grant Erwin writes:

I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Partly repeating what others have said, but this is my experience:

* Even in macro mode, there is a limit to how close you can get.
Try backing off until you get a clear shot. Even after cropping,
this may be good enough for the web, since you're probably
downsampling anyway.

* Use a tripod or other camera support. The standard tripod mount
is a 1/4-20 thread, so you can improvise a support from anything
with a 1/4" hole in it (but if you're using a long bolt, use a
nut on it so the end doesn't break through the camera case). The
"ultra-clamp" is also handy for this kind of thing (available at
most camera stores for about $20).

* Use the 10-second self-timer so the camera has time to settle
down after you press the shutter button (if you also have a
2-second self-timer, that might not be long enough). This can
make a *big* difference when using slow shutter speeds.

* Use the smallest available aperture (usually F/8) and as much
light as you can get (if you don't have a manual mode, check the
manual for a mode that optimizes for small aperture and slow
shutter speed).

* Close-up diopters can help-- if you don't have lens threads you
can just hold it in front of the lens (or use duct tape). They're
fairly cheap.

* Standard photoshop skills apply-- contrast, sharpening, etc.

For what it's worth, here are some macro shots I took with a
cheap digicam:

http://www.geocities.com/jszybowski/...rd/Adapter.htm

The box is approximately 2"x3", the sockets are about 3/8" in
diameter. These are cropped & downsampled from much larger images.

Here's a page on mini-tripods, also including some macro shots:

http://www.panix.com/~rbean/tripod/

ff wrote:
You probably need higher resolution (more megapixals) to get the detail
you want. To get the most from what you have, use lots of light and
a tripod to keep the camera steadier. The more light available, the
smaller
the aperature and hence more depth of field.
Aperture? I'm pretty sure NO digital camera in the $200 range has an
aperture, ie. an iris. I think you have to get into the $2 - 3K range
before thay have that feature. All the under $1K cameras I've seen have
no shutter, no iris, and most have a pretty primitive optical zoom
system, too. Those do most of their zooming by reducing the pixel
area, giving up resolution to make the subject appear larger. That's
the digital zoom. I have one of the cheapest (Toshiba PDR-M25) that
has a 3X optical zoom. And, that still isn't enough to do real close-up
work on small objects. The focus hits the wall at about 6", I think.

Jon

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 01:04:18 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

ff wrote:
You probably need higher resolution (more megapixals) to get the detail
you want. To get the most from what you have, use lots of light and
a tripod to keep the camera steadier. The more light available, the
smaller
the aperature and hence more depth of field.
Aperture? I'm pretty sure NO digital camera in the $200 range has an
aperture, ie. an iris. I think you have to get into the $2 - 3K range
before thay have that feature. All the under $1K cameras I've seen have
no shutter, no iris, and most have a pretty primitive optical zoom
system, too. Those do most of their zooming by reducing the pixel
area, giving up resolution to make the subject appear larger. That's
the digital zoom. I have one of the cheapest (Toshiba PDR-M25) that
has a 3X optical zoom. And, that still isn't enough to do real close-up
work on small objects. The focus hits the wall at about 6", I think.

Jon
Prices keep dropping. I bought a Canon Rebel digital a couple months
ago for about $1K. It uses the normal rebel lenses, plus one 18-35mm
zoom specifically designed for it. I haven't tried it for macro. It
has good resolution, 6 Mpix, and takes good pics.

One caution I've heard since I got it is that the ccd is a dust
magnet, so be careful where and when you change lenses.

Pete Keillor

Thanks to all. Using the suggestions here I was able to get a decent shot
which I'd failed to get in about 4 dozen previous tries. This shot shows
the chuck at the top end of the file rod, where you actually clamp the
parallel machine file. I was unable to clamp a file so it was parallel to
the file rod. On closer examination, I realized that the fixed jaw of the
chuck was well and truly boogered and, amazingly, appeared to have been
manufactured that way. See the image:

http://tinyisland.com/images/FixedJawAsReceived.jpg

My solution is going to be to mill the fixed jaw until it is clean and right
and make a hardened shim to replace the removed material. Not being skilled
at brazing, I'll probably epoxy the shim in place.

I'll post details of the camera later. The die filer I'm using as a reference
is a Keller Model 256. I'm having lots of fun working on it.

Grant Erwin

Ron Bean wrote:
Grant Erwin writes:


I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.


Partly repeating what others have said, but this is my experience:

* Even in macro mode, there is a limit to how close you can get.
Try backing off until you get a clear shot. Even after cropping,
this may be good enough for the web, since you're probably
downsampling anyway.

* Use a tripod or other camera support. The standard tripod mount
is a 1/4-20 thread, so you can improvise a support from anything
with a 1/4" hole in it (but if you're using a long bolt, use a
nut on it so the end doesn't break through the camera case). The
"ultra-clamp" is also handy for this kind of thing (available at
most camera stores for about $20).

* Use the 10-second self-timer so the camera has time to settle
down after you press the shutter button (if you also have a
2-second self-timer, that might not be long enough). This can
make a *big* difference when using slow shutter speeds.

* Use the smallest available aperture (usually F/8) and as much
light as you can get (if you don't have a manual mode, check the
manual for a mode that optimizes for small aperture and slow
shutter speed).

* Close-up diopters can help-- if you don't have lens threads you
can just hold it in front of the lens (or use duct tape). They're
fairly cheap.

* Standard photoshop skills apply-- contrast, sharpening, etc.

For what it's worth, here are some macro shots I took with a
cheap digicam:

http://www.geocities.com/jszybowski/...rd/Adapter.htm

The box is approximately 2"x3", the sockets are about 3/8" in
diameter. These are cropped & downsampled from much larger images.

Here's a page on mini-tripods, also including some macro shots:

http://www.panix.com/~rbean/tripod/

Grant,

My Olympus C-700 Ultrazoom digital has a "macro mode", but it only works
when the zoom is set to wide angle. Not intuitive, since your instinct is
to "zoom in" close. Try widening out the zoom and then moving the camera in
very close to frame the shot you want. This works very well on my camera.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything
clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically correct NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

Grant Erwin
Kirkland, Washington

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 11:29:54 -0700, Grant Erwin
calmly ranted:

I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

You didn't mention a tripod. Macro work needs absolute
stillness to focus properly. It's nearly impossible to
hand-hold a camera for clear macro work. Light the work
brightly/externally and turn off the flash. Shoot from
different distances at highest rez and crop to detail.
You could build a flash ring with LEDs if you're doing
this very often, Grant. Tissue paper over the flash will
work (as a diffuser) in a pinch if you have to have flash
for shadowing.


BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically correct NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

rec.photo.digital might be your next step if we don't
solve your problems. I don't follow it but have lurked
and asked questions there (whenever I've had a problem)
for years.


--
Impeach 'em ALL!
----------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

That's a very good image from a relatively low cost camera. I've been using
an HP 215 that produces marginally acceptable closeup pics. There are some
clip-on lenses from Tiffin for the 215 and other different brands of digital
cams without threaded lens rings.
If I can't get a decent flash image with the x1 setting, I'll try the x2
digital zoom from a longer distance.

Machined metal parts are a challenge (at least for me) because of multiple
surfaces, threads and other details.
Sometimes suspending/mounting the part "on a stick" nearer to the camera
than the background, with no other objects nearby gives very good results.

For most of my limited experience with images for web pages, additional fill
lighting is required for a decent image (I started with a video camera and a
frame capture gizmo, went to a flatbed scanner and am now using the HP) and
common incancescents are too cold/red for most types of cameras. Some
flourescents aren't much better (haven't found a good compact screw-in
flourescent), but this HP does seem to be compatible with a GE Cool White
circle flourescent in a magnifier lamp at my table.

I've picked up a lot of good tips from this thread that should improve my
results, and thanks to those that offered them

WB
.................

"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
Thanks to all. Using the suggestions here I was able to get a decent shot
which I'd failed to get in about 4 dozen previous tries. This shot shows
the chuck at the top end of the file rod, where you actually clamp the
parallel machine file. I was unable to clamp a file so it was parallel to
the file rod. On closer examination, I realized that the fixed jaw of the
chuck was well and truly boogered and, amazingly, appeared to have been
manufactured that way. See the image:

http://tinyisland.com/images/FixedJawAsReceived.jpg

My solution is going to be to mill the fixed jaw until it is clean and
right
and make a hardened shim to replace the removed material. Not being
skilled
at brazing, I'll probably epoxy the shim in place.

I'll post details of the camera later. The die filer I'm using as a
reference
is a Keller Model 256. I'm having lots of fun working on it.

Grant Erwin

Jon Elson writes:

Aperture? I'm pretty sure NO digital camera in the $200 range has an
aperture, ie. an iris. I think you have to get into the $2 - 3K range
before thay have that feature. All the under $1K cameras I've seen have
no shutter, no iris, and most have a pretty primitive optical zoom
system, too.

I think the Canon A70 is the cheapest digicam with full manual
controls, including aperture and shutter speed ($200-$300
depending on where you buy it). It can take good pictures if you
respect its limitations (slow lens). Their S-series cameras are
similar, and cost slightly more. The G-series has a better lens,
but it costs $700.

They use a combined shutter/iris mechanism.
Certain shutter/aperture combinations are unavailable because
it can't open and close fast enough. This seems to be common
for cheaper cameras.

||
||For most of my limited experience with images for web pages, additional fill
||lighting is required for a decent image (I started with a video camera and a
||frame capture gizmo, went to a flatbed scanner and am now using the HP) and
||common incancescents are too cold/red for most types of cameras. Some
||flourescents aren't much better (haven't found a good compact screw-in
||flourescent), but this HP does seem to be compatible with a GE Cool White
||circle flourescent in a magnifier lamp at my table.

By far the best lighting available is sunlight, preferably morning.
I can mock up a background with the back of a poster or sometimes butcher
paper. You can shape the paper or add a poster to provide some fill. I can
quickly get images suitable for color newsprint ads.

When I'm in my poorly-lit shop, I use all the lights available - Overhead
tracklights, flourescent worklights, and halogen portables, variously focused
on the work or to provide bounce. The combination gives me pretty accurate
color and good detail.
Texas Parts Guy

I just hold a jeweller's loupe in front of the lens, and with the
existing zoom feature and moving the camera itself in and out a bit, I
can get decent closeups. Any machinist should have a loupe in his
toolbox, if only for finding and picking those pesky metal slivers out
of your skin.

Dan

Grant Erwin wrote:
I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

Grant Erwin
Kirkland, Washington

It's hard to tell what is the matter remotly but my Fuji 2600 macro
focuses at about 10 cm. It's hard to get light on the subject when
the camera is that close. :-) It only cost a little more and has
2 meg pixels and 3x optical zoom. I'm well pleased with it.
...lew...

On 23 Aug 2004 02:36:44 GMT, oEmails (Dave Baker)
calmly ranted:

I did a lot of reading up of online tests and reviews before choosing what to
buy. The Finepix series seemed to come out top for the price in most reviews of
the time 2 years ago and I've certainly not regretted the choice.

I did the same reading about 3.5 years ago and chose the
Nikon Coolpix 995 for the very same reasons. g


--
Impeach 'em ALL!
----------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

Lewis Hartswick wrote in message thlink.net...
Grant Erwin wrote:
I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

Grant Erwin
Kirkland, Washington

It's hard to tell what is the matter remotly but my Fuji 2600 macro
focuses at about 10 cm. It's hard to get light on the subject when
the camera is that close. :-) It only cost a little more and has
2 meg pixels and 3x optical zoom. I'm well pleased with it.
...lew...

Very interesting thread!

No one has mentioned the digital camera I bought a Costco about a year
ago. It is a Minolta Dimage Z1 with a 10X optical zoom and 3.4 meg
pixels. One of the autofocus options allows closeups to about 1.6
inches. I have taken lots of nature photos, as well as similar
closeups for documenting electronic assembly work at the plant.

Also the closeup capability allows great Ebay photos!

My $0.02 worth.

Paul

Hi,

One can get a camera with most of the controls
for well less than $1k. I have a $380 Olympus.
This has:

A 10X optical zoom (and a 4X digital zoom),

In macro it focuses down to 1.5 inches
(lighting can be a problem this close.)

Exposure time can be manually controlled
( this may be electronic)

The aperture can be manually controlled,
( but the range is a bit limited)

It is just a bit too big for pockets.




Jon Elson wrote:

ff wrote:
You probably need higher resolution (more megapixals) to get the detail
you want. To get the most from what you have, use lots of light and
a tripod to keep the camera steadier. The more light available, the
smaller
the aperature and hence more depth of field.
Aperture? I'm pretty sure NO digital camera in the $200 range has an
aperture, ie. an iris. I think you have to get into the $2 - 3K range
before thay have that feature. All the under $1K cameras I've seen have
no shutter, no iris, and most have a pretty primitive optical zoom
system, too. Those do most of their zooming by reducing the pixel
area, giving up resolution to make the subject appear larger. That's
the digital zoom. I have one of the cheapest (Toshiba PDR-M25) that
has a 3X optical zoom. And, that still isn't enough to do real close-up
work on small objects. The focus hits the wall at about 6", I think.

Jon

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 11:29:54 -0700, Grant Erwin
wrote:

I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?


Could be quite simple - put a magnifying glass in front of
the lens, or even reading glasses.
I may of misunderstood the question but you can get closer
that way

Grant Erwin
Kirkland, Washington

--
Maurice
remove DOT for email
------------

Grant Erwin wrote:

BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically correct NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

For parts small enough to set on the glass, try using your scanner.
I've had good results for getting pix of small parts for posting in the
dropbox.

Ted

Put the item on your scanner and scan it. You don't need a camera to get a
digital picture.
Jim
"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
I'm no shutterbug. I'm using a digital camera that cost about $200. It
isn't a fancy Nikon which allows you to swap lenses or anything remotely
like that. Still, it ought to be able to take a closeup of something
about the size of a golf ball. I simply can't make it shoot anything
clear.
It has a zoom button. It has "macro mode". It has autofocus, and I know
about putting something like a playing card at the right distance and
holding the button halfway down to hold the autofocus and then shooting
the object. I get pictures that are semi-usable but nothing at all that
can really be said to be in focus. I believe I've tried all 4 permutations
of zoom and macro mode.

Is it me, or the camera? If me, what should I do differently? If it's the
camera, what other camera works better?

BTW, what I'm shooting are details of my die filer for the die filer Web
page I'm building. I know there is probably a more specifically correct NG
but I'm real used to this one and we have many knowledgeable regulars.

Grant Erwin
Kirkland, Washington