What camer do I buy.

[Graciocues]

My wife has started taking some classes for photography and were looking for a good close up camera. Not a point and shoot. These cameras are expensive and I like to buy a good one on the first try.

We've taken a couple for a test drive and don't have enough experience to know what camera is the best.

I want extremely close pictures!

This was taken with a Nikon D????.

 

[Guerra Cues]

Scott,
I have a Canon XSI that works just fine.
The big thing is, get a decent flash and a good macro lens. That will make all the difference in the world!
Here is a macro picture that I took with my Canon and the regular macro setting:

 

[PDX]

My advice is to look at the big picture. Canon and nikon lenses are expensive and they are known for their zooms mainly. I prefer prime lenses, a single focul length. I shoot pentax for a couple of reasons. I can use lenses from as far back as 1958 with nothing more than a simple adapter. Also, Pentax has stabilization in the camera, not the lens. This makes lenses cheaper. If you want macro photography, you will want a good tripod, a cable or remote and you will want to focus manually. Good lighting helps alot, a macro flash ring is great, but not completely necessary. I am also a big fan of extention tubes, which can turn any lense into a macro. If you have questions, feel free to PM me. Canon and Nikon are great, but it can get expensive really quick. Just don't forget Pentax. I find lenses for my pentax at thrift stores all the time. I just found a SMC 135mm 2.5 for $15 at goodwill. Most people are getting rid of there film lenses because they think that film is dead. These lenses work fine, generally no autofocus, but autofocus takes the fun out of photography.

 

[Fast Lenny]

Here is a picture with a camera that cost me under $130, Canon Powershot A1100is.

 

[JasonS]

A good macro lens isn't cheap so the camera body isn't what you should focus on (no pun intended har har). You can pick up an old 6 or 8 megapixel dslr for pretty cheap these days (i.e. canon 30D). The images will still be excellent even though its "only" 8 megapixels because of the lens.

 

[PDX]

Here are a few from my Pentax K10d, a $5 28mm lens from goodwill and a set of extension tubes.

 

[Junkyarddog]

I've got a D-90 Nikkon with a bunch of different lenses. It is fantastic.

 

[danquixote]

My advice is to look at the big picture. Canon and nikon lenses are expensive and they are known for their zooms mainly. I prefer prime lenses, a single focul length. I shoot pentax for a couple of reasons. I can use lenses from as far back as 1958 with nothing more than a simple adapter. Also, Pentax has stabilization in the camera, not the lens. This makes lenses cheaper. If you want macro photography, you will want a good tripod, a cable or remote and you will want to focus manually. Good lighting helps alot, a macro flash ring is great, but not completely necessary. I am also a big fan of extention tubes, which can turn any lense into a macro. If you have questions, feel free to PM me. Canon and Nikon are great, but it can get expensive really quick. Just don't forget Pentax. I find lenses for my pentax at thrift stores all the time. I just found a SMC 135mm 2.5 for $15 at goodwill. Most people are getting rid of there film lenses because they think that film is dead. These lenses work fine, generally no autofocus, but autofocus takes the fun out of photography.

This fellow has his sh!t together....he is obviously experienced and knowledgeable......call him ASAP

 

[Sweet Marissa]

I highly recommend a Pentax ME Super. It's the SLR I learned on when I went to university for art.

 

[qbilder]

I just bought a Nikkon D3000 & am loving it so far. I'm quickly learning i'm going to need a good flash upgrade & a macro lens for my cue pics. I looked over a BUNCH of cameras & my wife & I felt this one was the easiest for an idiot like me to use. She wanted the D5000 but I seriously couldn't work the thing & didn't care to learn. I want easy. So anyway, for what it's worth, i'm having fun with the D3000. However, it will be an extra expense for me to get the kind of pics I want of my cues due to upgraded light & lens.

 

[Rick S.]

Nothing wrong with a point and shoot....this shot was taken with a Nikon CP 4500. (700.00)

These taken with a D300 Nikon with a macro lens....(2300.00)

Depth of field is CRITICAL when shooting macro....you want everything in focus, especially shooting cue sticks.

If you can shoot natural light vs flash, you're much better off.

It's not about how much $$$ you spend, or who makes the best camera. It's how you USE it, that's important.

I'd go for autofocus, if I was buying new. If you shoot ANY action shots, you'll be awfully glad you has it. Especially shooting pool tournys....it's all low light. (unless it's a TV table) It gets hard to see sometimes in gloomy lighting conditions. By the time you focus, the shot's gone.

As previously mentioned....glass is more important than the camera body. A lens will hold it price much better than a camera body. Nikon's-Canon's especially.

I find that a monopod works best for me....(less bulky)

Buy what you can afford.....bottom line.

 

[Rick S.]

My advice is to look at the big picture. Canon and nikon lenses are expensive and they are known for their zooms mainly.

Yes, they are expensive. And there is a reason for it. The both make some of the best optics on the planet. Along with Zeiss.. Not to mention the cameras themselves...light years ahead of Pentax. Always have been, and always will be.


They aren't known primarily for their zooms....they make quality products al the way around. Just look at any of the pros....you're not going to find 2% of them shooting Pentax. You want quality....you have to pay for it.

Don't believe me? Look here at a PENTAX forum....they have trouble naming 2-3 past-present Pro Pentax shooters. (other than the larger format 67) If they don't know.....

I prefer prime lenses, a single focul length. I shoot pentax for a couple of reasons. I can use lenses from as far back as 1958 with nothing more than a simple adapter. Also, Pentax has stabilization in the camera, not the lens. This makes lenses cheaper.

Adapter? .....why? Because Pentax changes their mounts a few years back. So now...you need an adapter. Nikon STILL has the same mount as they started with. NO adapters needed.....Screw it on, and shoot. From any era...

If you want macro photography, you will want a good tripod, a cable or remote and you will want to focus manually. Good lighting helps alot, a macro flash ring is great, but not completely necessary. I am also a big fan of extention tubes, which can turn any lense into a macro. If you have questions, feel free to PM me. Canon and Nikon are great, but it can get expensive really quick. Just don't forget Pentax. I find lenses for my pentax at thrift stores all the time. I just found a SMC 135mm 2.5 for $15 at goodwill. Most people are getting rid of there film lenses because they think that film is dead. These lenses work fine, generally no autofocus, but autofocus takes the fun out of photography.

Why manually? A good autofocus system works wonderfully for macros, IF it's GOOD. Nikon's is....

Film is dead....that's why you find them at Goodwill.

 

[skor]

I'm a Nikon guy so I'll recommend that.
The Nikon D5000 is a great option, it has the same sensor that comes with the D90 and the D300s cameras.
For good close-ups you'll need a good Macro lens and good lighting.
If pool cues is what you're going to shoot then I suggest you build a light box, there was a thread a while back how to DIY.
If it's not just pool cues then a good flash is needed and one that can be used off camera.
A good macro lens for Nikon is the Nikon macro 105mm VR this is the only Nikon macro lens that has a stabilizer. Another option will be to get a Sigma macro 150mm lens for Nikon
The Nikon SB-600 would be a sufficient flash for you.

Since you'll probably use this camera for normal pictures as well then you'll need an additional all around lens, here you can either go with a kit lens that you can get with the camera body, I suggest to either get the 18-105 VR or the 18-200 VR

 

[LWW]

One can take the argument for Pentax and apply it to Nikon ... except more so.

1 - There is far more Nikon glass available, and it can all be used on any current Nikon DSLR. Anything from an AIS forward can be used without any modification at all. There are about 25 years worth of used AF glass available. Their lenses are essentially bulletproof mechanically, so if the glass itself is clear and the lens hasn't been dropped from 3 stories it should last for many more years under consumer use.

2 - Image stabilization is over rated. It is used to market less expensive glass as being able to shoot in low light similar to faster more expensive glass by allowing a longer shutter speed without shake being induced. What they don't tell you is that by having a longer shutter speed you still have the blur of subject movement ... so, unless you want to take a picture of essentially static objects in low light without a flash, IS is not a substitute for higher speed lenses.

3 - Stabilization in the body is even less useful. The reason stabilization is needed at all is for long telephoto lenses at longer exposure. Stabilization in camera is nothing as accurate as when it's at the long end of the lens. Do this ... take an inkpen and hold it between your thumb and index finger so that all of the pen extends in one direction and tou are holding the pen only by the tip. Now shake your hand up and down so that the pen wobbles, which end is more stable ... the attached end (Where a camera body would be.) or the far end (Where the front lens element would be.) of the pen?

4 - Which camera you get for basic photography is largely irrelevant. High end DSLR's are usually possessed of a handful of features that are seldom used, and their additional cost is justified ... or not, depending on buyer ... by their use of a metal body that is more able to withstand heat/cold extremes, dusty and humid conditions, and heavy pro use.

5 - Don't get caught up in the megapixel game. Anything from 6MP up is capable of awesome enlargements, and for web use anything over 2 MP is really overkill.

Also, there are seeral threads in NPR based on this topic.

If you have other Q's feel free to ask. I hope this helps.

LWW

 

[skor]

2 - Image stabilization is over rated. It is used to market less expensive glass as being able to shoot in low light similar to faster more expensive glass by allowing a longer shutter speed without shake being induced. What they don't tell you is that by having a longer shutter speed you still have the blur of subject movement ... so, unless you want to take a picture of essentially static objects in low light without a flash, IS is not a substitute for higher speed lenses.

I have to disagree with you. Optic stabilization (VR for Nikon and IS for Canon) is a blessing! I agree that you don't need it for a wide angle lens although the stabilized 18-55mm kit lens for Nikon is also better optic wise then the former lens without VR, so the VR is a bonus.
When it comes to longer focal length, over 100mm the VR is like magic. many shots that required tripod in order to get sharp image even with good lighting can now be taken hand held without the use of a tripod. Same goes to the stabilized macro lens.

Here is some macro examples I took without a tripod with the Nikon macro 105mm VR (I did use a bounced flash).
The red square shows a crop at 100% of the size before I downsized the photo to make it suitable for viewing on web sites.

This on had a shutter speed of 1/50sec, with a 105mm lens it should have been blurry but thanks to the VR mechanism it is very sharp

 

[macguy]

My wife has started taking some classes for photography and were looking for a good close up camera. Not a point and shoot. These cameras are expensive and I like to buy a good one on the first try.

We've taken a couple for a test drive and don't have enough experience to know what camera is the best.

I want extremely close pictures!

This was taken with a Nikon D????.

Most any good camera with a close up lens will take good pictures. The secret is lighting, you can't flash that close you need a good light source set up properly and also using a tripod. I have a small tripod and for close ups and I set the camera timer. You can't really take a super good picture close up if you are handling the camera.

 

[Rick S.]

Most any good camera with a close up lens will take good pictures. The secret is lighting, you can't flash that close you need a good light source set up properly and also using a tripod. I have a small tripod and for close ups and I set the camera timer. You can't really take a super good picture close up if you are handling the camera.

I'll agree with the light source....The Sun was mine. However.....

The 3 shots I posted were all handheld....as long as you have good light, you're good to go.

 

[LWW]

I have to disagree with you. Optic stabilization (VR for Nikon and IS for Canon) is a blessing! I agree that you don't need it for a wide angle lens although the stabilized 18-55mm kit lens for Nikon is also better optic wise then the former lens without VR, so the VR is a bonus.
When it comes to longer focal length, over 100mm the VR is like magic. many shots that required tripod in order to get sharp image even with good lighting can now be taken hand held without the use of a tripod. Same goes to the stabilized macro lens.

Here is some macro examples I took without a tripod with the Nikon macro 105mm VR (I did use a bounced flash).
The red square shows a crop at 100% of the size before I downsized the photo to make it suitable for viewing on web sites.

This on had a shutter speed of 1/50sec, with a 105mm lens it should have been blurry but thanks to the VR mechanism it is very sharp

You must have missed what I said at the end about VR.

so, unless you want to take a picture of essentially static objects in low light without a flash, IS is not a substitute for higher speed lenses.

You have hit it's one benefit, and that's a shot like the one you displayed.

My comments are more towards the reasons most people value IS, and I have met several people who have made this error, they think it will allow them to shoot in low light hand held situations and get stop action at the same time.

LWW

 

[skor]

You must have missed what I said at the end about VR.



You have hit it's one benefit, and that's a shot like the one you displayed.

My comments are more towards the reasons most people value IS, and I have met several people who have made this error, they think it will allow them to shoot in low light hand held situations and get stop action at the same time.

LWW

OK, then we agree
For low light you need flash or a camera that can shoot well in high ISO (and a fast lens)

 

[Sweet Marissa]

Film is dead....that's why you find them at Goodwill.

Film is not dead. I and several other photographers I know still shoot film, as well as digital. I also recommend students learn on a manual film camera before switching to digital, so you fully understand the mechanics of shooting without relying on autofocus cameras, film OR digital.