digital camera for flower photos
K Shelton
they basically suck since I started using SLR cameras. Most of them anyway.
Am going to buy a digital for my flower photos.
What camera is best for that? I am considering an Olympus Camedia
C-3040ZX... but how will that work for close-ups? Taking good close ups is
most important.
Any help appreciated.
Thank you,
Karen Shelton
Manchester, TN
Alternative Nature Online Herbal and Wild Plant Photo Gallery
http://altnature.com http://poison-ivy.com
Don Allen
>they basically suck since I started using SLR cameras. Most of them anyway.
Instead of going digital try one of the following:
1. Buy a film scanner and scan your negatives and them print them yourself or
at your local Kodak or Fuji dye sub or Frontier print station.
2. Shoot slides and do the same thing!
Both avenues will give you much better potential results than a digital camera!
God Bless,
Don Allen
http://www.DonAllen.net
Photos + a large set of photo links including my PHOTO BOOK LIST - NOW WITH
BOOK REVIEWS!!!!
Terry Dawson
excellent cameras. I believe the Nikon 9xx series goes closer, but I have
no problems at "flower level" with an Olympus 3030.
--
My Digital Photography Pages
http://digital.photography.home.att.net/
K Shelton <ka...@altnature.com> wrote in message
news:tiarlqn...@corp.supernews.com...
BHilton665
>OK I'm disgusted with picking up pictures at the developers and finding that
>they basically suck since I started using SLR cameras. Most of them anyway.
>
>Am going to buy a digital for my flower photos.
I think if your SLR flower photos suck then your digital flower photos will
likely suck even more. But at least you won't be wasting money on film and
you'll be able to see the suckiness in the LCD viewfinder more quickly than
waiting for film to be developed, so maybe the instant feedback will help you
improve.
>Taking good close ups is most important.
Pick up one of John Shaw's books like "Landscape Photography", he has excellent
info on how to get good close-ups. Should be relatively easy with a tripod,
any decent SLR and extension tubes.
K Shelton
Suck means mostly bad lighting, blurs from wind, bad developing, having to
take several pictures of the same thing and hoping something turns out,
usually doesn't then by the time I find out, the flower in question has quit
blooming or I can't get back to try again. Not to mention spending over 100
a month for film and developing. I'm disgusted with my Pentaxes, want some
more instant gratification. Got an ME on Ebay the shutter sticks sometimes.
Also have a K1000 and my light meters are apparently not accurate. Changing
the batteries did not help. Am going to keep trying with the SLR's but need
digital as well before all the flowers are gone.
I did a whole lot better with point and shoot cameras, was actually selling
pictures. SLR's aren't working out very well for me even though I have read
all the books and John Shaw's book as well.
For the record the Olympus beat the Nikon in Consumer Reports magazine, that
is why I am considering it, Nikon is also a top contender in my mind..
> > Thank you,
> > Karen Shelton
> > Manchester, TN
> > Alternative Nature Online Herbal and Wild Plant Photo Gallery
> > http://altnature.com http://poison-ivy.com
"Terry Dawson" <terry....@att.net> wrote in message
news:LvfV6.74678$t12.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
K Shelton
Professional developing in my neck of the woods? You got to be kidding.
Where do I get a negative scanner and about how much is cost?
Thanks,
Karen
"Don Allen" <dwa...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010611220918...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
Don Allen
>excellent
>info on how to get good close-ups. Should be relatively easy with a tripod,
>any decent SLR and extension tubes.
>
Shaw's books are all excellent but his "Close-Ups in Nature" is more
appropriate here!
ele...@home.com
: OK I'm disgusted with picking up pictures at the developers and finding that
I have no experience with the C-3040ZX, but if you are interested in macro
shots, do consider the Nikon CP995 (update to the 990). I have a 990 and
it works very well for macro shots. You can get very close without using
any add-on closeup lenses, and the 'twist' body is great for this kind of
work. With the 'twist' body, you can place the camera at the level of the
flowers, and even shoot up at the flower, while still viewing the LCD
screen from a comfortable position. One of my main photo interests is
macro work which is the main reason I purchased the Nikon CP990.
Ray
--
E. Ray Lemar ele...@home.com
Terry Dawson
really help other folks find it!
There's a big upside and a little downside with today's digitals. The
upside is that you will know quickly when you got the shots you want. The
Olympus autofocus and exposure is also pretty darn good. For close-ups, the
aperture priority mode is often useful for increasing depth of field. The
3MP images can make excellent prints to 8x10 and even larger. Also, in a
pinch, the built-in flash works quite well at close range for main or fill
light. It can be on (forced), off or auto (camera decides).
The downside: For close-ups, you need to use the LCD display for framing
instead of the optical viewfinder unless you can get used to the parallax.
It requires some imagination in bright light. You'll find yourself looking
directly at the subject and picking out lighter areas that you can still see
on the screen. Indoors, however, it's much like using a view camera except
the image is brighter and right-side-up. ;-)
There are third-party LCD hoods made and some people just make their own for
outdoor specialties. I've even been tempted to keep a black cloth around
that I can duck under just like the 19th Century pioneers. ;-)
Your wind problems will, of course, always be there now and then, but the
automatic mode tries to maximize the shutter speed so little breezes usually
don't matter. Anyway, you can certainly inspect the results on your
computer quickly and know to reshoot in a timely manner.
With macro mode and optical zoom, you can go down to about a 3x4 inch frame
with no additional attachments. Add a +10 diopter and you are filling the
frame entirely with a dandelion flower. I say "go for it" if you can spare
the change. You'll still have a few irritations (that's just how close-up
work is) but, if you can manage the computer side well, you'll be generally
amazed.
--
My Digital Photography Pages
http://digital.photography.home.att.net/
K Shelton <ka...@altnature.com> wrote in message
news:tib368m...@corp.supernews.com...
Shawn Grant
what, film or digital. However a good camera can make a difference. The
K1000 and the ME both do not have a depth of field preview. Depth of field
is important when photographing wild flowers. You can see what is in focus
and what isn't. If your cameras are not in good shape it is hard to get good
photos also. You can sell both the K1000 and ME and use that money to buy a
Pentax ZX-5n. This camera sells new at B & H for only $279. It is an auto
focus SLR and even though it is autofocus your pentax lens will still fit.
It has depth of field preview, mutisegment, center weight (like the K1000
and ME) and spot meter. It has TTL flash which can come in handy with macro,
shutter speeds in half stop increments which is critical for slides. It cost
less then a digital. If you still want to go digital remember you will still
get bad photos however they are free. That's an important point you don't
have to buy film or pay for developing. Also there are disadvantages. You
don't have the flexibility of an SLR system unless you are willing to pay
several thousand for a digital SLR. The digital files are lower resolution.
If you get a 3 pixel you are limited to 8 X 10 or smaller prints. Get a
camera with lower resolution and your wasting your time. With film SLR you
have more focal length choices and more accesoriories. Film and developing
cost but that can be reduced. B & H sells 36 exposure Fuji velvia with a
developing mailer for a total of $8.80. Sensia even less. Another thing to
consider is a film scanner you can get one for $400. I paid that for my
Minolta Dual scan II. It is good enough for 8 X 10 prints and scans great
for the web. All photos at this site are scanned with it
www.shawngrantsworld.com There are better scanners but they are probably
over kill for posting on the web. You probably can get the ZX-5n and the
scanner for the same or maybe less then a quality digital camera. Remember
digital or film you need to use good technique and that only comes with
practice and patience. All of us in this user group have shot bad photos I
dare say most of our photos are bad.
Karl
pennies worth:
Go for the Oly 3040. I have a 3030 and love it. Closeups of flowers
are great. Granted, the Nikon 990/995 will focus closer and do give
you a slight bit more magnification, but for flowers you'll not be
disappointed with the Oly's. Everyone touts the Nikon being able to
focus down to .8 inches. Big whoop ! Can you light something if
you're that close to it ??
Now, you are having trouble with your Pentax's and flower photography.
As someone else mentioned, you may also have problems with shooting
digital. The cameras you mentioned are older and if you truly have
meter problems then that would explain things. Reading John Shaw's
books will certainly point you in the right direction. I've done lots
of orchids using my Nikon N70, 100mm lens, extension tube, a flash and
his flash bracket setup. Natural light poses it's own challenges,
along with wind, etc.
I'm rambling. The point is that with digital you'll be able to see
results right away. You can make immediate changes to your focus,
lighting, etc. Stick the camera on a tripod and have a go at it.
Shoot at the highest (SHQ) quality on the camera and you'll be happy
with the 8x10's you can print.
Also look at http://www.cliffshade.com/dpfwiw for lots of info
relative to Oly cameras and shooting.
-=[ Karl ]=-
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:28:15 -0500, "K Shelton" <ka...@altnature.com>
wrote:
Mike Russell
lens assembly.
Like most people I did not understand this feature when I got the camera, but it means that you can
take pictures of flowers that are close to the ground without having to lie down in the weeds.
--
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
"Karl" <ka...@lycosmail.com> wrote in message news:actcitkap7vlcud5r...@4ax.com...
K Shelton
camera I need to hold it in my hands first! Going to have to make a journey
to Nashville.
Thank all of you for your help.
Karen Shelton
Manchester, TN
Alternative Nature Online Herbal and Wild Plant Photo Gallery
http://altnature.com
"Diane Wilson" <di...@firelily.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.15917cb73...@news.telocity.com...
> In article <actcitkap7vlcud5r...@4ax.com>,
ka...@lycosmail.com
> says...
> > After reading a few of the responses to this, I will throw in my 2
> > pennies worth:
> > Go for the Oly 3040. I have a 3030 and love it. Closeups of flowers
> > are great. Granted, the Nikon 990/995 will focus closer and do give
> > you a slight bit more magnification, but for flowers you'll not be
> > disappointed with the Oly's. Everyone touts the Nikon being able to
> > focus down to .8 inches. Big whoop ! Can you light something if
> > you're that close to it ??
>
> http://www.firelily.com/photos/DSCN0687.cropped.jpg
> http://www.firelily.com/photos/DSCN0692.cropped.jpg
>
> Shooting right up the throat of foxgloves with a Nikon 990.
> Angling up into a downward-pointing flower is no problem,
> thanks to the twist body; I was able to shoot these from a
> comfortable kneeling position. No problem with light.
>
> In all seriousness, one critical point to choosing a camera
> is to try it out in your own hands, even if it's in a store.
> Ergonomics is extremely important for digital cameras; the
> cameras are small, the controls are small (even compared to
> 35mm SLRs), and being able to use the menus effectively
> (when shooting, not just tinkering around) is essential.
> Some things just don't come across in reading a review.
> The 990 handles very well, and that was an important factor
> in my choice.