I have a complete film camera with lenses for macro work, like model photos, but am thinking about a digtal camera. I see they all have 'zoom' built in, but can they focus at close range, or do they have others for close up work?
Anyone have experiences with them?

This was taken with a Canon A10 with a macro setting. It has pretty good depth of field with enough lighting.

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=11653

You won't believe what I do.

I have an older Canon 2-megapixel PowerShot A40. I also have 2 sets of close-up rings from my battleaxe Canon T-90 35mm rig. On the digi, I set the focus range for closeup, maybe zoom it, and literally tape the closeup ring(s) as needed to the digicam lens barrel/body!

It works! Not pretty and it is a pain in the ass sometimes, but the price is right.

Being a low-end cam, it has a skimpy f-rating, which ironically benefits the depth-of-field. Still need to use a tripod for good beauty still-shots.

With this cobbled-together setup, I can do things like:

http://members.aol.com/trekfx/NX-01/back_porch_wall.jpg

http://members.aol.com/trekfx/1701_refit_paint.avi

http://members.aol.com/trekfx/Morley_interior.jpg

MOST digital cameras have pretty good macro capability.

I'm especially fond of the Canons. They generally close focus down to about two inches. The thing that's particularly nice about the Canon cameras is that most of them have a low-light focus assist lamp that provides better focus when you are very close to a poorly lit subject. Even the Nikons rarely have that feature (perhaps none of them).

Check out a review of something like the 4 megapixel Canon A85.

Editing in a link:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/a85.html

I have found that using a modified portrait lens (adding a 1/4" brass shimstock disk with a #95 twist drill hole centered) as a Pinhole lens I can get extreme depth of field, and the smaller the hole the sharper the image is. Using Fuji 400 & 800 speed films I can get excellent quality images and all you need to do is scan them, where you can also crop them in the same scanning step. Of course this requires a tripod, lots of light, and a trigger cable so you don't touch the camera...

I looked and looked for a digital camera that could do deep depth images, but I never found any. I would have paid a 2 grand for one.

Well, this is probably more than you'd like to spend, but I have a Nikon D-100 which could certainly use any Nikon-compatible macro lens. If I were buying today, I'd probably go with the considerably less-expensive D-70. If you have a film SLR, maybe there is a digital SLR from the same company that would let you use the same lenses you might already have.

Of course, even the "affordable" digital SLRs cost three times as much as an affordable film version, so that might not be what you want -- but I LOVE my D-100.

Qapla'

SSB

Some interesting ideas so far. TrekFX, I 've heard of kitbasher, but never camera bashing, until now!
My Canon and accesories was worth 2 grand in the '80s. I wonder if the lenses can be used on the digitals? I have been scanning the photos but it often makes them go weird. I spend more time correcting the scan than anything else.

So, as I understand, you can vary the sharpness with digital by increasing dots per inch, right? What are the maximums?

I have been a working photojournalist most of my adult life. I am currently the chief photographer for a three paper newsgroup in the San Diego area. I stilll use two rather beat-up Nikon D-1's. Both are over four years old, but do just fine for newspaper work. I don't think I would want to make any 20x24 inch prints off of my cameras, but full frame 8x10's look fine. As for close-up work I just use a 50mm lens, they allow you to focus down to a couple of inches from the subject. I don't have a close-up lens, just don't have a great need for one of them.

Tim

My Canon and accesories was worth 2 grand in the '80s. I wonder if the lenses can be used on the digitals?
Probably. All my lenses are from my film camera days, and I'd be surprised if the Canon equivalent cameras don't offer the same. Of course, unless you spend BIG bucks, you'll have to deal with the lens magnification factor due to the smaller sensors in most digital SLRs. On the other hand, Nikon is now making lenses designed for their digital SLRs, and these tend (for a variety of reasons) to be smaller and lighter (and possibly less expensive, but I can't swear to that) than the older designs made for 35mm cameras. These finally offer serious wide-angle lenses for digital SLRs. Again, I'd be surprised if Canon doesn't offer similar lenses as well. There is a digital Rebel from Canon that is slightly less expensive than the Nikon D-70. I think the street price for the camera body is around $899.

One of the best things about shooting digital is not only the time saved versus scanning prints or negs/transparencies, but also the time saved by not having to retouch all the dust and crap that always seems to insinuate itself into scans no matter what you do. I find I shoot much, much more than I did with my film camera, and much more often. Being able to review what I shoot on the LCD within moments means that if my estimates (or the camera's) on exposure are off, I can correct on the fly and dial-in the proper exposure on the spot rather than shooting film and hoping I've got it right.

Qapla'

SSB

Some interesting ideas so far. TrekFX, I 've heard of kitbasher, but never camera bashing, until now!
My Canon and accesories was worth 2 grand in the '80s. I wonder if the lenses can be used on the digitals?

Canon changed thier lens mounts when they started to produce their EOS-1 series film cameras, ticked off a lot of longtime Canon users if I remember correctly.

Now days $2,000 won't get you much in the way of photographic equipment. My camera's, when new, cost over $4,000 each! It's the price one pays for living on the bleeding edge of technology.

Now days $2,000 won't get you much in the way of photographic equipment.
Whoa! Let's not go off the deep end and scare the guy away from digital photography.

I've spent more than my share on overpriced photogear over the years. Back in '77, I was making minimum wage about $5000.00 per year and I spent $1200.00 on a (then brand new) Bronica ETR. Iv'e still got a couple of motor driven Nikon F3's, a truck load of lenses...and a pair of expensive enlargers that I can't even give away (nobody seems to do their own darkroom work anymore).

But for $600.00 or $700.00, you can get a magnificent 7.1 megapixel camera like this G6.

http://www.megapixel.net/cgi-bin/fs_loader.pl?p=http%3A//www.megapixel.net/reviews/canon-g6/g6-review.html

And that A85 I mentioned earlier is only a couple of hundred bucks.

For 2k you could buy a G6, an A85, all the accessory lenses, multiple sets of batteries, chargers...and a high quality photo printer. Plus you'd have enough money left for a weekend trip to Disneyland!

I would further advise folks that, if publishing to the internet is your primary interest, this can be done very well with a very inexpensive camera. These 7+ megapixel cameras are great...but at the highest quality and highest resolution, they can produce 8 meg picture files. Unless you're regularly printing out 11x14's , a couple of hundred bucks will buy a camera that is perfect for net use.

I got a digital photography magazine last night, and it contains an ad for one of Canon's new digital SLRs. According to the ad, there are more than 50 Canon lenses that will work with the camera. There's no way all those lenses have been created specifically for digital SLRs, so odds are at least some of the lenses you have will work with one. Can't swear to that, though. If you do have an interest in a digital SLR and you have existing Canon gear, it makes sense to check first to see if you can use what you have with a new digital camera body. That is one of the reasons I got a Nikon D-SLR to replace my 35mm Nikon. Of course, it doesn't hurt that I really liked my older camera (an N-6006). I don't think you'll go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. The only drawback to Canons that I have seen is that some of their lenses, and those from third-party companies such as Tamron and Sigma, have tended to cost a little more than those for other makes because Canon puts more electronics into the lens. The others put those electronics in the body.
if publishing to the internet is your primary interest, this can be done very well with a very inexpensive camera. These 7+ megapixel cameras are great...but at the highest quality and highest resolution, they can produce 8 meg picture files. Unless you're regularly printing out 11x14's , a couple of hundred bucks will buy a camera that is perfect for net use.
Yes -- and I would say that if you are looking into a "point-and-shoot" camera to produce files for online use, look carefully at three- and four-megapixel models. The newer seven- and eight-megapixel models look enticing, but the sensors in these cameras are smaller than those used in digital SLRs. As such, the "photosites" on the sensors are much closer together, which leads to more voltage crossover between them -- with the end result that photos tend to be much more grainy at the same "film speed." I consider our five-megapixel Nikon point-and-shoot here in the office to be less usable than the the older three-megapixel Nikon Coolpix 995. At anything above the equivalent of ISO 100, the newer camera produces objectionable noise/grain. My D-100, on the other hand, doesn't produce noticeable grain until at or above ISO 800. The older three-megapixel models that are now available used may be a better buy for some than a new high-res camera.

The main advantage of higher-res for Internet use is the ability to crop severely. If you are wondering whether you should consider a D-SLR, I can say they seem to have essentially none of the "shutter lag" that many consider the bane of point-and-shoots, because it can lead to lost "Kodak moments." Not a factor in shooting photos of static subjects like plastic models, but for other things ... well, when the moment is gone, it is gone forever.

Qapla'

SSB

I got a digital photography magazine last night, and it contains an ad for one of Canon's new digital SLRs. According to the ad, there are more than 50 Canon lenses that will work with the camera. There's no way all those lenses have been created specifically for digital SLRs, so odds are at least some of the lenses you have will work with one.

The Canon 35mm slr lens in the 80's had an FD type lens design, they dropped that design when they started stuffing all the electrionics into the lens (so the camera knows what focal lenght the lens is and how far away it is focused.) So the FD lens from the 80's will not even mount on the newer Canon cameras. "There's no way all those lenses have been created specifically for digital SLRs" you are right they were not designed specifically for digital cameras, they were originally designed for the Canon EOS series film cameras in the early 90's.

"Whoa! Let's not go off the deep end and scare the guy away from digital photography."

I didn't mean to scare off anybody, you can get a really good digital for under $700.

So the FD lens from the 80's will not even mount on the newer Canon cameras. "There's no way all those lenses have been created specifically for digital SLRs" you are right they were not designed specifically for digital cameras, they were originally designed for the Canon EOS series film cameras in the early 90's.
Okay. I'm just not as familiar with Canon stuff. I know that a new Nikon will mount almost any lens the company made in the last 50 years or so, although of course, many of the newer capabilities are lost -- but they didn't exist when the older lenses were made.

Of course, if he has a good amount of quality Canon stuff, especially lenses in good shape, he could consider selling them to move up to digital. Just a thought. Good lenses are almost always in demand.

Qapla'

SSB

I think the POINT IS that your doing CLOSE UP???

Unless you use a pinhole you're not gonna get any depth of field. 2-4 inches IS NOT depth of field, a foot or more IS.

I tried to post a photo here showing a 17 inch long brass steam locomotive where you can clearly see the Kaydee coupler, the marker jewels and the slide glass in the cab window, and the house in the background... MY real house, with sundeck, bricks and all that. Even the trees 180 feet in the background are in focus. Makes it hard to tell it's a model. Isn't that the reason to use such a lens/pinhole arrangement?? My Nautilus photos, over at the EZ-Board site were done with the pinhole/28mm portrait lens arrangement.

I think the POINT IS that your doing CLOSE UP???

Unless you use a pinhole you're not gonna get any depth of field.

More specifically, the point (as per the heading of this thread) is DIGITAL CAMERA for close ups.

The pinhole idea is a fine academic point to make.

Realistically, nobody here is going to make a pinhole lens for their digicam.

What should have been a very, very simple thread about a simple question is getting mired in overly complex minutia.

Well, let's ask!

Hey! TerryR!

You want to do close-ups with a digicam. Do you need or want depth-of-field as well?

And when you say "close-up," how close up do you want to get?

Qapla'

SSB

My point is that NO DIGITAL CAMERA can do decent depth of field, and Heres MY workaround.

I don't know what I may want in the future. I could fill half the photo with a peeny with the stuff I have.

I just wanted an overview, and this thread gave me one. Thanks so far!

Any more?

Any more?
Saw an ad a couple of days ago for a new Sony point-and-shoot that claims it can focus as close as .39 inches. Of course, you will almost certainly be talking about extremely limited depth of field, as Y3a said. And if you happened to watch Lost this week, you might have seen the ad they ran for the Canon Digital Rebel -- it was the first TV ad I have seen for a digital SLR.

A pinhole camera is a viable alternative for much better depth of field. An SLR is a better candidate for that, because you can make one by finding a lens you can convert for that use, rather than dedicating a camera to nothing but pinhole shots. That is, if I understand such things well enough. I've been intrigued by the possibility for a while now (Y3a has mentioned this before), but there is still a lens or two I'd like to pick up before I start messing with such things.

Qapla'

SSB

I've used a Olympus C-3000 for a couple years now. I do a lot of closeups and Olympus has always been well known for providing great closeup photos. Below find a link to an unedited (other then cropping and compression for posting on the forums) photo of a dime and a battery shot at med. resolution with no manual adjustments and under floresent lights in my work shop. This was just basically a "point and shoot" photo (not even using a tripod) of an item I am trying to sell.

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=12783

The C-3000 is a 2MP camera. Since I do the vast majority of my photos for the internet I have yet to want a camera with any more resolution.... in fact, I never shoot at the highest res possible with the camera. Save your money and get a good 2 or 3 MP camera for a couple hundred bucks to start with. Once you find what you want in a year or two of using it, then you can consider buying something more expensive if you feel youi need it.

Remember, digital cameras are like computers. In a couple years they are basically outdated and what you bought new 2 years will be close to worthless on the secondary market... choose wisely and don't buy more then you need.

All I really want out of a camera is a model photo that looks like the "real" subject. If I can get a few inches of depth of field, that will handle most of my smaller models. At least with a digital I'm no longer wasting rolls of film experimenting with lighting and such.

This is the PL 1701 up close:

That's the best view of a dime I've ever seen. That stamping mold is wearing out.