PHOTOGRAPHIC THREADS: camera queries, any photo tech stuff!

[johnw]

I too am looking for a camera that takes decent macro shots. Something around $500.  My Nikon Coolpix 8200 was a great camera but a bit too complicated, it gave up the ghost last year whilst friends have the 5700 still going strong.  Nikon offered $35 off another camera; it cost $42 to send them the camera for analysis!

Any recommendations?

johnw

[johnw]

I have awful problems with reds which come out as horrendous pinks.

David - You're not alone. The experts were never been able to come up with a solution for me.  If the red is a particularly good one and with a sheen the red would come out pink and the sheen white. I tried umbrellas and everything else.

The old Pentax MX using Velvia film had no such problem.

johnw

[David Nicholson]

I have awful problems with reds which come out as horrendous pinks.

David - You're not alone. The experts were never been able to come up with a solution for me.  If the red is a particularly good one and with a sheen the red would come out pink and the sheen white. I tried umbrellas and everything else.

The old Pentax MX using Velvia film had no such problem.

johnw

I'm pretty sure there is a way around the problem John but it's sure to mean fiddling with settings (all my stuff is done on auto or on one of the settings "fixed" in the camera). I even think it's been explained here before, but in terms I didn't understand.

[Peter Maguire]

John,
If you're looking for a basic compact camera, the Panasonic Lumix series cameras have been quite good for us. They focus down to 5cm and we have been using one at work - a dental practice - for close ups of teeth. I specifically bought the basic models which could be used totally on automatic (FS10 then, but they're onto FS16 now) as my partner at work is not a camera buff - that's putting it kindly  , and he can get good results. I bought one for my wife (they had moved onto to FS14 by then) and she's found it to be excellent in all sorts of general use. The basic Lumix FS models here cost around £84 (? $132 or so)

[Gerry Webster]

I find the relatively inexpensive Canon Powershot A720IS (there's probably a later model) perfectly adequate for my simple needs. Macro shots improved considerably when, following Ian Y's advice,  I set the camera to 'spot' metering rather than using 'auto'.

[Lina Hesseling]

What I appreciate is the possibility to use the screen in different positions. Specially when you take pictures in a very low position it makes it much easier.
Not many cameras have this.

Lina

[David Nicholson]

I find the relatively inexpensive Canon Powershot A720IS (there's probably a later model) perfectly adequate for my simple needs. Macro shots improved considerably when, following Ian Y's advice,  I set the camera to 'spot' metering rather than using 'auto'.

I've looked in the manual for my Fuji Finepix S5700 and can't find anything about 'spot' metering. Could it be described as something else?

[Gerry Webster]

I find the relatively inexpensive Canon Powershot A720IS (there's probably a later model) perfectly adequate for my simple needs. Macro shots improved considerably when, following Ian Y's advice,  I set the camera to 'spot' metering rather than using 'auto'.

I've looked in the manual for my Fuji Finepix S5700 and can't find anything about 'spot' metering. Could it be described as something else?

Search me David. In the index to my camera manual it is found under 'metering modes'.  It seems to  restrict the auto metering to a small area ('spot')  in the centre of the screen.

[Maggi Young]

Had a look (under BD's tutelage) on the Fuji S5700 online manual... seesm it only offers auto metering. 

[cohan]

On the Panasonic Lumix, I still use mine as well as the new Nikon, but will note that colour saturation is a bit poor--not terrible, but I often increase saturation a bit in editing, especially for red/pink/purple colours; violets tend to come out too blue, deep pinks come out a bit faded or more bluey and (at least with free editing software I have) cannot be fully corrected without making the whole image too red... again, not terrible, but if you found a comparable camera with better colour, it would be nice...
On the plus side, its easy to use, and focuses easily very close (often end up bumping the flowers I am shooting, and still in focus) it has good spot focus and spot metering which I could not operate without... the model I have also has 18x optical zoom which is also very good ..

[David Nicholson]

Had a look (under BD's tutelage) on the Fuji S5700 online manual... seesm it only offers auto metering. 

Ta for that Maggi.

[cohan]

Well, after deciding to go for the Nikon 18-200mm lens ( rather more than I'd have like to spend, though its tax refund!) I find it's not available! At least locally, sold out everywhere, one clerk said it had something to do with floods in Japan over the last several months damaging Nikon warehouses?? I may yet find it online, though a number of the retailers I've seen offering it there were also sold out...

Does anyone have opinions on the Sigma lenses for Nikon? specifically the same, 18-200mm-- any drawbacks to this substitute (significantly cheaper- from just over $400 to $499, compared to $799 to $869 for the Nikon)? Does the AF work properly for Nikon D3100? (or what about Tamron? I've seen that less than Sigma..)

[Philippe]

Hi Cohan,

Though I haven't got a nikon, I can tell you my experience with a cheaper substitute sigma lens for canon. Once, but never again. I may unfortunately have got a bad lens exemplar and am of course not representative of other's experiences, but I simply don't use it anymore.
The results were all but regular, and sometimes just even worse. How many times was I disappointed when seeing the pics on the computer screen. The big problem is that I couldn't rely on the lens anymore to take the shots, which is quite problematic...

[TC]

The Sigma 18-200 is not in the same class as the Nikon model, but the price reflects this.  Sigma lenses can be as good as the brand leaders but quality can vary.  The standard range of Nikon lenses are built for professional use.  The mechanical parts are built to withstand heavy use day after day.  Stringent quality control weeds out lens elements which do not come up to spec.  Producing a quality zoom with up to 12 elements is a tricky operation.  I think that the quality control of Sigma lenses is probably not as high.  A batch of lenses could contain  excellant to mediocre examples.  I would suggest that you look, on the web, for test reports and base your judgement on this.

[ranunculus]

The Sigma 18-200 is not in the same class as the Nikon model, but the price reflects this.  Sigma lenses can be as good as the brand leaders but quality can vary.  The standard range of Nikon lenses are built for professional use.  The mechanical parts are built to withstand heavy use day after day.  Stringent quality control weeds out lens elements which do not come up to spec.  Producing a quality zoom with up to 12 elements is a tricky operation.  I think that the quality control of Sigma lenses is probably not as high.  A batch of lenses could contain  excellant to mediocre examples.  I would suggest that you look, on the web, for test reports and base your judgement on this.

i agree totally with all that you say, Tom and can concur that Sigma do produce some excellent lenses among other less salubrious models.  I regularly use a Sigma DC 17-70mm 1:2.8-4.5 Macro HSM on my Nikon D80 and have been very satisfied with the results. Please don't let less than flattering reports on some lenses put you off the Sigma brand altogether.