What type of Camera are you using
- Thread starter Hammerhead
- Start date
I
icon
canon powershot A480 $125
G
Guest 64665
Nikon D60 FTW!
Hazelnuts
Member
I'm using my cell phone's camera at the moment and I'm not completely happy with it. for a cell, it takes decent pics, but I'd really like something higher end as it has a lot of noise and the AF sucks hard. What's a good camera you guys could recommend me that's under 400 bucks and has a good macro function (for obvious reasons) and maybe even manual focus? I really only know anything about DSLRs, but can't afford one at the moment, else I'd get a Pentax K200D
I've got a badass olympus c-720, complete with cracked case and crooked lens that won't retract. Can you smell the sarcasm? If I would quit buying seeds that I don't have time to grow I would have a new camera by now. I hate decisions.
sony cybershot dsc-p92..liked it so much when the 1st one got stolen ,i bought another.. around $230 ....
H
Hazeseeker
Lol i feel the same way...
hey bro,
if your still searching for a good camera i found a top notch 1 and pretty cheap,
when i was over at the Mr Nice forum last night i spotted another growers pics, blown away by the quality of the images and macro capability (and it's a compact camera),
the camera name is 'Ricoh Caplia GX100',
after seeing the quality of the pics from this cam i'm thinking about ditching my Canon EOS 450D 'Rebel xSi' and buying 1 of these, the good thing is with it being a compact is you won't need to worry about buying loads of different lenses
peace
jawnroot
Member
Using a Pentax Optio S, circa May 2003 with a whopping 3.2 megapixles. The shots it takes are really quite good though, especially considering you can get a nice used one for about $20.
It's more than enough for my purposes. With digital cameras there seems to be a push for the latest and greatest -- and believe me I'd love to have a G10 if I could swing it -- but for just taking bud shots an old-school digi with a decent feature set and at least 3 megapixles will do it.
I don't have any bud to take pictures of at the moment, but I went outside and took a few shots of the very first thing I saw: tomato flower after a gentle rain. Set it to "super macro," pointed, and shot. The lighting isn't that great because of the gray, washed out cloudiness, and it's not composed particularly well, but the following images should give you a rough idea of what the Optio S is capible of.
Bear in mind, the flower is about the size of a US nickle in real life (in the full-sized shot, raw from the camera, it was about the size of a tea-saucer).
This image was the full size (2000 x whatever pixels) cropped down to "digitally macro" a specific part:
There's an Optio S on flea-bay at the moment for about $10 bucks. In recent months I've never seen them finish higher than about $20 or $30. Definitely a camera to consider if you're on a budget. Back in the day it was rated as one of the best point-and-shoots for close up and macro shots (ie: 99.9% of what we do when taking bud shots, unless you're photographing fields). Hell, you can see trichomes running all up and down the tomato stem (which in real life was about the diameter of a match stick), and I wasn't even trying. It's more than good enough for our purpose, in other words, and if you're decent with a camera, some inspiration on your part will make up for any perceived lack in the hardware.
One important thing to bear in mind as well: pretty much anywhere on the internet, the largest size photo you can upload is about 800x600 (unless you start cutting the quality of the image itself, which defeats the purpose). This camera has a much higher native resolution, and indeed all the new wonder-cams have exponentially higher resolutions. But then you have to downsize it for the net, and thus lose most of the sweet nuance that an über-camera would otherwise provide.
I know if mine ever craps, I'm just hitting eBay for a good used one. Screw paying even $100 for a digital camera, when some of these old, overlooked models take great shots for the cost of a large pizza. Now granted, there's a place for high end, awesome cameras like the aforementioned Canon G series. I'd love to have one myself for taking super-duper crisp, field-of-trichome shots. Indeed, I'd like to have one for taking "normal" shots. But right now it's not in the cards, and as I've intimated, if you're good with a camera and can compose decent shots with good lighting, etc, the benefit you'll get with a $500 Canon vs. this $20 Optio is a matter of degrees, not worlds.
It's more than enough for my purposes. With digital cameras there seems to be a push for the latest and greatest -- and believe me I'd love to have a G10 if I could swing it -- but for just taking bud shots an old-school digi with a decent feature set and at least 3 megapixles will do it.
I don't have any bud to take pictures of at the moment, but I went outside and took a few shots of the very first thing I saw: tomato flower after a gentle rain. Set it to "super macro," pointed, and shot. The lighting isn't that great because of the gray, washed out cloudiness, and it's not composed particularly well, but the following images should give you a rough idea of what the Optio S is capible of.
Bear in mind, the flower is about the size of a US nickle in real life (in the full-sized shot, raw from the camera, it was about the size of a tea-saucer).
This image was the full size (2000 x whatever pixels) cropped down to "digitally macro" a specific part:
There's an Optio S on flea-bay at the moment for about $10 bucks. In recent months I've never seen them finish higher than about $20 or $30. Definitely a camera to consider if you're on a budget. Back in the day it was rated as one of the best point-and-shoots for close up and macro shots (ie: 99.9% of what we do when taking bud shots, unless you're photographing fields). Hell, you can see trichomes running all up and down the tomato stem (which in real life was about the diameter of a match stick), and I wasn't even trying. It's more than good enough for our purpose, in other words, and if you're decent with a camera, some inspiration on your part will make up for any perceived lack in the hardware.
One important thing to bear in mind as well: pretty much anywhere on the internet, the largest size photo you can upload is about 800x600 (unless you start cutting the quality of the image itself, which defeats the purpose). This camera has a much higher native resolution, and indeed all the new wonder-cams have exponentially higher resolutions. But then you have to downsize it for the net, and thus lose most of the sweet nuance that an über-camera would otherwise provide.
I know if mine ever craps, I'm just hitting eBay for a good used one. Screw paying even $100 for a digital camera, when some of these old, overlooked models take great shots for the cost of a large pizza. Now granted, there's a place for high end, awesome cameras like the aforementioned Canon G series. I'd love to have one myself for taking super-duper crisp, field-of-trichome shots. Indeed, I'd like to have one for taking "normal" shots. But right now it's not in the cards, and as I've intimated, if you're good with a camera and can compose decent shots with good lighting, etc, the benefit you'll get with a $500 Canon vs. this $20 Optio is a matter of degrees, not worlds.
jawnroot
Member
Damn dude, what's wrong with the one you have? From where I'm sitting, that DMZ can do anything you'd conceivably need in a camera, and then some (this assuming you're not a photo professional, etc).
jawnroot
Member
Here's another old-school camera that can be found on the cheap. In this case, it's the Pentax MX4, a very sweet rig for the money. You can easily get one for less than $100 on flea-bay, sometimes less than $50 if you're savvy (originally went for ~$500 in '04-'05). The main claim to fame is an all-glass lens. Most consumer-level digi cams use plastic/polycarb for at least one of the elements, so this is a big plus for the MX4. Another cool tid bit is the macro capabilities: you can literally focus to zero with this camera. That is, you can press your subject right up to the glass of the lens, and the camera will still focus. Granted, it would be near impossible to light something that close, but still this spec is literally unbeatable, no matter how great cameras may get.
In short, don't be fooled by modern advertising campaigns and consumer mania. Sensor technology hasn't improved dramatically over the past decade (with a few notable exceptions, like Fugi's new stuff). They're just cramming more photosensors onto the same chip, which in some cases is detrimental to photo quality. As mentioned, anything above 3 MP will get you photos that are more than good enough for budshots and casual snapping.
Here's some more tomato flowers, this time from the MX4. Again, these shots were just real quick, on the fly so I could post something up, but take a look at the detail in the petals.
In short, don't be fooled by modern advertising campaigns and consumer mania. Sensor technology hasn't improved dramatically over the past decade (with a few notable exceptions, like Fugi's new stuff). They're just cramming more photosensors onto the same chip, which in some cases is detrimental to photo quality. As mentioned, anything above 3 MP will get you photos that are more than good enough for budshots and casual snapping.
Here's some more tomato flowers, this time from the MX4. Again, these shots were just real quick, on the fly so I could post something up, but take a look at the detail in the petals.
I'm still trying all the bells and whistles on my D90.
Thanks for the great recommendation; just picked up a G11. I have no formal photography training and was able to take this within a couple minutes of having the battery charged.
Thanks again; can't ask for more; now i can take pics worthy of my plants.
Congrats on the new cam Opt1c..looking forward to more pix from you..I'm using a Canon 20D and 50D...DD
Canon powershot A 95 from 2005, love the varibel monitor and the new sx10 i hope will be mine some day.Have the same feature good allround cam and not to big to the pocket..
Stoned Christmas uanset hvad in english..
Joshua Thomas
New member
It doesn't make any difference whatsoever what camera was used, those shots can be taken with any brand of camera. It is likely they were taken with a DSLR, whichever it was is irrelevant.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
question for sam the skunkman on the original haze- Latest: mexcurandero420
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
question for sam the skunkman on the original haze
- Latest: mexcurandero420
-
