Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 5, 2005, 4:01 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 15
Default

hi,

I'm looking a camera that is good for taking pictures in low light macroshot.do any one know any good cameras?? for under $300
k_240sx is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 5, 2005, 8:33 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 440
Default

Here is a macro pic taken at relatively low light - using flash of course - with my wife's Nikon 3700. It has a focus-assist light to help focus in low light situations. We just purchased it for $219, and there is a $100 rebate as well. It is quite a lot of camera for essentially $130.....

PhilR.
Attached Images
 
PhilR. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2005, 8:38 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 440
Default

Since my first pic actually showed up, I thought I would put up one more taken with our new 3700 (just arrived yesterday). This was also taken in low light, when I was just going through the house trying to find subjects to experiment with.

A little more on this compact camera - it is 3.2mp/3x zoom, metal body, comes with rechargeable battery and charger. There is a review of this camera at this site.

PhilR.
Attached Images
 
PhilR. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2005, 9:58 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 838
Default

Pics look good... I like the 2nd one... interesting stuff you have in your house ... that's a good price if you got one for less than US$150 for a decent camera...

As far as low-light is concerned, it depends on what the original poster wanted. If you use flash, nearly all cameras can take good pics. However, when some people say low-light, they are talking about cases without any flash. THAT is what is difficult and I don't think there are too many consumers or prosumers that are good in those circumstances...
Sivaram Velauthapillai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2005, 10:45 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 440
Default

Sivaram Velauthapillai wrote:
Quote:
Pics look good... I like the 2nd one... interesting stuff you have in your house ... that's a good price if you got one for less than US$150 for a decent camera...
Quote:
Thanks. If you think that's interesting, you should see my microscope and target air rifle collections!
Quote:

As far as low-light is concerned, it depends on what the original poster wanted. If you use flash, nearly all cameras can take good pics. However, when some people say low-light, they are talking about cases without any flash. THAT is what is difficult and I don't think there are too many consumers or prosumers that are good in those circumstances...
Quote:
True, but my intent was to show the camera's ability to *focus*in low light. I used flash because it would be needed anyway. So far I've been impressed with this bargain-priced camera.....
PhilR.
PhilR. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2005, 11:54 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

I second PhilR's suggestion for the Nikon 3700. I ordered one for my daughter because she wants something small and inexpensive to carry in her purse. She will be responsible for the rebate – I hate the things.

This is what Imaging Resource had to say about the 3700's macro ability:
" Closeups: Superb macro performance, with good flash results as well. Like most Nikon digicams, the Coolpix 3700 performed exceptionally well in the macro category. It captured a minimum area of only 1.67 x 1.25 inches (42 x 32 millimeters). Resolution is high, with great detail in the dollar bill. However, the coins and brooch are soft due to the very short shooting distance, which results in very low depth of field. (Not the camera's fault, this is a fact of life with macro shooting.) There's quite a bit of softness on the left side of the frame, a common digicam failing in super-macro shooting. The camera's flash throttled down surprisingly well for the macro area (despite the close range), although the brooch created a bright reflection."

You would want a tripod if you don't want to use flash for available light macro shots. This one is only $10 and is quite versatile:
http://www.pedcopods.com/instru01.htm

http://www.campmor.com/webapp/wcs/st...berId=12500226

I have both an Ultrapod for my smaller cameras and an Ultrapod II for the larger ones. They are very handy. You can attach them to almost anything. I sometimes pick up a stick and put one of them on the end to act as a monopod.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2005, 3:08 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 15
Default

thanks for all the reply, those macro pictures are very nice, but I'm try to take pictures like this one



is the 3700 able to do that??
Attached Images
 
k_240sx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2005, 5:34 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

The definition of "macro" is a little confusing. For most things it means large (it is from the Greek makros meaning large). For photography it means getting a large image of a tiny object. In other words close-up photography.

The pictures you posted aren't macro. They are pictures that would be taken in normal mode. Of course they were probably taken with equipment costing thousands of dollars. Using spot metering and/or EV corrections you could get a decent rendition of those shots if someone had set up the lighting already. You would need a tripod.

I would suggest a Canon A85 as probably being the best bet in your price range. Remember you have to get batteries and a charger plus a CF card. You should still be able to do it for $300.
http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/prod...mp;sku=CNPSA85


slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2005, 9:00 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 15
Default

that is not a real car, that is a 1/24 model car.....I'm not sure is this picture take with macro mode or normal mode....but I'm sure this picture was take within 20cm.
k_240sx is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:26 AM.