What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Digital cameras

  • Thread starter swords
  • Start date
After finally giving up on my Kodak DC 3200 I've decided to break down and get a better model with at least 5.0 MP. I've been looking at the Nikon Coolpix 5700 since it has all sorts of 'semi-pro' features and add on accessories (lenses) for taking pics 1.5" (in macro) to infinity  but I'm also looking at the Sony Moviepix ES  (Correction it's called: Sony Cybershot DSC-f717  but what I typed originally is what's actually printed on the camera... ) which is about $400 less and may have more than enough zoom features for someone like me.

Mostly I will be doing macro shots of plants but I would like to have a fully featured high image quality camera for taking on trips or any other needs. I will likely NEVER use the video modes on these cameras.

Is anyone here familiar with either of these cameras? Do you have other suggestions?  Thanks for any thoughts!
Well I dont own either of these I use the Sony DSC-P1 that i bought a couple of years ago, I wont ever buy a film camera again. Digital is just incredible, and if you got the money and dont care about size then go with the Nikon you mentioned. Only reason I went with the sony was size and well for a compact camera the pictures are beautiful. The Nikon you mentioned will have no draw backs and picture quality is sure to amaze you. Plus, you wont have much need to upgrade that camera from what I read is pretty loaded.

I dont know how you print your photos but I bought the Sony DPP-SV55 printer and the photos are just incredible. Give it a look its only $199 or less and the photo packs can be bought pretty cheap.

Dave G.
oh, I didnt read the "at least 5 MegaPixel" first.

Hmmm, so, if you want to pay 300 $ more you can buy the Olympus C-5050, but it has another lens and I don't know if it is as good in macro.

5 megapixel are not much better than 4 Megapixel because the sensor size doesn't increase. This eans that resolution is limited by the lens not the CCD in most 5MP consumer-cameras and the noise will significantly increase because of the very small size for one pixel.

excellent point. When buying a higher end camera pay close attention to the physical size of the ccd if you can find the specifications. Larger is significantly better.

I am also looking to upgrade my digital camera. So far, my pick is the Nikon Coolpix 5000. Everything I've read about it sounds very good. I have enjoyed my Olympus but it is limiting because of the macro issue. It does not take good close ups. I will have to check into the one Martin mentioned.

Suzanne the Coolpix 5700 has a few more 'semi-pro' features and an optical zoom of 8x combined with a digital of 4x to make '32x zoom'. It's macro mode is actually a further focus range 1.8" compared to the Sony DSC f717 which is 0.8" Many reviews state the Coolpix 5000 & 5700 has "too many" features and is a bit cumbersome to set up shots due to all the menus/features but does take great shots once set up but has a semi slow shutter. whereas most people who reviewed the Sony said they took great shots pretty much right out of the box and then explored the camera to discover all it could do and took even better shots after that. I sure wish I could rent the two cameras for a week and see what I think of 'em before I pay...!
Hi !

Macro mode : The minimum distance says nothing !!! Some cameras use it in wideangle, others in tele. The only thing you can compare is the minimum objekt size. It is much better if the camara shoots this with more(!) distance beacuse of distortion and shadow issuses.

What do you mean with "semi-pro" and "too many features"
_For me_: manuell exposure, manual zoom, manual withe balance, manual color balance, manual flash control, changing in camera sharpness, saturation, contrast and jpg compression is essential.

Digital zoom : is abolute useless and only a marketing gag. Don't care about it, only optical zoom makes sense. (cropping the image later in photoshop will be the same as "digital zoom"


have a look at the review sites I mentioned and chose the camera best suited for your kind of photographie.
Martin is right about the pro abilities he speaks of, but alot of people probably wouldnt care or even understand how to use them. The sight he mentions www.dpreview.com is without a doubt the best for someone looking to find the right camera. My only problem was that if the camera was to big, I wouldnt take it with me. This is why I chose the Sony DSC-P1 it isnt the best by any means but the shots are pretty good and better than the equivelant 35mm. Point being what kind of photography are you looking for? a camera that isnt being used isnt worth buying. Think about how and what you will be doing with this camera, you wouldnt buy an RV to go to work every day just so you had more options would you? Or a corvette to go on a family trip.....

Dave G.
  • #10
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Martin @ Nov. 17 2002,09:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Macro mode : The minimum distance says nothing !!! Some cameras use it in wideangle, others in tele. The only thing you can compare is the minimum objekt size. It is much better if the camara shoots this with more(&#33
distance beacuse of distortion and shadow issuses.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Huh... If you have identical cameras and one will focus at 1 meter and the other will focus at 1 mm then I would think the one that would focus at 1 mm would be the better camera for macro photography. Am I missing something?
  • #11
macro :

hey, 1mm vs 1000mm (=1m) is not the best excample ;-)

btw, a lens which would focus at 1mm distance will produce extreme distortion. And you will alway shadow your subject.

A lens which has a mcro mode at 2" with a 120mm (35mm film equivalent) is much better than a lens with macro mode at 1" at a wide angle setting, lets say 30mm.

it is much better to compare minimum object size (this is how macro works in analog photography, by saying 1:2 or 1:1 the size of the film 24mm x 36mm) than minimum working distance.

hmmm, have you checked out Minolta f100, which is a very nice and very small 4 MP camera. Only drawbacks, the lens is slow and the monitor consumes a lots of power.
Minimum macro size is something smaller than 50mm x 40mm (at a long distance, bacause it is in tele setting, so you can even use the built in flash in macro mode !!!). I don't know it exactly at the moment.