a new take on macro shots

[sbfuller]

i just bought this camera and thought that a thread about it may stir some discussion. this is a $350 point and shoot camera that i feel can rival some of the best as far as macro shots of our aquarium inhabitants... especially considering the cost of the equipment. the reasoning being that i don't even need to zoom to get the macro shots and i can shoot from almost any angle since the camera is waterproof to 10 feet. let me know what you think. It's not eveyday that you can take a shot from above. some are a little blurry or out of focus, but this was only my first day using it.

and my favorite so far...

 

[BlueCorn]

:lol: I think that you need to get your eyes checked.

 

[sbfuller]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15510734#post15510734 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
:lol: I think that you need to get your eyes checked.

why do you say that?

 

[Recty]

To say it nicely, the pictures arent that clear. They are decent pictures, for sure, but not on par with a dedicated macro lens on an SLR. I'm only pointing that out because you say that camera can rival the best out there.

Just my 2 cents... your frogspawn shot does look nice but that is the only one out of the bunch that doesnt look blurred to me.

 

[xtm]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15510734#post15510734 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
:lol: I think that you need to get your eyes checked.

Now now...don't be so mean .. lol .. he did say it's only his first day of using the camera. Give him a few days.. he'll eventually "nail it"

 

[sbfuller]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15510874#post15510874 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Recty
To say it nicely, the pictures arent that clear. They are decent pictures, for sure, but not on par with a dedicated macro lens on an SLR. I'm only pointing that out because you say that camera can rival the best out there.

Just my 2 cents... your frogspawn shot does look nice but that is the only one out of the bunch that doesnt look blurred to me.

i know exactly what you mean... but how much are you paying to get slightly better quality? a dedicated macro lens on an SLR will run you upwards of at least $1000. i just need to get a little more light in my tank so i can use a slightly higher shutter speed and the quality should go up.

and would you take that same macro lens and slr to the lake with you around lots of drunk people?

I'm just saying that for what you get for the price... you can get some good shots with the camera as well as have a good all around camera. it even has the option for up to a 60 second exposure for those that like night shots or lightning shots using a tripod

 

[aquariumclown]

It's a nice camera for the purpose it was built. You can take decent underwater shots and of course outdoors on boats and what not. But you cannot compare this to a DSLR, they are different animals. It's like comparing apples and oranges, or more like Ferrari and Honda. Even levels DSLR is becoming harder to decipher with consumer DSLR and pro-sumer, and pro. And trust me, you can tell the difference if you have ever read some reviews at dpreview.com

As far as taking macro shots of corals, a lot of us can't put our hands in the water to take the shots. Either because of the canopy or cause of a tank full of sps where there's no room to stick your hands in. As for fish shots, it would be hard to take one of them as they would run away when a foreign object is in the water.

Now about your pictures, they're good, i can tell what your taking pictures of, that's a good start. Try not to post pictures that are out of focus

 

[swjim]

Laurence Kim is a photographer whose blog I enjoy reading. He had some posts late last year where he was discussing the benefits of P&S cameras' smaller sensors for macro work. Although the shots aren't reef related, I think they're relevant to the discussion here. He is/was using a Panasonic LX3. Here are links to the relevant posts:

http://www.laurencekimblog.com/index.php?link=120&cat=16

http://www.laurencekimblog.com/index.php?category=16&start=5

 

[Recty]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15511665#post15511665 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sbfuller
I'm just saying that for what you get for the price... you can get some good shots with the camera as well as have a good all around camera. it even has the option for up to a 60 second exposure for those that like night shots or lightning shots using a tripod

Yep. I didnt say you took horrible pictures, but they really dont compare well to someone with a SLR and a real macro lens... there is a big difference. And yes, you'll probably get better over time at making your camera crank out a good picture.

But yes, if your intent with your camera is going to the lake to take pictures of drunk people, then your camera is much more suitable to the task than mine, you have no argument from me on that idea. I wouldnt risk dropping my setup in the water due to someone's drunken stumbling.

I bought mine to do fish tank and coral pictures for myself and for local fish stores, and it does that very well.

For what it's worth, I have a little panasonic point and shoot for when I dont want to bring the good camera along

 

[aquariumclown]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15512027#post15512027 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by swjim
Laurence Kim is a photographer whose blog I enjoy reading. He had some posts late last year where he was discussing the benefits of P&S cameras' smaller sensors for macro work. Although the shots aren't reef related, I think they're relevant to the discussion here. He is/was using a Panasonic LX3. Here are links to the relevant posts:

http://www.laurencekimblog.com/index.php?link=120&cat=16

http://www.laurencekimblog.com/index.php?category=16&start=5

Good sensible articles. Thanks for posting. I agree with most everything he stated. He's also testing with a non waterproof camera. From everything I read the waterproof/shockproof cameras aren't up to par with the better point and shoots yet. Best image production was from the Canon D10 which is quite bulky in my opinion. I used to have a Pentax Optio w20 which took very good macros also, but I don't think it's still nearly as good as a DSLR w/ a macro lense. Especially when I tried to do some corrections as it did does not do raw. I lost the camera when I went too deep scuba diving and it flooded. But for the 3 years I had it was well worth the money, it's just no DSLR. Anyway, I would love to try that Lumix, but I'm too clumsy to carry a point and shoot that's not waterproof.

Here's a shot I took with my Pentax

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Re: a new take on macro shots

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15510722#post15510722 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sbfuller
...this is a $350 point and shoot camera that i feel can rival some of the best as far as macro shots of our aquarium inhabitants...

I think it scratches the surface but doesn't come close to driving the nail through the board. There is a scratch though. If you use a SLR macro lens with a 100% crop you can see it.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15510722#post15510722 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sbfuller
and would you take that same macro lens and slr to the lake with you around lots of drunk people?

Yes

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15510722#post15510722 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sbfuller
I'm just saying that for what you get for the price

This is like the "Congratulations Lauren, it's a PC" commercials. Set a very specific criteria with a very specific price that automatically eliminates our cameras, and I'll admit this is a half-way decent camera. I'll settle for the PC. Let me use my own money to pick my own criteria in a camera and I'll skip to the Apple store. The LX3 is Lumix's best point and shoot. Possibly the best non-reef related point and shoot in the world. The LX3 trumps the camera we are referring to bigtime and is twice as expensive. We are factoring price remember?

If you are happy with your camera then it is $350 well spent. Most of us wouldn't be happy with it so we spend a bit more.

 

[Brett9917]

$350 is kind of expensive for a P&S, considering I got my Nikon D40 for $450 (w/o any warranties) and while the 18-55 is no macro lens, it does take decent macro shots. While I too would not take this underwater or around my drunken buddies, I don't really have a need for either one of those. A simple polarization filter will improve overhead tank shots and I still have my CoolPix for the memories that aren't so much a work of art. If you catch my drift

 

[boodlefish]

sbfuller- this may be a little off topic (as you didn't ask for pic advice) you mentioned that your pics will improve as you get more light in your tank well, what about the flash? it doesnt look like you were using the flash, and the main reason its not advisable to use flash is for the reflections off the tank, but this should not be a problem from with in the tank.

just a thought

 

[TWallace]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15511665#post15511665 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sbfuller
a dedicated macro lens on an SLR will run you upwards of at least $1000.

Says who?

The only ones over $1000 for Nikon are the ones with perspective control, not something most of us use. The most expensive one without PC is $899, and while it's a great lens, VR seems a rather pointless addition to a macro lens that raises the price. The most commonly used macro lenses for Nikon SLRs cost between $400 and $900. Personally I use an old Tamron 90mm macro that I got used for around $80.

 

[bmwardo]

The largest issue that I see and have found while using an underwater housing with my old point and shoot is that you simply cannot hold the camera still enough for ~90% of the shots. Also, if you are taking macro photos with your hands in the water you are essentially shooting blind on most tanks. I just found it to be more of a hassle then it was really worth for aquarium shots.

Either way I think it is good that you are trying it, that sort of thing is how I learned and really processed the results comparing them to what was possible through a DSLR. If the camera turns out photos that you are happy with and you don't see a need for anything else then good on ya.

 

[aquariumclown]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15519008#post15519008 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bmwardo
The largest issue that I see and have found while using an underwater housing with my old point and shoot is that you simply cannot hold the camera still enough for ~90% of the shots. Also, if you are taking macro photos with your hands in the water you are essentially shooting blind on most tanks. I just found it to be more of a hassle then it was really worth for aquarium shots.

Might work well for a frag tank and you can use a tri-pod contraption that holds the camera into the water close to the coral

 

[bmwardo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15519046#post15519046 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aquariumclown
Might work well for a frag tank and you can use a tri-pod contraption that holds the camera into the water close to the coral

Agreed, but still:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15519046#post15519046 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bmwardo
I just found it to be more of a hassle then it was really worth for aquarium shots.

 

[JHemdal]

sbfuller,

I have a Nikon D300 and a Pentax Optio w60 (point and shoot waterproof). They both have their benefits and their drawbacks.

You should explore the benefits that your Lumix can have in-tank. Here is a link to my blog about my early experience with my Pentax, there is simply no way to get a shot like I did of the cryptic sponges without a camera that can go in the tank, and up under the rocks:

http://microcosmaqx.typepad.com/jay_hemdal/2009/05/underwater-photography-in-aquariums.html

Look for shots the dSLR macros can't make - What about an in-tank shot looking out at a person or a pet? Don't be afraid to try different things - I often hold the camera in the tank upside down to get the shot, then crop and rotate after the fact. The more time your camera spends in the water, the less afraid your fish will be. I had an angelfish that would actually attack its reflection in the lens!

Jay

 

[truthdesigns]

The frogspawn and bubble pic looks nice

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

The frogspawn was great. I can't wait to see what comes when he gets comfortable with the camera and really puts it through its paces. Maybe he will make a laughing stock of us all.