What NON-SLS digital camera has the best Macro lens
- Thread starter pammy
- Start date
TitusvileSurfer
New member
While no point and shoot camera will ever come remotely close to an SLR's macro capabilities, the Canon G10 does a pretty decent job.
Hookup
New member
Well I agree that glass quality, SLR will win, the one advantage of the point and shoot is that their ability to get down to F64 or lower when converted to 35mm equivalent means that most point-and-shoot cameras, with macro focusing, net a deeper depth-of-field for macro shots.
Is this "better", I do not know, but it is a feature that is not found on SLR macro lenses.
Is this "better", I do not know, but it is a feature that is not found on SLR macro lenses.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
They accomplish this with tiny sensors. Because of this face, Physics says they pick up nearly as much detail which is crucial for macro photography. While the depth of field additions are nice, focus stacking wins. It's just physically impossible for a point and shoot to pull the detail of a properly equipped DSLR. Focusing on point and shoots typically sucks as well. The auto focus is usually marginally inaccurate at best and fly-by-wire manual focus (push a button or turn a ring which tells a motor to focus in or out) is a joke.
Hookup
New member
agreed, but those details are important but for web-based images or small print I'm not convinced its a huge factor... I think that with a good tripod, and a point-and-shoot you can still use focus-stacking so it's not really a good comparison to confuse techniques with the overall discussion (IMO).
If you want to print your images to hang on the wall bigger than say 4x7, you'll want SLR / DSLR for sure, If you want "the best" you'll get it... but I was just pointing out that if you're just snapping for web or small print, I think you can do pretty well with a P&S, and macro's are a good example of something they can do well, again within the confines of a P&S camera.
Not trying to say P&S is better, they are not, they just have a feature that is unique to them, and, they can do a good job for some applications is all.
If you want to print your images to hang on the wall bigger than say 4x7, you'll want SLR / DSLR for sure, If you want "the best" you'll get it... but I was just pointing out that if you're just snapping for web or small print, I think you can do pretty well with a P&S, and macro's are a good example of something they can do well, again within the confines of a P&S camera.
Not trying to say P&S is better, they are not, they just have a feature that is unique to them, and, they can do a good job for some applications is all.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Well if the sole purpose of the camera is posting small versions of these images on these boards then it may not be as much of a factor. Even on these web boards the quality difference should be apparent. If you do want to print your images, or just view larger versions, the difference should be very apparent.
You made the point that the point and shoot achieves the necessary depth of field without focus stacking. The point was made (IMO incorrectly) that the lens could focus at a 35mm equivalent of f/64. The aperture doesn't change at all and really has nothing to do with it. Extra depth of field in a point and shoot is achieved because the focal length is only...say...1mm. A DSLR shooting the same subject at 100mm will of course have a much smaller DOF. Aperture really has little to do with it.
But I digress, focus stacking is very relevant because this is the method the 35mm camera would use to achieve this depth of field. The point and shoot should have no reason to focus stack because it already had all the dof it should ever need, which was your point.
They are good at achieving a wide depth of field, as previously discussed. Macro photography is all about the minor minor details in a subject, for example textures and patterns on individual polyps not even visible to the naked eye. The undeniable quality handicap of point and shoot cameras retards its macro capabilities. Some point and shoots may do macro well in the confines of a point and shoot, but those confines are...well...confining.
Yes for some applications point and shoots can shine, I'll give you that. Some point and shoots are even okay with macro, but as a general rule I just don't think of a point and shoot as a knock em' dead macro tool. It deserves to be said that the single attribute which makes the point and shoot a great macro camera in your argument (small sensor) is the main reason the point and shoot is considered a lesser camera to begin with. When it comes down to it, they just don't have what it takes for the amount of detail macro demands.
I am of course referring to great macro. Those crisp, colorful, awe-inspiring images that take your breath away. The mediocre run of the mill macro could probably be replicated just fine by a point and shoot. There is a level of greatness that just isn't attainable without a DSLR and a macro lens though.
Last edited:
Hookup
New member
haha, I hope you're not sitting on your keyboard thinking who is the son-of-a-b... I'm enjoying our discussion.
I cannot argue your points, because they are facts. Plain and simple. What's even better is the OP and our discussion is somewhat off-topic... but show me a thread that isn't OT and I'll show you a short-thread.
There is no way, imo, to argue that any P&S is better than a DSLR in terms of photographic range/capability. However, that does not imply that all P&S in all cases are worse than DSLR's.
Onto your point, and the original posters question, who must be laughing there butt-off at this point...
I used a G5 from cannon for a long time (or a G6, so long ago I do not remember) and it was very nice. The macro's were very acceptable, and the camera shot RAW, which is hard to find in a P&S....
I cannot argue your points, because they are facts. Plain and simple. What's even better is the OP and our discussion is somewhat off-topic... but show me a thread that isn't OT and I'll show you a short-thread.
There is no way, imo, to argue that any P&S is better than a DSLR in terms of photographic range/capability. However, that does not imply that all P&S in all cases are worse than DSLR's.
Onto your point, and the original posters question, who must be laughing there butt-off at this point...
I used a G5 from cannon for a long time (or a G6, so long ago I do not remember) and it was very nice. The macro's were very acceptable, and the camera shot RAW, which is hard to find in a P&S....
TitusvileSurfer
New member
I am not thinking "who is the son-of-a-b" at all, and I hope you don't mistake my tone for angry, disgruntled, or arrogant. I love the Canon G-series and personally consider them the best point and shoot cameras on the market. Even though 99.95% of the time it curses my DSLR for the excess attention, a G9 does have its place in my camera bag.
Hookup
New member
Glad to hear it... I was assuming you were not upset, angry.. and you did not seem one bit arrogant...
And for the record, I shoot the 20D. I have two bodies, and several hunks of glass including the canon 100mm F2.8. (I test-drove the sigma 100mm f2.8 for about 3hours, then had to return it because auto-focusing was so noisy)
I know people get personal defending their purchases... I was not defending my P&S, which is some kind of Elf model with the extra-wide angle on the lens that we use for birthday-snaps and what-not, just simply throwing out some random bits of info i picked upon the P&S and the things they can do well...
For a long time I used to think that a better camera would make me a better photographer... It has been an expensive lesson... Photographers take good pictures, not cameras... Painters create art, not brushes... etc...
And for the record, I shoot the 20D. I have two bodies, and several hunks of glass including the canon 100mm F2.8. (I test-drove the sigma 100mm f2.8 for about 3hours, then had to return it because auto-focusing was so noisy)
I know people get personal defending their purchases... I was not defending my P&S, which is some kind of Elf model with the extra-wide angle on the lens that we use for birthday-snaps and what-not, just simply throwing out some random bits of info i picked upon the P&S and the things they can do well...
For a long time I used to think that a better camera would make me a better photographer... It has been an expensive lesson... Photographers take good pictures, not cameras... Painters create art, not brushes... etc...
Well thank you all for your replies. Interesting reading. I am not looking to print out anything larger than a 4x6. Mainly for viewing online or on my laptop. What number am I looking at for the macro, to determine which digital camera would take better macro shots, if I'm comparing a few digital cameras? Am I looking for a camera with a greater than "X" number to take decent macro shots? I have a Canon, forget the model, but it seems to have a hard time focusing when I'm trying to take a macro shot of something in my tank. I don't know if it's because of the glare of the glass, or the camera itself. I forget which model Canon it is. I think a powershot S-70.
Pam
Pam
Reef Bass
colors and textures
I have a powershot s70. Yes, it can have issues focusing in auto mode on subjects behind glass. Use manual focus. Also, in macro mode, the amount of zoom makes a big difference on how close one could be to actually get focus. The wider / "not too much" part of the zoom range would focus much closer than the zoomed way in. You can see a message about acceptable distance to focus while working the zoom.
My dissatisfaction with that camera's macro reef image capability (though it does do RAW) led to my purchase of a dSLR. In the camera's defense, after working my dSLR for a month or so I went back and shot a few with my S70. Turns out the camera was not entirely to blame for my initial lack of success. I got some ok images, much better than I had been getting before. Sure, they were no where near as awesome as the ones from my dSLR with macro lens, but for people who aren't overly obsessed with macro images (leaves me out), they'd be fine.
My dissatisfaction with that camera's macro reef image capability (though it does do RAW) led to my purchase of a dSLR. In the camera's defense, after working my dSLR for a month or so I went back and shot a few with my S70. Turns out the camera was not entirely to blame for my initial lack of success. I got some ok images, much better than I had been getting before. Sure, they were no where near as awesome as the ones from my dSLR with macro lens, but for people who aren't overly obsessed with macro images (leaves me out), they'd be fine.
dancewithethan
Ethan M
Check out some pics from this thread
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1536684
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1536684
I have the Sony H5 (no longer in production though) but it has a very good macro to the point that I can photograph baby brine shrimp and my finger print easily.
It looks like a DSLR but its just a glorified point and shoot with some extra options like adjusting the F/Exposure and other things.
Was trying to take a pic of the coral and not the BBS but everyone noticed the BBS.
Even the likes of Fuji Film produce DSLR look alikes with extra features that are simple to use.
My pics are not to be used for quality because I myself am still learning what the camera can do and what its limits are and those pics were taken well over 6+ months ago.
Anyway there are some other suggestions to consider.
It looks like a DSLR but its just a glorified point and shoot with some extra options like adjusting the F/Exposure and other things.
Was trying to take a pic of the coral and not the BBS but everyone noticed the BBS.
Even the likes of Fuji Film produce DSLR look alikes with extra features that are simple to use.
My pics are not to be used for quality because I myself am still learning what the camera can do and what its limits are and those pics were taken well over 6+ months ago.
Anyway there are some other suggestions to consider.
plc001
Premium Member
I had a CoolPix 990 and the macro always amazed me:
http://www.thecarrillos.com/images/reef/reef.htm
http://www.thecarrillos.com/images/reef/reef.htm
WOW PeneJane! Cool pics, and amazing that you caught the BBS in a picture. Again, your camera looks to focus macro shots down to 2cms, where as mine is 2 inches, so that is what I needed to know, so that I know what to look for for macro mode, when I shop for a new digital camera. That's as good of a macro shot that I'd need. These two shots are about the best I can do with my Cannon A95 with the 2" macro. Thanks!
Pam
Pam
Similar threads
