Why don't you be explicit as to what you disagree with?
you'd want to see at least 64K pixels,
you need macro focus to get 64K pixels of the leaves
you need to be 2-3 inches away with a normal lens
Again..YES! all three(3)x2. Please explain why I NEED...
Now, let me ask if you be so kind as to explain what is digital macro
and what is a normal lens in digital?
Do I really need 1:1 and if so, why? Are there any other ways the
man can get an Identifiable picture without your rules? If so, what
Why don't you just come out and state your views instead of trying
to beat mine down?
A normal lens in digital is that same concept as it was in film.
It's easy to look up:
In photography and cinematography a normal lens, also called a
standard lens, is a lens that reproduces a field of view that
generally looks "natural" to a human observer under normal viewing
conditions, as compared with lenses with longer or shorter focal
lengths which produce an expanded or contracted field of view. Lenses
of shorter focal length are called wide-angle lenses, while
longer-focal-length lenses are referred to as long-focus lenses
(with the most common of that type being the telephoto lenses).
I don't remember mentioning 1:1, I asked for 320x200 of the leaf.
The reason I asked for that is the original photo was of a shoot with
what looked like one set of true leaves (not the cotyledon). The leaves were
small at that. I estimated I'd need at least that much detail to have a
chance of identifying the plant.
How else can a plant be identified?
Lots of ways, stem shape, leaf pairing, color, where the OP lives.
Sooth those feathers old son. I just wanted to know if your
imperatives were based in fact or speculation. I believe you answered
that for me and I thank you for indulging an old dog. This crime scene
is getting way OT to investigate further..
Just know there is a danger in attempting to translate old school film
think to the myriad variables in digital, especially as sacrosanct
absolutes. Rather than limiting yourself at the start of a problem
with erroneous information, start with a bit of research on how
digital does what some consider "macro". I'm betting you will be in a
bit of disbelief at first. Run a search using the keywords: "digital
macro" and then read up on some of the articles, I suspect you will
come to know that digital language , for all it similarities, is not
the same as film language. It is just rough translations for us old
photogs to relate to a new language as it evolves. Until then it is
natural for one to continue to argue for what we think we know.
FYI, 1:1 is another term for "macro".
I don't know, macro photography and gardens?
Not as OT as a LOT of other stuff.
I hope I didn't present any information I offered as absolutes.
Well I did some searches for what that little "flower" setting does
and the best I came up with is:
The macro mode button, when pressed, switches the camera into a
special close focus mode and many allow the photographer to shoot less
than 10cm from the picture subject.
Yes, uniquely not suited for digital. Since film size used to
be a good measure of resolution but now we need to worry about
the number of pixels, not the area the sensor covers.
Back in the film days, I got as far as extension tubes.
Never did buy a ring flash.
I'm mostly using a Canon EOS now and it's interesting how many
options are available for digital macro photography but I'm
thinking extension tubes again.
I have to admit, I still can't figure out where you are coming
from. You started saying you disagree strongly but haven't
contradicted anything I've said.
I'm not an expert on macro photography and I've avoided getting
very technical on the subject but I still think if you are using
a consumer digital camera and the camera has no macro feature or
accessories, you're not going to get a good closeup.
I suspect that you'd be hard-pressed to find
a digital camera, in the last five years or so,
that doesn't have a close-focus option ...
.. down to four inches or so.
.. even the $ 75. point-&-shoot digi-cams.
--- Posted via
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:02:28 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Exactly. And 4 inches is way too close for capturing the details of a
small plant for purposes of identification, 2-3 feet is plenty close
enough... 4 inches is for IDing a mite on a leaf. But regardless,
what's important is to accurately frame what it is one wants to ID,
not to confuse the camera's microprocessor with extraneous elements,
and to maintain steadyness.
I guess all the OP has to do is get a bit
closer to the part of the plant
someone might be able to identify
and use the macro focus button.
I have 3 digital cameras.
Only the newest one has a macro focus option.
Guess I need to get out more.
That's surprising to me.
Perhaps the other two don't need a special macro
focus function - if they naturally focus to a foot or so (?)
This web site has archived many many digi-cam reviews
and specifications - for reference. I just randomly picked
a few cheap point-and-shoots - they all had macro ability.
--- Posted via
Neither is cheap.
One was bought early on in the digital conversion,
an Olympus D-450. The other is a couple of years older
and bought for it's compactness.
Anyone have a good idea what to do with obsolete digital cameras?
Besides just toss them? Maybe put them in a time capsule.
Our area has drop-off depots for electronics re-cycling.
... a couple years ago, when I tried to donate my trusty
35mm Canon slr system to the local Thrift Shop - they didn't
want it .. I had about $ 750. invested originally .. oh well.
--- Posted via
What's an obsolete digital camera... means it's dated but if it still
works it still has a use... give it to someone you know who needs a
camera or keep it as a spare. I'd give it to a kid in hopes of
getting them interested in photography. Or I'd keep it in my car in
case of an accident, etc. A digicam takes up very little space, so
long as it still works I'd keep it. I kept several old cameras, film
cameras too. Many of the early digicams have better lenses than a lot
of the modern cameras... cameras are being made chintzier every year,
many no longer have viewfinders, I don't consider those a camera worth
having. If your old digicam has a viewfinder definitely hold on to
it. Film cameras can go obsolete when film is no longer available but
I don't see how a digicam can go obsolete.
Nad, Do you understand why you are wrong now? if not read:
I also recommend you root around Ken's site a bit after you read this
he does talk Canon some. another good site is http://www.luminous-landscape.com
Yes, I've got it. Almost any modern camera would do the job.
Sorry to seem dense but as you guessed, I know more about film
than _modern_ digital.
I haven't done as much with my new Canon as I should have.
I took a few closeups of large objects and with all the
megapixels I get really sharp images of small objects.
I've got more to learn. I tried getting a good image of an
orchid bud just as it's starting to form.
This is the first time I've tried orchids.
I found the bud is too tiny for autofocus to pick out so
I've got to read up some more and find how the manual focus
I'll spend some time at those sites, more to learn.
Try to learn about your camera's menus and how best to set up your
various menu and their tools , Where and What the Auto Focus (AF)
buttons do and how easy it is to change them,( Canon has one on the
back) and lastly learn to use your DOF preview button and the lens'
ring scale. youtube videos can help.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.