Cheap easy close-ups

[Mercadante]

I hate photography. I have hated it for years. I don't much like looking at pictures, and I detest taking them. The thought of spending much of my money on cameras appals me. But, now I've got that off my chest, I have to admit that good quality close-up photos would be a big help in identifying plants, fungi, etc. My attempts to take close-ups with other people's cameras have mostly been blurred, though.

Is there a digital camera under £150 that you'd specifically recommend for taking good close-ups quickly and painlessly, without having to study photography techniques for ages first? Do people have recommendations for any other equipment for the camera-phobic? Or should I accept that I'm not going to get even half way decent results and spend my money on something else?

[RichBrew]

If you dislike photography that much, then I'd be surprised if you got anything worthwhile, no matter what camera you use. If you have no interest in the way you get your images, your images will not be interesting. Close-up photography has its disciplines, as does telephoto shooting, and these techniques need to be worked on (hard) to get good quality photographs.
Ultimately, you will only get out what you are prepared to put in. Simple.

RichBrew

[glsammy]

Rich is right. Almost any modern camera with a macro mode is good enough to get decent images, but you've got to understand what your doing, or else your loathing for photography will only increase further.
It's the one discipline that demands some care to get the right results.

[Brocker]

Spot on Graham. You have hit the nail right on the preverbial head. . . .

[LoveT]

Quite!!

Maybe second-hand from your local friendly camera shop?

[John D]

The origin to this thread and what has subsequently been said is in line with the comments made throughout the thread 'Camera Settings and Use of Software' in the Forum 'Wildlife Photography'.
There is this misunderstanding in some cases of what is required to obtain a 'good, sharp, clear, image. There is a believe in some cases that you can just point the camera and shoot and get that near perfect shot. If only that was true.
Digital cameras haven't reached that stage yet and I doubt they ever will.
John D

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by John D

The origin to this thread and what has subsequently been said is in line with the comments made throughout the thread 'Camera Settings and Use of Software' in the Forum 'Wildlife Photography'.
There is this misunderstanding in some cases of what is required to obtain a 'good, sharp, clear, image. There is a believe in some cases that you can just point the camera and shoot and get that near perfect shot. If only that was true.
Digital cameras haven't reached that stage yet and I doubt they ever will.
John D

Quite right. You don't need a massive financial investment for these types of shots, many modern digital compact cameras perform brilliantly in macro or close up mode, but you do need to spend some time learning about depth of field, shutter speeds, angles and the effects of natural or artificial lighting etc..

Wouldn't it be boring if the camera did everything? I can't imagine anything worse! Most of the pleasure I get out of photography is working out what settings will have the desired effect, and then seeing the results. (Usually completely different!)

[harasseddad]

As a non-photographer whose only interest is in getting some image for identification purposes I sympathise.

I still haven't got a camera I'm happy with, but here's the features I reckon I need:
Center spot autofocus. Conventional autofocus is prone to focus on the background the insect is sitting on rather than the insect itself; center spot allows you to force the camera to focus on the centre point of the frame.

Good zoom for close up work, and the ability to zoom in macro mode. You also need to check how close you can get in macro mode. Incidently there's nothing wrong with digital zoom in addition to optical, but not instead of. (after all we aren't going to print anything out, we just want something we can put on a pc screen to compare to a field guide. It also follows that we aren't bothered by megapixel size either)

Anti-shake is good, as it avoids blurring, as is the ability to force aperture priority for depth of field, but these two fall into the nice to have rather than essential category.

My choice was centered on the konica minolta z6 until they stopped making it, now I lean towards either the SONY Cybershot DSC-H5 or one of the fuji's, but every time I come close to making a decision, I find something new on the market.

[Mercadante]

Thanks to all for answering, but especially to harasseddad - those are really helpful pointers. The Sony looks a little pricey, but at least I know more about what to ask for.

Have to say to glsammy - I shouldn't find it boring if the camera did everything, any more than I do when a washing machine does everything.

[Tormentil]

My washing machine does everything too, when she gets home from work.