Camera for macrophotographs

[Paul mabbott]

Thanks, Davy. I'm working in the opposite direction - I gave all my cameras/lenses to Oxfam a couple of years back - I really have no intention of expanding to other subjects! Been there, done that ....
PS: having looked on e-bay it seems possible that I could replace my stolen camera for <£200 BUT the inurance company won't look at e-bay .....

Originally Posted by DavyG

Have you considered a DSLR?

Looking on eBay, it may well be possible to pick up a good DSLR, Olympus E510 as an example, and a Sigma 105mm macro lens for around £400.

A combination like this would also give you the option to add additional lenses as and when you want in order to expand your photography to other subjects.

Dave

[DavyG]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Thanks, Davy. I'm working in the opposite direction - I gave all my cameras/lenses to Oxfam a couple of years back - I really have no intention of expanding to other subjects! Been there, done that ....
PS: having looked on e-bay it seems possible that I could replace my stolen camera for <£200 BUT the inurance company won't look at e-bay .....

Ahh, a born again photographer!

Good luck with your plan Paul, at least you won't end up with all those additional lenses to carry.

Dave

[Paul mabbott]

The reviews seem to go for Canon G10 over Nikon Coolpix P600 at the front of the field. I've been trying them (and others) and find them too small and fiddly although the Canon at >14 megaPixels produces excellent pictures. None of them have a 'super-macro' function for really close-up work.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Nikon is that it has a GPS - you never need forget where you took that shot again!

[Jim Ford]

Have you considered a Olympus 'E' series DSLR with the excellent Zuiko 35mm Macro lens? You should be able to pick up a E510 or E520 body and 35mm lens for less than your target price. The lens is cheap, but highly regarded for it's sharpness. With the body you get in-body image stabilisation and live view - handy for macro. You also get a dust reduction system that actually works! There's ring-flash available, but it's pricey.

Jim

P.S. - Sorry, but I now see that DavyG has already posted a similar message!

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

....None of them have a 'super-macro' function for really close-up work....

That's one of the advantages of the bridge cameras, They all have super macro facility, combined with a single lens that goes from wide-angle out to super telephoto.

I hear what you are saying about not being interested in telephoto's etc., but if you want a single stand-alone camera, why not go for one that gives you all the options?

After all, Murphy's Law will undoubtedly come into play at some stage, and you will be left wishing that you'd had the extra facility.

Bridge cameras are light and, (if you won't be photographing in extreme lighting situations etc. etc.), give almost all of the capability of a DSLR

Also, bridge cameras (including all three that I mentioned further up the thread) tend to have "fold-out" variable-angle "live view" lcd screens, which are an absolute godsend when photographing low level objects such as fungi, flowers etc.

On many occasions, I prefer to use my FujiS9600 to my Nikon D80+Macro Lens, for that reason alone.

The only real advantage of a DSLR, over a bridge camera, would be that the macro lens on a DSLR will give 1:1 reproduction. (Whereas bridge cameras will give 1:2 - which is as good as or better, than any non-DSLR camera on the market).

EDIT - To answer your earlier question, Bridge cameras (or "Pro-sumer" models as some manufacturers like to call them), lie between compacts and full blown DSLR's. Also, I'm not aware of any bridge camera that doesn't have a filter thread, so all of them should take screw on supplementary macro lenses such as Raynox etc., or ring flashes that fit via the filter thread.

Regards
Mike.