What Camera to get? Plant Photos

[Steve22]

Im looking to get a camera that can take close up pictures of plants and be magazine like quality. I want to be able to see the hairs and everything else on the plant crystal clear and have colors so vidid it looks like it came out of Avatar. I plan on using the camera to take pictures of my dogs and everything else, like my kid at the zoo... What would you suggest I look in to? The only camera I ever owned was a point and shoot kodak.


Thanks in advance

 

[gsgary]

It should read what lens do i need

This shot was entered in a club competiton last night, shot with 5D 24-70F2.8L and 1 studio flash and reflector

 

[Destin]

Im looking to get a camera that can take close up pictures of plants and be magazine like quality. I want to be able to see the hairs and everything else on the plant crystal clear and have colors so vidid it looks like it came out of Avatar. I plan on using the camera to take pictures of my dogs and everything else, like my kid at the zoo... What would you suggest I look in to? The only camera I ever owned was a point and shoot kodak.


Thanks in advance

It's not the camera, but rather the lens, and the lighting. Any dslr camera body will do, but you're going to need a dedicated macro lens for shooting the plants, as well as some lighting (the key to sharp looking photos lies as much in the lighting as it does in the lens quality). And then you're going to need the knowledge of how to use it. Which takes time. You'd also need to get proficient in post processing of photos, which requires editing software like lightroom or photoshop.

You can't just buy a camera and expect amazing results. It takes years of learning, and some very expensive specialty equipment.

To give you an idea of what an ENTRY level setup would cost:

Camera body: $500-1200

Macro lens: $600-1500

Lighting equipment: $400-600

Tripod: $300-400

Editing Software: $300-500.

 

[sm4him]

To get those kind of results, given your prior camera experience? I'd suggest a camera that comes with a professional photographer.

Seriously, (not that I wasn't being serious before...): you don't mention a budget. IMO, it doesn't really matter anyway, though, because you could buy the best pro DSLR available, the best lenses (and you'll need them for the results you're talking about), the best lighting equipment (you'll need that too, for your desired results)...and you would still not produce what you say you're looking for. At least, not for quite some time. If Ever.

Slow down. Lower your expectations just a teeny bit. That sounds like a nice lifetime goal, but perhaps something more immediate, like learning how to use a DSLR and take reasonably decent photos, would be a good goal for THIS year.

My advice...buy a decent entry-level or even mid-level DSLR, a couple of nice lenses. I'd suggest the D7000 if you're up for a HUGE learning curve, or the D5100 if you want to take it a bit slower. Then, when you learn the basics, add some lighting to your setup. Once you learn THAT, you'll know whether you even have the potential to get the kind of photos you're after. If you have that ability, then go for the professional set-up you'll need.

 

[Steve22]

Thanks Ill look into the DSLRs, I dont plan on winning awards or taking it really serious.. I just want a nice camera thats better than my point and shoot for mostly photos outside..

 

[MReid]

You can do that with a good point and shoot that has a macro function. Have you tried it with your point and shoot?

 

[Steve22]

Yes, but I have to be around 12 inches away and it takes be sometimes 15 photos to get one clear enough to show detail.. Id like to get closer with more detail.

 

[ph0enix]

Yes, but I have to be around 12 inches away and it takes be sometimes 15 photos to get one clear enough to show detail.. Id like to get closer with more detail.

Some point and shoot cameras let you get much closer than that to your subject.

 

[MReid]

Sounds like a technique problem more than equipment.
DSLR macro work has it's own unique set of problems (and expensive)....the depth of field is razor thin and for best results a tripod is required.

 

[Steve22]

Can anyone recommend a camera under $500 that can do good macro photos? Ive owned Canon Nikon and Kodak point and shoots and have to say I like the Kodak picture colors better.. The Canon and Nikon the colors just seemed dull and flat.

 

[Destin]

Sounds like a technique problem more than equipment.
DSLR macro work has it's own unique set of problems (and expensive)....the depth of field is razor thin and for best results a tripod is required.

Yeah, Agreed.

I think the OP should just get a good point and shoot with a macro capability . Look into something like the canon G12. Great little camera.

 

[Destin]

Can anyone recommend a camera under $500 that can do good macro photos? Ive owned Canon Nikon and Kodak point and shoots and have to say I like the Kodak picture colors better.. The Canon and Nikon the colors just seemed dull and flat.

Canon G12 is a great camera and my choice for you. As far as the colors being dull and flat... you can change the settings in camera to get more vibrant colors.

 

[Sonoma]

What point and shoot camera do you own? The one I have, Canon S2 IS, has two macro settings and the super-macro lets you get so close the subject almost touches the lens.

I would still invest in a decent tripod even for your point and shoot.

 

[photog4life]

get a bridge camera? it will help you learn about the exposure triangle without the expense of a dslr.. i have a ge x500 that i LOVE!! and it was only like 150 dollars...

 

[LightSpeed]

Forget about point and shoot.
If you're gonna get a camera, spend your money once and get a dslr.
You'll be happy with it for a long time. A point and shoot.........not so much.
If you get into photography, you'll wish you had ditched the point and shoot idea, and listened to me.

My recommendation...........Pentax K5. Best camera out there. Hands down.
Doesn't cost a fortune like gsgary's crappy canon 5d.


ducking
lmao