-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Digital Cameras and Macro (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tracker
- Start date
Geoff Brown
Well-known member
Yes! its discontinued little brother the coolpix 3500 focuses down to 0.5 inch from lens front in macro mode. This was on sale from Jessops about nine months ago for £199. so there may perhaps be some about second hand. It's a swivel camera like the 4500 but with a simplified menu and it has no optical viewfinder, only an electronic one but the picture quality from its 3.2 million pixels is, as you would expect from a Nikon, very good. I have printed very sharp A4 size photos from it fairly regularly. There are no means of digiscoping etc., with it as no filter thread is on its very small swivelling lens holder. However perhaps more useful is that it is a genuinely pocketable little camera and I frequently have mine on me to save carrying a lot of weight as it slip easily into a jacket or coat pocket 
Last edited:
tracker
Tom
That sounds like a neat little cam, Geoff....i may even have a look round for one.
Thnx for the info too........ :t:
Scampo, yes, i remember the days of those SLR'S and bellows...... I took many a shot using a simple close up ring, the filter type. At the time, i never had the cash to buy the dedicated macro lenses. These digital cams are rather exciting gadgets, having seen some fine pictures here at birdforum.
tracker
Thnx for the info too........ :t:
Scampo, yes, i remember the days of those SLR'S and bellows......
I took many a shot using a simple close up ring, the filter type. At the time, i never had the cash to buy the dedicated macro lenses. These digital cams are rather exciting gadgets, having seen some fine pictures here at birdforum.tracker
tracker
Tom
scampo said:
Hey Scampo, using such a close-up filter, i took this shot:
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php?photo=16340&password=&sort=1&cat=500&page=1
It may not be the sharpest of piccies, but back when i took it, i was pretty pleased with the result. So you dont realise (ok, maybe you do....lol ) how much im lookin forward to getting one of the latest pieces of kit.
Im still sifting and filtering through so many options.......Sheeesh, its a jungle out there!......... :eek!:
tracker
christineredgate
Winner of the Copeland Wildlife Photographer of th
I'll second that Scampo,somewhere on the gallery ,there is I think a pic of a butterfly(Painted Lady??) which I took with the 602,it is such a user friendly camera,and they can be picked up very reasonably from camera shops as "used bargains).I just wish one could use it for digi scoping!!scampo said:
Christine.
christineredgate
Winner of the Copeland Wildlife Photographer of th
I think thats the one reason im not moved to go out and buy that S602. I do wish to have a bash at some digi-scoping.tracker said:
tracker[/QUOTE]
Tracker,just found this macro pic taken with the 602.Anybody other than myself could have taken a much better picture.I don't use any special settings,although this was obviously taken in the macro mode.I liked your pic taken with the coolpix,it shows texture ,I think it is good,so may have a try myself,but I tend to leave the settings as they are for digi scoping,makes life easier.
Christine.
Attachments
tracker
Tom
Thats some shot of the Red Admiral, christineredgat. I see what you mean as to potential.
Were you referring to my shot of the female orangetip, above, Christineredgat?
If so, i need to clarify that it wasnt taken with a coolpix, but about 7 years ago, using an SLR camera with a close-up filter attached.
I do hope my piccies will improve once i get the right digital cam. Thanx for your comments..... :t:
tracker
christineredgat said:
Were you referring to my shot of the female orangetip, above, Christineredgat?
If so, i need to clarify that it wasnt taken with a coolpix, but about 7 years ago, using an SLR camera with a close-up filter attached.
I do hope my piccies will improve once i get the right digital cam. Thanx for your comments..... :t:
tracker
scampo
Steve Campsall
The Fuji S602 has been replaced by the S7000 now which looks an amazing box of tricks. I have also found that the S602 takes any decent external flash so it's easy to use bounce flash - always with perfect auto-exposure.
It's weakness is the need to have an adapter if you want to fit a filter. Maybe the S7000 has fixed this? I haven't tried digiscoping with it - I think the problem is the front lens element is too large?
It's weakness is the need to have an adapter if you want to fit a filter. Maybe the S7000 has fixed this? I haven't tried digiscoping with it - I think the problem is the front lens element is too large?
christineredgate
Winner of the Copeland Wildlife Photographer of th
Tracker,see Gallery comment.Yes as usual I did not read correctly.
Scampo,I have read several reports re the new S700,and as value for money,the S602 still seems to be the better camera.It has had lots of good write ups,but there does not seem to be anything really spectacular which makes it stand out as the 602 does.
Christine.
Scampo,I have read several reports re the new S700,and as value for money,the S602 still seems to be the better camera.It has had lots of good write ups,but there does not seem to be anything really spectacular which makes it stand out as the 602 does.
Christine.
Elizabeth Bigg
Addicted member
Denis J said:
Denis - how close were you when you took the photo of the peacock butterfly? I found it in the gallery, but no info about this.
We have recently bought the camera - pity about the lack of butterflies! :eek!: However - I have just remembered the London Butterfly House!!! My granddaughter is mad about butterflies, and I took her there in July. Watch this space!! (But don't hold your breath).
Elizabeth Bigg said:
Both shots were taken at a range of about 4 inches the trick is to take a series of shots and gradually work your way in that way you are guarenteed a photo of some sort and as you work your way in they get better
)Mind you normally 3 foot is about as close as I can get, these shots were the exeption not the rule
Jay Turberville
Well-known member
FWIW, this shot was taken from around 20-30 feet (not inches) away. Digiscoping can be useful for "macro" shots sometimes. I don't usually shoot butterflys, but the birds seemed to be hiding at the time.
http://www.jayandwanda.com/digiscope/rubinar/flutterby_1082.jpg
http://www.jayandwanda.com/digiscope/rubinar/flutterby_1082.jpg
