best compact for macro

petebuster1

petebuster1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
238
Name
peter
Edit My Images
Yes
As I said in my last thread am and still am deciding on a good advanced compact so I can master all the different aspects without the bulk of a dslr but was wondering if there's one that's better with macro? Still considering the x10 but be honest think I'd prefer a slightly bigger zoom than x4 so maybe the canon g's or Nikon p's might be the way to go.
I know a dedicated lens on a dslr is best but i'm not looking to send them to national geographic or David Attenborough as so am not looking for dslr. My X-S1 does great macro but its too big to carry everywhere.
 
your next post should be "what compact for analysis paralysis". :)

Why not just write out ALL the features you need into a table and then mark them as either must haves or nice to have. Go through the spec sheets comparing with your table and match the must haves and bingo.
 
Can you post a link to the sort of pic you're hoping to achieve? That way, we should be able to tell you if a) you're expectations are unlikely to be met or hopefully b) that a Canikujitax Ballyhoo can do the trick.
 
that i'll teach me to ask a simple question:eek: ok lets make it simple i'm not asking about all specs just how the above cameras stack up for macro pics, is there one that stands out from the rest? that's it really all the rest I can work out for myself. nothing in particular maybe an insect,leaf etc just general macro. I think the first post was clear enough but there you go.lol
 
Last edited:
It may have been a simple question but do you really think somebody would have owned all the potential cameras and more importantly used them for a lot of macro?

What does your research tell you is the best (based on reviews and checking images etc,.) as that is probably better than getting people to guess for you?

Here is a start for you :) http://www.flickr.com/groups/x10-macro/
 
Last edited:
I was simply asking as i'm sure there are people with these camera's ? ( i wasn't suggesting one person has all of them,a rather silly comment) and their opinions on their macro capabilities, if that's really such a difficult thing to ask whats the point of the forum? if no one has any of them which i doubt then fair enough.if you cant help then not answering at all would be easier.
 
Last edited:
You are asking which is the best compact out there for macro. Unless someone on here has used all the compacts in macro mode, they are only going to be able to tell you of their experience with one particular camera, which may not be the best. Anyone else will only be giving you advice based on hearsay or from what they have read in reviews, which is something you can do yourself.
 
petebuster1 said:
if you cant help then not answering at all would be easier.
Click to expand...

You are right, I probably shouldn't have bothered but put it this way. I have owned an X10 and the macro was okay. I have nothing to compare it with as haven't owned the other cameras and I have no way of knowing if my okay is your brilliant.

Do you see my point yet?
 
Last edited:
I have an X-10 and an XF-1 but don't use them for Macro. I've played a little with close focus on the XF but if I want Macro, the D700 and 105 VR come out to play. As Chris said, the "Macro" modes are OK on both but there's no real alternative to a DSLR and dedicated Macro lens IMO. Unless you pick up a microscope and the attendant USB capture device from somewhere like Lidl. Cheap as chips (for both squads at a sunday league soccer game!)...
 
Scarecrow said:
You are asking which is the best compact out there for macro. Unless someone on here has used all the compacts in macro mode, they are only going to be able to tell you of their experience with one particular camera, which may not be the best. Anyone else will only be giving you advice based on hearsay or from what they have read in reviews, which is something you can do yourself.
Click to expand...
Thats all i'm asking as obviously dont have them myself, though i'm heading towards the Nikon p7700 as it seems to have good macro plus i like the 8fps and x7 zoom which none of the others have,like that extra bit of zoom.
 
I've found the Panasonic TZ series very good for macro when I've used other peoples cameras. I was able to get in close enough to see that the squiggly line under the Queens head on a £5 note is actually made up of the word 'FIVE' repeated. :eek:

I'm not sure which TZ camera it was, possibly the TZ20.

I've had a few Fuji compacts, and they have bee quite good at macro, but nowhere near the Panasonic.
 
yes i had thought of them but i'd like the extra quality of the more advanced camera's. Found a couple of macro shots on the net from the p7700 and am impressed, certainly good enough for most peoples needs.
 
Last edited:
I have the Ricoh GRD1 which is very good for macros, it can focus down to 1cm from the lens. You can also shift the focus point around on the screen if you're on a tripod.
It has DSLR type control wheels, one of which you can programme to bring up various controls. It can be used fully manual as well.

The current model GRD4 is about 400 quid, but earlier ones much cheaper 2nd hand.
 
Yep, the Ricoh GRD is simply the best compact camera I have used (I picked up a GRD II for £80 recently)
Not sure why other manufacturers cannot layout controls and include functionality in such a good way.

However, I think the fixed 28 eqv lens may not suit the requirement of a 4X plus zoom and it is also a pretty small sensor in there.
 
@petebuster1

From personal experience with a Canon G11, some of the Canon G series may meet your needs.

Why
#1 Full control
#2 Live histogram
#3 Flip out screen.
#4 Reasonable IQ, for a P&S, at the lower ISOs
#5 Can use Canon external flashes if need be.
#6 Shoots RAW.

(I shoot with a Canon 5D, 40D and G11)
 
Last edited:
yes thanks the g11 has been a consideration but the price's ive seen(and only second hand) i can get the p7700 new for not too much more and its 8fps would be good for action shots, good enough for the dogs and grand kids which dont sit still lol and wildlife (ALL THE SAME REALLY)
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
Yep, the Ricoh GRD is simply the best compact camera I have used (I picked up a GRD II for £80 recently)
Not sure why other manufacturers cannot layout controls and include functionality in such a good way.

However, I think the fixed 28 eqv lens may not suit the requirement of a 4X plus zoom and it is also a pretty small sensor in there.
Click to expand...

Oops, forgot about needing a zoom!
I have tried zoom compacts for macro in the shops, but they still didn't get close enough I thought.
 
I have used the Canon g series for years for jewellery macro for work, having tried others I find them the best, not only can you get the lens to almost 1cm away and still focus, it's got all the manual settings you could ever need. Currently using the g11 and no complaints. The hot shoe also lets me have a great off camera light set up. Not saying it's the best, but works for me (on my third g series camera)
 
Last edited:
spartagates said:
I have used the Canon g series for years for jewellery macro for work, having tried others I find them the best, not only can you get the lens to almost 1cm away and still focus, it's got all the manual settings you could ever need. Currently using the g11 and no complaints. The hot shoe also lets me have a great off camera light set up. Not saying it's the best, but works for me (on my third g series camera)
Click to expand...

Well just bought the G15 from panomoz having had a few canon cameras and the fact it does seem to have the better macro it seemed the way to go,so looking forward to its arrival.Been very impressed with some of the pics iv'e seen taken with this camera and how much would a 1.8 lens cost?
Not sure slrs are really worth it unless your a pro and need them or you have the money for the expensive lenses, many pics ive seen on the web i see little if any difference in IQ than with some so called lesser camera's,i suppose if you want poster size prints but then who does?
 
Last edited:
Plenty of people want decent sized prints! I'll agree that if all you want/need is a screen shot, any crappy old P&S PoS will do the job but a DSLR will do it a whole lot better! A phone with a half decent camera will deliver what you need.
 
Nod said:
Plenty of people want decent sized prints! I'll agree that if all you want/need is a screen shot, any crappy old P&S PoS will do the job but a DSLR will do it a whole lot better! A phone with a half decent camera will deliver what you need.
Click to expand...

whoops i think i hit a nerve, depends what you mean by decent size, i have a 3x3 poster of one of our dogs on the living room wall which was obviously done with high end dslr but i dont think i'd want more than one. if i was to print anything off myself i'd want no more than A4 size which you dont need a dslr for. There was a time when it was a crappy p&s or a dslr and even the first bridge camera's weren't up to much but times have changed with advanced P&s and csc camera's and with that IQ has become better with other camera's to the point a dslr is not always the thing you need for top quality pics.
I compared some pics from my sx-1 and 60d and sorry there was no difference maybe it was me or the lens but there's not much wrong with my eyes.
Maybe if i pixel peeped i'd notice the difference but a photo is a photo, not sure what you mean by screen shot? Still a novice as you can probably tell but i'm just a bit bemused by great quality you hear about differences that in reality don't seem to be there?
 
Last edited:
Tend to agree, for just looking at your pictures on a PC screen there isn't much difference between properly exposed pictures taken in good light on a high end compact versus a DSLR.
Saying that, there is a difference (even if very small) so really depends if you notice or care about it. Same argument with different quality lenses on a DSLR.

You are happy with the IQ from your compact so that is all you need.
 
Last edited:
petebuster1 said:
whoops i think i hit a nerve, depends what you mean by decent size, i have a 3x3 poster of one of our dogs on the living room wall which was obviously done with high end dslr but i dont think i'd want more than one. if i was to print anything off myself i'd want no more than A4 size which you dont need a dslr for. There was a time when it was a crappy p&s or a dslr and even the first bridge camera's weren't up to much but times have changed with advanced P&s and csc camera's and with that IQ has become better with other camera's to the point a dslr is not always the thing you need for top quality pics.
I compared some pics from my sx-1 and 60d and sorry there was no difference maybe it was me or the lens but there's not much wrong with my eyes.
Maybe if i pixel peeped i'd notice the difference but a photo is a photo, not sure what you mean by screen shot? Still a novice as you can probably tell but i'm just a bit bemused by great quality you hear about differences that in reality don't seem to be there?
Click to expand...

By a screen shot, I mean an image resized for (for the sake of this discussion) the Forum Gallery - 800pixels along the longest side. That translates (at the oft quoted print resolution of 300dpi) to a print 2 2/3" along the long side, about large enough to get a hint of the picture but not a lot else! If that 800px is square, that'll be 800px x 800px, a 640,000pixel image, compared to my old DSLR (a D70) which delivers 3008px x 2000px, a little over 6,000,000 pixels. As we all know, pixel count isn't the only factor influencing image quality but it does go a fair way, especially in the detail stakes!

While I can (and do) print A4 from my even older Coolpix 3100 (3MP), the prints appear pixelated at a normal viewing distance while A3 prints from the D70 don't, despite the prints being at the same general resolution. It's less easy to spot the difference between A3 prints from the D70 and the D700 (12.1MP, 4,256px x 2,832px) but it's there.

I'm not a pixel peeper by any stretch of the imagination - it's an extremely unrewarding passtime IMO - but I do like seeing a good print and there is no comparison between that and a screen shot.
 
Nod said:
By a screen shot, I mean an image resized for (for the sake of this discussion) the Forum Gallery - 800pixels along the longest side. That translates (at the oft quoted print resolution of 300dpi) to a print 2 2/3" along the long side, about large enough to get a hint of the picture but not a lot else! If that 800px is square, that'll be 800px x 800px, a 640,000pixel image, compared to my old DSLR (a D70) which delivers 3008px x 2000px, a little over 6,000,000 pixels. As we all know, pixel count isn't the only factor influencing image quality but it does go a fair way, especially in the detail stakes!

While I can (and do) print A4 from my even older Coolpix 3100 (3MP), the prints appear pixelated at a normal viewing distance while A3 prints from the D70 don't, despite the prints being at the same general resolution. It's less easy to spot the difference between A3 prints from the D70 and the D700 (12.1MP, 4,256px x 2,832px) but it's there.

I'm not a pixel peeper by any stretch of the imagination - it's an extremely unrewarding passtime IMO - but I do like seeing a good print and there is no comparison between that and a screen shot.
Click to expand...

Yes ok you've blinded me with science a bit there:lol: I suppose what i'm getting at is i spent £900 on the 60d and sigma lens and £300 on the x-s1 and really couldn't see £600 worth of difference.Side by side pics were of equal quality so what are you getting from a dslr? other than being able to get larger prints and keeping image quality?
I must admit due to lack of time and finding it too bulky to carry around i didn't get to use the 60d as much as i would have liked hence i've sold it on and i know the x-s1 is similar in size but i do love useing it as much as possible and plan on making more time to use it in the summer.
 
Sorry, not my intention at all!

The other t5hing I get from my DSLR kit that compacts can't provide is the versatility. I have lenses from 8mm up to 300mm (used to go up to 500 but that lens got so little use and was so heavy that I traded it in against a Macro lens), all of which give better results than my smaller cameras (at the expense of portability). The DSLR can handle much faster and much slower shutter speeds and offers hugely better high ISO results.

To get back to the original question, what exactly are you after? You say Macro but do you really just mean close-up photos? True Macro is full size reproduction on the sensor (or higher magnification) while most Macro modes on compacts (and many SLR lenses) simply allow a closer minimum focus distance. If you tell us what you'll be photographing, we could probably take a shot or 2 using the kit we have to show you what we can achieve using it.
 
Nod said:
Sorry, not my intention at all!

The other t5hing I get from my DSLR kit that compacts can't provide is the versatility. I have lenses from 8mm up to 300mm (used to go up to 500 but that lens got so little use and was so heavy that I traded it in against a Macro lens), all of which give better results than my smaller cameras (at the expense of portability). The DSLR can handle much faster and much slower shutter speeds and offers hugely better high ISO results.

To get back to the original question, what exactly are you after? You say Macro but do you really just mean close-up photos? True Macro is full size reproduction on the sensor (or higher magnification) while most Macro modes on compacts (and many SLR lenses) simply allow a closer minimum focus distance. If you tell us what you'll be photographing, we could probably take a shot or 2 using the kit we have to show you what we can achieve using it.
Click to expand...

Firstly thanks for your patience, i really do like macro or close up photography you might have to explain the difference:thinking: i live in the country so my main subjects would be scenery,plants, wildlife,nature in general no specific aim really
 
In a nutshell, close up is close up and true macro is extreme close up.

Here are a couple of close ups shot with my Fuji XF-1 using its Macro setting.

DSCF02831.jpg


DSCF02842.JPG


No samples available from the DSLR and macro lens. Yet!
 
petebuster1 said:
Well just bought the G15 from panomoz having had a few canon cameras and the fact it does seem to have the better macro it seemed the way to go,so looking forward to its arrival.Been very impressed with some of the pics iv'e seen taken with this camera and how much would a 1.8 lens cost?
Not sure slrs are really worth it unless your a pro and need them or you have the money for the expensive lenses, many pics ive seen on the web i see little if any difference in IQ than with some so called lesser camera's,i suppose if you want poster size prints but then who does?
Click to expand...

Your are right, the gap between a good p&s and entry level slr is blurring, even more so with the mirrorless systems. However, when you spend good money on pro glass and full frame the results are now distinct, but at a high cost; most people will be happy with the results from a lot less priced p&s :)
 
Let's face it, 90% of people who have a DSLR could use a decent compact instead and produce good enough shots.
However, that is not why a lot of people are into the hobby is it. Every time I have ever looked the Talk Equipment section has more people in it that any other section by quite a long way.
 
I think unless photography is going to be a bit more than a hobby or your really serious then i dont feel you need a dslr and even then i think you need the best lenses to make a real difference which then becomes very expensive. i think keeping a £50 lens on a dslr is a bit of a waste.
I was given a panny 45-200 mm lens which i was going to sell but got a good deal on a epl-3 csc and the G15 arrived yesterday which i've been playing with. Its compact size has allowed me to get used to manual settings a little more so now feel making progress.
With my XS-1 all 3 camera's produce excellent IQ and i've had to ask myself what am i going to do with all the pictures? delete many,put some on the computer and probably print those i really like but only A3/4 sized so i think i have all i need for time being at least.
 
Last edited:
Depends on the £50 lens! My 50mm f/1.8 cost me £40 a few years ago and is probably the sharpest in my bag! I'm a pure amateur in that I indulge my hobby for the love of it and fortunately, I can afford to indulge myself as far as kit goes. I do however believe in the law of diminishing returns - while there is a correlation between cost and performance, there's a point at which "good enough" is pretty bloody good so further expenditure simply isn't worth the extra but that point is entirely up to the individual.

The important thing for amateurs and hobbyists is to enjoy the hobby and to be happy with the results after all.
 
.
Nod said:
Depends on the £50 lens! My 50mm f/1.8 cost me £40 a few years ago and is probably the sharpest in my bag! I'm a pure amateur in that I indulge my hobby for the love of it and fortunately, I can afford to indulge myself as far as kit goes. I do however believe in the law of diminishing returns - while there is a correlation between cost and performance, there's a point at which "good enough" is pretty bloody good so further expenditure simply isn't worth the extra but that point is entirely up to the individual.

The important thing for amateurs and hobbyists is to enjoy the hobby and to be happy with the results after all.
Click to expand...

Yes agree with you was forgetting about that lens, i did have it with my 60d. The G15 has 1.8 and imho is just as good. While i made the previous comment about expensive lenses to perfectly honest i wouldn't buy them as i really dont believe your going to get thousands (in some cases) or hundreds pounds worth of difference.
Also people talk about P&S and some may class the G15'S,p7700 etc as that but most dslr's have auto mode so they can be P&Shoots to and the so called advanced compacts have all the same manual functions, so is there really any difference? other than a more compact size. I'm not convinced the larger sensors always make that much difference either. I think the gap is far smaller than some would like to admit.
Maybe for pro purposes it will make a difference but for general purpose or amateurs i don't believe it does.
 
Last edited:
Only you can decide if it is worth the difference but there is definitely a difference to be seen and agree it is small in most cases. The controls are laid out more effectively on a DSLR, the grip and holding is better, the viewfinder is better (and exists to start with) etc, etc,.
However, that ultimately didn't matter to me either and I happily use a second hand camera that cost me £80 and produces images that are good enough for my needs and the camera handles better than any other non DSLR I have used.
 
ernesto said:
Only you can decide if it is worth the difference but there is definitely a difference to be seen and agree it is small in most cases. The controls are laid out more effectively on a DSLR, the grip and holding is better, the viewfinder is better (and exists to start with) etc, etc,.
However, that ultimately didn't matter to me either and I happily use a second hand camera that cost me £80 and produces images that are good enough for my needs and the camera handles better than any other non DSLR I have used.
Click to expand...

That's why i like the XS-1 so much. The viewfinder is as good (better than the d5100) as any dslr ive looked through and handles as well, build quality as good and better than some and find the layout easy although thats something for the individual whatever the camera and IQ i'm more than happy with,as you say i'm sure most
dslrs are better but i'm not sure its going to be that noticeable or warrant the vast some in £'s unless you need them for specific reasons.
 
Last edited:
How close are you needing to go ?
I've taken a couple with my RX100 that could be termed macro's, but they're nothing like as close up as the photo's I've obtained from my dslr with macro lens and extension tubes. ;)

I do like using a compact at times and one of my favourite photo's from last year was taken on a Sony HX20V. I took that with me in preference to a dslr as it's a lot easier just to stick the camera in my pocket when taking the kids to the playpark. However, in general I do prefer using a dslr.
 
stu.artd said:
How close are you needing to go ?
I've taken a couple with my RX100 that could be termed macro's, but they're nothing like as close up as the photo's I've obtained from my dslr with macro lens and extension tubes. ;)

I do like using a compact at times and one of my favourite photo's from last year was taken on a Sony HX20V. I took that with me in preference to a dslr as it's a lot easier just to stick the camera in my pocket when taking the kids to the playpark. However, in general I do prefer using a dslr.
Click to expand...

Ive taken a few shots in macro with my G15 and am very impressed i'd consider it macro as it gets up really close and the detail is really good, it does everything so far my 60d was capable of just in a smaller package
 
Glad you're happy with the G15 but the 60d is only as capable as the lens that's stuck on the end of it.:D
 
stu.artd said:
Glad you're happy with the G15 but the 60d is only as capable as the lens that's stuck on the end of it.:D
Click to expand...

Dont forget my xs-1 and epl-3 :lol:
Thats my point really to see any difference i think you need buy the better lenses and in most cases will be far more expensive and even then i'm not sure how much difference you'd really notice unless you analyze every pixel in photoshop etc which is only any good if you that kind of time on your hands.
Obviously dslr's for some things are more capable and for specific needs may be the only way to go but for most of us that just want good quality non poster size pics there's plenty of equally good options nowadays
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top