Budget Camera Recomendation - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: admiralk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 01:48:53 am
content: Most of the time my phone takes good enough pictures, but I need to take some closeups where it does not work at all. I pulled out my old camera, a Dimage S414, and it does not power up. If you know that camera off hand, you know how often I use one these days. Spending hundreds of dollars is out of the question as it might be another 15 years before I need to use it again.The pictures I need to take are of a PCB, roughly 2"x1". I can get the same camera on ebay for around $20 - 30, but I do not know if that camera would have been good enough to that in the first place. Is it possible to get a modern camera for < $50 that can take closeup pictures?

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 07:55:59 am
content: The low-end digital camera market has been utterly decimated by the rise of the smartphone, whose built-in cameras are good enough to substitute low-end cameras. (Or, indeed, often exceed them.)Consider buying a used DSLR camera with a proper macro lens. A 10 year old DSLR is still pretty good, and you can get a great used lens for one.Alternatively, many people have good results with macro lens attachments for their smartphones. I haven’t tried them, but this might be worth a shot.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 09:37:34 am
content: Second that on the"buying a used DSLR camera with a proper macro lens. A 10 year old DSLR is still pretty good, and you can get a great used lens for one. "Some of those 6mp to 12mp cameras can still take great photos in Manual and no brainer Auto modes,you get quicker wysiwyg shots exactly as composed,miles better than fumbling with a smartassphoneand or dropping the money pit pos on tiles or concrete, just when you need that money shotA good Pentax DSLR rig won't send you to the poor house like a Canon or Nikon might,and there's plenty of affordable Pentax OEM lenses from Sigma and Tamron etc that get the job done

author: engrguy42
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 10:26:49 am
content: Quote from: admiralk on April 19, 2020, 01:48:53 amI feel your pain. However, one of the bright spots is that some smartphone cameras produce images that are like 5k x 3k resolution. And with that kind of resolution you can take the image into Gimp or whatever and zoom in to the area of interest, even if you're not up close.Attached is an crop of an image I took yesterday of a 1" x 1-3/4" board in a tiny meter, and I was interested in the adjustable pot. I brought it into Gimp, cropped all but the pot, and still ended up with an in-focus image with 1400 x 1000 dimensions or whatever.The downsides, OTOH, are that you always get a 5000 x 3000 image which I rarely need or want, so I usually have to re-scale.I guess this doesn't answer your question, but just something to consider if your phone actually does have a hi-res mode that you may not be aware of.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 11:09:00 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 19, 2020, 09:42:12 amThere is NO WAY any phone can 'easily' get you the exact composed shot and pre fine tuning, and setup speed, especially with tricky close up/macro workyou can get even with a 10 year old DSLRI don't see pro or amateur photographers sporting flash phones on the jobLots of great quality Youtube videos and stills done with cheap DSLRs tooOP admiralk is on a tight to non-exist budget to pull in some good user controlled pics once in a blue moon,please consider

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 11:52:54 am
content: The macro mode of the 8 megapixelCanon A580will capture a 2 x 1.5 inch area. It can be hacked with CHDK, should you grow bored of PCBs. I have one I bought off my neighbor for 30 (or was it 20?) euros some years ago. They have only gotten cheaper.If you like, I can drag out mine and post some images of small PCBs.EDIT: Its sister models, theCanon A630andA640look like the ones to get. Give a yodel if you want or need something more recent.

author: engrguy42
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 11:59:35 am
content: Quote from: Electro Detective on April 19, 2020, 11:09:00 amI think you might want to reconsider your apparently firm and unyielding and clearly biased opinion.As I posted (just above your post), I do it all the time when I want quick hi-res closeups. Take an in-focus photo with my phone in 5000 x 3000 mode. Transfer to PC either via USB or email (since I'll invariably be using it on my PC). Right click on photo, select "Open with Gimp". Edit/crop/whatever the image as necessary to focus in on what's important.Entire process takes maybe 5-10 minutes. And I haven't owned a DSLR in decades. I also shoot Youtube videos with my phone. It's wonderful, IMO. Drag-n-drop the pre-set HD (1920 x 1080) video into my editing software, it auto-converts format, and I'm all set.I'm not saying DSLR's are bad. They're not. I'm just saying that I think it's very shortsighted to be absolutely convinced that everyone must have a DSLR in order to do anything useful and efficiently. That's nonsense.

author: admiralk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 04:37:30 pm
content: @engrguy42 My phone takes lower quality pictures than my Dimage did. Here is an example:I cannot find an option to even change the format to anything other than .jpg. That picture is just fine for what it is intended, but I do not think I have ever gotten a high quality picture out of it.Quote from: blueskull on April 19, 2020, 09:42:12 amWell, I do live pretty primitively and for more than the last decade. My phone is 5mp compared to the 4mp of the much older Dimage. The A580 jfiresto suggested looks like a huge step up from either.Thanks for all the suggestions, I at least have some place to start looking now.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 04:48:46 pm
content: I've been really impressed by the photos my iPhone SE takes, they are much better than what any of the point 'n shoot digital cameras I had before. It won't compare to what you get from a DSLR though, no phone camera will ever touch the flexibility offered by interchangeable lenses, manual modes and whatnot, with a large lens and sensor you can just get so much more light onto the sensor. Whether any of that matters depends on what you're trying to do.

author: jogri
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 05:48:43 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on April 19, 2020, 04:48:46 pmProprietary firmware/camera drivers play a big part in the picture quality of modern phones, your "point and shoot camera" might have a similar sensor but it just doesn't have this insane amount of work put into honing the software. I experienced this myself when i switched the OS of my Sony Xperia and lost access to the proprietary camera drivers from Sony: The picture quality went from "2016 flagship" to "okay for a 2014 highend" phone. Still good, but the autofocus/sharpness just weren't in the same league as before.

author: olkipukki
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 06:32:07 pm
content: If your area of interest is flat and no much difference between component heights, whatever been suggested already<out of OP's budget>Otherwise, if you after crisp and clear picture overall, something like DSLR + macro lens + lighting + software to cook a magic (aka search "focus stacking" )Well, if you can manage to change a focus on a (i)phone gradually, might works too w/software only, but recon is a pain in ass todo it manually.

author: olkipukki
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 06:33:52 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on April 19, 2020, 07:55:59 amA proper macro (used) lens will cost easy OPs budget multiply on 10

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 07:35:12 pm
content: Here is an image I took with the A580 of a 1.8 x 1.3 inch board, first the full frame:This was the smallest area I could capture with macro mode. I am not sure how the A580 reviewer managed 2 x 1.5 inches.And here is a 1024 x 1024 pixel, full size crop:This was a quick shot taken with the harsh, built-in flash. I could do better with side lights and a tripod.The A640 reviewer managed a 0.87 x 0.65 inches minimum area with that camera. I would expect its macro mode could make the board fill the frame and produce sharper images. I would get an A630/A640 or something newer for photographing 2 x 1 inch boards.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 08:21:23 pm
content: I don't like wide angle macro. Perspective is weird and depth of field razor thin, which becomes noticeable if the board is populated with components. To top it off, zoom lenses tend to suffer barrel distortion, soft corners and/or some level of chromatic aberration under such conditions. Some cameras may focus even closer than the A580, but it won't result in filling the frame with good image.Attached pic is an even lower end Powershot A420 on the longest zoom, from about 30cm, on a tripod though with little attention to lightingBoard dimensions are roughly 1.75×1". Note perfectly straight lines, reasonable focus except for the tips of pin headers and almost no chromatic aberration. And some blown highlights here and there, those old sensors have low dynamic range.If you are to use Imaging Resource, look for cameras with good geometric/chromatic performance and short focusing distance at telephoto. Fight the ant's view macro menaceQuote from: admiralk on April 19, 2020, 04:37:30 pmThis is clearly shaken. There is no escaping physics. You need a larger sensor or a tripod. Optical image stabilization may help if you are lucky.

author: engrguy42
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 09:08:09 pm
content: Chromatic aberration??? Optical image stabilization??What are you guys taking photos for, some international tech journal ??Does everything in this forum always have to be taken into the femto-amp pico-second hyper perfectly accurate?? He wants to take one closeup of a board, and then not again for another 15 years. Geez guys...Borrow a phone from someone who has a newer model and take the photo.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 09:24:35 pm
content: Every *** thread!

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 10:40:59 pm
content: In response to engrguy42's reply:maybe I did come in a bit rugby on this one.. (as usual)or figured OP's request was satisfied, period.but we are sort of on the same page, and I use both your methodbut tend to stick with the DSLR as it gives me the exact photos I need/want,and from SLR and medium format experience, I can use to my advantage lens length effects, depth of field, back light control, flash/bounce and all the other good stuff,as well as speed in getting it done asap, and satisfying any impatience to get it done----------------------Quality debate asidefor OP admiralk's immediate requirements the cheap DSLR and OEM macro lens to suit, is a better deal -IMVHO- than stuffing about with phonesFull fast control of the shots, and with manual focus activated, can move in on difficult items in amongst many of different heights,as well as Depth Of Field options tooMy phones have good cameras with 12, 15 or 20mp? if we can believe the fudged specsand admittedly take great point andprayshoot pics,but for speed and versatility the DSLR boots in under a second and it's rock and roll,pull out the SD card, transfer the pics to the PC,= job done..before the phone has booted up and camera icon foundand all the rest of it..

author: admiralk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 11:06:54 pm
content: Quote from: magic on April 19, 2020, 08:21:23 pmThat was one of the best pictures I was ever able to take with my phone. It probably has more to do with how it is held and triggered more than anything else. I can hold a real camera much more steady, or at least I could the last time i used one.I found an A630 easily in my budget, without going the ebay route. The one thing I do not like is it only takes .jpg pictures. I used .tiff format on the old camera when I wanted quality pictures. From what I have been able to find, DSLRs are the way to go for uncompressed formats. I have no idea how to deal with RAW though. While I can find DSLRs in my budget, they never include lenses. That opens up a whole new can of worms. I have absolutely no idea how to pick a lens.<edit>My budgets are often equal to the ones the US government make, they usually go over. So if I could get a DSLR and lens by doubling it, no worries.@Electro Detective you make valid points. I am not sure I would need a macro lens though. A good close up that I can crop should work fine. That would also allow me to use it for other things.</edit>

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 11:24:01 pm
content: Quote from: admiralk on April 19, 2020, 11:06:54 pmI just took these with my very old Powershot A6400.65" x 0.5"3.0" X 0.75"I did no post-processing other than cropping. Yes, I used a copy stand, but you should use one. I think for what you want, you can't go wrong with an old Powershot point and shoot. No investment in a macro lens and you can learn to live with .jpg - no?

author: jogri
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 11:28:34 pm
content: Quote from: admiralk on April 19, 2020, 11:06:54 pmAlmost all DSLRs come with one or two standard lenses, there are a bunch of them on ebay. The included lenses are mostly 18-55mm, just search for "brand 18 55mm" on ebay. A good example would be the Canon EFS 18-55mm lens, you can get them for under 50 bucks.Btw, the Canon lens i mentioned works fine for taking pics of pcbs (from ~25cm away), i just tested it with my dslr.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2020, 12:30:49 am
content: Quote from: admiralk on April 19, 2020, 11:06:54 pmThe 'macro' function is just anadded/extra'good enough' feature on some zoom lenses, aka cheap to score, which you can use for all your regular photography,and TBH good enough for most close up stuff, as well as being a normal zoom lensI use them and if they get dropped or scratched, I buy another used one, never happened yetI have a 28 to 80 zoom lens with 'macro' and a 18 to 200 monster with 'macro', and do most pics from small to far away, and people pops with thoseMost people don't even know about the macro featurenor the small switch on the lens and the routine to work it to activate the close up mode,and get out of it. It's no big deal really, but worth writing down for next time to save fiddling aboutA real 'macro' lens is bigger money and gets you in close with little distortionIt's on my wish list, as well as a Shift lens and...

author: admiralk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2020, 03:29:19 am
content: This Sony A300would blow my budget out of the water, but it looks like it would give me all I need. A macro lens and a normal one. I have no idea about the reliability of the site or how it holds its sellers accountable. Come morning I am sure I will keep looking, but it does seem convenient.I think I need to go back to my earlier searches and start over with the new information you all have provided.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2020, 03:52:44 am
content: I like the old but still produced Canon Powershot SX series because they use a pair of standard AA cells. The small smart phone form factor severely limits their performance compared to a camera with larger lens and sensor.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2020, 04:22:14 am
content: For just forum and technical discussions, which is the most important aspects are sharpness & details, which I think the sweet spot is just get a point & shoot camera, especially the DOF is adequate for macros, while still convenient for normal shot. Imo, relatively they're cheap and much less hassles vs DSLR + bunch of lenses.Few examples results from my almost 10 years Panasonic P&S, not the pro grade photos, but I believe is more than adequate.Click each to expand.

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 20, 2020, 05:22:23 am
content: I'm a bit unstable so only use my phone to record regular stuff like a wiring configuration or perhaps a screen capture to relay to somebody else. I have to use a tripod for sharper captures or close up macros and still use either an old Canon SX-100IS or a Panasonic Lumix DMC-SZ8 which are both good enough for my basic needs. Also, I always set a two second delay for the shot just to get clear, this feature works well on the Canon as it remains enabled between shots but on the Panasonic the two second delay needs to be set for each shot which is just stupid.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2020, 06:58:15 am
content: Quote from: engrguy42 on April 19, 2020, 09:08:09 pmChill out, we are only talking how to optimize a $20 budgetNo one even mentioned buying color calibration charts yetQuote from: admiralk on April 19, 2020, 11:06:54 pmBut watch out for dust ingress in the lens, sometimes it makes its way deep enough to cast visible shadows on the sensor. Set to Av mode, select f/8 and take a defocused picture of some uniform background. You will immediately see if there are problems.Quote from: admiralk on April 19, 2020, 11:06:54 pmGaypeg is not as bad as some zealots say. RAW is much more effort to process. I think some DSLRs still support saving TIFF if you must. But really, before wasting time, take any images you want, compress them with JPG at >95% quality factor and see if there is any difference. The A6xx cams produce about 2~4MB images at their full resolution and highest quality option.By the way, CHDK is easy enough to install on an SD card and will give you raw support on Powershots if you feel masochistic enough to use it. It can also do (wired) remote triggering and automatic bad pixel removal. You may expect a few stuck pixels on any old sensor.Quote from: DrG on April 19, 2020, 11:24:01 pmUse longer zoom

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2020, 01:37:28 pm
content: Quote from: magic on April 20, 2020, 06:58:15 amYeah, I got a longer zoom for ya right here pal

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2020, 01:38:48 pm
content: Quote from: Muttley Snickers on April 20, 2020, 05:22:23 amhttps://www.marttree.com/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx7-remote-shutter-control.html

author: admiralk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2020, 11:49:03 pm
content: I think I am going to go with a Rebel XTi. $100 for all the fixings including a bag seems like a reasonable price. Twice what I wanted to spend, but hopefully it will be more useful in the future.Thanks for all the suggestions.

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2020, 12:43:23 am
content: Quote from: admiralk on April 20, 2020, 11:49:03 pmThat is a very good choice. It was my first DSLR and I replaced it with an SL2 about a year or so ago. I had used the XTi with an EF-S 60mm macro lens. I use the lens now with the SL2 and I am still happy with it.What are you going to get in terms of a macro lens?

author: admiralk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2020, 01:55:28 am
content: I am hoping I will be fine with the standard lens. I do not need super high detail, but it does need to be clear. In this case it is for a construction manual for a kit I am working on. It is probably going to take me a while to understand what all the numbers mean.Once things open back up, it would be nice to get some good pictures of concerts I record audio at. My phone is totally useless for that.

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2020, 02:20:43 am
content: Quote from: admiralk on April 21, 2020, 01:55:28 amWell, I am not sure what you mean by the standard lens. The Canon EF-S 18–55mm was offered in a lot of kits (in contrast to just buying the body, for example). I had not realized this myself until recently, but there were/are NINE iterations of the lenshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_18%E2%80%9355mm_lensBasically it is a cheapish lens but I noticed that the most recent version has image stabilization. I think you will use it and like it but inevitably be faced with getting a macro lens and a telephoto lens...but either will be well over the $100 price tag and that is the rub. On the other hand if it is in good shape a $100 investment is not terribly risky. I used my XTi (10MP) with the 18-55mm, 60mm macro and a 55-250mm zoom (w/IS). I still use all three lens' with the SL-2 (24MP).I hope it works out and be sure to post a few shots along with your impressions.

author: admiralk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2020, 02:46:34 am
content: yes, it is the 18-55mm lens. It is coming from a college A/V classroom and there are several, compared to just the one pictures were taken of. There are at least 3 different bags it could come with, for example. The one pictured does not look like the IS ones in your link though. I am sure I will end up getting different lenses, as I learn more. A big part of my decision to go the DSLR route instead of point and shoot is the expandability, as opposed to complete replacement. That theory has served me well in my audio recording and let me develop a high end rig from very humble beginnings.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2020, 06:27:44 am
content: I have had two inexpensive digital cameras.The first one was quite basic, but was really good for taking screenshots of analog 'scopes, & reasonable for everyday use.I would have been happy with it, but it disappeared.The replacement had "delusions of grandeur", in that it was a very basic DSLR, but without an interchangeable lens system.That worked pretty well, but it disappeared, too!I'm fairly sure that if I tear the house apart I will eventually find both, complete with nice corroded batteries.Meanwhile, my old Minolta SRT101 film camera sits exactly where I left it years ago.I am sorely tempted when I need a camera, to drag the old beast out, buy some film (it's still available), then get the resulting image converted to digital by a lab.At least the Minolta has real optics!My phone is a "dumb" one, it has a "sort of" camera, & the camera on the iPad is horrible & clunky.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2020, 06:44:52 am
content: I used the XTi for years and years (however, at around 1 year it developed an electrical fault and needed to be repaired. I expect any unit you buy today will be outside the "infant mortality" period but it should be kept in mind that these are complex machines that are hard to service.)Recently I've "side-graded" to a Nikon D90s, which being F-mount can use hundreds of old manual focus lenses without adapters. That's great for artistic stuff but I don't think it helps much for documentation purposes like you mentioned.Oh, one point. If you do need to document very small objects you can do it easily with the Nikon system, by using a reverse-L39 adapter to attach an enlarging lens. That is far better and cheaper than using a macro lens.

author: steve30
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2020, 07:15:44 am
content: admiralk: The XTi (aka EOS 400D) sounds like a decent choice. I have the newer 500D which I use on a regular basis. When I bought it some years back, I got it because of its video capabilities. If I hadn't wanted video, I'd have probably just got an older model.The bog standard EF-S 18-55mm lens is pretty good, and they can be bought very cheap. Another cheap option might be the older EF 28-90mm kit lens which Canon used to bundle with film cameras. Its cheaply made, but works OK. Its a bit soft at wide apertures, but its fine if you stop it down to f/8.

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2020, 07:53:57 am
content: Another possibility would be a used, mirrorless, micro four thirds system camera. Because of its short flange focal distance, it can accept a crazy variety of lenses using inexpensive thread adapters. It would not surprise me that, for a similar cost, it would give even better results than an older DSLR camera.I have been picking up used, Olympus m4/3rds bodies for cheap (roughly 50 euros / 55 dollars, delivered, with accessories and a one-year camera store guarantee) to see how they work as microscope cameras. They work very well. From the camera's perspective, the microscope is just a manual focus, f7 lens. The 12 megapixel models I bought have an effective anti-shock option for astronomy and microscopy.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2020, 08:58:03 am
content: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/buying-guides/best-add-on-lenses-for-iphone-and-android-phonesJust as an option.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2020, 10:36:24 am
content: It looks like it's going to be a 'Battle Of The Budget Cameras' post and even cheap practical DSLRs may not be the go,so I've got a Canon PowerShot A2000 IS camera kicking around somewhereI'll see if it can zoom and focus real close, without too much barrel distortionas I have no intention to stuff about correcting in a photo editing program = too much unpaid workfwiw the cool lil Canon was another 'almost' casualty for leaking rechargeable batteries

author: jfiresto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2020, 11:06:25 am
content: Quote from: Electro Detective on April 21, 2020, 10:36:24 amI have just been offering suggestions. Unlike most – and my brother has been giving me a hard time about this – I have no lenses (none) for any of my system camera bodies. i am trying to change that.

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2020, 01:21:49 pm
content: Quote from: admiralk on April 21, 2020, 02:46:34 amI here you and it makes some sense....butCanon DSLR lens are expensive...all of them...expensive as compared to your original investment. You might not believe me now, but (and I think it was stated earlier) the lens' are the real investment at "our" level.Say you get the XTi with a bag and the 18-55. You use it, learn about it, like it, take a couple thousand pictures and then decide that you need a macro lens for close up work and zoom or telephoto lens for concerts and the like. Now you have ~ $500 or more in lenses...and you are still using the 10MP camera. So, you start thinking...hmmm a 24MP canon with a *much* better view screen (touch), movie capability... the Canon interface that you already know.... and a *ton* of other features, is less than your lenses....and on and onI'm for your decision because you are putting a foot in the shallow end first and I know, from having one, that the XTi is a good camera.If you only needed a camera for this one documentation project, IMO, a used Powershot P&S is definitely the cheaper and easier way to go - again from experience. The A640, which I have, and posted a couple of pics from earlier, has excellent macro capabilities and it's 10MP. A few bucks for a copy stand and some lights and you can go to town.Even if you were to change your mind and get one, I bet you will soon start lusting after a DSLR after a while.Finally, be a little concerned about getting one from the AV lab as I would expect students to have beaten them pretty bad. I personally have not had any problems with all three Canons that I have had and that is over many years of use (for the first two).The XTi did get a speck of dust in the viewfinder (not on the mirror) but after looking into what it takes to remove that, I decided living with it is the way to go. Sometimes I have to clean the contacts on the macro lens. That's it..that's the only issues I have had. I take a lot of nature shots and indoor close-ups and I do religiously take care with their use.

author: admiralk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2020, 09:12:31 pm
content: Quote from: DrG on April 21, 2020, 01:21:49 pmThat is pretty much it. Also, if one component breaks I only need to replace that component. At this point that is only about 1/2 the price; for the body or lens, compared to the complete replacement.QuoteI have pretty much always wanted one, so this was a good excuse. At least that is what I am telling myself.QuoteI have had good luck buying gear from schools. The scope I took the previous image from came from a school and it is in very good shape. Of course physics students might be more careful than A/V students? If the pictures are representative, and not just the best of the bunch, I think it will be OK.https://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-Rebel-XTi-10-1MP-DSLR-Camera-w-18-55mm-Lens-Case-Filter-Batt-Mem-QTY-AVAIL/264666344829?hash=item3d9f57ed7d:g:a1QAAOSwaZVebBn8I will find out next week.Quote from: helius on April 21, 2020, 06:44:52 amI have no idea what that means, but I look it up.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2020, 10:40:41 pm
content: Enlarging lenses are made for, you guessed it, enlargers. They have fixed focus, which is terrible for ordinary photography, but fine for microphotography where you move the camera to achieve focus. You mount the lens backwards by attaching its front filter ring to the adapter (thus making it a... unlarging lens?) They are stupid cheap and incredibly sharp.

author: admiralk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2020, 11:46:16 pm
content: Thanks, I found a video explaining it. It sounded like any old lens would work, just need to find the right ring.

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2020, 12:09:01 am
content: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1413542-REG/fotodiox_macro_tube_eos_macro_extension_tube_set.html/quick-compare?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_8e7pN766AIVE4nICh206guUEAQYAiABEgKv3_D_BwEIf you get something like this, I would be interested to hear your impressions...or from anyone, especially if they have a macro lens as well. Also, I am not saying these are what @helius is talking about. I don't have either.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2020, 12:12:44 am
content: I didn't want to get into the reverse ring and lens thing, or close up lenses, tubes,bellows and adapter size to size, lighting and vignetting issuesI assumed OP wants a fast cheap fix for reasonable close ups and standard photography, which is what I use as previously commented,and I leave the 'better methods' for when necessity arises and set up time permits

author: admiralk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2020, 08:02:18 pm
content: This is the Video I watched.He uses that same barrel in one shot. If I need to pick up a few doo-dads, which I most likely will, I will probably throw in a ring to give it a try. I think for now a good clear closeup is all I will need.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2020, 07:09:04 am
content: By the way, I forgot to mention the following regarding output formats:JPGs from cameras are maybe 3x to 4x smaller than raw files. Not much loss of information.Uncompressed TIFFs are 2x to 3x larger than raw files. Definitely waste of storage space

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2020, 07:18:00 am
content: Quote from: magic on April 23, 2020, 07:09:04 amDepends if you need the extra channels or not. A camera can save each colour channel separately for example. TIFF does also support compression.It's more common in post-processing allowing you to save multiple channels/layers and processing information with the file so that changes can be undone later.

author: admiralk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2020, 09:21:31 pm
content: My theory is that you can always make it smaller, but you cannot make it bigger. For example, I record audio at 24/48 into separate channels. After mastering, I render it to 16/44.1 stereo for playback. I am going to have to process an image anyway; crop, resize, whatever, so why not start with more than I need.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2020, 11:34:11 am
content: Quote from: admiralk on April 23, 2020, 09:21:31 pmThis kinda happened in video world. While everyone was using 1080p pro video cameras where 4K. This allows them to pan and scan the picture to pull out a native resolution sub frame when editing/mastering. It also allowed for special effects and image stablising room. Then everyone wanted 4K TV, so camera had to go up to recording in 5-8K. Now there is talk of pushing 8K for home use in the next 5 years. I don't know if there even are commercially available 12-16K video cameras!

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2020, 03:54:02 pm
content: Quote from: admiralk on April 23, 2020, 09:21:31 pmWhere this breaks down is that increasing the sensor resolution decreases the pixel size and aperture compromising performance so the result is not quite the same, but of course it is almost always acceptable. More relevant may be that the existing optics are almost always limiting performance of the lower resolution sensor so using a fraction of the higher resolution sensor image increases the various optical problems. On close examination, this is readily apparent on my point-and-shoot Canon Powershot where visible coma and chromatic aberration become evident with high contrast sources.Marketing can make good use of an objective but largely meaningless specification like number of pixels while quantifying something which is more important, like the various forms of image distortion produced by the optics, is difficult. Sensor resolution passed the bounds of diminishing returns long ago.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2020, 07:52:30 pm
content: Ironically, phones could have an edge over point and shoots because they use prime lenses which are easier to optimize and make with wide aperture. I mean, it is an edge as long as you are OK with whatever angle of view the manufacturer chose for youBut anyway, it seems that about f/2 is the norm for phones these days, which enables a few megapixels worth of detail on a 1/3"~1/2.5" sensor if aberrations are taken care of.That being said, I stumbled upon a review of some super-duper iPhone 11 Pro Max today, apparently Apple's TOTL phone, and I am absolutely not impressed by their sensor / image processing performance. A bunch of sample photos shot in bright sunlight and every single one has painful noise reduction artifacts all over the place. Somehow small sensor p&s aren't as bad.Why, Apple, why?https://www.dxomark.com/apple-iphone-11-pro-max-camera-review/Is that stuff seriously supposed to be the best that smartphones have to offer?

author: admiralk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2020, 09:58:20 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on April 26, 2020, 03:54:02 pmAs I understand it, if I take a .raw file and straight away save it as a .jpg I would end up exactly what I would get if I save it as a .jpg to begin with. I assume the algorithm used by the software on my computer is more efficient than what the camera uses, so it could even be better, although I doubt it would be noticeable. So the only limiting factors are in the hardware, which is going to be the same in either case.Diminishing returns are why I only record audio at 24/48. 24/96 doubles the file size for little noticeable difference. As it is, a 2 hour set can easily be over 1 gig per track.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2020, 10:42:06 pm
content: Quote from: admiralk on April 26, 2020, 09:58:20 pmThe RAW converter program has a large impact on the quality. It's true that software on a computer can do more processing, but the camera's image processor is specialized to the task and also (if you use OEM lenses) may have better correction of lens optical distortions.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 27, 2020, 12:40:26 am
content: Just get the cheapest used macro lens you can find, and then the cheapest used matching camera.Results will be way better for a given light thenanyphone on the market.The lower the light, the way betterer it gets.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2020, 06:53:41 am
content: Quote from: admiralk on April 26, 2020, 09:58:20 pmMaybe things would be different if you use the camera vendor's raw software (if available), but having played with two different 3rd party raw processor I can tell you straight away that in many ways, the results will depend more on the raw software used than on the camera.There is a lot of processing and secret sauce going into generation of a viewable image from the raw sensor data. For starters, as I hinted before, the uncompressed image you get from this process is actually up to 3x larger than the raw data, go figureRaw has surprisingly little to do with the final image.Almost every image you see on the Internet, including professional photos, is JPEG. If you have ever seen any good looking images on the Internet, you have seen good looking JPEGs. Raw's utility (if any) is not as much in avoiding JPEG artifacts, as in gaining more control over things like color rendition and white balance, tonality, sharpening or noise reduction. Or outright processing the image beyond recognition for some supposed artistic value. Occasionally, rescuing images which had been destroyed by bad camera settings during shooting.If you start reading on the topic, you will find rants by professionals who bluntly say they have no time to mess with that stuff and would rather buy a camera which can be tweaked to produce the images they want right off the bat

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2020, 09:07:38 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 27, 2020, 07:43:27 amFor power and privacy reasons, Apple does not allow background processes full access.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2020, 09:45:48 pm
content: Such a shame, the covid app would take the best pictures of PCBs in the world

author: admiralk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2020, 11:16:17 pm
content: Good hijack Dave.@magic I am just guessing here, I have zero experience with anything more than point and shoot.I used to mess around with 3D stuff, but that was mostly modeling, not much rendering. That is about as close as it gets. Even if I do nothing, it is nice to have the option. I picked up the XTi today and it saves both at the same time, so that is nice too.The camera looks good. Cannot say much else about it until I learn to use it. I did manage to take a crappy picture of my bird though.Hopefully during the week I can figure out what most of the settings do and how to get to them.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2020, 11:21:11 pm
content: Quote from: magic on April 27, 2020, 09:45:48 pmIt's always the way isn't it ?yeah, the pictures would be great for troubleshooting legit bugsand halt the spread of the problem at the workbenchand billions of people won't have to stress about it----------------@ admiralkawesome bird matea bit blurred, use flash next timeor tell bird 'hey, stay still!'

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 28, 2020, 08:19:24 am
content: Quote from: magic on April 26, 2020, 07:52:30 pmI pored over that review and cannot find those “bright sunlight” pics with “noise reduction artifacts all over the place”. In the low light shots, yes. In the bright sunlight, absolutely not.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 28, 2020, 04:17:13 pm
content: Smudges on water, posterization on clouds, thick grain on other clouds and elsewhere on water. Some of the grass is suspicious too but I'm not entirely sure, the underlying real texture of grass overpowers the crap. Just the general look of overzealous noise reduction that I can't standFor comparison, similar scene from a "real" camera with similar size CMOS sensor and similar pixel density. It's not stellar and there is some noise too, but at least it goes away when you scale to 50% (which is a much more reasonable megapixel output from such tiny sensor anyway). The phone's artifacts don't disappear at 50%.https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-sx60/canon-sx60GALLERY.HTM