Jump to content
glazenerd

Camera Advice

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, glazenerd said:

Do any forum members have experience with this camera. I need high resolution, but I also need "zoom" for extreme close-ups. I seem to be rather technologically challenged (by choice), so input is appreciated. 

Kodak PIXPRO AZ422

Tom

Hi Tom...I'm also guessing that you are looking for a good price...From what I've read on the specs, it should give you what you want. What is the subject matter that you need such a long zoom? Will you be shooting wildlife at a distance or still life up close...or are you sidelining as a private investigator on the cheap?:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnny: when I am conducting experiments and tests; I can actually see results in the picture. My 15 yr. old Kodak is long past its expiration date. There is clearly a seperation  layer below- but it is blurred at best.  Wildlife photos? indeed!

 

IMG_0195.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're wanting to do extreme close-ups you'll want a camera with good macro capabilities, not good zoom.  With zoom the camera is far from the subject to focus, with macro the camera is close to the subject to focus.

I use a canon 100mm f/2.8 for macro photos, but thats more than most are willing to fork over, so a good compromise is buying a camera with a good macro mode.  

 

Keep in mind the picture was taken with a 13 year old camera (8 megapixel!) here with a miserable resolution, but I can put the lens on a newer body some day and get even better photos with it.

 

PhotoPictureResizer_191201_101906432_crop_2191x1011.jpg

Edited by liambesaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, learned something today- macros. Nice close ups. Perhaps I should restate: I need a camera for much sharper images with slightly closer images. I have microscopes with USB for extreme close ups. Although Sony does have one with some macros capability, perhaps that would be a better choice. TY gentlemen.

Tom

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, glazenerd said:

Well, learned something today- macros. Nice close ups. Perhaps I should restate: I need a camera for much sharper images with slightly closer images. I have microscopes with USB for extreme close ups. Although Sony does have one with some macros capability, perhaps that would be a better choice. TY gentlemen.

Tom

 

I lost my interest in camera work many years ago, probably longer than Liam’s camera is old. Having said that today the digitals dominate and generally more pixels the better. One caution as manufactures struggle to get more pixels, the pixels actually become less sensitive so that rating does not always indicate quality. Your example picture of the separating fluids is more of contrast than super close macro needs.

Often your eyes perceive color, contrast, clarity differently than a camera pixel, software, and associated lighting can reproduce. Good contrast, light sensitivity and number of points of focus is what I would look for and as many example photos as I could find. Camera reviews online are a-plenty, many quite good. In the end for your separating fluid you may need to attend to lighting (LED’s are generally spectrally better than CFL) and depth of field as well to get that perfect shot. In the picture posted the white appears over exposed and the lighting appears fairly cold while the liquid is a warm color.

And then there is always photo touch up software to get the photo to represent what you saw accurately.
 

Macros, maybe Shots of 12” or less. High contrast representation  - maybe decent camera and likely  workout your lighting, and depth  of field etc.... to represent accurately what you observed.

Edited by Bill Kielb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


If you are planning on using the photos to detect scientific details, for example crystal details in a glaze, you should get a camera that provides "raw" images instead of the typical jpeg files.  The "raw" image is what the camera sensor actually received; the other file formats are have been processed by hidden algorithms to make 'pretty pictures' and smaller files.  


LT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pic I posted was actually a Terra Sig experiment, that was taken outside in full sun. You can see one sludge line, but there is a continuous shift in color below it which I need to capture.  Bill, I know lighting plays into it, but I really do not want to get overly involved in photography set up- I do not sell pottery online. Liam- your corrections are getting closer. LT- I just saw "raw" last night when doing some research, that caught my eye. Bottom line- need to educate myself a bit more before making a purchase. What I know about cameras would not fill a post-it note currently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, liambesaw said:

With color correcting and contrast adjustment

 

 

@liambesawTake the overexposed highlights out.  @glazenerd Even a raw file may not solve this and allows the end user to make corrections, which can be a pain. Even with a decent camera and attention to lighting and exposure, your eyes see something your brain recreates so adjusting a photo until your brain agrees while looking  at a picture might still be necessary. I feel your pain, exactly why I lost interest in photography.

Tried below - over exposed area is  just a killer!

 

IMG_0195.JPG.0a500a12268ecea134a5b36460975476.jpg

Edited by Bill Kielb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the high white base didn't help, but I didn't think it took away from seeing the separation of layers.  If it were raw I could do more easily but you get what you get.  I think if this is the extent of the requirements then any newer digital camera should work fine.  I was thinking a finer detail on the macro level but it sounds more like what glazenerd needs is just a decent newer camera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, you'll want to expose for the highlights, then bump up the shadows in editing when you have extreme lights and darks. You're more likely to retain information in the underexposed shadows than in an overexposed highlight. Once a highlight blows out to pure white you can't darken it and get back the information. I usually bracket- take several shots at different exposures- then choose one that retains as much information as possible in both the highlights and shadows, and edit from there. Bumping up the shadows generally looks less edited than darkening highlights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just shot a few thousand underwater images in Bali and always use RAW as well as jpeg on the memotry card. That way they can me cleaned up in a program like Lightroom .

But for simple  shots maybe this is not needed I'm shooting a Nikon D800 which is a full fram FX camera. I have two of them for underwater work-way more camera than most need.

Raw images are the best to manipulate later if needed.

Cameras like the older Nikon D300o are dirt cheap on sites like ebay and will do everything one needs those are DX format (smaller chip sensor)

I own 3 of those as well.I used to shoot them underwater as well.

Edited by Mark C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of info and insight-TY all. Typically I take 3-4 pictures a month, but that will increase dramatically shortly. I have over 500 test tiles that I need to shoot and catalogue, with corresponding data. My camera skill extends to point and click. So, I am looking at several models that have single button "macros" setting, with some zoom and higher resolution. Did I mention I have a great dislike for shopping for anything. @JohnnyK I would make a lousy PI; all my photographic evidence would be blurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.