What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of gems?

[autumngems]

Looking for a fairly cheap digital camera that would take good close-ups of gems, jewelry, diamonds. Under 300 if possible.

 

[Luv4ever]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

I have a Panasonic DMC-ZS3 (I think the newer version is the ZS7) that works great for both Pictures and HD Movies ($320 - $399). What I really like is the "IA" mode, it determines what setting your camera needs to be set. So if you move very close to the subject it will change to macro mode automatically. Panasonic also uses a Leica lens in this camera which are known for high quality optics. Here is a couple of examples of the macro mode, one focusing on the flower and the other on the diamond.





Check Brian Gavin Diamonds webiste regarding his Blue Fluorescence line for example of this camera used in movie mode.

 

[kenny]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

I'd buy an old used digital Nikon or Canon SLR body (those geeks are always upgrading - I'm about to) from a professional vendor, such as Adorama or B&H, who checks out the equipment, rates its condition and explains if issues are only cosmetic or affect function and pic quality, and even offers some kind of warranty.
Call them and tell them you want the sharpest macro shots with the lowest cost.
Make sure its condition is rated to perform well and only has cosmetic issues.

Then instead of paying hundreds on a true macro lens, take advantage of this great old budget macro trick, the reversed standard lens.
Buy an old used fixed (not zoom) 50mm F1.4, f1.8 or f2 lens and a lens-reversing ring for installing the lens backwards.
These lenses are a dime a dozen (and often never even used) since zillions of them came with cameras over the years and lots of owners immediately "upgraded" to zoom lenses.
I'd even just buy the lens on eBay or Craigslist for around $30 or so.
Since they are so cheap I would not pay Adorama the extra $20 or $30 for checking it out; I'd only do that for the camera body.

This set up requires you learn and develop skill when it comes to focus, f-stops and shutter speed and exposure since the lens is backwards, but you should be learning all this anyway if you want the best pics, especially macro.
This recent mentality that the camera does all the thinking often results in much lower quality results than a human learning and getting the most out of their gear.

This may be a little over $300 but your close ups will look a zillion times better than any new $300 point & shoot, plus in the SLR world you can upgrade components in the future if your interest grows.
I'm still using my 30 year old razor-sharp lenses, and my old used camera bodies still have some residual value.

http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20426654.html

 

[kelpie]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

Panasonic Lumix

 

[slg47]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

depends on how good you want. I have been happy with my camera as an all-purpose camera, but my photos are not as good as kenny's

canon powershot sd780

 

[kenny]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

depends on how good you want. I have been happy with my camera as an all-purpose camera, but my photos are not as good as kenny's

But I still love you Siggy Wiggy.

Now go clean that ring.

 

[slg47]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

I know I always cringe when I see all of the dust! guess that means I need to have a new photo shoot sometime

 

[kenny]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

You have no idea how much time I've wasted setting up and getting otherwise wonderful pics only to discover (later when I download and look on the computer monitor) that all 52 shots have some big green booger stuck to a diamond.

Macro work is a pain because every atom of gunk is also magnified, and getting a ring "macro-clean" is near impossible.

 

[yssie]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

You have no idea how much time I've wasted setting up and getting otherwise wonderful pics only to discover (later when I download and look on the computer monitor) that all 52 shots have some big green booger stuck to a diamond.

Macro work is a pain because every atom of gunk is also magnified, and getting a ring "macro-clean" is near impossible.

Lol! I believe you though


Mine definitely aren't Kenny's either, but they're decent (I think ) Used a 3yo canon elph P&S in macro (auto w/bal did some strange things sometimes, no control over aperture or shutter speed) and cropped afterward:





baby's breath:



ETA: wow, PS washes out colour!

Edit* replaced .jpegs w/ .png screen captures

 

[kenny]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

ETA: wow, PS washes out colour!

Beautitul work Yssie.
Yes PS DOES wash out the color for me too.
Maybe it's just certain photo programs, or Internet browsers or something since I've never noticed anyone else complain here.

I complained to admin and they said they couldn't see it.
Here's how I've gotten around that ...

Instead of saving the image as a jpg or png I do a screen capture on my mac while viewing the pic.
Hold down the shift and the command key while you press 4
That changes the cursor to a target.
Position target over one corner and click and hold button down, then drag to opposite corner and let go.
This creates and places a png file on your desktop.
Load that to PS.

I have no idea how to do this on PCs, or if it even necessary, or works, on a PC.

 

[kenny]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g



Here's an example of how PS washes out color.

The left pic is a screen capture and has the same color saturation as the original
The right pic was saved as a jpg, then uploaded here on PS.
I then did a screen capture of both and rotated it 90 degrees since side by side is easier to compare that up and down.

I have no idea why uploading pics to PS can wash out the color, but I'm glad someone else finally noticed the problem in their pics.
At least I know I'm not going crazy. well . . .

 

[yssie]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

Well, that's makes a huge difference!


Windows doesn't seem to have this screen capture shortcut, the closest I could find is

for vista/7
>Start Menu
>Snipping Tool (allows you to mouse over the area you want to capture)
>R-Click to Save As to desktop, automatically chooses .png

Or there's the Alt+PrntScrn > Paint > Save As > .png but that's a bit of a PITA.

I didn't know about this snipping tool - this is useful!

 

[Michael_E]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

Looking for a fairly cheap digital camera that would take good close-ups of gems, jewelry, diamonds. Under 300 if possible.

Nikon L22 at about $70 is my choice. The camera is not nearly as important as how you use the light and background materials.

 

[kenny]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

Well, that's makes a huge difference!


Windows doesn't seem to have this screen capture shortcut, the closest I could find is

for vista/7
>Start Menu
>Snipping Tool (allows you to mouse over the area you want to capture)
>R-Click to Save As to desktop, automatically chooses .png

Or there's the Alt+PrntScrn > Paint > Save As > .png but that's a bit of a PITA.

I didn't know about this snipping tool - this is useful!

Yssie, could you please try it here and see if the Windows screen capture thingie solves the problem?
Then post both pics here so we can see the difference?

I'd love to document this problem and the solutions and get it into a FAQ thingie.

 

[Michael_E]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

Macro work is a pain because every atom of gunk is also magnified, and getting a ring "macro-clean" is near impossible.

Get a can of that compressed air for cleaning keyboards and a pair of tweezers. Hold onto your subject with the tweezers and blast your subject with the air. Cleans nearly everything including your desktop.

 

[kenny]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

The camera is not nearly as important as how you use the light and background materials.

VERY true!!!!

Better equipment can only take you so far.
I've see this with guitars too.
An expert guitarist can get really good sound out of a cheap guitar.

 

[kenny]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

Macro work is a pain because every atom of gunk is also magnified, and getting a ring "macro-clean" is near impossible.

Get a can of that compressed air for cleaning keyboards and a pair of tweezers. Hold onto your subject with the tweezers and blast your subject with the air. Cleans nearly everything including your desktop.

Good idea . . . and be careful with those 8-point FCDs.

 

[yssie]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

Kenny here you go:

PC running Win7

Original (.jpeg) uploaded directly to PS as (.jpeg):


Original (.jpeg) screen-captured, then uploaded to PS as (.png)


Original (.jpeg)

 

[autumngems]

Re: What would be a fairly cheap camera for taking pics of g

Thanks everyone