this is very funny, but it also happened to me with a diff camera. once i realized that it's much harder to keep things sharp with macro (very narrow depth of field) - i went back to just zooming in with the lens (same 18-55mm) and not too close either! i then crop to get a pretty good macro without a 'macro setting' and worrying about depth of field.
my old canon EOS had double depth of field settings which i always used to keep things sharp where i needed.
all this talk and photo postings made me think that i finally need to upgrade my canon to digi-body.
like, been thinking for at least 2 years and just sitting on my hands - can't decide which one to get....and too lazy to go read thru all the reviews. but really it pays to know what you get vs what you're missing! model by model.

I have found that cameras are like computers, in that most people never use what the camera or the computer can do to its full limits. Of course there are some people who spend their entire lives in front of a computer and learning what it can do and the same with cameras. Then when they have learnt that piece of technology they have bought is obsolete, as another amazing thing is brought out.
Most things now have built in obsolescence, this is true of Pcs and cameras. My belief is simple and basic if it works and takes good pictures, you know how to use it, LEAVE IT ALONE!
The only thing my Canon manual has taught me is a basic understanding of the Japanese language. My new cooker has taught me Italian as the manual is not yet in English.
Although I am getting most proficient at Italian cooking, from the manual which is of course in metric and I do not understand that either!
Seriously I have a Canon 450D and a 550D or Rebel T2i, and both are good at what they do and cheap now. All EOS lenses fit them, so what more do I want! I do not need RAW to put things on the internet.
I have an iMac and some Canons and that will do me.
Sorry not a camera fanatic, just practical.
Regards form a suspiciously dry England.
Neil.



My wife going to the ladies toilet/washroom in Leeds Castle. You don't need a macro for this, try a wide angle!

Neil, you're awful Judging by the look on your wife's face, she has a good sense of humor, so you probably won't get more than a "oh no, you didn't just say that" look!

Those are great pictures. Love the green on that first one

When I bought the T3i, I didn't know if I would use the RAW or not (probably not). But since I had never had it before, I kind of wanted to play around with it. I haven't done much of that yet. You are right about one thing, these cameras have a lot of options on them that most people never use.

Skylark, it is a tough decision picking out a new camera. I was comparing my old camera to all the new ones and that just wasn't working because I went from a high end point-and-shoot to dSLR. Sometimes we just have to take the plunge. I found that several trips to the stores was the best way to find a camera that felt good in my hands and have not regretted my purchase.

On cameras: I've been shooting Pentax since I received my first K-1000 (bulletproof tank of a thing) for high school graduation (yeah, I'm old-ish). Currently we have a 2nd gen Pentax DSLR (6mp), a successor (12mp), and their newest offering (24mp). Apart from legacy lens compatibility, I've stuck with Pentax because they still give you the option to use AA batteries...and being able to buy batteries anywhere in the world has saved me on many occasions.

But I didn't mean to make this a Pentax commercial. I meant to say that each of these three cameras has its strong points. And for some color combinations, I just cannot beat the 2nd gen from 2006. That's ancient in DSLR years. I entered photos from each camera in the contest.

This is getting away from me. Perhaps the most important aspect of this thread (and what spawned it) is that I truly think that with ANY camera (that you can screw magnifying lenses on to) can take really acceptable (ranging to fantastic) close-up shots - even in auto mode. It's mostly a matter of setting up the shot properly in the first place and then experimenting with the camera in-hand to get decent results. Here are three un-retouched shots from the cameras in question...all using the same 50mm lens with a +2 and +4 magnifier stacked - using autofocus. I didn't go full auto on them because I had to shoot with a flash this morning. But I think the point is still made well for the purpose of *this* thread anyway. All were shot at f/8, ISO 200, and 1/125 shutter speed. The flash intensity was controlled manually and was consistent. If the focus was off a little, that's my fault and not the fault of the cameras:
- Pentax K110D (6.1mp)
- Pentax K-x (12mp)
- Pentax K-3 (24mp)

I've upgraded a couple of times for multiple reasons. But at the end of it all, any old camera has the potential to perform. It's just figuring out what the camera is doing and why and coaxing it into doing the things that you want it to.

Edit: And...for the record...I decided to upgrade to the K-3 because the K-x had 150,000+ shutter actuations (which is well beyond the expectations of the manufacturer). But even after I bought the K-3, I decided that I liked the K-x so well that I bought a used one (with only 3,000 shutter actuations) with a kit lens and a bunch of other stuff (including 2 50mm manual lenses, a pretty good 70-200 AF zoom, a card, a remote shutter release, etc.) for only $200.00 to serve as a backup. So the ancillary point here is that a usable setup need not be expensive at all (relative to new, top of the line stuff - or even a decent point-and-shoot).

and i'll have to go and re-read from the beginning... lots of useful info here.
here's a little funny on the subject:

i read and forget and change focus
as it stands i have an actual macro infra-red (shoots in very low light) for my old canon EOS - that i never use (but i would LIKE to...), since i can't be bothered to mount/dismount!
well, i couldn't change it easily with film in any case, so it was mount and shoot the whole film or no-macro for you at all!.
it also happens that i have lotsa other canon lenses. and that naturally forces me into canon line forevermore!
since who wants to buy another set?
and store them someplace too! last set (provided for 'free' with sony) is dusting around unpacked, since i don't take it seriously: free=crummy!
my lens pile seems to be growing, while i run around with lightweight digi-sony on auto without even checking if the latest shots are in focus (the close-ups are often NOT! as i discover later...). so now i am trying to do close-ups from sev. distances (still NOT checking), in hopes smth will pan out.
i just got so-o lazy...with all the auto this and auto that...
but at least i am reading here....so it's like a new motivation. and especially all these 'i have this and then i have that...' - i get all stirred up!
end-of-funny.

NEILMUIR1 said:What an idiot I am, i should have read the instructions. However in my defence they were in Japanese.

I think that's quite a good defense, Neil!

Although your post did give me a bit of a chuckle, since I have the same camera as you do, and have been wanting to get a macro (or magnifying... or something...) lens, and have always admired the photos you post, this is very good information for me !

Asa, I agree. I know that I will probably have to use a tripod to get a really good super-macro. I just can't seem to hold the camera steady enough. But the camera itself is capable of doing everything I need and want it to do, I just need to figure out hot to get it to do it! I really like the intense color on those photos. Which camera do you think took the best picture as far as matching color?

Skylark, I think sometimes just being on this site gets us interested in something. At least that is the way it is with me. Just reading about something will get me interested in learning more about a plant or as in this case, a camera. If you do buy a new camera, be sure to let us know

blue23rose said:Asa, I agree. I know that I will probably have to use a tripod to get a really good super-macro. I just can't seem to hold the camera steady enough. But the camera itself is capable of doing everything I need and want it to do, I just need to figure out hot to get it to do it! I really like the intense color on those photos. Which camera do you think took the best picture as far as matching color?

Skylark, I think sometimes just being on this site gets us interested in something. At least that is the way it is with me. Just reading about something will get me interested in learning more about a plant or as in this case, a camera. If you do buy a new camera, be sure to let us know

Vickie, I think the K-3 did the best job on the color, but given the differences in the sensor, the K-x may have been just as true in the light. The K110D has always favored reds and dropped blues (and I'm certain that if I mucked with it some, I could fix it in-camera).

Those three photos were the beneficiaries of an after-market flash technique that I came up with that sure helps with the holding still problem - in that they were all shot at 1/125 shutter speed. Even this over-caffinated, over-nicotine-ed guy can get a clear shot now and then at 1/125 (or, better, 1/160 on the K-3).

That's a post I owe the boards...using the flash for close-ups. I'll try to get that done sometime in the next few days. Using it, I've gotten some shots that I just would not have been able to light properly otherwise. And it really can take the tripod out of the equation on the shots/techniques that were the genesis of this thread.

Edit and Full Disclosure: I'm somewhat red/green colorblind so I may not have any idea about how the colors truly appear. But even I can see the red emphasis and the blue dump as huge factors when compared.

Looking forward to seeing your post about the flash for close-ups.