Hello everybody. I read some of the posts about the Nikon Coolpix 4800 and it sounds like a good camera for macro, close-up photographs. As some of the posts were over a year or two old, I was just wondering if a newer or better choice was available that some members could recommend?

My old Kodak digital camera is pretty poor for macro photographs and I would like to get something better for watch photos. Thanks in advance for any recommendations.

Clyde i don,t own a coolpix camera but a freind of mine does and it takes great pictures ,the cost of a digital cameras now is much less they were just a few years ago.I think the nikon would be a good choice..

Go down to best buy or one of the other chain stores and find some young kid working there and tell him or her what you want in a camera and one that will do close up good,,,take a house key with you and let them show you what the different cameras will do taking a picture of the key.

Samie,

Thanks, that sounds like good advice.

Much appreciated, Clyde

If you want to save some money, look for a used camera. There are older Nikons out there at really low prices. The Nikon 995 for instance has very good macro features. The camera does not have all the features of a new model, but if what you want is macro, it is a good choice. I am sure there are plenty of other used digital cameras that will fill the bill.

My Canon A610 Powershot has a good macro, and being AA battery powered is less trouble for me to carry around until now. . . Did you know that the newer Disc recording video cameras have a "fantastic" "Macro-Zoom" that allows macroscopic close-up photography with the camera a few feet away from the target?

This has to be seen in action, it is impressive beyond words.

Last week, I ordered a Sony DCR SR62 (the SR 42 and SR 82 are also similar) on line for $305 + shipping. This model is an excellent "streaming video" auto-stabilized sound camera with the added feature of an unlimited storage of "macro-zoom" snap shots where the camera NEVER shows up as a reflection in the picture!

David,

Thanks for the tip. I am still looking at cameras and will have to check out the Sony also. Much appreciated.

Clyde

The Canon A-series camera takes high quality photos. I can vouch for that. The glass that they've used in the digital P&S is very sharp.

Another good part about this camera is the ability to screw on additional filters by purchasing and lens filter adapter tube.
Check it here!

With the lens adapter, you can invest $80-100 for 52mm close-up filters and get even closer shots.

http://www.sdcamerasolution.com

This is an older thread, but figured I'd add to it.
Over the years of taking many shots of small items I have found my Nikon Coolpix 880 that I bought back in 2000 for over a grand then still is my camera of choice for all my close up work.

I have used them all and from all brands and this oldie is still unbeatable. One uncompressed image is 10 megabytes alone, so that gives you a huge image to then shrink and convert into a Jpeg for online showing.

The camera is only 3.3mp, but beats my DSLR that is 12mp hands down when it comes to macro and closeup work.

I use my old collpix to even snap jewels and pallet fork jewels with very nice results.

So dig up one of these oldies as they now can be found for 30 bucks and that batteries are about 10 bucks.

Heres a sample of what this Nikon can do and this is with the built-in flash being used and at 4x Macro. Its an image of my 21j Wm. McKinley showing steel escape wheel and pallet jewels.

Remember buy a camera for its lense not for the bells and whistles.

Roland

Thx Lindell, you've got it right!
I have a new Panasonic with the Leica lens and it os great for big poster stuff and landscapes but is useless for Macro even though it can get up to 12x macro there is just too much noise in the images.

My old Nikon 880 is still a keeper. Batteries and the CF cards are still available and cheap, so why get into a new camera that just might not do the job.

I remember when I bought my 880 that the 950 was my other option, but went for the 880 because it fit in my pocket. Otherwise the difference I think was not much as they had similar lense and ratings.

Over the years the 950 has become the macro camera of choice that's for sure!

At one time I had 3 Coolpix 880's for my vehicle appraisal business, now I use just 1 as it still out performs my "fancier, newer" DLSR and for an 8x10 I can't see any pixels when printed on decent paper with a midrange HP deskjet.

Sometimes when you go into a camera store or a big box electronics place they try to upsell us into toys that we'll never really utilize.

I have a HD dvd recorder that I think I've used once to actually record on. It's too complicated and the manual too thick.

Roland.

Hi Roland;

I agree with your statement 100%. I've been into digital photography since 1997 when I saw one at a show in Las Vegas. Sony battery stamina is second to none (I've used one of my batteries for nearly nine years now) and their lenses are simply top of the line. Most Sony digital cameras have the Karl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lenses. You just can't go wrong with the superior lenses and long battery life of the Sony line of digital cameras.

I highly recommend them.

Bud

quote:

Remember buy a camera for its lense not for the bells and whistles.