In article , Martin
writes
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:41:39 +0000, Janet Tweedy
wrote:

In article , Martin
writes


Stabilised bipod, surely?

Does she have extendable legs then ?

Don't we all?


Not once you've reached 19 or 20 Otherwise we'd be awfully tall !
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

In article , Sacha
writes

I thought that was a terrific picture, too. I seem always to get the thing
behind the thing I want!



Snap ! ho ho ho
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

CWatters wrote:
"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
...
In article , CWatters
writes

Here is one I took this summer although to be honest I'm not very happy
with
it...

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8287/dragonvi0.jpg

Blimey! I'd be over the moon to get something in focus. I always get the
wrong part of the shrub or tree in focus and lose the bit that's
particularly attractive or distinctive!


Thats might be because you have the camera set on auto focus. That's the
disadvantage of automatic point and shoot - they are apt to focus on the
wrong thing.

By default they focus on everything/nothing. Use spot focus and they
focus where the spot is. Rocket science.

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
CWatters wrote:
"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
...
In article , CWatters
writes

Here is one I took this summer although to be honest I'm not very
happy
with
it...

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8287/dragonvi0.jpg

Blimey! I'd be over the moon to get something in focus. I always get
the
wrong part of the shrub or tree in focus and lose the bit that's
particularly attractive or distinctive!


Thats might be because you have the camera set on auto focus. That's the
disadvantage of automatic point and shoot - they are apt to focus on the
wrong thing.

By default they focus on everything/nothing. Use spot focus and they
focus where the spot is. Rocket science.

Yes spot focus is good.

In message , Janet Tweedy
writes
In article
,
Dave Hill writes

Strange that no one has mentioned a Mono Pod, a lot less to lug
around.
David Hill


Is that you on one leg David or an actual piece of equipment. Where or
how would you balance it so that the camera didn't tip it over?

An actual piece of kit. I use mine frequently as it is much less bulk
or weight than a tripod (and is also very useful as a hiking
pole/walking stick). My carbon fibre monopod weighs less than 500 grams
even when fitted with a good camera mount. It collapses to around 50
cms and extends up to 170cms. You cannot use them as the sole support
for a camera but they do help considerably to steady a camera. Picture
the monopod being used as the front leg of a tripod with your body and
legs being used as the other two.
--
Robert

Janet Tweedy writes
In article , CWatters
writes

Blimey! I'd be over the moon to get something in focus. I always get
the wrong part of the shrub or tree in focus and lose the bit that's
particularly attractive or distinctive!

I've got an old Olympus C-310 which I use simply on a 'point and click'
basis. I switch between 'everything on auto' for general snaps and
supermacro for flowers and fungi. The supermacro mode works down to
about 2 inches, pressing the trigger button halfway down focuses on
whatever is in the centre of the pic (and shows the focus on the screen
so you can see for yourself that it will be in focus), and pressing the
rest of the way takes the pic. (You can shift aim and move the thing you
focussed on towards the side of the pic - eg to include some other
flowers in the background - and it will remain in focus).

Main enemy of focus on supermacro is low light levels - if the subject
is lit badly, the pic is out of focus. Shaking the camera doesn't seem
to be a problem, or trying to photograph on a windy day. And the camera
itself is lightweight and slips easily into a trouser pocket.

It sounds like you need something on a similar level.
--
Kay

K wrote:

Main enemy of focus on supermacro is low light levels - if the subject
is lit badly, the pic is out of focus.

Absolutely. If you're 2" away, the camera itself is usually blocking the
light.
I find macro photography endlessly frustrating, and much better
close-ups of anything you care to mention can be seen on various web sites.

Stuart Noble writes
K wrote:

Main enemy of focus on supermacro is low light levels - if the
subject is lit badly, the pic is out of focus.

Absolutely. If you're 2" away, the camera itself is usually blocking
the light.
I find macro photography endlessly frustrating, and much better
close-ups of anything you care to mention can be seen on various web
sites.

Not if I am photographing a flower for later identification, or
comparing the colour patterns of my aquilegias without having to pick
one of each. Some things the web can't help with ;-)
--
Kay

In article , Stuart Noble
writes
K wrote:

Main enemy of focus on supermacro is low light levels - if the
subject is lit badly, the pic is out of focus.

Absolutely. If you're 2" away, the camera itself is usually blocking
the light.
I find macro photography endlessly frustrating, and much better
close-ups of anything you care to mention can be seen on various web
sites.


I take your point but sometimes you see a pant or flower that you want
to identify or remind yourself of it's height and spread if you are
buying one. Then you need to get as good a picture as you can.

Janet

--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

I use a Konica Minolta Dimage Z 5, easy to use, no problems, an excellent
camera.


kate

Janet Tweedy wrote:
In article , Stuart Noble
writes
K wrote:

Main enemy of focus on supermacro is low light levels - if the
subject is lit badly, the pic is out of focus.

Absolutely. If you're 2" away, the camera itself is usually blocking
the light.
I find macro photography endlessly frustrating, and much better
close-ups of anything you care to mention can be seen on various web
sites.


I take your point but sometimes you see a pant or flower that you want
to identify or remind yourself of it's height and spread if you are
buying one. Then you need to get as good a picture as you can.

Janet


Agreed. I take endless pics at the garden centre, often of labels and
things I can't be bothered to write down, but macro photography is
something else. A closeup of a bee's kneecap is not my style.

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...

A closeup of a bee's kneecap is not my style.

If said Bee has Arthritis in the knees as I have, I am glad for your sake,
that it is not your style ;-)

Kindest regards

Mike



--
www.rnshipmates.co.uk for ALL Royal Navy Association matters
www.rneba.org.uk. The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association to find your ex-Greenie mess mates.
www.iowtours.com for all ex-Service Reunions. More being added regularly
"Navy Days" Portsmouth 25th - 27th July 2008. RN Shipmates will be there.

Stuart Noble wrote:
Janet Tweedy wrote:
In article , Stuart Noble
writes
K wrote:

Main enemy of focus on supermacro is low light levels - if the
subject is lit badly, the pic is out of focus.

Absolutely. If you're 2" away, the camera itself is usually blocking
the light.
I find macro photography endlessly frustrating, and much better
close-ups of anything you care to mention can be seen on various web
sites.


I take your point but sometimes you see a pant or flower that you
want to identify or remind yourself of it's height and spread if you
are buying one. Then you need to get as good a picture as you can.

Janet


Agreed. I take endless pics at the garden centre, often of labels and
things I can't be bothered to write down, but macro photography is
something else. A closeup of a bee's kneecap is not my style.


See my earlier post in the thread about "practical cheap macro" method.

Most cameras suffer from the problems you mentioned earlier - need to do
Macro about 2in (or less) from the subject which casts a huge shadow, and
distorts the picture.

This method works best if
(a) the camera has a long zoom range, the longer the better (x6=good,
x10=amazing, etc), and
(b) it helps if the camera has a screw-filter mount (or manufacturer offers
one as an optional extra).


Buy a cheap x2 and x4 closeup lens. They are £4 each at 7dayshop.com, other
places may have them as well. Fit to camera, and zoom to the long end.
Camera will now focus for a macro shot, yet you stand 1 or 2 feet from the
subject.

One can bodge the same with the closeup lens held in the hand, but you
really need a tripod (or friend) to hold half the bits !



- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:
Janet Tweedy wrote:
In article , Stuart Noble
writes
K wrote:

Main enemy of focus on supermacro is low light levels - if the
subject is lit badly, the pic is out of focus.
Absolutely. If you're 2" away, the camera itself is usually blocking
the light.
I find macro photography endlessly frustrating, and much better
close-ups of anything you care to mention can be seen on various web
sites.

I take your point but sometimes you see a pant or flower that you
want to identify or remind yourself of it's height and spread if you
are buying one. Then you need to get as good a picture as you can.

Janet

Agreed. I take endless pics at the garden centre, often of labels and
things I can't be bothered to write down, but macro photography is
something else. A closeup of a bee's kneecap is not my style.


See my earlier post in the thread about "practical cheap macro" method.

Most cameras suffer from the problems you mentioned earlier - need to do
Macro about 2in (or less) from the subject which casts a huge shadow, and
distorts the picture.

This method works best if
(a) the camera has a long zoom range, the longer the better (x6=good,
x10=amazing, etc), and
(b) it helps if the camera has a screw-filter mount (or manufacturer offers
one as an optional extra).


Buy a cheap x2 and x4 closeup lens. They are £4 each at 7dayshop.com, other
places may have them as well. Fit to camera, and zoom to the long end.
Camera will now focus for a macro shot, yet you stand 1 or 2 feet from the
subject.

One can bodge the same with the closeup lens held in the hand, but you
really need a tripod (or friend) to hold half the bits !



- Nigel



Alas I can't fit anything to my point and shoot, but I may take a look
at the old Coolpix 995 which I know has some kind of thread. I really
should use it more, but it's big, slow, and power hungry.

In article ,
Stuart Noble says...
Janet Tweedy wrote:
In article , Stuart Noble
writes
K wrote:

Main enemy of focus on supermacro is low light levels - if the
subject is lit badly, the pic is out of focus.

Absolutely. If you're 2" away, the camera itself is usually blocking
the light.
I find macro photography endlessly frustrating, and much better
close-ups of anything you care to mention can be seen on various web
sites.


I take your point but sometimes you see a pant or flower that you want
to identify or remind yourself of it's height and spread if you are
buying one. Then you need to get as good a picture as you can.

Janet


Agreed. I take endless pics at the garden centre, often of labels and
things I can't be bothered to write down, but macro photography is
something else. A closeup of a bee's kneecap is not my style.

I beg to differ. Surely such a photo is the bees knees?
--
David in Normandy