Macro ? Camera buying advice

[Gardener]

In a point and shoot digital camera, is a 5cm macro better or worse than a 1 cm one?

If the option was a 4x zoom and a 10cm macro or a 10x zoom and a 3cm macro; what's best?

[cooperlola]

What do you like to take pictures of, Gardener?  If you photograph plants and insects a lot then the macro is really important.  If not, then a longer zoom might be better, but to my mind, wide angle is much more important than telephoto for point and shoot (they're pretty useless for sports photography etc where telephoto counts) so a wide angle is more important  if you want to do landscapes and/or buildings.

 

The critical thing is the optical zoom, btw, ignore the digital zoom figures - you can do this just as well on the pc afterwards.

 

EDIT : This explains macro quite well:

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/macro-photography-tips-for-compact-digital-camera-users

EDIT AGAIN! : Afaik, the distance figures for the macro are the closest you can get to the subject before it goes out of focus.

[cooperlola]

The guru just came in from the garden and the thick plottens!  What is critical (if macro is important to you) is to know the focal length at which those distances apply - if you're on a longer focal length at 10cms then you could do better than 3cms at a shorter focal length where the image would be smaller.  If you've got more info' about the cameras in question, that would help.  But essentially, all this is only critical if you want to do a lot of macro stuff .

[Gardener]

Its not for me but a present for a keen young but inexerienced amateur photographer. I am trying to get as many bells and whistles as I can on a budget of max 150£

I have looked at a camera comparison site and a canon sx120 or 130 is looking favourite. I can't see much difference between them except the price, if your guru has a moment could he:she take a look?

[cooperlola]

Well, you can do a lot worse than Canon, and they are probably the best at compacts but so much depends upon what your keen young amateur like to photograph.  If s/he is likely to snap away at a lot of plants, then go for the better macro' but I'd have thought the SX130 would make  a lovely present if you can't afford something with a viewfinder (an essential to me, but probably not for somebody starting out.)  My o/h (he) agrees, btw.[:)]

[Gardener]

Thanks for your help; canon ordered!

[AnOther]

I've just been hunting for a replacement for an 8 year old Nikon which has recently gone to meet it's maker.

I decided that a while ago that I wanted a proper viewfinder in my next camera, still not easy to find for the sort of money I was prepared to spend, so eventually plumped for a Canon IXUS 95 IS which although a 2 year old design won a Gold award from What Digital Camera when it came out and cost around £200 then - it's still being offered for similar on Amazon.

I found one on eBay, brand new and boxed, for the very acceptable sum of sum of £75 plus £20 for a 32GB SDHC card so looking forward to playing with it when it arrives

[cooperlola]

I've been talking about this a lot with my o/h recently because I'm so frustrated with the (very nice) little compact which I bought a year ago just so I'd always have a camera with me.  Because I'm not very mobile, my D300 is a bit of a bore to trog around when I'm just mooching about towns etc. However, on my recent little tour of the country, I found - as I have since I bought the compact- that without the viewfinder it really is annoying, especially on a sunny day, and one of its biggest problems is that I have terrible trouble getting pictures of buildings and landscapes straight - sloping horizons and converging verticals abound [:-))].

He (the o/h) is a great reader of all things photographic, and keeps well up to date with a load of internet testing sights, photographic magazines etc, so is well up to speed on cameras.  He tells me that Canon's G12 is the choice du jour of all professionals in the non SLR category and that there are a load of stuning pictures about on the 'net taken with one.  It's no coinsidence that they are the market leaders in digital.

[NickP]

A couple of years ago I purchased a Cannon Power shot A590. Mainly because it had a viewfinder and as Coops said " screens and sunshine don't mix" very well. One small criticism, the view finder is not truly representative of the final picture; but you soon get used to it and make allowances, secondly because I was used to focusing with an SLR Pentax I thought, automatic great! So some of the first  of pics turned out "soft ", lesson wait for the camera to settle. Over all; great little camera for little money. [:)]

[AnOther]

I can't deny that the Canon G12 is a smashing camera but it's far too big and bulky for my needs and even at it's cheapest is at least twice as much as I was prepared to spend.

Viewfinders have their limitations but I'd rather have a photo compromised by those than one taken virtually blind with a LCD screen in sunlight. The IXUS95's viewfinder zooms with the lens which is handy and unusual [;-)]

 

[cooperlola]

In retrospect, because I was looking for the widest angle possible, I made a poor decision with the Lumix - I should have compromised on the field of view and gone for a viewfinder as I am in full agreement with you, Erns.  I just mentioned the G12 as further support for Canon's position as market leader.   Oh, and I'd like one.[:)]