Photocameras

Asar, I only have K-x and Tamron 90/2, 8... P 100 WR is more expensive, but either Tamron is better, Sigma 105

soapy poop. they shouldn't have taken it

Its matrix size doesn't differ from more expensive models, and I don't need a bunch of functions.

 
And what is the object/s, this is the most important thing, and what min. distance?

The lens is still standard (whale), and I plan to buy a macro lens later.

This post was edited by Wave Storm - 01.01.2012 21: 06

Its matrix size doesn't differ from more expensive models, and I don't need a bunch of functions.The lens is still standard (whale), and I plan to buy a macro lens later.

you are very much mistaken. I went through cheap DSLRs (and this one is the cheapest)

you are very much mistaken. I went through cheap DSLRs (and this one is the cheapest)

Photographing Canon EOS 5D Mark II, lens for macro Canon 2.8 / 100 mm Macro USM.

After reviewing your old message, I understand. Well, I compared the 1100D with the 600D, they have almost the same matrix. And I don't even consider devices like the Canon EOS 5D Mark II. Why do I need an expensive professional camera? I'm not a professional photographer. That's enough for me.

This post was edited by Wave Storm - 02.01.2012 00: 57

soapy poop. they shouldn't have taken it

Stas, what's wrong with the budget drops? A normal camera. The person did everything right to take this one. And if you want to save money — you can also take 1000D. And if you do not disdain second-hand, you can safely buy old models, starting from 350D. I still haven't figured out why you think a full-frame camera is necessary for an honest makrushnik who doesn't print large cards (and most people don't print any at all). Explain your opinion, eh?

This post was edited by Asar - 02.01.2012 02: 12

Asar, I only have K-x and Tamron 90/2, 8... P 100 WR is more expensive, but either Tamron's best, Sigma 105  

Taki decided to stay on Sapop. Still, AF is sometimes needed in macro, and Pentachus does not have it at all.

I did not say that you need to buy FF necessarily. Just 1100 and 1000 are cameras with a rejected matrix from older models, with a bunch of pixel defects hidden in defect lists. Therefore, it turns out cheap. Of course, they won't die like screw rejection - but still, the image quality will be poor. No program will show you broken pixels, but if you run the movie in full screen in the window (stretch it )and watch a photo on top of it in the window, you will be unpleasantly surprised by how "leaky" this photo is.

Stas, what's wrong with the budget drops? A normal camera. The person did everything right to take this one. And if you want to save money — you can also take 1000D. And if you do not disdain second-hand, you can safely buy old models, starting from 350D. I still haven't figured out why you think a full-frame camera is necessary for an honest makrushnik who doesn't print large cards (and most people don't print any at all). Explain your opinion, eh?

5D Mark II-the camera is not professional (it is semi-professional) and not so expensive.

From zhezh tin)))
Again, don't let any image that has a color that is equal to the base color of the overlay output area show through on the overlay background!
Broken pixels are extrapolated at the level of the photo appart after remapping in the factory or using the camera, and the newly appeared ones are visible as light dots on a dark background or dark on a light one. To detect them, you need to take a photo with a closed lens or very overexposed, with an exposure time of for example 5 seconds on a sunny day and view it at full resolution
Still broken pixels _in some photos_ (this is a feature) can be seen as bright bright round dots on the LCD screen of the photoappart when using it as a viewfinder.
On Olympus, what I have done so, in this case, you need to remap, and all the broken pixels disappear, I doubt that there is no such thing in DSLRs

5D Mark II-the camera is not professional (it is semi-professional) and not so expensive.

The thing is, the 1100 carcass is four times cheaper than this brand...

I did not say that you need to buy FF necessarily. Just 1100 and 1000 are cameras with a rejected matrix from older models, with a bunch of pixel defects hidden in defect lists. Therefore, it turns out cheap. Of course, they won't die like screw rejection - but still, the image quality will be poor. No program will show you broken pixels, but if you run the movie in full screen in the window (stretch it )and watch a photo on top of it in the window, you will be unpleasantly surprised by how "leaky" this photo is.

1. Which older device does the 1000D or 1100D matrix come from?
2. If you take the 550D/600D in comparison with the 7D (like senior/junior with one matrix) - will the difference be noticeable on a FullHD monitor? I believe that in the vast majority of cases for the vast majority of users (or in general always and for all) - no.
3. If you say that you don't like FF, then the 7D is better than the 550D: it is more comfortable in the grip for the average male hand, it is more pleasant to slap, it is positioned as more reliable, it allows you to adjust the front/back without contacting the SC, it has a large and bright (for crop) viewfinder, it has a convenient joystick. And the 550D is twice as cheap, noticeably smaller in size and weight. As for reliability, in many situations, 2 550's are still more reliable than one seven :-- ) But it's okay, and it's not okay that for most ordinary users, the advantages of 7D will not be very relevant, but the disadvantages will be very noticeable. Especially if you break into nature with all this stuff, counting grams.
But for some, yes, 7D will be more correct. But this category of citizens, as a rule, knows what and how it needs.

I will withdraw from the discussion. a lot of words, little meaning. argue with yourself. I made my choice a long time ago and am happy with it. and the kitchen of cameras was felt in the dara recovery industry in a way that you never dreamed of. amuse yourself with nonsense . the truth is always the same (C)

I will withdraw from the discussion. a lot of words, little meaning. argue with yourself. I made my choice a long time ago and am happy with it. and the kitchen of cameras was felt in the dara recovery industry in a way that you never dreamed of. amuse yourself with nonsense . the truth is always the same (C)

Well, as usual-I'm smart, and you're a fool How good it is to be a neo-positivist.

The most important thing in the camera is the battery capacity : -))) If it is small, then on a hike you need to carry several charged batteries, or (at worst) take a generator (minium 7 kg): -)))

It would be nice to try double (or even triple, if the main one still works?) flash, like this one from Sony for example,

This post was edited by amara - 05.01.2012 09: 07

Pictures:

475713.jpg — (35.73к)

It would be nice to try double (or even triple, if the main one still works?) flash, like this one from Sony for example,

At the Macro Club, everything has been tested for a long time, and conclusions have been drawn, since there is a strong faction of flash fans there...

link to the studio ). flash is a sore spot.

I tried out different methods and still decided on a cheap ring illuminator. The flash itself isn't bad, but it's a pain to focus with. There are very few scenes in which a ring illuminator is contraindicated and you have to use a flash.

I'm looking at the Canon 600D and Nikon D5100 carcasses for use exclusively on a microscope. I'm leaning in favor of Nikon (in terms of parameters). Both are budget-friendly, for this purpose.

Who is against, for, abstained?
How does it work with trinocular adapters, software, and usability for digital microscopy?

This post was edited by Seneka - 19.10.2012 12: 16

I'm leaning in favor of Nikon (in terms of parameters).

I'm curious about what reasons...

Photos of the late Sony DSC-W15 and the new Sony NEX-5 for comparison.

Pictures:

DSC02226.JPG — (1.65мб)


DSC01820.JPG — (1.22мб)

I'm curious about what reasons...

Physical size of one matrix cell = Xmm * Ymm / MPix - the larger the better.
The number of pixels is minimally sufficient, but not less than 12MPix, there are more of them.
No noise in low light conditions (Depends on the first parameter, but also on the technology).
The ability to shoot FullHD video with a very high-quality picture, although not without hemorrhoids.

Secondary, but necessary options: The presence of a rotary display (for any shooting), the presence of computer control, an interchangeable lens, a capacious battery, a small size and weight at least a little less than that of analogues (less cumbersome on the microscope and on the road).

And at the same time the minimum price.

This post was edited by Seneka - 02/16/2013 22: 30

Physical size of one matrix cell = Xmm * Ymm / MPix - the larger the better.

Both devices are cropped.

The number of pixels is minimally sufficient, but not less than 12MPix, there are more of them.

Both devices have 17MP.

No noise in low light conditions (Depends on the first parameter, but also on the technology).

Both of them are not so bad with this and are about the same.

The ability to shoot FullHD video with a very high-quality picture, although not without hemorrhoids.

Both can do it. Gimora at the Boot less.

Secondary, but necessary options: The presence of a rotary display (for any shooting)

Both of them have it. And both rotten autofocus in Riga LiveView.

the presence of computer control, a replaceable lens, a capacious battery, a small size and weight at least a little less than that of analogues (less cumbersome on the microscope and on the road).
And at the same time the minimum price.

And all these parameters are the same. In general, it seems that you did not understand my question. I asked you why you're leaning towards Nikon, and you seem to have answered why you're choosing between the two models.
The choice between them is simple - which one is better in the hand will fall. For me, Nikons do not fit, but for someone on the contrary...

Photos of the late Sony DSC-W15 and the new Sony NEX-5 for comparison.

Don't scare people with such comparisons. Nex isn't that terrible at all :--)

Both devices are cropped.
Both devices have 17MP.
Both of them are not so bad with this and are about the same.
Both can do it. Gimora at the Boot less.
Both of them have it. And both rotten autofocus in Riga LiveView.
And all these parameters are the same. In general, it seems that you did not understand my question. I asked you why you're leaning towards Nikon, and you seem to have answered why you're choosing between the two models.
The choice between them is simple - which one is better in the hand will fall. For me, Nikons do not fit, but for someone on the contrary...

http://market.yandex.ru/compare.xml?hid=91...6988660,7156944

Both are cropped, but the crop factor is different Nikon 1.5, Canon 1.6 I don
't know where you got the number 17, because the number of physical megapixels for Nikon is 16.7, for Canon 18.7
The physical dimensions of the matrix are different, for Nikon 23.6 x 15.6, for Canon 22.3 x 16.9
Divide the matrix area by the number of pixels, which determines the light sensitivity and color rendering. The Nikon 2.23 E-5, the Canon 1.97 E-5
, i.e. the Nikon crystals are 1.146 times larger, i.e. by about 14.5%
, so the Nikon ISO working range is much wider than the Canon one and the noise should be much less. Canon fights noise with the help of a noise reduction system, i.e. digital filtation of "snow", as in Photoshop, i.e. cheats. The sharpness always drops. When micro-shooting at high magnifications, clarity and color quality should be the main factor. The illumination of the object is inversely proportional to the increase, so the probability of noise is high. Under these conditions, Nikon should produce a better image than Canon, all other conditions being the same.

Although, there Makarov Zhukov takes a soap dish and what pictures are obtained! Pros!

You are probably right about the video, because you have both cameras and you can check it out. Canon has a better frequency. But video is not the main thing for me,
Somewhere, from the macro club, I found a short-range feature film shot by professionals on a Nikon D5100. The quality is just super, but you need to be able to shoot.
I think that professionals can shoot just as well on canon if they get enough lighting.

It doesn't matter to me how it lies in my hand, because it will stand on the microscope all the time. Digital microscopy cameras don't fit in your hand at all. The fact that it is smaller in size is a plus in this case. The price of the lens doesn't matter for microscopy.

Focusing in LiveVideo does not matter, because the focus is set manually, using the micro screw of the microscope.
As a field photographer, the "Battery Capacity" parameter should be important for you. At Nkon, it is 1.5 times higher.
It costs zero Nikon less than Canon, if you do not take into account the average prices.

Don't scare people with such comparisons. Nex isn't that terrible at all :--)

For me, it is inferior in macro shooting to the first one. Or am I still not used to it or not?

This post was edited by Nikolos - 17.02.2013 14: 21

For me, it is inferior in macro shooting to the first one. Or am I still not used to it or not?

The fact is that many compacts are more convenient for macro shooting than cameras with a larger matrix but whale zoom. But as soon as a special macro lens is screwed to the mirrorless camera (often not cheap), then you will immediately see that a large matrix gives a much better picture.

And then with Sony NEX 5, the picture is visually not so contrasting, you need to work additionally when converting the Ro file. But with the next Sony NEX-5N model, the image will immediately look more contrasting and attractive.

Here are two images taken in the field.
1 Canon PowerShot 100is, old model discontinued.

2 Canon EOS 1100D-quite a budget DSLR, CANON EF 100 f/2.8 Macro USM lens, aluminum tripod.

The win of the DSLR is obvious, but it's not ice to carry around with such equipment.

And another plus in favor of the DSLR.Shooting a microchip.
The devices are the same.



The post was edited by Gennadich - 17.02.2013 18: 15

All the advantages of DSLRs consist only in one thing-in the optical properties of the objects and the matrix, how much you can trash this throwback with a mirror and a prism, weighing down the weight almost twice, is unclear, although standards have long been appearing. compacts with threads for objects and norms. the matrix.

All the advantages of DSLRs consist only in one thing-in the optical properties of the objects and the matrix

DSLRs are called DSLRs not because of the optical properties of the lenses (which are not full in DSLRs) and not in the matrices (which may not be in DSLRs at all), but because of the viewfinder. And this pentaprism is not an atavism at all, as long as there is nothing similar in terms of viewing convenience. First of all, I mean, of course, the operational field.

This post was edited by Asar - 02/18/2013 01: 27

Okay, let's continue...

http://market.yandex.ru/compare.xml?hid=91...6988660,7156944
Both are cropped, but the crop factor is different Nikon 1.5, Canon 1.6 I don
't know where you got the number 17, because the number of physical megapixels for Nikon is 16.7, for Canon 18.7
The physical dimensions of the matrix are different, for Nikon 23.6 x 15.6, for Canon 22.3 x 16.9
Divide the matrix area by the number of pixels, which determines the light sensitivity and color rendering. The Nikon 2.23 E-5, the Canon 1.97 E-5
, i.e. the Nikon crystals are 1.146 times larger, i.e. by about 14.5%
, so the Nikon ISO working range is much wider than the Canon one and the noise should be much less.

Must. But in practice, this is not the case. Bo the difference in area is small, and there are obviously other factors besides the area. However, not the point. Bottom line -- 2 rows next to the same number of pixels...

Canon fights noise with the help of a noise reduction system, i.e. digital filtation of "snow", as in Photoshop, i.e. cheats.

Not Canon, but all camera manufacturers, as well as photographers who adjust the appropriate settings in the camera.

When micro-shooting at high magnifications, clarity and color quality should be the main factor.

Sharpness — in the sense of sharpness? And as for color reproduction... Where would she come from? All technically complex types of shooting are always a big compromise...

The illumination of the object is inversely proportional to the increase, so the probability of noise is high. Under these conditions, Nikon should produce a better image than Canon, all other conditions being the same.

In general, you can imagine a situation where the ISO and shutter speed will have to be raised even when micro-shooting (although more often in the field, especially ISO). But here everything is the same-whether Nikon should or should not, and we look at RAW materials and compare them...

Although, there Makarov Zhukov takes a soap dish and what pictures are obtained! Pros!

For a microscope and subsequent viewing on the screen, the difference between soap and non-soap is often really small.

You are probably right about the video, because you have both cameras and you can check it out. Canon has a better frequency. But video is not the main thing for me

I don't have any, and neither do the videos... But the fact is, videographers still look in the direction of boots over a glass of tea...

I think that professionals can shoot just as well on canon if they get enough lighting.

Those who need it, they will always remove everything, here I completely agree.

It doesn't matter to me how it lies in my hand, because it will stand on the microscope all the time. Digital microscopy cameras don't fit in your hand at all. The fact that it is smaller in size is a plus in this case.

In the hand, I did not mean exactly the convenience of the grip, but all sorts of checkers (which is what distinguishes Nikon from Canon and vice versa).

As a field photographer, the "Battery Capacity" parameter should be important for you. At Nkon, it is 1.5 times higher.

I also thought so at first, that capacity is important. But in the field, it constantly turns out that neither the battery capacity, nor the balance on the flash card, nor Nikon and Canon are important, most often even noise at high iso and not the ability of the lens to focus sane in the macro range, nor the weight and size of the photo junk. Most often, it turns out that you need more interesting objects :-- ) But this is true, offtopic.
I agree with the prices - there is some difference.
1. There is only one conclusion-the classic one-that brand is a matter of religion.
2. Conclusion two-private - to my question, why are you leaning towards the Nikon model, you answered in great detail, thank you!

This post was edited by Asar - 02/18/2013 01: 27

There is an electronic viewfinder, but for macro photography it is superfluous, it is much more convenient to shoot on the screen. Sneaking up on animals with a camera in your eye and two hands busy is not ice.

There is an electronic viewfinder

There is no electronic viewfinder. Bo, the image in it is noticeably lousy. (When it is better or at least comparable to optical-I will be the first to promote it, the thing itself is really convenient.)

and for macro photography, it is superfluous, it is much more convenient to shoot on the screen. Sneaking up on animals with a camera in your eye and two hands full is not ice.

The main task in macro photography is to focus correctly. Bo plus / minus a couple of mm is already noticeable. In such conditions, you need to be able to quickly and conveniently control automatic and manual focus. This is not possible if you don't use both hands. And this is inconvenient to do on the screen. It can be convenient to crop the image on the screen and slowly focus from a tripod, including using magnification and LiveView. But sane shooting from an approach with decent focus is now still the fate of the mirror.

This post was edited by Asar - 02/18/2013 01: 38

And another plus in favor of the DSLR.Shooting a microchip.
The devices are the same.

To be honest-not impressive. Objects are quite large, but there is no sharpness at all.

I don't understand the argument. Canon 1100D is the cheapest and most lame mirror guano I've ever seen in general, in principle. This is a wild noise-canceling soap dish with a built-in prism and mirror, G90 camera class, including the same processor. Comparing it to soap dishes is like comparing two fingers. It will be about the same. This poop takes out only due to good optics and normal light.

You need to compare at least medium-level (amateur) cameras. The 1100D isn't even an entry-level DSLR, it's a pre-entry level toy. Initial - three-digit code. Amateur - two-digit (50D, 60D, etc.). Semi - pros - single-digit (7D, 5D), pros-with the addition of Mark.

Naturally, DSLR shooting will be better. If the photographer knows how to shoot it and understands what it is intended for and how to use it. According to the photos of Mikra given above, I didn't see a fundamental difference, to be honest. In both shots, the photographer missed with focus.

I don't understand the argument. Canon 1100D is the cheapest and most lame mirror guano I've ever seen in general, in principle. This is a wild noise-canceling soap dish with a built-in prism and mirror, G90 camera class, including the same processor. Comparing it to soap dishes is like comparing two fingers. It will be about the same. This poop takes out only due to good optics and normal light.

You need to compare at least medium-level (amateur) cameras. The 1100D isn't even an entry-level DSLR, it's a pre-entry level toy. Initial - three-digit code. Amateur - two-digit (50D, 60D, etc.). Semi - pros - single-digit (7D, 5D), pros-with the addition of Mark.

Naturally, DSLR shooting will be better. If the photographer knows how to shoot it and understands what it is intended for and how to use it. According to the photos of Mikra given above, I didn't see a fundamental difference, to be honest. In both shots, the photographer missed with focus.

Flowing around.
So that's what I'm saying.The main thing is that the hands are not made of w .. s, light and glass, and who can afford any equipment.
There is a mistake with the focus.

There is an electronic viewfinder, but for macro photography it is superfluous, it is much more convenient to shoot on the screen. Sneaking up on animals with a camera in your eye and two hands full is not ice.

I don't know how you can see anything on the screen in the bright sun. Yes, and acc. it's a pity to spend on a constantly turned on screen.

  
According to the photos of Mikra given above, I didn't see a fundamental difference, to be honest. In both shots, the photographer missed with focus.

There is still a difference.
It's more like the focus is fine, but the lenses are soapy. You can't tell from such small photos.

2 Gennadich
To compare photos, it is more correct to upload the source code.