What camera do you recommend?

I've always used the Olympus Stylus series digital cameras. They are not SLR, but do have macro and super marco that can take good closeup photos of rocks. Of course, an SLR has many advantages other than taking macro photos...

I luvs my Canon Rebel XT and I used it -- past tense -- exclusively for fish macro photography. Now I'm using it for my artwork and rocks. Well, LEARNING to use it. I find it easier to take pictures of fast moving fish than a stationary object. Lighting is a royal PITA.

Macro is good, but there is much less depth of field. Super-macro is useless except for slabs because the depth of field is about 2cm.

Most Canon will focus down to 10-15cm and give great detail with good focus and depth of field. Some Olympus only go down to 20 inch. But, both are better than one that has a 3ft focus min.

The S5 IS is a wonderful camera. Getting a used S3 IS at a great price would be super wonderful because you do not need all the mega-pixel of the S5 to do shots of rocks for online viewing. If you want to make quality 8x10 prints then pay extra for the S5.

I just bought a lightly used Canon A400, for under $50 and I expect it to do just fine. I had a Canon Powershot until it got stolen last month, and I took good pics of rocks.

You do not need to go closer than 20cm because then the camera blocks out so much light you need the flash, and that has problems too.

Having a tripod (a cheap one) and a good daylight bulb or two, and knowing how to set the 2 sec delay so you do not get finger jitter - this is all you need.

If you do have the bucks, and want to do landscapes as well as rocks, prints as well as online, and the ability to put on lenses or filters, then get an S5 IS, or go all they way and get a DSLR.

I only want to photograph rocks, and the $500 to $800 in savings over a DSLR buys a lot of rocks or even a used saw. Just how I see it.

I appreciate the info! I have to consider that its more than just a rock pic taker... If momma wants to take a photography class I am guessing the camera will have to be pretty versatile. We were looking at the SLRs mostly for the ability to change lenses to meet her needs. Or so we think anyhooo... I guess we need to find out some mroe about what she wants to do with the camera and then see what the various styles of cameras are cabale of doing...

Thank you!

Tom

I disagree. I use the S2-IS's super macro on probably 70% of my macro work and 1) the limited depth of field gives style and artistic flare to images; and 2) the "limited depth of field" is highly usable - look at the photos in this thread - every single one (except the first) was taken with Super macro and was hand held (did I mention the IS - Image Stabilizer - is most useful as well?) and this camera is two generations old (with the newer models being the S3-IS and S5-IS).

I take literally hundreds and hundreds of close-work photos using macro and super macro for the sales of my jewelry and pens. I completely agree that with lesser cameras (without IS) you absolutely need a tripod and cable release. I need a tripod with the Canon 10D I occasionally use - but not with my S2-IS. The image stabilization is just that good.

You could do very, very well with a used S3-IS, absolutely. Even the S5-IS is selling well below $350, I believe. And unlike even a simple DSLR there is minimal learning curve in getting to the point of taking excellent photos.

Versatility is huge in this camera line too - the S5 moves out to a 12x OPTICAL zoom (my S2 is 10x) - add the tele converter and you're out way past 600 mm 35mm equivalent.

My 2¢ worth turned into about a buck - sorry! I love my camera (as I'm sure you can tell). ;D

Happy camera hunting, regardless of what you buy!

Hmmm, the little advertising banner at the top of this page displayed an ad for digital photography classes. I've never seen that particular ad before. Targeted ads? Very clever.

Like I said, I admire the S3 and S5 cameras. Sounds like you agree with a lot of my points. In fact, I almost bought one last month, but decided to get the used A400 and spend the difference on a trip to Succor Creek to collect rock. Couldn't do both an S5 and a trip this month.

And yes, you can work with depth of field limits in macro. I agree. If you want one part in focus and the rest artistically blurred, it is not a problem; if you want the whole rock in focus - some rocks you can't do with macro. Generally, the cost is about 4 times the cost of what will do just fine to photograph rocks. I just like to put out the message that a less expensive camera with a decent min focal lenght and only 2 or 3 mega pixel will do fine.

If cost is an issue, get "good enough" and start shooting. IF cost is not an issue, S5 is not bad, but maybe a DSLR is affordable.

Once the camera is good enough, and the min focal lenght is at least down to 20cm, other factors like a tripod and lights make more difference. IMHO.

Not that I won't eventually buy an S5 or DSLR - it is just that its on my list below 18" saw and trip to Tuscon.

Amen to all the above.Remember,you are going digital so you can shoot many pics of a subject then rewiew them and pick the best-no film or development costs.I like to use the highest JPEG,lowest film speed[100 usually],a custom white balance[important!] and diffused light[bounce flash etc.].I also feel that varying the apperture is good so you can get different D.O.F. and find the "sweet spot" of the lens=this is often in the mid-range,say f/8.Mike.P.S. if you shoot high quality pics,you can make a copy in your software that will post on the web and save the better one for printing.

I haven't tried "shooting" any rocks yet as my first batch is in it's third week with coarse grit. I have shot quite a few knives that I sold on ebay. I use a Nikon D200, usually with a 80-299 zoom with IS. I generally try to shot in the late afternoon in the SHADE. This has worked very well for me. I attribute that to the lighting really more so than the camera/lens combo. Shooting with existing light is much easier it seems.