Used digital cameras should be dirty cheap as phones are doing to digital cameras what digital cameras did to film cameras.

pentiumspeed wrote on 2021-05-29, 04:03:

I tried to find good used cameras and they sucked, locally but the best one I could find was Samsung S3 which cost me $25 and d […]
Show full quote

I tried to find good used cameras and they sucked, locally but the best one I could find was Samsung S3 which cost me $25 and did well on this macro with anti-shake on and high res (around 3000x2000).

Is there very reasonable, as in cheap, cellphone that do well with this and cheap, I like large size (as in "plus" size, like the iphone 6s plus, Samsung S5 +, etc) one this time as I wanted one. Just for wifi and camera, not cellular, even the baseband is dead is fine. Macro too.

On regular camera, is there a very old model had gone down in price but good enough for my need with macro lens?

There are too many models out there to look and learn about.

Cheers,

Value Village, Salvation Army and or other such places are great places for that, if you are patient (and lucky). I often pass on very nice looking so called bridge cameras or Canon A series cameras ( from 10ish year ago because I have no need (I have all the camera gear I currently need).

However, a few weeks ago, I could not resist getting a Panasonic FZ28 for 20ish $CAN ( https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ28/FZ28A.HTM ). Another 20$ for batteries and a charger, and I have a great, IMHO, camera with stabilization decent macro, RAW support and plenty of range that I can take anywhere rough without significant fear of loss or damage . This is a small sensor camera, so I don't expect miracles in low light or shallow depth of field effects, but for macro in good light, the small sensor is actually an advantage .

If you want something compact with good macro performance, I suggest the Canon A720IS, if you can find one for 20-30ish $ . https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona720is . It works great for macro and has excellent image quality .

Here is a sample crop from a macro shot (converted from JPG to PNG and zipped to avoid automatic forum recompression)

I like old digital cameras when back then they were improving so fast and with great models. I remember my old Canon A70 a 3,2MP compact camera that worked perfectly and it was really a good camera for its times. I still have the next one I bought after that, a Fujifilm S5500 that costed quite a lot for just a 10X zoom compact camera but it had a great plastic case and good specs while maybe I preferred the final image quality of the Canon.

Oh yes, Canon! That reminds me of alternate firmwares.. Some digital cameras can load them via SD (or install them, even). There's quite a little community, here!
Such an alternate firmware adds a lot of extras, some of which are not related to cameras/images at all.
Long story short, they turn an otherwise boring camera into a little PDA-like device. 😀

https://chdk.fandom.com/wiki/CHDK
https://magiclantern.fm/

Jo22 wrote on 2021-05-29, 11:32:

Oh yes, Canon! That reminds me of alternate firmwares.. Some digital cameras can load them via SD (or install them, even). There […]
Show full quote

Oh yes, Canon! That reminds me of alternate firmwares.. Some digital cameras can load them via SD (or install them, even). There's quite a little community, here!
Such an alternate firmware adds a lot of extras, some of which are not related to cameras/images at all.
Long story short, they turn an otherwise boring camera into a little PDA-like device. 😀

https://chdk.fandom.com/wiki/CHDK
https://magiclantern.fm/

Funny that you should mention CHDK, as I a have it loaded on that A720IS and that picture was also saved as a raw file . Here is a processed PNG with essentially no noise reduction or sharpening and just a slight levels adjustment in RAW Therapee .

386SX wrote on 2021-05-29, 10:31:

I like old digital cameras when back then they were improving so fast and with great models. I remember my old Canon A70 a 3,2MP compact camera that worked perfectly and it was really a good camera for its times.

I had one too. Sadly the sensor started flickering and stopped working after about 5 years I think.

In terms of cellphones I think they all had generally lousy cameras maybe up until the Google Pixel 1, Samsung S8, and iPhone 7.

For standalone cameras, might I suggest the original lineup of SONY NEX mirrorless bodies? You can usually find a used NEX 3, 5, or 5N for very cheap. They are quite old but have decent image quality and will accept stabilized / macro lenses (which unfortunately are not excactly cheap...)

Point-and-shoot compact cameras are DIRT CHEAP but unfortunately due to their small sensor size I'd say their image quality is actually worse than the cellphones I listed above (at least in most circumstances). However they could still be useful due to:

• Optical Zoom
• physical buttons / ease of handling
• Some are water resistant / drop resistant
• They are so cheap that destroying it is less painful than breaking a cellphone

swaaye wrote on 2021-05-30, 04:03:

386SX wrote on 2021-05-29, 10:31:

I like old digital cameras when back then they were improving so fast and with great models. I remember my old Canon A70 a 3,2MP compact camera that worked perfectly and it was really a good camera for its times.

I had one too. Sadly the sensor started flickering and stopped working after about 5 years I think.

I remember some having also zoom mechanism problems, in fact I do remember it always had not the best noise zooming in and out. But still had a great shape and great final image quality for such few megapixel resolution.

About mobile cameras I always thought people usually value them on the on board OLED screens but I'd like to compare their quality on a old CRT Eizo professional screen to really understand how far they improved. But I suppose most compact high end camera with some good sensor/lens might surpass every mobile camera module.

386SX wrote on 2021-05-30, 11:44:

About mobile cameras I always thought people usually value them on the on board OLED screens but I'd like to compare their quality on a old CRT Eizo professional screen to really understand how far they improved. But I suppose most compact high end camera with some good sensor/lens might surpass every mobile camera module.

Modern smartphones (since Google Pixel 1) are marvels of engineering. These days smartphones use their onboard SoC (which as you may know is more powerful than a 5 yr old desktop PC) to basically cheat at photography. Check out this article from DPReview: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9828658229/ … nal-photography

386SX wrote on 2021-05-29, 10:31:

I like old digital cameras when back then they were improving so fast and with great models. I remember my old Canon A70 a 3,2MP compact camera that worked perfectly and it was really a good camera for its times. I still have the next one I bought after that, a Fujifilm S5500 that costed quite a lot for just a 10X zoom compact camera but it had a great plastic case and good specs while maybe I preferred the final image quality of the Canon.

I had a Canon A85 (4MP) and it was impressive... but when it failed, I bought a Canon A590IS (8MP) and the colours seems a little washed to me.

My "current" (it has 8 years or more) "good" (don't have a reason to invest in a better) camera is a Canon Posershot SX10IS (10MP). It has good quality, good zoom (20x) and a very light lens (1:2.8-5.7). I'd change it if I could afford a good EVIL camera with equivalent lenses (not in zoom but in opening).

The good things about that cameras is that they use AA batteries (so you can find replacements elsewhere, and having dead rechargeable batteries don't mean having to throw your camera away), and both have "advanced" photography settings (auto, manual, priority to aperture, priority to time) that most compact cameras don't have. Also, I have an adapter to put standard filters on the SX10 (so I can use a polarizer) and the A590IS can have a "macro" adapter (but they're expensive and rare to find).

kolderman wrote on 2021-05-29, 04:47:

Used digital cameras should be dirty cheap as phones are doing to digital cameras what digital cameras did to film cameras.

Almost correct. 90% of people won't use any settings beyond "auto" and will use Photoshop to "enhance" their photos... but phone lenses and sensors are shitty and won't have the same aperture or speed that even a cheap camera can do. Just a reminder: you can always lose some quality via software, but you'll never get the quality lost by shitty cameras.

The best thing about smartphones is that you always have one on your pocket. There are moments that you see something weird/beautiful and you have not a camera at hand... but you still have your phone.

Jo22 wrote on 2021-05-29, 11:32:

Oh yes, Canon! That reminds me of alternate firmwares.. Some digital cameras can load them via SD (or install them, even). There […]
Show full quote

Oh yes, Canon! That reminds me of alternate firmwares.. Some digital cameras can load them via SD (or install them, even). There's quite a little community, here!
Such an alternate firmware adds a lot of extras, some of which are not related to cameras/images at all.
Long story short, they turn an otherwise boring camera into a little PDA-like device. 😀

https://chdk.fandom.com/wiki/CHDK
https://magiclantern.fm/

I have that software installed on both Canon cameras, although I rarely use it. I guess the most used feature is making RAW photos... but there are many other features. Also, it let you put some parameters beyond what standard firmware do... in my A590IS, I can set ISO6400, but you'll find why Canon locked it at ISO 1600 (spoiler: it makes noisier photos than those of poltergeist TV shows).

swaaye wrote on 2021-05-30, 04:03:

386SX wrote on 2021-05-29, 10:31:

I like old digital cameras when back then they were improving so fast and with great models. I remember my old Canon A70 a 3,2MP compact camera that worked perfectly and it was really a good camera for its times.

I had one too. Sadly the sensor started flickering and stopped working after about 5 years I think.

The A70 wasn't the only one plagued with the bad sensor issue. Canon was still replacing the sensor for free years ago on models using the same first gen Digic chip.

One cool thing about those models, they run ROM-DOS on a 80186 compatible chip.
Lots of details at http://rayer.g6.cz/hardware/a70.htm

I didn't know about the ROM DOS and those demo running on that chip. It sure was an impressive medium level compact camera and I'd not be surprised to see that the final images taken by those sensors/lens/chips were better than a modern compact camera that might have 20MP or whatever but still the usual low end lens or absurd menu/sw and no manual easy to find commands make me prefers those old models.

I just purchased a used Canon Rebel XTI (aka EOS 400D) for 25$ Canadian at a thrift store . The bundled kit lens' auto-focus mechanism is shot, but the camera itself works fine when tested with a Yongnuo 35mm F/2 EF autofocus lens that I happened to get like new for about 60$ Canadian at some kind of overstock liquidator .

With a cheap (100$-ish Godox or Yongnuo flash), an inexpensive lens with basic macro capabilities (had the kit lens worked, it would have been an option, but those are available cheap separately) and possibly a softbox setup from the likes of Amazon or Aliexpress and rather descent product/item photography becomes possible at a very low cost .

Now that you have a DSLR and an EF lens, maybe you'll want to get a cheap close-up lens that screws onto the end (since you are talking about macro). That lets you get closer for shooting small subjects. I like getting dragon flies and bumble bees outside my house. It can produce a little color fringing, but it's not bad IMO and can be tuned out somewhat using the stock Canon software, DPP.

bakemono wrote on 2021-06-25, 02:09:

Now that you have a DSLR and an EF lens, maybe you'll want to get a cheap close-up lens that screws onto the end (since you are talking about macro). That lets you get closer for shooting small subjects. I like getting dragon flies and bumble bees outside my house. It can produce a little color fringing, but it's not bad IMO and can be tuned out somewhat using the stock Canon software, DPP.

I have actually multiple Canon DSLRs, EF and m42 lenses and also some reverse mount adapters and screw-on macro adapters as well (somewhere), but no specifically macro oriented lenses. I did play a bit with macro at some point (mainly with Fuji S5200 and S9000 cameras before I got a DSLR) , but I am mostly interested in portraits these days. I am still very much an amateur and likely will be until the day that I die.

My first DSLR was actually a Rebel XTI (bought it new, sold it to get a 40d that I got a great deal on bundled with a lens that I wanted at the time), so rebuying one was actually a nostalgic retro experience for me . 😉

That all being said, I usually bring a Sony A6000 with its kit lens on vacation and actually did try my hand at snapping a shot of a dragon fly with it while I was taking a break from soaking up the sun .

EDIT : I actually bought a copy of PTLens a long time ago to address color fringing issues . It worked really well (when I needed it), AFAICR . https://epaperpress.com/ptlens/

Great photo! I also use a Sony A6000. I bought it shortly after launch (in 2014) and it's still going strong...