First note: I'm a photography novice.... I bought a digital camera yesterday and in trying to take a close up it looks awful...so out of focus it ain't even funny. So I read an article on how to buy a digital camera. I found out that the camera doesn't have a "macro" setting so it doesn't do close ups. What I want to know is how much money do I need to spend to get a camera that will take decent close up images of say, for instance, if I want to take pictures of the garden flowers. I know if I spend $1000 it will do the job but I'm not spending that much while I'm still learning how to take photos. So where is the dollar line on how expsensive a camera I need to get to use for practice. Thanks for your help!

I have a Nikon Coolpix 4300 ... you could get one for $300 to $350 (plus tax, shipping ...). For that camera, you should also get a spare rechargable battery $40 in addition to a spare non-rechargable $12; 1 or 2 compact flash cards -- Lexar 256MBy 12x $54 or Lexar 256MBy 40x $70; LowePro 10AW bag; I am able to carry a tabletop tripod $20 in along with everything else. The 4300 will do closeups, near, far etc. It has 3X optical zoom. It is a 4 mega pixel camera and can even generate a 10MBy TIFF file (if you want). The downside is that manual focus is clumsy, it has limited depth of field -- and not easy to control; also not as easy to set exposure as on an SLR. See what others suggest before making your decision.

Hi ! if you want to make macros for the important part. you can buy a Nikon Coolpix 4500 , 4 Megapixel ( or 995 ) it is not so expensive and the best in macro you can find, ca 400 $. for 1000 $ is a superb cam the Sony DSC - F 828 Cyper shot. Carl Zeiss Objective 28 - 200 / 2,0 - 2,8 is a Hammer, 8 Megapixel, great Macro , but the Nikon is better in Macro for me. regards gerhard #:O)

Sony Cyper Shot. ASA 800. no postwork.

This may sound a little odd, but don't immediately discount paying for a good SLR style digital such as a D100. Here's my logic. Over the last 10+ years, I've probably bought 8 digital cameras. I bought my first before they came with onboard flash, so we're talking early digital. In that 10 years, I've probably spent $8,000 on all those cameras and attachments and accessories. In the end, what I really find myself using is my D100 (I actually gave away one of my coolpix cameras). The thing is, if you find you want to get more serious about traditional photography, all you need to do is get a standard Nikon film back and can keep using all of your lenses and other goodies that (trust me) you will end up buying. I've got a drive big enough on the camera to hold 300+ 2ftx3ft photos in the highest quality (which means I can do a lot of recropping and other postwork without losing quality in the print). And, as memory gets cheaper and larger, I'll probably upgrade that drive. If you think you will have any interest in photography, I urge you to get the best and most flexible camera you can afford. As you have already learned, there is nothing more frustrating to want to take a particular shot only to realize that your equipment will not do it, and that there is no lens or other add on that you can purchase that will make it work. Add to that, the possiblity that, if you have friends who are into photography or join a camera club, you may be able to borrow special lenses in order to try out special shots without, or before, buying the additional equipment. OK ... off my soapbox now.

Nikon Coolpix 995 ASA 800, 3,3 Megapixel.

yep,of course the Nikon D 100 is superb but very expensive. you need ca. 2300 $.I alays used Nikon, but i will wait 1 - 2 Years for a SLR. greetings gerhard #:O)

Well, I spent about $1600 US on my coolpix (I think it was a 995 ... not certain) by the time I also got all the additional lens adapters and such. My D100 with a basic lens and an additional flash was about the same. The thing is, unless something really odd happens, I will probably never have to buy another digital camera, or, if I do (because there is some huge change in the technology), I should only need to buy another back, and not new lenses. Also, and I could be wrong on this, but I think the resale will be better for the lenses (if I ever decide to drop the hobby) than for any one style of digital camera. I think my Kodak DC290 cost me about $900 to $1000 when I got it .... you can get them on ebay for about $300 now. Now, if someone cannot afford to go that route, I fully understand. It's just that if you are going to blow $1000 on something (and probably another $600 getting goodies for it), my personal opinion is that you are better off paying the $1600 on the basis for a good semi-professional kit.

oh i forgott, by the Nikon D 100 you need a macro lens extra, so you can add 500 $. so you can say ca. 3000 $ for all. With the Sony you are cheaper 2000 $. you can buy in 2 years for this 2000 $ the newest Nikon for sure.This is the matter why i will wait and the Sony is superb. Carl Zeiss Obejctive normaly used by Hasselblad is the highest standart on the world and a normaly a most expensive Objective.

Actually, no. The standard lens has a good macro setting. I've been able to get off some nice macro shots with it. Also, because the images are so large, I can crop in to macros in post.

For example .... macro shot of the center of a poppy taken with the regular 50mm lens on a macro setting. As I said, it's a question of how flexible a system is, how expandible it is, and whether your money is going towards something you will keep, or trash in a few years.

yep, the macro is super. i didn`t know it.

Example images ... I forgot that. I used my Nikon Coolpix 4300 for every image in my gallery (except "Extreme Fog" was shot by my Canon A1).

the pictures i posted is the differenz between the macros of this cameras without using digital zoom. with both cam you can go to 2 cm to the object, but you will not have the same result, this is i want to show.

You know, you can get great shots from a whole range of cameras. It really depends on (1) what you want to do with the camera (mostly snaps or "high art", macro or landscape or portrait or all three?), (2) how serious you usually get with your hobbies (are you the sort of person with equipment for ten different sports rusting in the garage?), and (3) how portable you want your camera to be (you can't stick an SLR in your pocket obviously). Most importantly, get it at a store where you can try it out to get an idea of the quality and type of photos you can take (or be able to return it if it turns out not to meet your expectations).

To be honest I think the Sony F7*7 series is a great starter. Most of the images in my gallery here are shot with it and some are macros. I use a D100 now and I am considering selling the sony. I believe you can get a sony 717 for about $500(US). Still it was a fantastic starter. Magick Michael

There are many options; not all of them break the bank. All of the suggestions presented here are good ones, but they may be more expensive than you want to attempt, at least getting started. Close-up photography is rather difficult unless you can compose and focus through the lens of the camera. Fortunately, even many of the point-and-shoot digital cameras have an LCD viewfinder which should work nicely. Now, you just need to get closer. Check out one of the bigger on-line photo stores (like bhphotovideo or adorama), for something called a "close-up auxilliary lens". You should be able to get something like this for under $40, which snaps in front of the camera lens. If you do not have an LCD viewfinder, things get more difficult. Not necessarily impossible, just more difficult. For the ultimate, some of the suggestions above are excellent, but may be more expensive than you had in mind. Let us know how things work out!

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=501019

I'd vote for a Sony 717 too. Though I have got one of these so I'm biased. It's got a reasonable macro mode, but one of its other strengths is you can buy screw on lens attachements. I've used a +4 close up for some of my macro shots, which is tricky to use some times because the autofocus doesn't work so well, but with a little practise you can get some nice results. And as its now an old model, you may be able to find one on offer somewhere if you shop around.

See the attached link for an example of a Sony DSC 717 using the internal flash and a +4 close up lens (and one obliging insect).

A "Prosumer" camera like the Sony 717, 828 or Nikon 5700 is a good compromise between a point and click digi camera and a full digital SLR. I've gone for a prosumer first to see how well I take to this whole thing, and once I'm sufficiently into this lark I'll probably upgrade to a Digital SLR, and will have learnt enough along the way to make the choice of which one much easier :P

Which ever route you go though will have to be justified by yourself on cash vs results. Something thats hard to do in a shop sometimes. So take your time choosing and weigh up the pros and cons of each choice.

There is of course another option to macro

I took this on maybe 6x zoom from about 4 feet away. With the correct aperture it increases the depth of field and saves mucking around with macro. Had to have 1" exposure though.

I got a Fuji S5000 recently and it's amazing. Cost 299 GB Pounds, (I'll let you all work out the exchange rate) I can't recommend it enough.

Anyway, if you're not having luck with macro, try sitting further away and zooming in.

Hi yeah sorry to hear about that but you can get great results from many of the prosumer digitals made by Fuji Nikon or Canon with around 4 mega pix resolution.. I would get the best you can afford as it will prove to be a sound investment for example you will save any future film and development costs so take that into consideration along with the ability to print out to at least A4 on most modern Printers that could cost 20 at a lab.. Second hand digitals are also worth looking into as us Photography nuts upgrade!! Danny

Ok, well, if you look at my gallery most of the pictures I take are macros.. I use a Fuji Finepix S602Z, 3.1 megapixel (6 interpolated, but actually doesn't look better than 4) digital camera. Excellent macro capabilities, not very good for landscapes, but it only cost me a little over $500. I'm still in the practicing stages of photography, but as soon as the price comes down on the better digital SLRs, I'm going to get my hands on one of those. =) Kim

As any of the guys who have hung around here for some time will testify, I am always rating my Fuji FP4900 - I've had it a little while now (1 - 2 years?) and it STILL exceeds everything I want to do.... and it was 550 back then, so paying a comparable amount for the latest equivalent imo would be money well spent. Saying that, I wanna move on to a digital SLR soon, just for the poser factor - I mean, every bloke and his dog has a digital now, don't they?!? But that's gonna have to wait until I've found 1500 to blow on the A1 Large Format printer I want next....... he he he (",)

Thanks for all the responses!!! No one really answered my question but from what was said and going to look up all the cameras mentioned, I'm supposing I'll need to spend $500....a little more than I wanted to spend to practice with....Thanks again! I'm looking at a HP Photosmart 735 to play with for under $200 Optical Zoom: 3x Digital Zoom: 5x LCD Display: 1.5-inch color Optical Viewfinder Max. Resolution: 2080 x 1542 Built-in Flash Manual White Balance Shutter speed range: 2 seconds to 1/1500 of a second White balance: auto (default), sun, shade, tungsten; fluorescent Shooting mode: single shot, burst, self timer (10-second wait time), macro, video Focus: normal, macro