Didnt want to jump on the other thread about hotrod photograpy, but the time has come to upgrade my Sony Cybershot 2.1, Have not been able to get really good build shots on the roadster because of the lighting limitations of the old camera. What are you guys using?, I can probably do $800 to $1000 for a one, I dont need an all out professional model. I see sony has a new 10.3 cybershot, but I though about Nikon or Fuji. What are you guys using?, how are they on batteries now?
I have a canon SD in the 200-300 price range, it's pretty good on batteries, and can take decent pics if you are not too far away, or if you have plenty of light. For build shots you might be able to set the camera on a tripod and use the self timer so you can take non-flash pics and have them come out sharp. Maybe spend the $$$ on some lighting equipment, instead of on the camera?
Sony DSC-H2 This one is simular to mine (newer by a year), and rather inexpensive for all the features it has (350-400 dollars). Some selling points for me were the burst mode, manual controls for the exposure and such, and the ability to attach other lenses, movie mode is good too. Batteries are great, just make sure you get a large memory stick or you run out of room before battery. http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INT...yName=dcc_DIDigitalCameras_style_fullfeatured
I am absolutly in love with my Nikon d200, but thats for a little more advanced users. The D50 is perfect for the good all around use and not too bad price wise any more.
I have seen many megapixel cameras take horrible pictures regardless of the make. I bought mine about 4-5 years ago and its only a 1-1/2 meg pix. Takes better pictures than many I have seen here. The trick is to find a camera that has glass lenses. Many of the cameras out now have plastic lenses. Yes, you will pay for the cut glass lenses but this is the trick.
I've got the same problem with my Sony...seems like the selling-point is always megapixel, but what good is 24x24 photo that's blurry or overexposed? I was told that the cameras with lithium-ion or other high-powered rechargeable batteries perform better than the ones that run off standard batteries. Supposedly the shutter-speed and reaction time is faster. Anyone know if there's truth to this? Bryan
I believe I read that same thing a while back. Mine uses the Li-ion batts, and I cant recall the last time I used one that uses regular batteries, so I cant tell you first hand truth. Yes the D80 kicks ass too, I have a friend who shoots solely with that body..
in my limited experience, newer cameras with built in rechargeable batteries are indeed better. And they seem to be a feature of $200+ cameras, AA batteries are used in most sub $200 models.
This is true today, unfortunately, it wasn't the case when I bought my camera Thanks for the info guys...I like to take a lot of show pics and sometimes get a little embarrassed about the quality of my indoor pics I post. Bryan
I have pretty good results with the Kodak Easy Share camera. It is 5.0 megapixels. Uses a memory card, about $34 each or so. Has a few settings for closeup and a certain amount of distance....and you can control picture quality also. Higher quality=less total of pictures on the card. The 256 megabite card will hold around 440 pictures. Uses two Kodak rechargable batteries, which last pretty well. I bought the dock which charges batteries and also connects camera to the computer. Rather a handy gadget. I upload from camera to PhotoBucket. Can't remember the cost, but they are not too expensive. Find em at Wal Mart or Sams Club or many other places. They will even do mini movies with sound. Just depends upon what you want. Takes a fairly good closeup......I quit putting my parts book in the scanner and just take a pic of the pages needed. Hope this helps.
I posted here asking about torque specs for a flathead crank bearings and they all didn't know what the hell I was talking about. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/
Well, for the magazine work I do, I use two cameras - a Konica Minolta DiMage, and a Pentax Optio. Really though, improving technique will be better for you in the long run than $$$ cameras. You can use a $30,000 Hasselblad and your pictures could STILL look like crap. I use a fixed lens camera, but am in the market of getting a good body and some nice lenses. However, this will still apply to you: 1. In low light areas, it just looks better if you use a tripod and adjust your shutter speed/aperture instead of using flash. Flash is only good for so many feet, but it also throws shadows. Unless you get that detachable flash thing, with a disfuser. The name of it escapes me. 2. Use a remote shutter release or the timer. This way you reduce shake. 3. Use a low ISO, or you'll get "noise" (grainy pictures) 4. Get out your manual and find out how to adjust the white balance, artificial lighting causes everything to look yellow. 5. If you're taking outdoor photos, get a hood on your lens to minimize "flare" (weird light dots on your finished image) Any middle of the range camera should do this. I would suggest getting the ones with rechargeable batteries, and getting extra. When I shoot shows, I take 5 batteries with me and go through them all. A larger flash card is also needed if you go with a 8+ Megapixel, because they give you a tiny one that will allow you all of like 12 pictures. Checking out your camera's manual will help a lot. I paid $800 for the DiMage and $50 for the pentax. I forgot how much my other equipment costs, but I'm telling you, I really want the carbon fiber pistol grip ball head tripod, but it costs about the same as a small country. And so you too will find this out about camera equipment! If it has anything to do with photography, it'll cost you an arm and a leg. It's really not as hard to figure out all the settings as it sounds. It just seems like a lot when you start doing it at first, but then becomes second nature. Oh... and get picture editing software. Like Photoshop Elements.
I have a Nikon D70 that I have used semi professionally fo a couple of years now. It works great. Now here's the catch. Nikon has upgraded to conciderably better equipment that costs alot more. So now you can get the D70 for a lot less, because it's "Outdated" It is still a great camera with more functions than you'll ever use. They pop up on e bay, or look for camera stores in your area that sell used stuff. You'd be amazed at how something so good can be so cheep, just because they have the same camera with a few more bells and whistles on it. The big thing to be careful of when buying used stuff is find out how many clicks it has on it. They do wear out. I have almost 20,000 pictures on mine and it is still fine, but I have heard of ones with more on them that are just worn out. Have a look at www.nikonians.org that forum is pretty good and covers a lot of stuff.
We just went thru this for the boss; she picked out a camera that was recently released in the US - an Olympus UZ 550. Good low light resolution, image stabilization, 18X zoom (for the car shows, natch) and 2-1/2" focal length for closeups. when it comes to cameras - I'm friggin' stupid, so she did the research. it was $500 online; harder than hell to find, tho. took about 8 tries to find someone with it in stock. I don't recommend used cameras, as the new ones have the features of the used ones - at about the same price as a used one. the UZ 550 has the features of my brother's two-year-old camera...at half the price.
I've got a Konica Minolta DiMage and love this camera. Only downside is it's not the kind you just stick in your pocket and go. I messed with a lot of those compact cameras and found that I really like one that I can hold on to. It has lots of features and takes great pictures. Just have to take some time to get toknow it.
Yeah, the little cameras are nice to carry, but unless you have a super steady hand, its hard to get pictures in focus. I use a Sony simple point and shoot. It does have all of the adjustable stuff on it, I just don't know how to use them...
For that kind of money you can get a good Canon Rebel ( 8Mp), a decent lens and a flash unit. I use a similar outfit in my semi-pro work. It's plenty of camera for learning lots of photography. I've printed 30"x40" prints from a 3Mp camera with good results. But then you'll need a good printer ($$) and a better computer ($$$) and better software ($$$)! Careful , it's a slippery slope
I just bought a Sony DSC-T50 7,2mp with a 4bg memorycard. Its easy to use, takes good pictures and has long battery life. (Tests and manual says it can take 400 pictures before it needs to be recharged) The flash is actually really good, there are different modes so you stands as far away as 6m from your target and still get a nice picture. It also takes some good pictures inside with "bad" lights because the flash is pretty good! It has a nice 3" touchscreen, it looks good and is easy to navigate! For me the only downside is that there is not many manual settings, so the fun-factor where you experiment with ISO and shutter-time is very limited. The price for the camera and a 4gb memorycard here in Denmark was 535$, so its probably cheaper in the US.
I have a cheap ($189.00 CDN) Fuji FinePix E510 5.2 megapixel that I use every day for work. I use a 1 gig memory card and carry two extra batteries. It's good for close in work as it has a wide angle lens and fits easily in a shirt pocket. It's reliable and user friendly. But when I go to car shows etc. I still use the old dinosoar film cameras but when I get the fim developed I get the film put on CD.
A $39 tripod and the ability to turn off the flash will do you a world of good, no matter what camera you're using. Add a remote to release the shutter, and you're even better. I have a Nikon d50 SLR here at work, and I love it (Though I wish I would've spec'ed a different kit with a longer lens, but...). At home, I have an old Nikon Coolpix 995. One super cool thing about it is that you can rotate two halves of the body. One half has the lens, the other has the LCD screen to see what you're about to take a pic of. These 2 halves can be rotated independently, so you can take pics from unique viewpoints without being an acrobat. For instance, I can take a pic of the bottom side of my floorboards without jacking up the car or crawling under it! Or take a pic of the back of the instrument panel for a wiring reference, etc. Nikon has a newer one that does this, can't remember the model # though.
One thing to consider is what your use is for the camera. Are you planning on just keeping the photos on the computer, or printing them out. Like Wild Turkey was pointing out, if you get a high quality high megapixle camera and want to print it out you need a hight quality printer or its all for nothing. Personaly i dont notice that much of a difference in the whole megapixle thing. I used a 1.3 for the longest time and dont really see the difference with my new 6. I always dumbed it down anyways to fit more pictures on the camera, and if i post them they get lower quality anyways. Just something to think about.
I use a Fuji S2 body with fast Nikon lenses (2.8 and faster), I also use a Kodak 14N. Having said that, you can get away with alot less expensive gear. The Nikon D-70 is a great camera for the money, but spend your real money on good quality lenses. As said before, megapixles will only get you so far, the rest of the puzzle of sharpness is found in a good lens. Invest, don't spend. Spike
Thanks for all the replys, I've at least got the computer hardware covered, i've been in that business for almost 20 years now so I keep myself in a fairly beefy computer with 2gb ram and a good video card. checked today and found we arent "authorized" to buy cameras wholesale though, I'm going to see whats involved there. I think I have a version of photoshop around here, but shouldnt the better cameras come with decent software? I have learned Megapixels arent everything too, I borrowed a Sony 5.1 mavica once and thought the pictures were inferior to my 2.1 cybershot. My biggest gripes with the current camera are: 1. Takes forever to take the first shot, and especially the second shot. 2. batteries are dead in no time 3. Flash is either too bright or not enough, not really much adjustment for anything either, its basically just a point and shoot. 4. Very little zoom or closeup capability again, thanks for the input.... pretty sure this was with flash too, and my shops not that dark
Use PhotoShop. Whatever your camera comes with won't be that good, Period. Example: I threw your pic into PS 7.0, sharpened and lightened it (took 27 seconds or so), and here it is: Cosmo
Proprietary camera software is poop. I shot my entire premier issue of my magazine with an a95 canon. I happen to like the way canons deal with low light conditions, but for most anything except high end photography the mid range point n shoots are spectacular for the price.
I wouldn't use whatever software that comes with the camera. For simple editing, and if you don't want to shell out the $$ for photoshop, I'd just get Elements. I think the last time I got software from a camera purchase, it was just a trial version anyway. The slow picture taking can be one of a few things... two that come to mind are long exposures (happens in low light w/o flash) and slow flash cards. I just found out flash cards have speeds, and replaced mine 'cause I have to take a lot of action shots. They're more expensive, of course. Megapixels are mainly for sharp detail when you blow your pictures up big (as in printing up posters). Here are some (really big, sorry) comparison shots. Using flash: Not using flash: Hand holding with no white balance: Tripod with white balance:
The Jalopy Journal
