Camera suggestions

baldanthony · #1

I'm new to these forums, and want to post pictures of my fledgling knife collection. I have little-to-no photography experience, but I wish to find a *good* easy to use camera to take hi-res macro pics of my knives. This comes out of my edged-weapon budget, so please try to be gentle!
Thank you,
-Anthony

Evil D · #2

As far as point and shoots go, you almost can't go wrong. I haven't been keeping up with the latest and greatest, but most everything is going to take high res pics these days, so you don't have to spend a fortune. I would go with what's affordable and compare some specs to see what you like. Personally, if it doesn't fit in my pocket, chances are good I won't use it because I hate lugging around camera bags and such, despite the fact that the bigger DSLR type cameras take vastly superior pics. You shouldn't have any trouble finding something for around $100 that will take nice pics. Spend much more than that and you're just getting fancy features that you may never use if you're not that serious about photography.

noseoil · #3

#1 on your list is a solid tripod! It doesn't have to be big, expensive or fancy, but it must be solid. I've joked before about the best tripod being a block of concrete with a 1/4" bolt cast in the middle, but it is true. They make some nice small table-top ones, like this one from B&H:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... &A=details

The main thing is to take out all movement when you're shooting. Add a curved piece of backing paper & a light or two, and you're in business.

xceptnl · #4

I agree that you almost can't go wrong with point-n-shoot. I recommend paying more attention to the glass that the camera uses vs. the claimed MP. Kodak is famous for advertising big MP, but the processing circuits and lens is sub par IMO. I recommend Nikon, Sony, Panasonic because of the reasons I recommended in the start of my post. For Hi-Res Macro shots of your knives, lighting will make up a lot of the shortcomings of a less expensive camera.

Evil D · #5

xceptnl wrote:I agree that you almost can't go wrong with point-n-shoot. I recommend paying more attention to the glass that the camera uses vs. the claimed MP. Kodak is famous for advertising big MP, but the processing circuits and lens is sub par IMO. I recommend Nikon, Sony, Panasonic because of the reasons I recommended in the start of my post. For Hi-Res Macro shots of your knives, lighting will make up a lot of the shortcomings of a less expensive camera.

I would almost always agree with the Kodak stuff, but my mother had a point and shoot Kodak that was downright badass. It shot better video than my camcorder. I don't know the model but it's been a few years ago. That thing was awesome.

glbpro · #6

Welcome to the forum! I'm bald too, although my name is not Anthony :P

I would add: do not discount the camera built into your cell phone - many cellphone cameras these days are as good or even better than the point and shoots from 2-3 years ago. The one disadvantage that they have is their tiny lenses, which means good lighting is a must. But I have seen some pretty amazing pictures taken with those.

Regards,
Bruno

baldanthony · #7

Thank you for the suggestions! I know that MPs are less important than sensors in newer cameras. I don't need professional-grade equipment, but I would prefer something I could maybe grow into. I just don't want to pour too much into yet another hobby. Could anybody suggest an entry-level model that is easy to adjust to?

baldanthony · #8

Lol, my name is Anthony, but I'm not bald. That's a moniker I took after losing a bet ;o)

Bladekeeper · #9

Canon SLR are relatively cheap for the quality pics produced , make the worst photographer look like David Bailey by all accounts .

The Deacon · #10

I normally use a Nikon SLR, but also have a Nikon Coolpix S3300 point-and-shoot which I used a few minutes ago to take the photo below. The camera was tripod mounted and a simple light box was used. First version is exactly as it came out of the camera, except for being resized down to 800 X 600. Second has been color corrected a bit in Picassa, final version color corrected and cropped. They can be found for under $90.

[CENTER]

[/CENTER]

MarcusH · #11

Hi,

if you want to do some "real" macro shooting, you will definitely need a DSLR with a dedicated macro lens, which in both cases will be pretty expensive. A tripod is essential, too.
The macro mode of the point-and-shoots and of standard zom-lenses is not a real one, it just reduces the minimal focal distance and doesn't change the reproduction ratio.
For beginners I'd recommend one of the cameras with the micro-four-thirds standards. The older models like the Panasonic G1/G2/G3 or the Olympus E-P1/E-P2/E-PL2 are all very good and should be available for a really good price in good used condition.
They are very easy to use with lots of automatic modes and the picture quality of these cameras even with the standard zooms is excellent.
And if you're grown into it, the lenses can be changed and there are some dedicated macro lenses for this system.
Here's a real macro with a reproduction ratio of 1:1.5, the pic is not cropped. The second pic was 1:1, but is cropped. You may even guess what Spydie it is...

Marcus

Evil D · #12

^^ I think I'm more impressed with how clean their laser etching is....sheesh.

My current point and shoot is a Sony Cybershot, which is a few years old but still can be bought online at various places. http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Series-DSC-T ... B003W47ZL8

You can get a much better/newer version than that for probably the same or less at just about any retailer. Look at any of the pics I've posted on this site and they were all taken with that camera.

Donut · #13

I generally say to stick to Canon point and shoots if you want to stay cheap. I have seen some models from other brands do well, but I don't remember which ones.

I want to let you know that not all are created equal. I have Casio's flagship point and shoot from a year ago and that takes pretty poor quality macro pics. I have a Canon SX200 IS from a few years ago that has a super macro mode that focuses at down to 1/4 inch from the lens. That is my current king for a reasonably priced macro camera. I also have the current model SX260 that does good, but doesn't do great like the SX200.

baldanthony · #14

Thank you all for your input! A friend of mine lent me a Nikon Coolpix L820 to play around with. I'm brand new to photography, so I think I'll take the weekend to learn how to use it. The Ohio Classic Knife Show may cut into that.. I'll post a pic soon!!

Donut · #15

Take pictures at the show! :)

baldanthony · #16

So, I took a few pics, but I receive an error that they are far too large to add. What is the general way of compressing/adding pics? Is there really a 100 kb limit?

baldanthony · #17

This Lava G-10 Blue has been resized so many times, I don't know WHAT it'll look like after it's uploaded. First trial pic, here goes...
[ATTACH]22835[/ATTACH]

baldanthony · #18

Last pic was too large, possibly overcorrecting here (slashing file size in half.)
[ATTACH]22836[/ATTACH]

Evil D · #19

Your best bet is to register a Photo bucket account and host pics from there. Much easier than resizing every pic you post.

Donut · #20

Not too bad. A lot of the blur comes from either moving the camera while taking the picture or not enough light. It's kind of a compound issue.

The way a camera works is that it has to leave the shutter open long enough to gather enough light, so if it's dark the shutter has to stay open longer. I've read that some photographers have such steady hands that they can do 1/10 (second) exposure and hold the camera still. That's pretty crazy to me, I have to steady my hand against something to get blurry pictures at 1/10 exposure. =P