Need camera help

[swede]

I'm about to buy a digital camera for posting some pictures (hopefully) of the same high quality as some of you on this forum. I've narrowed my search to Nikon, thinking about a Coolpix in the model 3800-4300 range.

Here come the stupid questions.

Should I get one with as many megapixels as I can afford? Most of the ones I'm looking at are between 2.8 and 4.0. I thought I read somewhere that if the picture is too sharp, it takes people longer to download.

They all seem to have a macro function. I guess that's what you all use for your tight close-up shots. Are there different levels of macro settings, or shouldn't I worry about this?

Do you use a lightbox, or take pictures in the natural light?

Is Nikon a good brand? We have a 4300 at the office, and it seems to be easy to use, but flexible. It has 4 megapixels.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Dave :confused:

[Ted]

Swede, I'm very happy with my Olympus C8080 :D
More pixels is better (IMHO), as long as the sensor is bigger, and the lens is bigger and the camera can deal with it.
8mp with a 1/1.8" sensor and a tiny lens is not the same as an 8mp with a 2/3" sensor and larger lens.
More megapixel means you can upload larger and sharper pictures, which indeed take longer to download, but, hey, don't we all have broadband? (and patience...)

Macro is indeed a must have. But there's indeed macro and macro. Of all the macro shots that I posted, I was about 1" from the subject. Not many camera's can do that...

Most of my pictures I take in natural light (a shady day is the best). I plan to make a light box however because the weather is horrible and the days are short this time of the year.

Read as much reviews as you can, and one of my rules has always been that it has to have a 'Highly Recommended' rating at http://www.dpreview.com
(My previous 2mp Canon Powershot S330 also had that).

But then again, a camera doesn't make a good shot, you do that!

Good luck in your search.

Ted

[severedthumbs]

get a Nikon D70 with the kit lens. And Nikon is second only to Canon.

[J Smith]

I just bought a new one or I should say LNIB off Knifeforums a couple months ago.It is a Fugi MX 2700 2.3 MP.Got it for 75.00 shipped.It takes better pics than I can.
Heres a couple pics I took with it.

[OutofGum]

I think an excellent camera that is a good compromise between price and picture quality is the canon a95. Every photography site that has reviewed it has given it a very good recomendation based on its build quality, features, and image quality. The camera is 5 megapixel which will allow you to print photos up to 8x10 easily, and allow you to crop and still have good images. I think anything over 4 megapixels is fine for casual use... anything larger than that is overkill unless you are really serious about your photography.

[The Deacon]

Dave, I enjoy photography, but not to the point of wanting to spend nearly a grand on a camera. To put things in perspective, any of the Nikons in the range you mentioned have more pixels than the Fuji 2800 I use and, when I do my part, that Fuji takes some pretty decent pictures. The attached is an approximately 400 X 400 chunk of a 1200 X 1600 shot take at about 5 inches with that Fuji. Needless to say, any of those Nikons, and particularly the 4300 can do even better. Decent light and a $40 tripod get the credit for that shot. Reality is that, for publishing on the web, even 4 megapixels is overkill, its only when you want to make prints larger than about 4X5 that the differences between a 3~4 meg and an 8 meg begin to show and they become more and more apparent as the print size increases. If you're familiar with the 4300, and it fits your budget, I'd say go for it!

[vampyrewolf]

I've got a kodak dx3500, 2.2meg pixel... does nice enough for web shots and 5x7s... passable for 8x10s.

I just take em on my desk, overhead lamp with a 100watt hallogen... full adjustable arm and head, means I can do pretty much any lighting angle I want. And I can toss a white filter on it too since there's 4 clips on the glass.

[swede]

Thanks a lot guys. You've given me a lot of useful tips. Someday soon, maybe I'll be as good as Ted, or the Deacon or even Simona!!

Dave

[severedthumbs]

d00d seriously get the Nikon D70. It is an awesome camera for the price. also imho the only affordable 8 meg worth buying is the Canon 20D.

[jbake]

Should I get one with as many megapixels as I can afford?

In my opinion, yes. With a caveat. If you are ONLY going to post web pics, anything over 2.0 MP is probably a waste. But, if you are EVER going to print...

Most of the ones I'm looking at are between 2.8 and 4.0.

If you can afford it, I would get at least a 4.0. That will give you some nice print sizes. You can probably swing an 8x10 without too much trouble. Note that some will say you can print much higher and some will say you can't go that high. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

I thought I read somewhere that if the picture is too sharp, it takes people longer to download.

You are basically correct. Instead of thinking about it in terms of sharpness, think about it in terms of size (resolution - Megapixel, whatever). Even a low resolution camera can have a sharp image, as long as it's small enough. It's when you make the images bigger that a small res camera's image begins falling apart.

Here's how you solve the download problem:
a) If you know a pic is only destined for the web, set your camera to take a low resolution picture - I haven't seen a camera yet that didn't allow you to change resolution, but just confirm before you buy.
b) If you aren't sure what you're going to do with the image, take a hi res picture and then use an imaging editing package to make the changes. It's VERY easy to do this. Some cameras come with editing software, or you can use anything from the very expensive Photoshop to a cheap shareware program.

I post my stuff at 800x600 @ 72dpi

They all seem to have a macro function. I guess that's what you all use for your tight close-up shots. Are there different levels of macro settings, or shouldn't I worry about this?

Most of the non DSLR cams do have macro functions. Yes, there are different ranges. The nomenclature is confusing, and sometimes the vendors do things to make that worse.
Sometimes you see macro lenses described as 1:1. That *should* mean that it can reproduce an image "lifesize".

Do you use a lightbox, or take pictures in the natural light?

I like Natural Light (not the beer) when available. Although, having one of those gizmos is on my wishlist. Sometimes I use flash or just setup other lights. I've lit stuff with flashlights before.

Is Nikon a good brand? We have a 4300 at the office, and it seems to be easy to use, but flexible. It has 4 megapixels.

Nikon is the best, IMHO. Right behind it is Canon (OK, I just had to put that in there :p ) I have shot film on Minolta, Contax, and Nikon. My first digicam was a Sony. I had several Nikon lenses and bodies, so when I decided to go to a digital SLR, Nikon made the most sense. Canon is fine as well. I've got to say that SONY, which I never really liked as a brand, makes an awesome camera as well.

The Nikon 4300 is a 2 year old camera that, as far as I can tell, is discontinued but still available. It was replaced with an updated 4.0MP camera in September. The Nikon 4800.
I would definitely try to get the new model.

More random thoughts:
The National Geographic Photography Field Guide is a good photo book.
If it comes to a town near you, Nikon School is awesome.
Epson photo printers are great. As you would expect, Canon & HP also good.
Somebody mentioned http://www.dpreview.com. That site is great. Narrow your choices to a couple of cameras and then go read their reviews. They have comparisons and sample pics.

Hope that helps!

-jb

[severedthumbs]

another good site http://www.luminous-landscape.com

[swede]

I'm trying not to get confused, but you helped, jbake. Awesome pictures too. I also cut my teeth on Nikon SLRs, and liked them a lot.
Thanks again, guys,
Dave

[Stevie Ray]

Should I get one with as many megapixels as I can afford?

Do you use a lightbox, or take pictures in the natural light?

Is Nikon a good brand? We have a 4300 at the office, and it seems to be easy to use, but flexible. It has 4 megapixels.

Dave :confused:

Dave,

I just saw all this, but thought I'd offer my 2 cents. IHMO, unless you're going to do very large prints, 4.0 megapixels is sufficient and you can land a deal given that the newest technology is 6 or 7 MP?? All my pictures are done in natural light, but .... I sure wouldn't mind having a lightbox! :D A tripod would be nice too, but .... I just haven't stepped up yet. My camera is a Canon G2, so I'm not too familiar with Nikon products. I'm sure all the main line brands have similar offerings.

One way to add tremendous flexibility to the way you manipulate digital pictures is to buy some of the Photoshop software. I bought Photoshop Elements off the web for around $50 bucks delivered and it gives me tremendous flexiblity with regard to color, light, cropping, resizing and a whole host of other options. The software, combined with the Canon's controls have been an easy to use combination. I've also found that at least in my case .. :o , I take multiple pictures of the same subject and typically only end up keeping a couple of the best ones.

Steve

[jbake]

That's one of the things that is so great about digital.

I can take as many pics as I want.
And I don't wind up feeling bad by spending a small fortune in developing a bunch of film. Especially important when only a few of my pics are keepers.

One pro told me one time that he showed very few of his pictures to the public. He said he just didn't have that many keepers. He also said it was a good thing to leave them wanting more.

Steve is right. A tripod is good. So, is Photoshop Elements.

And for the office, I bought our web developer a Canon G4 awhile back, so I really don't dislike Canon.

One more thought, since I now know you have been using SLRs.
When I first went digital, I was very frustrated about shutter lag. On an slr, when you click the button, you take a pic.

On most (non SLR) digital cameras, there is a delay. Sometimes a big one. You line up the shot, click the button and wait - wait - wait - it fires.

I was trying to shoot pics of my little boy and I was missing a ton of stuff. The problem seems to be related to autofocusing speed and the way the sensor changes modes. Of the few Canons, Nikons, and Sonys I've played with (again, not talking about Digital SLRs), the Sonys won hands down.

The reason I think, is that some of their cameras have a "holographic focusing" aid built in. But, it's not really important unless you're shooting action.

If you can get to a store and handle some, that should help.

[Shiden]

Should I get one with as many megapixels as I can afford? Most of the ones I'm looking at are between 2.8 and 4.0. I thought I read somewhere that if the picture is too sharp, it takes people longer to download.

They all seem to have a macro function. I guess that's what you all use for your tight close-up shots. Are there different levels of macro settings, or shouldn't I worry about this?

Do you use a lightbox, or take pictures in the natural light?

Is Nikon a good brand? We have a 4300 at the office, and it seems to be easy to use, but flexible. It has 4 megapixels.

IMO more megapixel is not always better. Only when making big prints (bigger than the average photo), a lot of megapixels are useful. You'd better invest in an excellent lens than in megapixel (if you want to buy an SLR).

Read as much reviews as possible. Some reviewers may be very positive about a camera, but another reviewer may be negative about the same camera. You want to know both opinions. Reviewers may be sponsored and thus not completely objective!

Good review sites are:
http://www.imaging-resource.com
http://www.dpreview.com
http://www.megapixel.net
http://www.dcresource.com
http://www.photo.net
http://www.steves-digicams.com
http://www.dcviews.com

Never decide overnight.

Take the additional costs in account: you'll have to buy extra memory and something to protect the camera (pouch etc). This is in total at least about $100.

Macro is a really nice option and available on most cameras these days. Read the reviews about the macro options on the cameras you prefer.

I never used a lightbox. However I would prefer to use one, because of the lack of shadows in the picture.

Nikon is a good brand. Both Nikon and Canon are the top, concerning 35 mm cameras and digital cameras.

Last but nog least: digital photography is still very new. If you want to buy a camera for landscapes, architecture, portraits, etc., you may want to consider buying a medium format film camera.
Film still offers much more detail than digital photography. A medium format film negative equals more than 60 megapixels of information. That's why I use both 35mm, medium format and digital photography.

Good luck choosing,
Shiden

[Burnett]

I'm quite happy with my Sony DSC F717. It can be bought relatively cheap now because it's an older model. Now it costs about half the price it cost when it was new on the market. It has a high quality Carl Zeiss lense and 5 mega pixel. You could also consider the new model of that cam: the F828 with 8 mega pixel. Of course I agree with what people wrote above about the Nikon D70. Great cam but with a much higher price tag. And a Canon EOS 20D.... mmmmmmmmm yeah.... that would be quite something but of course you must be able (and willing) to pay that much. I think the Sony F717 is a great mix of quality and a reasonable price. Below are some F717 sample shots of my Para-Military and Meerkat.

[Ted]

Swede, as you can see proven very well by Burnett, you can create crispy sharp pictures with a 5mp camera.
What I found with my old camera, is that I needed to reduce the picture to 50% (2mp = 1600x1200 becomes 800x600) to get a sharp image.
I believe that is due to the fact that the normal digital (and most DSLR's) use interpolation to create the picture because of how they use their sensors.
One pixel doesn't capture all three colors (RGB), but one pixture only captures one color. Therefore, 4 (1xR, 2xG, 1xB) pixels are required to get the real color. An interpolation algorithm then 'makes' up the other pixels again.
There's a better explanation here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/#x3
As you see in that explanation, some camera's actually have a different sensor that really capture all colors in one pixel.

Anyway, I shot some pics with my 8mp and 2mp camera so you can see where the difference becomes visible. The pic isn't that great, but I hope you get the 'picture'

8mp camera 3264x2448 reduced to 25% = 816x612 with sharpen filter


2mp camera 1600x1200 reduced to 50% = 800x600 with sharpen filter


As you can see, both aren't that much different. Slightly more detail in the 8mp.

8mp camera, cropped and reduced to 50%


2mp camera, cropped (not modified)


Here you can see the detail difference

8mp camera, cropped


2mp camera, enlarged to 200%


More obvious difference.

Ted

[severedthumbs]

Who can afford to shoot medium format digital backs? The new Canon 1Ds Mark II is just as good as most digital backs out for a fraction of the cost.

[jjmc2001]

Jbake,
Can you please identify the Benchmade axis lock knie in front of the pistol. I apologize to my Spyderco friends but I have a weakness for the axis lock. thanks

[Shiden]

Jbake,
Can you please identify the Benchmade axis lock knie in front of the pistol. I apologize to my Spyderco friends but I have a weakness for the axis lock. thanks

That's a 705, but a limited version.

Shiden