Digital Cameras

[PolyhymnianMuse]

I see all the wonderful pictures everyone takes of their tea/teaware and a lot of them are just beautiful. I was wondering what kind of cameras everyone uses and if you could suggest one. I don't really have a whole lot of experience with photography but I think I would really get into it with a decent camera. I could probably work it into being a christmas gift as well which is a nice bonus

[Salsero]

I use mostly a Canon EOS 20D DSLR which is NOT what you are looking for. Steep learning curve, high price.

There are, however, a ton of great less expensive cameras out there that will do almost as much as my DSLR for a fraction of the price. I also have a Canon A520 (the exact camera is probably no longer available) that is big enough for my masculine hands, easy to use, and takes fine pictures.

You might ask Bert what he used HERE since he got some great ultra close shots that I am impressed with. Scruff_McGruff and Space Samurai both got fabulous photos with smaller cameras before they got DSLRs, so they would be worth querying.

Also, if you don't get enough responses here, PM those who have posted photos that look sharp, bright, and attractive to you. Especially if they do not seem to be into photography.

[Geekgirl]

Poly, if you could post a little more about your level of expertise, your budget, how deeply into the hobby you wish to go, and what you have shot with before, it will help some of us photogeeks to point you in a useful direction.

[PolyhymnianMuse]

Poly, if you could post a little more about your level of expertise, your budget, how deeply into the hobby you wish to go, and what you have shot with before, it will help some of us photogeeks to point you in a useful direction.

Well I don't really have much of an expertise outside of using basic cameras. My budget for a quality digital camera will probably be in the $200-$400 range. I really would like it for nice pictures of tea stuff but also to take out on shoots (probably a lot of nature stuff) and just overall general use.

I find myself going somewhere or seeing something and thinking "man, if I could only get a really good picture of that" so i've been drawn to getting a camera that takes quality pictures for awhile.

[Space Samurai]

I'm a big fan of my Nikon D40.



As Sal pointed out, I used to use a smaller digital point and shoot that cost about a hundred bucks, and I did get good pictures with it. but its so much easier with my Nikon. That's all really, a more expensive camera just makes it easier to get the shots you want, but you can still do it with more affordable ones.

[tjkoko_off]

It's probably not what you seek but I use a Leica D-Lux4 and it takes some really stunning photographs. That said, should you seek more advice on photographic instruments, then I suggest you visit: DPREVIEW.COM and surf those forums for advice and customer as well as professional reviews.

[Geekgirl]

Okay, my .02: Your budget pretty much rules out a DSLR unless you are looking on the used market. You are almost certainly looking at a point and shoot camera. While there are many good ones out there, the image quality suffers on some of them, as you increase the pixel count. In addition, you need to decide whether tiny size is important to you.

I tend to be Canon all the way. I do think that the Nikon DSLR series has some great standards, but unfortunately, their point and shoots tend to seriously lag behind the curve, in speed, image quality and user "friendliness."

For a tiny camera at a great price, it's pretty hard to beat the Pentax Optio M series. Image quality is good, and they are super easy to use. Some of the Canon UltraCompact Powershots are also very user friendly and have good image quality.

With an ultracompact point and shoot, you do lose flexibility in your shots. It can be difficult to shoot anything indoors without the flash, which creates significant glare and washed out colors.

Moving up, you have a couple of really good "point and shoot" options from Canon, the G9 (or the new G10 with the latest processor and better ISO), the older S5 IS, and the newest SX10 IS, in that order (IMO.) These give you a wide range of custom functions, a decent zoom, and in the case of the G-series, the ability to shoot in RAW, an uncompressed format which will help with image clarity and sharpness. These are not, however, "compact" options. While smaller than a DSLR, they are not "pocket sized" unless you are wearing a huge coat.

For a very low cost or free photo editing solution, I recommend Picnik, which seems to handle color/exposure corrections fairly well. Also Canon's own processing software is usually decent.

dpreview.com is a good review site, but it can be overwhelming.

I would venture to add that most of the really good still-life images you see here were not shot handheld. A decent tripod is one of your most valuable pieces of equipment. It can make a so-so photo op into a real stunner due to increased clarity and deeper color that comes from being able to use a longer exposure and lower lighting. Whatever camera you end up getting, be sure to save a little budget for a good tripod.

For purchases, I tend to use bhphoto.com. They are reliable, and have a fair return policy, plus they are very fast.

[chamekke]

Hi Geekgirl and others,

I really appreciate your comments. I'm currently still using my old Canon G3 PowerShot, which I adore, but which is (1) heavy and (2) failing - the flash is no longer reliable. Of course I've had it for 6 years now, and it's given me very satisfactory results, so I'm not complaining! I'm currently looking for something a bit more compact and lightweight that is suitable for taking on trips, so your comments on the Canon point-and-shoot options will be most helpful (like you, I have a soft spot for Canon). Thanks

[chad]

I've been using a Nikon Coolpix that my son's bought me a couple of years ago and I've been pleased with it. It is a bit "slow" on the button to shutter timing but that's about my only gripe. I'm sorry I don't have the model number with me at this time.

I've still got a 1970's era Canon OM-1 that was my father-in-law's camera and my eldest son has my 1970 Nikormat with a small selection of lenses. Yeah, I'm still hung up on my 35mm SLRs!

I am looking semi-seriously at Nikon and Canon DSLRs -- I'd love to have one sometime in the future. Maybe after son #2 gets out of the house and I don't have tuition payments anymore!

[heavydoom]

the trick to nice photography is also in the use of lighting and the use of the flash.

i need to get a proper flash for my dslr, this way you can bounce the flash form the ceiling or the wall, to the right or to the left of the pot or whatever.....direct flash to the subject makes horrendous whitewashed photos.

i have been using a digicam. good but not the best.

[Space Samurai]

I've been using a Nikon Coolpix that my son's bought me a couple of years ago and I've been pleased with it. It is a bit "slow" on the button to shutter timing but that's about my only gripe.

The technology may have advanced beyond this, but from what I remember this is a problem common with cheaper digital cameras.

[PolyhymnianMuse]

To answer Geekgirl's question, I'm not necessarily looking for something tiny and compact. I would much rather go for the highest picture quality and use within my budget than compromise for size.

Thanks everyone. This is really helpful information, I can tell there are quite a few photo-buffs

[Space Samurai]

This may be of inerest, too. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

[tjkoko_off]

Chad, I hear that there's a real cult following behind the Olympus OM-1 and so you may want to retain that instrument. Really. I read about somewhere at DPREVIEW.COM.

[Trioxin]

My shots are taken with an outdated Fuji S2 Pro DSLR using Sigma EX Lenses. Unfortunately the sensor is pretty much shot so it isn't worth a damn anymore.

what it used to do. Shot with an R25 filter and adjusted in photoshop.



This one is actually five or six pictures. I think the full sized pic came out to about five feet across.