camera recommendation for Hardware Review Pics

[Thermopylae_480]

unless you have a specific reason not to go with canon or nikon, go with canon or nikon. you will learn how to properly use their cams over time and when you decide to upgrade to a better cam (which will most probably be canon or nikon) there is less of a learning curve

I agree, I love my Sony, but I only got it over the Cannon and Nikon because it is compatible with some older Minolta lenses that I have. In retrospect, I wish I had just sold those lenses and gone with a Nikon or Cannon; they simply have the best cameras in my opinion.

price is the thing thats stopping me from going canon.

another reason is the use of a rechargable battery in sony rather than having to buy and replace AA batteries.

I know that some Nikon Coolpix come with a rechargeable Li+ battery, and so do some of the Cannon Powershots. Both of those versions of the camera are less than $150 new.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120254
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830113091

 

[suraswami]

Olympus C2100 ... if you can find something on eBAY .

Still with any good camera , you need some training to take advantage of it ,
one good horse needs an excellent rider to show it power .

The Olympus C2100 its one of that good horses.

My all time favorite is the Olympus C730.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/c730uz_samples.html

I have to retire this cam because its little slow under poor light conditions and especially taking baby pics (with all the hands and legs moving). I bought the Panasonic FZ4 and my probs with baby pics went away, fastest camera i ever seen (next to DSLRs). But still the olympus excels in low light still flash shots and macro shots. I have taken some of the best close up shots of flowers with the olympus.

Like everybody mentioned Tripod is a must.

my 2 cents

 

[thebeephaha]

You could pick up a good Nikon D40 or something cheap like that. Even the most entry level DSLR will destroy any point and shoot camera on the market.

 

[W1zzard]

You could pick up a good Nikon D40 or something cheap like that. Even the most entry level DSLR will destroy any point and shoot camera on the market.

not my experience for review product photography..

which one is the $400 cam and which one the $4500 cam ?

of course there will be special cases where a better cam will give you better pictures, but the huge price difference is not worth it for that purpose alone

for example this is impossible with any point and shoot

can't do macro _product_ photography with point and shoot? wrong. canon pro1 + 10d screw on macro lens ($20)

 

[DRDNA]

left = cheaper and right = more expensive....?But the left image is bigger.

 

[DRDNA]

Why not a Kodak? Image quality is awsome and all the latest technology as far as pictures go.

 

[Thermopylae_480]

left = cheaper and right = more expensive....?But the left image is bigger.

I think the point is there isn't much difference. Most of the differences I see are due to different lighting, white balance settings, or saturation settings. Most of which could be fixed with a little post processing. If you got really picky and compared the two cameras original images, taking a picture of the same object, at the same time, from the same position, with as similar as possible settings you would be able to tell a difference, but for an isolated image in a tech review nobody is going to notice.

The point being is that if you only want a camera to do a few reviews a cheaper P&S camera is almost always the best fit. A DSLR is nice and can allow more flexibility, possibly a wider array of settings, and can perform a few feats that a P&S can not, but if you're doing a few tech reviews is the $399+ price tag going to be worth it?

If you want to take up photography as a profession or serious hobby and need a lot of versatility and accessories with your camera get a DSLR.

If you just want to do a few casual tech reviews, snap pictures of the kiddos, the family vacation, or a particularly inspiring flower you ran across once last year, than get a P&S.

 

[kiriakost]

I own you all with my Olympus C2100 , but i stay silent .... how can i fight back Sony Fanboys , that they accept the Greenish looking pictures ... instead to care and admire true neutral colors , and low noise at dark shots.

Not all Olympus are the same , few cameras has the balls to present true clean pictures ,
very few has real lens , and more more few , haves overall acceptable performance.

There is only one negative with the large barrels aka zoom killers , its called barrel distortion.
But i will not get more to it .

The point is that you can not have a camera for reviews, for cheap .
Cheap cameras are ok , just for friends and family .

For reviews ( close up and landscapes ) only the best can do the job.

And by the way , C2100 has 10X natural zoom .. Canon barrel + IS Image stabilizer (mechanical by Canon ) .
Who needs tripods ..

 

[Thermopylae_480]

My Sony doesn't take greenish images.

I don't think anyone is really advocating buying a Sony; most people have said Nikon or Cannon, me included.

 

[freaksavior]

I don't do reviews (yet) but i have a EOS 40D.

I would go with nikon or canon like the rest said. If you do change later on you already know most of it.

 

[wolf2009]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830113091

The Nikon S210 is a good suggestion.

Why not a Kodak? Image quality is awsome and all the latest technology as far as pictures go.

I haven't hear good things about Kodak Image Quality.

Right now, I have narrowed it down to 2 cameras. Sony W120, which I can get for $80 and Nikon S210 for $95.

My concern now is if they are compatible with a tripod ?

 

[Cold Storm]

I would suggest this Nikon P40 for a starter camera. I bought it before Thanksgiving, and I just fell in love with it. The power of the camera is just...

That was taken in the complete dark.. Just walking by and took it. Freaked the hell out of RM when we where putting the HR-03 cooler on the GTX.. It's real easy to use, and if you grab some rechargeable batteries.. It lasts quite a long time! 500+ pictures before having to change.

Also, it does have the ability to use a tri-pod

 

[wolf2009]

I would suggest this Nikon P40 for a starter camera. I bought it before Thanksgiving, and I just fell in love with it. The power of the camera is just...

That was taken in the complete dark.. Just walking by and took it. Freaked the hell out of RM when we where putting the HR-03 cooler on the GTX.. It's real easy to use, and if you grab some rechargeable batteries.. It lasts quite a long time! 500+ pictures before having to change.

Also, it does have the ability to use a tri-pod

Thats a good suggestion, but it is a bit more than I would want to pay

 

[sweeper]

Just do what I did and get an SLR Nikon or Rebel and use the camera for more than just review pics. I have the Nikon SLR D50 with the standard 55mm lens and a Nikor 55mm - 200mm vibration reduction lens.

 

[wolf2009]

Just do what I did and get an SLR Nikon or Rebel and use the camera for more than just review pics. I have the Nikon SLR D50 with the standard 55mm lens and a Nikor 55mm - 200mm vibration reduction lens.

sorry budget doesn't allow

 

[wolf2009]

bump, sony w120 or nikon s210 ?

 

[kiriakost]

My Sony doesn't take greenish images.

I don't think anyone is really advocating buying a Sony; most people have said Nikon or Cannon, me included.

I found my chance to tease you .. do not spoil it .

From joined day one , i noticed your forum name with Greek roots, checked your profile,
and found you picture galleries.

As passioned "Olympus" hobbyist photographer, i was expecting the chance to tease you,
and find it now ...

Take care.

 

[kiriakost]

bump, sony w120 or nikon s210 ?

Between the two, Sony has brighter lens , so more sensitivity for low light shots.

But you need to make one research about digital noise on the pictures .

Read the reviews here ... are worthy ones .

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/default.asp?view=alpha

 

[W1zzard]

please explain what a brighter lens is in photographic terms

 

[jbunch07]

please explain what a brighter lens is in photographic terms

He might be referring to better light transmission.

Example. Swarovski optics are prob the best thing ive looked through...because the amount of light getting through the lens is far greater than other optics.

That is just an example, sorry its kind of topic but I think better image quality has to do more with the image sensor in the camera. could be wrong tough.

 

[Frederik S]

Brighter could just mean a bigger aperture lens. Like f/2.5 instead of f/3.5.

 

[thebeephaha]

Brighter could just mean a bigger aperture lens. Like f/2.5 instead of f/3.5.

Yea that's usually what brighter would refer to but technically you would call it a faster lens.

 

[kiriakost]

faster lens.

You can call it that way too .... One stop faster .

 

[Thermopylae_480]

Aperture doesn't directly have anything to do with speed, only in that if you use a higher f-stop (more narrow aperture) less light gets through and you may have to compensate by using a slower shutter speed or higher ISO. You can take a picture at any f-stop and maintain the same shutter speed of 1/200 for example. By changing the aperture you're simply effecting the amount of light that reaches the film/sensor and the depth of field of the image.

The speed column in the chart above is referring to the shutter speed, and when it says "Stops fast action" under the adjust f-stop column is is just saying that at 1/800 with an f-stop of less than 2.8 you will be able to "freeze" a fast moving object, but will have very narrow depth of field.

In conclusion, saying you have a faster aperture doesn't make any sense.

 

[kiriakost]

less light gets through and you may have to compensate by using a slower shutter speed

Conclusion : Lots light " F2.8 " does not force you to compensate ,
the opposite you can use higher shutter speeds = more speed = faster lens .