Digital Camera Recommendations

Wart

Wart

Banned
Depends how shaky you are.

Many cameras, both P&S and dSLRs have vibration reduction technology (But there is a debate on VRs reduction of picture quality, as people will debate anything).

I'm afraid if shaking is too bad (as in a medical condition) I'm afraid the only thing that will yield guaranteed results is a Mono or Tripod with a cable release/ remote trigger.

A third option is a shoulder brace which is akin to a gun stalk a camera can be mounted to. I have one I've used mostly with my 200 + mm lenses, but also came in handy with longer exposures with shorter lenses.

Issue with a shoulder brace is the mechanism to 'trip the shutter'. My brace is set up to accommodate a plunger type release, my camera is set up for a IR trigger, they aren't exactly compatible. To use the D40 on the brace I have to either shoot left handed or reach over top the camera to press the button, if I used the brace more I would get better at using it ... Duh?

OTOH, if using a brace cured the issue I would damned well figure out a way to make the brace user friendly. No doubt.

I wouldn't own this one but it will give an idea:

554798.jpg


{LINK} to a Google image search for photography shoulder brace.
 
Last edited:
High Cheese

High Cheese

Saucier
My Rebel uses Image Stabilization, works great. The zoom lens I have didn't come with that option (another $500 lens). I've used 2 second shutter delay and a tripod for some killer zoom shots. The delay allows for the initial shake while pressing the shutter button. I don't have a remote yet.
 
Wart

Wart

Banned
High Cheese said:
My Rebel uses Image Stabilization, works great. The zoom lens I have didn't come with that option (another $500 lens).
Click to expand...

Yeah, aint that a bitch?

I've used 2 second shutter delay and a tripod for some killer zoom shots. The delay allows for the initial shake while pressing the shutter button. I don't have a remote yet.
Click to expand...

Same here, I use either a 2 or 5 second delay.

And I use a tripod whenever I can, needed or not.
 
Wart

Wart

Banned
pugger said:
So will the "Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT 8 Megapixel" have the image stabilization?

http://catalog.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-D...efkw=canon+rebel+camera&_trksid=p3286.c0.m271
Click to expand...

I didn't see where it says it has VR, or mayhaps I missed it?

Be careful buying a dSLR camera on line, many times the unbeatable price is because the seller has pulled the lens and is selling only the body, or without the battery or charger, basically they take a kit and strip it. Bastards!

Also, I've seen retailers, Brick and Mortars, Click and Mortars, and online, selling dSLR kits with additional lenses in package deals for damned good prices.
 
High Cheese

High Cheese

Saucier
I bought mine on Ebay from time2envy. They're a camera powerseller. They did jack the price up after I used Buy It Now.

The package will say Image Stabilization lens or IS. Most have just the standard 18-55 IS lens, which is a great all around lens IMO. The package I got came with a 75-300 tele (no IS) and a macro lens. 8MP is old, look for the 10. Also, these cameras do not have video and the screen can only be used with manual mode, not automatic modes. They are really professional cameras, I don't know crap about mine except it takes bitchin pics.

Came with all those lenses, standard and small tripod, case, etc. Paid like $650.

O...BTW, my cam is on it's highest setting and the raw image is like 60 inches wide. So I can print out some kewl dirtbike posters. :mrgreen:
 
Wart

Wart

Banned
High Cheese said:
I bought mine on Ebay from time2envy. They're a camera powerseller. They did jack the price up after I used Buy It Now.

The package will say Image Stabilization lens or IS. Most have just the standard 18-55 IS lens, which is a great all around lens IMO. The package I got came with a 75-300 tele (no IS) and a macro lens. 8MP is old, look for the 10. Also, these cameras do not have video and the screen can only be used with manual mode, not automatic modes. They are really professional cameras, I don't know crap about mine except it takes bitchin pics.

Came with all those lenses, standard and small tripod, case, etc. Paid like $650.

O...BTW, my cam is on it's highest setting and the raw image is like 60 inches wide. So I can print out some kewl dirtbike posters. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


Well, Damn, that opens whole 'nother canS of worms ....

for much anything a duffer is going to use a camera for even the 6 meg is way overkill, so there is no percentage in chasing mega-pixels for the sake of mega pixels.

Far more important things than simple pixel count.
 
chowhound

chowhound

New member
Wart said:
Well, Damn, that opens whole 'nother canS of worms ....

for much anything a duffer is going to use a camera for even the 6 meg is way overkill, so there is no percentage in chasing mega-pixels for the sake of mega pixels.

Far more important things than simple pixel count.
Click to expand...

Especially when printing out the pics using your four year old HP printer you paid 80 bucks for. :lol:
 
UnConundrum

UnConundrum

New member
Gold Site Supporter
Reviving this old thread, I think it's time for me to find a new camera. I am NOT a camera buff, and have no desire to do so. Tons of options push the buttons on my compulsive obsessive disorder ;) Mostly, I take pictures of food to post here and other sites, sometimes pictures of my dogs, and once in a blue moon, family pictures. Since most of my pictures are taken inside, I use a flash which often turns everything of light color white. If I don't use the flash, everything is dingy. Once in a while I like to zoom in, especially if taking pictures in the WFO. In the pics below, I have no idea what the white stuff in the red bowl is, probably flour. The next one is a pavlova, but no definition. Can't see the crumb in the bread on the sandwich, and the whisk is just obvious. I wouldn't mind paying a little more for a camera that would adjust itself for light conditions, and eliminate the need for a flash, but it has to do it itself.

FWIW, my current camera is a Panasonic Lumix.
 

Attachments

  • P1040327.JPG
    P1040327.JPG
    143 KB · Views: 76
  • P1040334.JPG
    P1040334.JPG
    147.9 KB · Views: 82
  • P1040342.JPG
    P1040342.JPG
    133.7 KB · Views: 87
  • P1040352.JPG
    P1040352.JPG
    148.7 KB · Views: 80
joec

joec

New member
Gold Site Supporter
I avoid using the built in flash on my camera. Now I have an out dated Canon G3 which by todays standards isn't much more than a snap shot camera. Now with that said it does have some features that are a must. First the ability to use an add on flash instead of the built in. The flash I use is also a Canon 420 EX flash that will work with most of their higher end cameras with a hot shoe. Secondly it has an ISA function which allows settings from 50 to 400. This is a very similar feature changing your film speed though in a digital camera. With this set to say 400 you get the ability to take pictures in lower light though it will be grainier. I will eventually replace it with a newer Canon DSLR but not on my list at the moment.
 
F

FooD

New member
I don't have a camera recommendation for you but I'm sorry to hear about your pizza ordeal the other day.

BTW, I also have a Panasonic Lumix and I try not to use the flash if there's enough ambient light. I override the flash often and try to hold the camera as steady as possible. Food pics tend to come out so much better under natural lighting.
 
UnConundrum

UnConundrum

New member
Gold Site Supporter
I agree, but the days are shorter, and there's rarely enough light when I'm cooking. The pictures are much better when I can avoid the flash.
 
Doc

Doc

Administrator
Staff member
Gold Site Supporter
Well, I am very happy with the Cannon PowerShot SD1200 I bought back in July 09. It is nice and small and takes very sharp pics. Exactly what I was hoping for. Ease of use, even in darker areas helps me be able to turn the flash on or off, and it's easy to zoom and unzoom.

AllenOK ....I just noticed you asked if my Nikon lenses were auto focus. They are not. Nothing I have on those older cameras is auto focus.
 
High Cheese

High Cheese

Saucier
If you shop around you can probobly find a Canon EOS body then a seperate "all around" lens, both for around $500. Hind sight being 20/20, that's the route I would have gone since the lenses I have are not really geared for what I'm using the camera for. Pretty much like buying one of those 20 piece knife block sets.

An inexpensive tool for great macro shots is a set of lens tubes. You can find a set of 3 for about $125 and you can use them on your "all around" lens. They mount between your lens and camery body to act like a spacer which, in turn, turns the lend into a close-up lens. Add the different width spacers for different magnification.

KenkoTubes.jpg
 
High Cheese

High Cheese

Saucier
UnConundrum said:
Reviving this old thread, I think it's time for me to find a new camera. I am NOT a camera buff, and have no desire to do so. Tons of options push the buttons on my compulsive obsessive disorder ;) Mostly, I take pictures of food to post here and other sites, sometimes pictures of my dogs, and once in a blue moon, family pictures. Since most of my pictures are taken inside, I use a flash which often turns everything of light color white. If I don't use the flash, everything is dingy. Once in a while I like to zoom in, especially if taking pictures in the WFO. In the pics below, I have no idea what the white stuff in the red bowl is, probably flour. The next one is a pavlova, but no definition. Can't see the crumb in the bread on the sandwich, and the whisk is just obvious. I wouldn't mind paying a little more for a camera that would adjust itself for light conditions, and eliminate the need for a flash, but it has to do it itself.

FWIW, my current camera is a Panasonic Lumix.
Click to expand...

Turn the flash off and try to use another light source like a worklight or something. I keep my camera on manual mode and play around with the settings to alter the light. Most of my food pics are done on my kitchen island with low voltage lighting above and no flash.
 
phreak

phreak

New member
You want to find a point and shoot with the highest possible ISO. For what you want to do I wouldn't look at anything that goes to any less than 3200. The other spec to look at is the aperture, the "F" stop. You want this number to be able to go as low as possible. It might all sound kind of complex if you just want to shoot in automatic mode, but if you get a very basic understanding of exposure it will help you pick the right point and shoot.

Here is an excellent link that's written for DSLR newbies. It will help anyone understand the basics.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=414088
 
Cooksie

Cooksie

Well-known member
Site Supporter
I like my Canon sx120is. You can get this camera, rechargeable batteries, and the charger all for under $200. I wanted something to use in the auto mode with some manual features that I could play around with.

Pros:
New Digic 4 processer
3" LCD
Auto, Easy Auto, Some manual features
Rechargeable batteries
Video
10 mp
10x zoom
Can edit photos on the camera (haven't messed with that much though)

Cons:
Little larger than most point and shoots
Battery door is tricky
Door for the usb seems flimsy

Most of the time I just use the light in the kitchen with no flash because I'm mostly taking pic's of food at night. It works well enough for me and is small enough for me too.

That being said, it's all about what kind of money you want to spend. I would like a DSLR too :).
 
UnConundrum

UnConundrum

New member
Gold Site Supporter
But... would a DSLR do everything for me or would I have to fumble around with the settings every time I brought out the camera?
 
joec

joec

New member
Gold Site Supporter
DSLR can be as easy as a point and shot or as complicated as taking a picture can be. All that I've seen have an auto mode that really does it all for you but the pictures due to a lot of design factors are just plan better in most cases.
 
High Cheese

High Cheese

Saucier
UnConundrum said:
But... would a DSLR do everything for me or would I have to fumble around with the settings every time I brought out the camera?
Click to expand...

My lenses aren't the best for my camera so I have to work with it to get the light just right. With no flash, usually I just crank up the ISO and drop the f stop. Then I can use the LCD to preview the quality of the photo and adjust the shutter speed acordingly and take my shot. The neat feature about this camera is the LCD gives you real-time previews of your settings before you take a shot. So if it's too dark, you will see that on the screen. It also has 10x zoom so if you need to manual focus your shot will come out nice and sharp.

There are different "auto" modes on the camera as well. Only one is considered 'no flash' and I got decent results before using that mode.

But I ventured out of auto and into Manual Land. If you shoot RAW images (instead of jpegs), the camera stores a ton of info in the image file. So if the photo is say underexposed, you can easily correct that either right on the camera or in the software that comes with it.
 
Wart

Wart

Banned
UnConundrum said:
But... would a DSLR do everything for me or would I have to fumble around with the settings every time I brought out the camera?
Click to expand...

My dSLR (Nikon D-40) is s primitive it's not produced anymore. I doubt things have gotten less advanced.

When set to Auto it's a damned fine point and shoot.

In programmed Auto it's near as easy to use as a point and shoot.

THere are something like 7 additional specialized programmed modes which I never use. I suppose they work.

In manual, my favorite mode, I have total control.

Point being even my old Nikon ranges in ease of use from 'pull it out and pull the trigger' to 'just how hard do I want to make this on myself'. A couple of months ago D-40's were being sold as a kit for ~ $300.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top