What's a good camera to use? - Page 4

Thread: What's a good camera to use?

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 42
  1. #31
    Member workaholic_ro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cluj-Napoca, Romania
    Posts
    567

    Re: What's a good camera to use?

    Quote Originally Posted by Clouseau View Post
    You should never use the IS when taking a shot like this. Instead get a cheap tripod so you can use the lowest seting of the ISO instead. It will make wonders fore the detail in the photo. Especialy when they have cramed 9Mp inte such a litle sensorplate. Another great thing with using a tripod is that you can use a high aperture and by that gain DOF (depth of field) witch tend to be extremly short in macro mode.

    Does IS work in macro mode by the way? On some lenses and cameras it doesn't i belive... (I can be wrong about that :)

    Good night frome Sweden, it's lights out here now!
    Henrik
    No, you are not wrong, cameras with built in lenses work with the the "eyes wide open". The aperture is limited to 5.6 for most of them.
    Good enough for family photos.
    Last edited by workaholic_ro; November 3rd, 2008 at 08:17.
    Renee Descartes walks into a bar, the bartender says 'sir can I get you a Martini ?', Descartes says 'I don't think...' and he disappears

    Cheers,
    Fidel
    (DWP #001/100)

  2. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    199

    Re: What's a good camera to use?

    Quote Originally Posted by workaholic_ro View Post
    Buy whatever you want but buy it fast, or, after a long debate started from a simple request for advice, you'll end by buying a camera cell phone with high resolution and anti shaking system, very recommended for studio shots. The rest of my post is in my signature.


    Based on some of the other advice here he'll end up with $10k worth of DSLR equipment just to take pics of some watches he's going to stick on ebay. Wonder how many years it'll take him to recoup the costs of his camera equipment

    Another analogy - he's asking to buy a bicycle so he can ride 2 miles to work and then 2 miles home from work from time to time (not daily) - 4 miles round trip. A $300 Schwinn from Walmart will do just fine, but everyone is recommending he go out and buy a $9k Pinarello or Cervelo. \

    Ya, both options work, but one is a bit on the overkill side. Same thing with the cameras, there's no need to get all that stuff just to get some good shots of some watches.

  3. #33
    Member workaholic_ro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cluj-Napoca, Romania
    Posts
    567

    Re: What's a good camera to use?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt2006 View Post
    Based on some of the other advice here he'll end up with $10k worth of DSLR equipment just to take pics of some watches he's going to stick on ebay. Wonder how many years it'll take him to recoup the costs of his camera equipment

    Another analogy - he's asking to buy a bicycle so he can ride 2 miles to work and then 2 miles home from work from time to time (not daily) - 4 miles round trip. A $300 Schwinn from Walmart will do just fine, but everyone is recommending he go out and buy a $9k Pinarello or Cervelo. \
    I don't know where you picked from the ten grands suggestion, I can only see DSLR cameras around $400 recommended in this thread. Take any compact toy as sophisticated as you want and will fail the DOF test. They have limits in aperture.
    And about the analogy with the bicycle, the mileage option doesn't work here. He didn't say he needs many photo's or few photos, just good photos. I don't blame built in lens cameras, they are more confortable and easy to use but they are simply designated for something else. The macro function is in the category "just in case".
    Last edited by workaholic_ro; November 4th, 2008 at 01:32.
    Renee Descartes walks into a bar, the bartender says 'sir can I get you a Martini ?', Descartes says 'I don't think...' and he disappears

    Cheers,
    Fidel
    (DWP #001/100)

  4. Remove Advertisements
    WatchUSeek.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    199

    Re: What's a good camera to use?

    A $400 DSLR would still require a good lens as most of the kit lenses aren't all that great, and definately don't do macro work. Someone also mentioned flashes, etc. Not $10k, but not $150-$300 either which was the original posters given price range.

    The bike analogy does make sense because you are asking him to spend more than is needed to get the job done. Maybe not to the same monetary degree, but it is still more than is needed.

    My personal opinion is that you can get very good pictures from a point and shoot. As with all instruments - a major portion of the outcome is the person using it, not the equipment itself. If you can achieve good results with a $200 camera, why spend $400 or $500 or more?

    I'm no pro by any means and I don't mean to argue with you or anyone else on here, I just don't see any reason to slag off a point and shoot simply because it does not have the same 'prestige' or cool factor that a DSLR might. I own both types of cameras and use them both regularly depending on what I'm doing. They both have their uses and depending on what you are doing their use can overlap and they can both be good at a given task.

    These shots below were all taken with a Panasonic FZ20 a few years back (2005 or so for all but one). The close up shot of the anole is the same anole that was on my hand in the other pic in order to give a size comparison. The pic of the Stowa sitting on a Canon lens is a little bit newer, but was taken with the same camera. With the addition of a light box or diffuser to get rid of the reflections of tree leaves on the crystal it'd be a good photo. It took no time to set up, was simply a quick snap shot. The shot of the Hamilton was in a makeshift light box where I used PVC pipe to make a frame and then draped bed sheets over it to diffuse the light of some lamps I had set up.

    The close up of the anole had some Nikon close up/macro filters ($50 or so each - they make 2 versions) attached to the camera, if I remember correctly none of the other shots below had them attached. I just included it to show the capabilities of a "crappy" point and shoot. If he wanted to do landscape shots I would suggest a DSLR because you can't get a good ultra wide angle in a point and shoot. If he wanted to shoot sports I'd suggest a DSLR because you can't get a point and shoot that will focus or shoot fast enough to work well at shooting most sports. If he wanted to shoot something that was far away I'd suggest a DSLR because there's no point and shoots that have good enough optics for long range because they are always a compromise in order to get 12x, 13x, 14x zooms out of them. However, for shooting pictures of watches and stuff I just don't see the need for one though. That's just my opinion.

    Don't be so quick to judge point and shoots as they may suprise you. I'll try to dig up the link, but I once saw a page where a pro photog had taken a lot of pictures with either a Panasonic or Leica point and shoot. They were amazing and rivaled anything I've seen from a DSLR.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and there honestly is no right or wrong answer to his question.







    Last edited by Matt2006; November 4th, 2008 at 04:22.

  6. #35
    Member Clouseau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Malmö, Sweden
    Posts
    183

    Re: What's a good camera to use?

    Ok $10k... that's more then my entire photo equipment cost and it consist of Nikon pro and semi-pro stuff.

    Using a Nikon D200, a Nikkor 60mm micro f2.8 and a Nikon SB-800 (and my bathtub as a reflector/lightbox) I shot these galleries:

    https://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=196128

    https://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=195522

    https://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=199023

    and that combo you could get used fore around 1500$ (not including bathtub). And that's overkill, you could buy even cheaper equipment and still take the same photos. Say you are selling watches within a price range of 500-4000$ then I'm fairly convinced that you would get those money back quickly if you could take better "selling" pictures.

    You could on the other hand go with a P&S but then you would have to spend more time and money on the lighting. And as we all know lighting is not only the most important factor when it comes to taking photos, it's also by fare the hardest thing to master, especially since it requires both artistic eye and technical knowledge.

    PS: I don't belive the original poster even reads this thread any more :D

    Matt: I don't disagree with what you are saying, I just don't agree. :)

  7. #36
    Member workaholic_ro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cluj-Napoca, Romania
    Posts
    567

    Re: What's a good camera to use?

    Sorry Matt but I'm afraid you are just confusing the poor guy. Sadly, instead of helping, you took it personally, trying to convince us of the contrary of the obvious, just to point out that you are right.
    We all like the things we own (that's why we bought them) but this doesn't necessarily mean that "mine is better for everyone and in any situation".

    Last edited by workaholic_ro; November 4th, 2008 at 16:34.
    Renee Descartes walks into a bar, the bartender says 'sir can I get you a Martini ?', Descartes says 'I don't think...' and he disappears

    Cheers,
    Fidel
    (DWP #001/100)

  8. #37
    Member kiwidj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ~TYO~
    Posts
    37,143

    Re: What's a good camera to use?

    Quote Originally Posted by workaholic_ro View Post
    We all like the things we own (that's why we bought them) but this doesn't necessarily mean that "mine is better for everyone and in any situation".
    >> Spot on!




  9. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    199

    Re: What's a good camera to use?

    Quote Originally Posted by workaholic_ro View Post
    Sorry Matt but I'm afraid you are just confusing the poor guy. Sadly, instead of helping, you took it personally, trying to convince us of the contrary of the obvious, just to point out that you are right.
    We all like the things we own (that's why we bought them) but this doesn't necessarily mean that "mine is better for everyone and in any situation".

    Really, I've confused him? Wow, can you can read his mind? Did he send you private messages telling you that I've confused him? If not, don't put words into his mouth.

    I never tried to claim I was right or that he should go with my choice, if you believe that I did maybe you should go re-read my posts and re-read yours while you are at it. I stated my opinion, you basically said I was wrong, so I offered more info to support why I have the opinion that I do. The entire time you have been the one suggesting you have the end-all-be-all answer by saying "the rest is in my signature", basically saying others should not respond as apparently only you know the correct answers. You are the one that has had a "GO DSLR OR GO HOME!" attitude from the start of the thread without even attempting to explore the other possibilities. I've given him options and nothing more. I've made my points, others have made theirs, it's up to him to decide - not you. Why shelter him from information that could possibly save him money? If he gets confused by the possibility of having multiple options fit his needs then I doubt he would have asked for suggestions in the first place.

    Any time someone in the thread suggested a point and shoot you replied by saying no, go DSLR. And instead of providing him with more information you end up insinuating that the others who posted here don't know anything thus the original poster will end up buying a camera phone. The entire point of the thread was to offer up suggestions, but you spent the entire thread telling others that they are wrong and you are right. Now go ask yourself who is trying to convince whom of what.


    - - - -

    At any rate, at one point in the thread things went from responses to the original poster to people going back and forth with one another. He still hasn't replied and said exactly what he's looking for, so that limits what responses one can give him. He gave one small piece of information - he wants to take pictures of watches. That's all. It's hard to make a suggestion based solely on that. That's as if I just asked you what watch I should buy for work. Well, do I work in an office, do I work at a mechanics shop, am I a pilot? Depending on my answer to that question your answer to me would be different, right? It's the same here. We both offered up suggestions to him, only HE can decide what is right and wrong based on what his criteria are. Not you or I.

    By posting examples the original poster could look at them and compare them to the idea he has in his head of what his intended outcome will be as far as photo quality goes. If they are on par with what he's looking for then he knows what camera it came from. If not, then he can go with another camera.
    Last edited by Matt2006; November 4th, 2008 at 23:08.

  10. #39
    Member Clouseau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Malmö, Sweden
    Posts
    183

    Re: What's a good camera to use?

    Quote Originally Posted by workaholic_ro View Post
    Sorry Matt but I'm afraid you are just confusing the poor guy. Sadly, instead of helping, you took it personally, trying to convince us of the contrary of the obvious, just to point out that you are right.
    We all like the things we own (that's why we bought them) but this doesn't necessarily mean that "mine is better for everyone and in any situation".

    That's a bit nonchalant IMHO (and what's up with the turtle?). I belive Matt is arguing his point fairly well. I'm a entousiast photographer so I know my equipment demands are fairly high so fore a counterpart I belive Matt is doing a good job. He will never convince ME but that's not the idea. To be honest the entire argument is without a point untill the original poster gives as more facts about what he is selling and what kind of photos he wants to shoot.

    Say that he is only doing stictly informativ pictures of "cheaper" watches. The he might as well go with a P&S shoting full frontal in tele mode and do a digital crop later in the computer. Using one of thees: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...uorescent.html

    or

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...house_Kit.html

    he could fore a low price be sure to reproduce the same ligt over and over again making those simple shots very fast. It wouldn't be interesting orfunn to look at but that might not be what the original poster wanted anyhow. I know that not all people are like me (thank God) so I thank Matt fore arguing another angle on the subject.

    Good night fore now and when I wake up tomorow I realy hope I won't feel as sad as the last time America hade a presidential election :)

    Henrik

  11. #40
    Member globalfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    226

    Re: What's a good camera to use?

    Even my old 6MP Canon S3iS managed this shot. It focuses down to zero cm and can be found very cheaply these days.

    regards to all

    Mark
    Breitling Super Ocean Héritage 42
    Breitling Transocean GMT
    Breitling Chronomat Evolution
    Breitling Chronomat GT
    Breitling B-1

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •