what is the best digital camera? need your advice

[hal yankovic]

Howdy folks,

First, a little background: I'm a print designer by trade, but haven't kept up with ALL of the latest and greatest technology out there. :eek: Especially when it comes to cameras.

We are needing another digital camera here for the company I work for. Our budget is $500 (possibly a tad more...). This camera should fulfill many uses, the most important of which is frequent product shots that we take. Although I'm the print designer there I am also the default photographer there, as well. I do the best with what I have and then use Photoshop to clean 'em up.

What is the best bang for the buck that I should look for? What's the highest megapixel rating out there now - 12 is it? What all features should I look at?

I really need your help and any links or whatever knowledge you can impart to me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[doctorfoz]

hi Hal. There's quite a lot of useful info already posted here about digital cameras, and there are some very knowledgable (and brilliant) members of the forum who will no doubt point you in the right direction.

From my (an enthusiastic amateur) point of view, megapixels is only one of the important factors to consider. Almost as/just as/more important is the glass/lens at the front of the camera. And when it comes to lenses, that's waaaay above my pay grade I'm afraid.

I use a Canon (always have) and am very happy with the results.

[morea]

bear in mind that after a point, more megapixels isn't always better.

What camera do you have already?

What size prints do you normally make?

Are you looking for a point and shoot, a compact, or a DSLR - or is that less important to you than the overall budget?

The most versatile camera I ever owned was a Canon Powershot S2 1S. I say that because it could shoot macros as well as long-distance shots without having to purchase additional lenses and other equipment. It also had a good enough resolution to print 8 x 10 photos with no trouble. Unfortunately, after only 2 or 3 years of moderate usage it died and left me in a bind.

My digital rebel was a lot more expensive and also a lot more limiting in that I only have the standard kit lens. To get the same versatility with this camera I would need to invest in a macro lens and a telephoto lens of some sort, and that is not cheap.

[hal yankovic]

Mine in bold.

bear in mind that after a point, more megapixels isn't always better.

What camera do you have already? We had (it bit the dust) a Sony Cyber-shot, 5 megapixel. 10x digital zoom.

What size prints do you normally make? Normally the product shots that we take only go in catalog sized mediums. Definitely nothing larger than poster sized.

Are you looking for a point and shoot, a compact, or a DSLR - or is that less important to you than the overall budget? I am so camera ignorant I don't know what much of that is. Budget is the big thing. As I alluded to, our budget could be slightly larger than $500 if I could justify it. My company's pretty cool that way; I don't have to twist arms too much.

The most versatile camera I ever owned was a Canon Powershot S2 1S. I say that because it could shoot macros as well as long-distance shots without having to purchase additional lenses and other equipment. It also had a good enough resolution to print 8 x 10 photos with no trouble. Unfortunately, after only 2 or 3 years of moderate usage it died and left me in a bind.

My digital rebel was a lot more expensive and also a lot more limiting in that I only have the standard kit lens. To get the same versatility with this camera I would need to invest in a macro lens and a telephoto lens of some sort, and that is not cheap.

[hal yankovic]

Also, this Nikon was recommended to us:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9220229&type=product&id=1218061795563

Any thoughts on this one?

So yes, morea, a point and shoot is what I'm primarily looking for. :D (I'm slowly getting it....)

[morea]

Ok, it doesn't look like you need anything as expensive an a digital SLR.

A lot of the so-called "point and shoot" and compact cameras on the market these days seem to have a higher megapixel count than what you were using before, and with these types of cameras you wouldn't have to worry about additional costs for lenses and whatnot.

If you were happy with the camera you had before, you might want to consider looking for the same type so long as it met your needs and you don't need any additional features. I am not sure what model you are using but you could compare it with the competitors models (Canon, Fuji, Nikon) and see what you like best. Check reviews online for each and try them out at the store to see what you like the best.

I would recommend buying the extended warranty though. Seems that lots of people have trouble with their cameras towards the end of the standard warranty period.

[Bladez]

DSLR:
http://www.ndreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/nikon_d80_digital_slr_camera.jpg

Compact/Point and Shoot
http://www.eastcoastphoto.com/images/bfinder/Optio-M30_1632.jpg

If you're looking for something to do simple product shots to put in a catalog, I'd think a point and shoot would work perfectly for you. If you wanted more control of things like your depth of field, exposures or needed something high res at large sizes, the DSLR would give you more control over that. However, as Mo said, it requires different lenses depending on what you're trying to do. I have a Nikon D80, and use my pictures in magazines, but I sometimes need the huge pictures for a 2 page spread.

A friend of mine has an Olympus 1050 SW and it does great shots for general use. It's also pretty durable. He takes it hiking and climbing and it can take a bit of a tumble.

Do some more research and compare a few of the point and shoots, and some of the DSLR's and I'm sure you'll be able to find something that will suit your purposes.

[morea]

that is what I meant by DSLR and point-and-shoot, but this is what I meant by compact:

http://i44.tinypic.com/153417p.jpg


More features than a P&S, some manual control, but not quite up to DSLR specifications.

[Bladez]

Good call Mo.

I think something like that would be a great camera for your uses Hal.

[Kool]

One other thing, Optical zoom is the only one that matters, Digital zoom is nothing more than automatic cropping. :)

[morea]

^ excellent point. Optical zoom is your friend. I believe that my powershot (which was an s2 1s, a few generations old) was 12x optical zoom.

those compacts are pretty simple to use (there are full auto and partial auto settings if you're not interested in learning all of the fundamentals), they give you more versatility (in my experience), and they don't usually cost all that much more than a point and shoot.

I would choose something in that range, and would expect that - depending on your location - you could find one for between $250 and $400 (US).

[Virgo Nightingale]

Digital zoom = useless. ;)

I have a Nikon Coolpix 550. 'salright. Easy to use, 10MP. With proper setup and external lighting I'm sure it would take fine product shots. $200.

But heck, if you've got a $500 budget I'd go for one of the compact cameras so you can take advantage of the manual settings it would offer.

[Bladez]

Digital Zoom = Bad

Oh....I see Virgo pretty much beat me to it *LOL* (damn ninjas!)

[hal yankovic]

Great advice, all. Gonna use it and do some more research to see what I might find.

Thanks for your help!

[Ned]

For $500 you can get yourself an entry-level DSLR, which has 10x the sensor size as any compact camera. The smaller the sensor, the greater the pixel density, and the greater the noise.

Each brand from Olympus to Pentax to Nikon to Sony have a body and kit lens you can buy for that much. The kit lenses aren't very good, but infinitely better than that on a digicam (aka compact, point-and-shoot, etc.), and you have the option to upgrade to a real lens once another $500 or so comes into the budget.

Product shots tend to involve a lot of macro detail (depending on the product of course), and I simply wouldn't consider a digicam for that. Digicams aren't meant for close-up work and besides which, the only advantages to a digicam include pocketability and long zoom ranges without a lot of bulk. Neither of those are relevant to an in-store camera for product shots, is it?

More important though is your lighting. Try to get at least one or two flash units, and proper diffusers for them (look into Gary Fong, Demb Flash Products, or Stofin). In order to save money, you can look for 3rd party brands like Metz, Sunpak, etc., then operate it either with the optical slave sensor or with a single contact PC-to-PC Sync cord (manual operation), so you can avoid spending the money on a flash made for your camera.

Setting up and lighting the shot properly will get you a significantly better picture with a bad camera than a good camera will get you with a poor setup - although both are important.

For example, this headshot below from a shoot yesterday, was taken with a $400 entry-level Olympus body and a $400 "standard grade" Zuiko lens. Not that far over your budget, if you ask me (ignoring all the expensive extras, of course)... Starting small with a system body means you can continue to upgrade with better lenses and lights as the budget allows, annually, monthly, or whenever you can afford - all in easy chunk payments. ;) Much better investment for your business than a throw-away camera.

http://cyclopsphoto.ca/images/the_one_web.jpg

Don't be intimidated by a DSLR just because it looks professional or otherwise complicated. :) They all have the same Auto functions as your point and shoot if you really need to shoot that way, but they also have room to grow as you learn and advance.

[Virgo Nightingale]

Product shots tend to involve a lot of macro detail (depending on the product of course), and I simply wouldn't consider a digicam for that. Digicams aren't meant for close-up work and besides which, the only advantages to a digicam include pocketability and long zoom ranges without a lot of bulk.
Ned brings up a good point here. Depending on what product you're shooting and what kind of catalog you're trying to produce, you may just need to go for broke and get the best camera you can for the money, even if it means not getting all the lenses right away.

If your product is food and you're printing a catalog on nice coated paper, you'll be doing yourself an injustice by using a simple point-and-shoot camera. You'll want the detail that a good quality lens can provide to give the food you're photographing the detail that makes readers drool like Pavlov's dogs and immediately want to order your products.

If on the other hand your catalog is boring and features various kinds of screws and nuts and bolts and wall anchors and is being printed in black and white on lower quality uncoated paper, then something more simple may be fine for your needs.

[fredrich]

If you want a good camera, but don't want to take the step up to DSLR, I would have a look at the Canon PowerShot G10:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/images345x345/583955.jpg

- 14.7 MP
- Image Stabilizer
- 5x optical zoom lens (with wide angle)
- RAW-mode
- Flash hot shoe

I see the price is $499 at B&H Photo Video:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583955-REG/Canon_2663B001_PowerShot_G10_Digital_Camera.html

The product manager for Canon here in Norway said that if he had to choose between a PowerShot G10 and a EOS 1000D DSLR with the kit lens (18-55mm), he would go for the G10.

Of course, the advantage of DSLR is that you can swap lenses, and get better pictures instantly - but it costs.

[R2 Mark]

+1 for the G10. The ability to shoot in RAW is worth the price of admission alone.

[Typically]

wow they have a g10 now. i had a powershot g1 like 9 years ago :D

[Alan Thompson]

Hal, I am a professional product photographer. What Ned said a few posts earlier is great advice. Do not get a P&S. You want to get a DSLR. Canon has a few in your price range. Which ever brand DSLR you go with do not get the cheap "kit" lens. Depending on how small your products are you want to get a lens somewhere around 50mm to 85mm. Get one with a macro feature if your products are small. Do not use the pop-up flash. Read what Ned posted. Lighting is the most important part of what you are about to do. Tell me what your products are and I can suggest more accurately. Alan

[willy_flew]

with Ned and Al...Most manufacturers have entry level DSLR's with exceptional kit lenses with great packages for close up and telephoto work for not much more than 500bucks.Macro work is very limited but are you shooting within 6inches of your subject? Olympus,which I shoot, offers kits with image stabilization and great lens kits that are exceptional. The nikon bodies are great too. There is a learning curve on the manual settings but you can master the auto settings with ease. The expansion possibilities are endless once you move to manual settings.

[hal yankovic]

Thanks folks.

And Ned, I also agree with the whole lighting issue. Our lighting here at work is awful if one were to simply use the overhead fluorescents. We have one of those tiny little photo studios but even then it didn't product the best results, mainly due to the two light sources it came with. I'm not sure what type of bulbs they are offhand but they are not anywhere near a true spectrum type of light. More on this later....

As for the camera, here's what I'm focusing on currently:

Nikon - 10.2MP Digital SLR Camera
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8721733&type=product&id=1200703005185

or

Nikon - 6.1MP Digital SLR Camera
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8139169&type=product&id=1158323379076

It appears at the Best Buy links that both are pretty highly rated, for what that's worth. Both are in my price range, both are DSLR's (you got me convinced on one of those :D) and at least the 10.2MP version has optical zoom, rather than digital. Can't really tell what that 6.1 has....didn't say specifically in the specs. Does it have an optical or digital zoom??

What do you think? Recommended, or not so much?

[Bladez]

Digital SLR's are optical zooms. The zoom itself will depend on the lens that comes with them. Generally the lenses that come with the body is an 18mm - 55mm. But you can interchange them to go to a Macro if you need it for really close up detailed shots.

The D60 is a good Camera. My mom has one and she used to do professional photography. I don't know much about the D40.

[Sublimity]

I personally am not too excited about neither. Both the D40 and D60 lack in body focusing motors, making them only capable to autofocus AF-S lenses of the Nikkor range. This means that you will be missing out of many AF lenses in terms of autofocusing if you ever wanted to expand deeper into photography or invest in better optics.

Although a biased opinion, I would look into entry Canon/Sony systems. Especially Sony as they've launched a newly designed set of entry level bodies, making their entries bodies with the older design considerably cheaper while being identical feature-wise. The highlight of the Sony system is their In-Body stabilization, meaning any lens you use is stabilized in contrast to the IS/VR lenses of Canon/Nikon that go for a substantially higher price. Because Sony bought the SLR business from Minolta in 2006, the entire Minolta lens legacy is usable on Sony bodies.

[Ned]

Thanks folks.

And Ned, I also agree with the whole lighting issue. Our lighting here at work is awful if one were to simply use the overhead fluorescents. We have one of those tiny little photo studios but even then it didn't product the best results, mainly due to the two light sources it came with. I'm not sure what type of bulbs they are offhand but they are not anywhere near a true spectrum type of light. More on this later....

As for the camera, here's what I'm focusing on currently:

Nikon - 10.2MP Digital SLR Camera
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8721733&type=product&id=1200703005185

or

Nikon - 6.1MP Digital SLR Camera
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8139169&type=product&id=1158323379076

It appears at the Best Buy links that both are pretty highly rated, for what that's worth. Both are in my price range, both are DSLR's (you got me convinced on one of those :D) and at least the 10.2MP version has optical zoom, rather than digital. Can't really tell what that 6.1 has....didn't say specifically in the specs. Does it have an optical or digital zoom??

What do you think? Recommended, or not so much?

The D40 is very old. So is the D60, but the D40 is ancient. :D I would pay the extra $100 for the D60, myself. However, before you even go that far I would look at the cheapest body-only price, and see if you can budget a decent lens with the savings, instead of getting the kit. A prime lens, maybe a 50mm particularly if it has macro capabilities, should be good for your product shoots and won't cost you an arm and a leg. It'll be a lot more than a kit though (like say double your body price), but well worth the investment if you can make the budget for it, and will save you hundreds down the road 'cause when you upgrade you won't have paid for a kit lens that'll end up going to waste. If not then the kit will get you started, and I would suggest getting the D60 in that case. It's a good camera which will start you in a good system (meaning the Nikon system, of course).

Since you're probably unfamiliar, a prime lens has a fixed focal length with no zoom range. This was of course the standard type of lens on all cameras back in the day (even if you never used an SLR before I'm sure you remember the zoom-less function of your first 35mm compact). Under the same manufacturing quality, a prime lens will be smaller, sharper, and faster than a zoom lens (by faster I'm talking about lens speed, or how wide an aperture you can use to gain a faster shutter speed from your camera). Their disadvantage is of course that you need to physically walk in closer or back off further to frame your shot. For studio-type work like your product shots, this is usually a perfectly fine way to work. Many studio photographers prefer primes, but zooms are better suited to field photography.

[Sublimity]

D60 isn't exactly a step up from the D40. The main difference is the megapixels. If you don't plan on printing photos at 11x14 without upsampling, and want the best bang for the buck if you're adamant on Nikons, the D40 is perfectly capable.

To be honest, I don't exactly see a point in the D60. Nikon recycled their D40 and added more Megapixels and some under-the-hood innovations and what not, and out comes the D60, fresh out of the oven and into the consumer market to rival the Canon bodies...

[Ned]

D60 isn't exactly a step up from the D40. The main difference is the megapixels. If you don't plan on printing photos at 11x14 without upsampling, and want the best bang for the buck if you're adamant on Nikons, the D40 is perfectly capable.

To be honest, I don't exactly see a point in the D60. Nikon recycled their D40 and added more Megapixels and some under-the-hood innovations and what not, and out comes the D60, fresh out of the oven and into the consumer market to rival the Canon bodies...

Actually, it was the D40X which was nothing more than a megapixel upgrade. The D60 is a significantly newer camera, though still pretty ancient. But that's okay... The fact that these cameras are still being sold so many years down the road is testament to their ageless quality.

It's the lenses that matter to the performance of your camera, not the body. The lens determines most of your image quality, your camera speed, your reach, your macro capabilities, and everything. The body only matters in sensor-related issues like ISO noise and frame rate.

If you like the Nikon lens line, then get a Nikon body and don't worry so much about what kind. Your lenses can last you decades, while your body will be outdated in a couple years.

That's why I shoot Olympus, because Zuiko glass can't be beat. ;)

[Sublimity]

Actually, it was the D40X which was nothing more than a megapixel upgrade. The D60 is a significantly newer camera, though still pretty ancient.

I know that, and D60 is a repeat of the D40x. The only real difference is their added anti-dust system and the slightly faster FPS of D40(x) at 2.5 vs. D60 at 3. In all other respects, they are identical, all the way down to the weight.

Sources cited.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d40,nikon_d40x,nikon_d60&show=all

[Ned]

Yup, the whole basic line underwent very few changes over many many years. But they continued to sell like hotcakes through all those years, which to some people is a good sign that they had a solid system going which didn't need to change. The fact that something as ancient as the D40 can still be bought new in the box from a store shelf really says a lot in this age of digital photography.

Some people will complain that they aren't "keeping up with the competition", but a traditionalist like myself would prefer to see that my old camera is still as capable and relevant in today's world as it always was.

You can pour over spec sheets all day long, and all you'll see is more and more fluff added. True advancements are rare, and to be overtly blunt they rarely come from either of the "big two" camera makers - you know which I mean. ;) I'm talking about in this day and age, of course... They made their big leaps and bounds in the past, but now they're stagnant and only borrow from other people's R&D. Take for instance the Nikon anti-dust system you mentioned in the D60... Everybody has one now, but when Panasonic and Olympus first introduced it, all the other brands said it was unnecessary. Nobody else has yet made a "working" system besides the original SSWF developed by Olympus and Panasonic's joint efforts, yet they all tout this as a "major feature" now, nonetheless (for the record, the tests do show that Nikon is ahead of the all the rest in dust-reduction, but still nowhere in the same class as Olympus' and Panasonic's SSWF).

So what I'm saying is not to expect breakthrough revelations when new models are released. Camera makers have to release a new model to each line every couple few years just to show that they're doing something with it, or that line will die off. If there's few changes from the last model which was selling and performing well, that just means they did it right the first time. ;)

Photography is an age old profession, after all.

[Sublimity]

I understand where you are coming from, but I think he'd like the best bang for the buck, to which like you said, the money saved can be used to buy a nice prime. So my suggestion is that if he really wanted something that will suffice his needs at the moment, a D40 is surly acceptable, without the consumer gimmicks to get more money (Antidust, MP, live view, etc).

[Ned]

I understand where you are coming from, but I think he'd like the best bang for the buck, to which like you said, the money saved can be used to buy a nice prime. So my suggestion is that if he really wanted something that will suffice his needs at the moment, a D40 is surly acceptable, without the consumer gimmicks to get more money (Antidust, MP, live view, etc).

Yup, I certainly agree with you there. Basically what I was getting at was that the best thing to do would be to cheap out totally on the body, get a D40 body only, or even cheaper if you can find it, to get the better lenses. But even with the cheapest body you're still going to be paying a lot more with a good lens, so if that's not within the budget, that's when I would pay the extra $100 for the D60, even just for the extra 3.5MP. Hope that makes more sense. :)

You're right that the D40 is a very worthy option over the D60. I just don't think the $100 savings is much unless you can actually put that towards a lens. Mind you, I'm a spendthrift and always spend what I can now. :D He's probably better at saving, and could hold onto that $100 to upgrade the lens sooner. :o

[Sublimity]

Haha, I understand. :)

I suffer from a severe case of lens lust myself. :D
That 100 dollars of saving could almost get you a 50mm 1.8 or a sigma prime (not sure if it would autofocus though). What matters really is the photographer anyhow. Buy bodies for features, lenses for image quality. But before making a decision, look at Canons and Sonys.

I better go check the BBQ...burnt chicken and mushrooms weren't very nice last time I got caught up talking :(

[Ned]

Oh yeah, good call on the Sigma. Third party lenses are much cheaper, and if you do get a major brand like Nikon or Canon, you're sure to find a Sigma or Tamron that's made for it (ie, will autofocus). Generally the fault of third party lenses is usually quality control rather than overall performance. In other words, if you get a good copy you've got a fine lens, but you could easily end up with a bum one too.

[Sublimity]

I would recommend a Tamron over a Sigma lens. Sigma is notorious for bad quality control and gear stripping on certain bodies due to the horrible plastic innards. The Tamron 90 F2.8 MACRO is a superior piece of glass for the price (500$ new, 200-350 used). In the world of photography equipment, you really do get what you pay for. If you're going for a Sigma, pray, check, and check again that you didn't get a lemon.

[JMV Design]

I recently purchased a D60 and have been very impressed with it so far. I haven't had a lot of time to play with it though, so I've only scratched the surface of it's possibilities.

Once you decide on the camera that you want, search for the best price that you can find online and then go to reputable camera shop and see if they'll price match or at least come close.

By price comparing, you can really save a lot or money or get more bang for your buck (put the money saved towards another lens, flash, etc.). In this economy, you should encounter little to no resistance.