Best digital camera for mini pics?
- Thread starter PTS
- Start date
Try the following site:
Digital Photography Review
They have an extensive list and review of lots of digital cameras, costs, features, what\'s coming out, etc.
If you\'re looking for just pics for the web, my personal choice is the Sony DSC-F717 although they\'re just about to come out with the DSC-F828 which is a bit better with better megapixels.
If you want more of a pro SLR with the ability to change out lenses, then the Nikon SLR Digitals are super sweet.
But take a look at that site. They\'ve also got a good message board there for asking questions.
Hope that helps!!
Digital Photography Review
They have an extensive list and review of lots of digital cameras, costs, features, what\'s coming out, etc.
If you\'re looking for just pics for the web, my personal choice is the Sony DSC-F717 although they\'re just about to come out with the DSC-F828 which is a bit better with better megapixels.
If you want more of a pro SLR with the ability to change out lenses, then the Nikon SLR Digitals are super sweet.
But take a look at that site. They\'ve also got a good message board there for asking questions.
Hope that helps!!
J
jean_genie
Guest
From the perspective of someone who both sells digital cameras and uses them to photograph minis, I can assure you that if you only want to take pictures of minis, spending over 400-500 is basically just wasting money.
Digital SLRs are great, but pointless for one type of photography alone, as you\'d never be changing lenses. Similarly, a more expensive camera with a higher Megapixel rating (resolution) will also be pointless, as most images will be too large to upload; a 3.2 MP image is already about 1.6 MB.
Lastly, there is no discernable difference beween something like a 3.2 and a 5 megapixel camera, unless you want to make large prints. 3.2 will get you great 4x6s, 4.0 will get you good 8x10s, and a 5 MP will get you very clear 8x10s. But if you want prints that large, you\'re much better off with film and a macro kit - you\'d save some money too.
If you came into my store, the camera line I would point you towards is Olympus, without a doubt. I would recommend the C-750 as probably the best. It\'s 4.0 MP, has a 10x optical zoom (average for digitals is 3x), a hot shoe for an external flash, and uses Olympus\' new super macro mode, which allows you to get EXTREMELY close, and stay in focus. I was able to take a picture of a quarter that filled 2/3 of the frame, and was still in focus.
My advice in using this camera would be to stick it on a tripod far enough away from the mini that you can extend the soom out fully. Then you put it on macro mode so it knows where to focus, and use a flash: the internal flash ought to be fine at this distance. You\'ll get a good picture, and because of the zoom, the camera will be far enough away from the figure that the flash won\'t wash out all the detail.
I don\'t recall exactly what the price is, but I want to say it\'s like 430. Please forgive the rant .... this is what I spend almost every day doing when I\'m not at college
Digital SLRs are great, but pointless for one type of photography alone, as you\'d never be changing lenses. Similarly, a more expensive camera with a higher Megapixel rating (resolution) will also be pointless, as most images will be too large to upload; a 3.2 MP image is already about 1.6 MB.
Lastly, there is no discernable difference beween something like a 3.2 and a 5 megapixel camera, unless you want to make large prints. 3.2 will get you great 4x6s, 4.0 will get you good 8x10s, and a 5 MP will get you very clear 8x10s. But if you want prints that large, you\'re much better off with film and a macro kit - you\'d save some money too.
If you came into my store, the camera line I would point you towards is Olympus, without a doubt. I would recommend the C-750 as probably the best. It\'s 4.0 MP, has a 10x optical zoom (average for digitals is 3x), a hot shoe for an external flash, and uses Olympus\' new super macro mode, which allows you to get EXTREMELY close, and stay in focus. I was able to take a picture of a quarter that filled 2/3 of the frame, and was still in focus.
My advice in using this camera would be to stick it on a tripod far enough away from the mini that you can extend the soom out fully. Then you put it on macro mode so it knows where to focus, and use a flash: the internal flash ought to be fine at this distance. You\'ll get a good picture, and because of the zoom, the camera will be far enough away from the figure that the flash won\'t wash out all the detail.
I don\'t recall exactly what the price is, but I want to say it\'s like 430. Please forgive the rant .... this is what I spend almost every day doing when I\'m not at college
true, that...
however I like a little heft in my cameras. I get clumsy with the smaller ones and need something I can really hold.
Several things I like about the Sony:
1) Swivel base so I don\'t have to be looking at the back. I can merely swivel it up and stare down at the camera, much like a larger format style.
2) External Hot Shoe (something I consider as most important as I have more control over it that onboard flashes).
3) It accepts 58mm screw-on type filters. Seeing as my Nikon already has that size for it\'s 28-80, I don\'t have to buy yet another set of filters, and I already have a good set of closeups, not to mention a polarizing. Seeing as most other, less expensive digitals require a seperate attachment in order to accept filters, and even that\'s not all the time, this, to me, is a Good Thing.
4) I\'ve tested the macro and such on the Sony and I have to say it\'s very nice. I\'d still prefer an old Pentex K-1000 with a set of closeup filters and a bellows, but seeing how expensive that particular setup would be (those K-1000\'s still go for $150+ on Ebay WITHOUT the lens, and that\'s how much it was new, not to mention the cost of the bellows, if I could find one around here), the Sony is quite cost effective for someone like me (10 year pro).
Mind you, I\'m also one of those who prefers completely manual cameras, only recently got one that has auto functions, and am still rebelling at the idea of digital, but seeing as my scanner won\'t work with Windows XP (recent upgrade, and to upgrade the drivers will cost me about $40... stupid Umax) then I\'m seriously considering getting a digital for general photo use and just using my myriad of film cameras for the More Important Shoots.
Of course, as I\'ve said in another thread, I\'m pretty anal, especially when it comes to photography. If it\'s not perfect and just the way I want it, I don\'t press the shutter release.
however I like a little heft in my cameras. I get clumsy with the smaller ones and need something I can really hold.
Several things I like about the Sony:
1) Swivel base so I don\'t have to be looking at the back. I can merely swivel it up and stare down at the camera, much like a larger format style.
2) External Hot Shoe (something I consider as most important as I have more control over it that onboard flashes).
3) It accepts 58mm screw-on type filters. Seeing as my Nikon already has that size for it\'s 28-80, I don\'t have to buy yet another set of filters, and I already have a good set of closeups, not to mention a polarizing. Seeing as most other, less expensive digitals require a seperate attachment in order to accept filters, and even that\'s not all the time, this, to me, is a Good Thing.
4) I\'ve tested the macro and such on the Sony and I have to say it\'s very nice. I\'d still prefer an old Pentex K-1000 with a set of closeup filters and a bellows, but seeing how expensive that particular setup would be (those K-1000\'s still go for $150+ on Ebay WITHOUT the lens, and that\'s how much it was new, not to mention the cost of the bellows, if I could find one around here), the Sony is quite cost effective for someone like me (10 year pro).
Mind you, I\'m also one of those who prefers completely manual cameras, only recently got one that has auto functions, and am still rebelling at the idea of digital, but seeing as my scanner won\'t work with Windows XP (recent upgrade, and to upgrade the drivers will cost me about $40... stupid Umax) then I\'m seriously considering getting a digital for general photo use and just using my myriad of film cameras for the More Important Shoots.
Of course, as I\'ve said in another thread, I\'m pretty anal, especially when it comes to photography. If it\'s not perfect and just the way I want it, I don\'t press the shutter release.
vincegamer
Active member
Well, I use a Sony Mavica with floppy disc and I find that my earlier pictures with the same camera are much worse than my more recent ones so I find it can produce quite good enough pictures with the right lighting, experienced photographer etc.
Cons:
-Only 1.5 megapixels
-Bulky and slow (fine for tripod pics, terrible for vacation photos)
Pros:
-Reusable disks (the newer CD mavicas waste disks because you can\'t reuse them and every time you take one out of the camera to see how the shot looks on your monitor it eats up more memory creating another directory)
-Good macro
-Large viewscreen
-Relatively cheap
Cons:
-Only 1.5 megapixels
-Bulky and slow (fine for tripod pics, terrible for vacation photos)
Pros:
-Reusable disks (the newer CD mavicas waste disks because you can\'t reuse them and every time you take one out of the camera to see how the shot looks on your monitor it eats up more memory creating another directory)
-Good macro
-Large viewscreen
-Relatively cheap
vincegamer
Active member
Everything in my gallery was shot on a Sony Mavica FD-88.
http://www.coolminiornot.com/browse.php?submitter=vincegamer
I also shot these larger scale \"minis\" for my wife on ebay. Check out any of her auctions for a good idea of what this camera can do.
Viv11\'s auctions page
p.s. I don\'t do any modification of the photos besides slightly upping the gamma correction on some of them. I don\'t own photoshop.
http://www.coolminiornot.com/browse.php?submitter=vincegamer
I also shot these larger scale \"minis\" for my wife on ebay. Check out any of her auctions for a good idea of what this camera can do.
Viv11\'s auctions page
p.s. I don\'t do any modification of the photos besides slightly upping the gamma correction on some of them. I don\'t own photoshop.
