Mm, hello there CMON, long time since I started a thread, anyhow, my question, or rather, my predicament is thus:
I am starting to feel that the level of my work is starting to pass what my camera can handle, i.e, I'm starting to get annoyed, as I can't get pictures to match real life, I do know this is a common problem, but I think it does also have something to do with that my camera is simply not that good.
The model I'm using at the moment is a 4.0 megapixel, olympus D-545 camera with a AF ZOOM 6.3-18.9mm 1:2.8 - 4.9 lens
Basically, I'm looking for something better than this, preferrably in an about £150-200ish price bracket (this may be the tricky bit) with which I can take clear, high resolution, macro images in a variety of light conditions, raw and fine settings would be good, but not crucial. I'd love a SLR camera, but I doubt I'd be able to afford one :/
If anyone could help I'd be really grateful.
Thanks,
Squig
*Edit* Just realised there is a proper photography forum here, silly me, could a mod please move this thread?
Last edited by squig hunter; 11-06-2009 at 06:47 PM.
I use a Cannon Digital Rebel XT, and just use the basic lens that comes with the body in most package deals. It'll accept a wide variety of lenses, flashes, and is a great beginner to intermediate skill level camera.
Don't know how much they cost these days, but mine was about $500 (so maybe 250 pounds) four years ago. I can't imagine that it would be hard to find a similar deal.
__________________
I believe in Karma, what you give, is what you get returned. Affirmation; Savage Garden Oh look my IQ results came in:- , and proud of it.
On this sort of budget, consider buying used. People dump cameras at a rate of knots and you can pick up some bargains. Have a look for something like a Canon G9 on Ebay. You can even pick up old EOS 20D SLRs for around 200 quid if you want to go that route and they're great cameras.
There's someone selling brand new 350D bodies for 200 quid on Ebay.
You can pick up a new 18-55mm IS for 80 quid or buy a used non-IS version for 25-30. You can also find a new 50mm 1.8II for about 60 quid. Beg borrow or steal the extra 50 notes and buy a proper camera!!
If all you want is a camera for taking pics of minis then you can't go too far wrong with most Canons. I've found that they tend to have great lenses and are easy to use. Wilkinsons are currently selling the Powershot A480 ( 10MP) for £95!!! £30 cheaper than Argos's Christmas offering.
If you feel that you would use the camera for other things then I would agree with the others and try and get an older EOS SLR, as the ability to interchange lenses makes for a very versatile camera.
__________________
What you leave behind is not what is written on your tombstone but what is written in the heart of others.
The Powershot series from Canon are indeed good cameras. And, they're fairly versatile too, for being compact cameras. I have a Powershot (what number I can't remember at the moment), and I'm quite happy with it. I have also been able to take good pictures of miniatures at both World Expo (minis in cabinets) and Euromilitaire (minis on tables) with it. It takes good pictures in most circumstances, but you can't do any arty stuff with it.
__________________ Combibo vestri peniculus quod fio a melior pictor. My gallery - go have a look!
Another thing you might look for is a camera that can take RAW or at worst TIFF format images. Most of the low end cameras (including my own, I'm in the same boat as you are) can only do JPG, and do all sorts of internal changes to an image to make what hits the CCD into a JPG. This involves a lot of loss of detail. That's why a TIFF or RAW photo is one to several MB in size while a JPG is only several dozen K.
When you load those TIFFs and RAWs into the computer you have much more control over how the image is shifted over to JPG for web display, and it's not a microchip optimized for family action shots inside the camera doing the work.
It's not as bad as it was, but it's still pretty bad. On my Oly it takes the form of blowing out the shades and highlights and losing fine detail when I take photos on my work table. Things look great on the viewfinder, and then look terrible when loaded onto the computer.
The simple equation is cheap = smaller sensor = lower quality. Even more so when manufacturers insist on increasing pixel density to stupid, pointless levels.
one thing you may want to consider is how you are lighting your models? as it may not actually be your camera thats the problem.
if you are trying to take the pics under normal household lighting, or strip lighting, you'll find the colours totally change to how it actually looks.
Reccomend me a camera?
, and proud of it.
Linear Mode
