Posted: 1/31/2007 8:31:31 PM EDT
|
I need another digital to take pictures of my work parts, that will have good zoom / light capabilities. Trying to stay under $200 as I dont want to spend money on something that will be in a harsh dirty like atmosphere. I ve looked at the Fuji F20 and the Cannon a540. Any body with any ideas and thoughts much apperciated. My biggest concern is close up of highly polished parts and the light reflection I get off them with my currently 2.0 megapixel camera sucks. I have to take 20-40 pictures sometimes to get a decent picture that doesnt show bad light or unwanted glare. I ve tried external lighting and found natural sunlight is my best picture taking time. But I can always get that at midnight LOL. I am not a photographer by any means, and the camera isnt really going to be used for much other then taking pictures of my parts and just typical son doing his dirt biking, racing , shooting stuff. Nothing needed high tech, but like I said the ability to use a good zoom and close up quality is what I am really after. Thanks |
|
Well, first of all, you're asking a cheap camera to do something that it can't, or can't do easily. You need to kill the glare. In doing so, you are reducing light. When you reduce light, your point and shoot camera slows down it's shutter and opens its aperature as much as it can to get the right exposure. Trouble is, when the shutter slows down too much, you get camera shake (blurry/out of focus) in your images. You need a tripod first of all, you can't hand hold a camera for low light/slow speed photos. Another option is a difuser. Set up your parts next to a bare light bulb, and put a white pillow case or sheet between the part and the light source. This will give you enough light for a proper exposure, but the sheet will difuse the light and soften it. That should take off the glare a bit. The sheet will need to be closer to the light source than the part. Otherwise it will just cast a shadow. The shadow will be more powerful the lower the power of the bulb. If you're using a 150wt bulb with a sheet, you should get good difuse light. If you're using a 60wt or lower bulb, the sheet is going to block the light rather than difuse it. Oh, the flash should be turned off on the camera during all of this, by the way. You don't mention what kind of camera you are using or if you have an on board flash or the ability to mount an external flash. But if you want to use flash, try bouncing the flash off the celing rather than off of the part. that will reduce the glare as well. 2MP is tiny. Are you trying to get prints out of these pics or just for use on the Web? I would suggest that you spend the scratch and get a good DSLR camera. Minolta got out of the camera business, and Sony bought their technology and is now making their own camera based on the old Minoltas. As such, not many folks are buying Minolta cameras because they want the Sony. Damned fine deals can be found on the remaining new stocks of Minolta cameras and even better deals on the used ones. Or you could hire a pro to take the quality shots you need. If these photos are for parts you're selling, presentation is pretty important. Too important to use a low detail/poor quality photo. (FYI - I am a semi-pro who works very cheap ;) ) |
| Another thing is that a quality camera can handle harsh conditions where a cheapo won't. I went through 4 cheap and kinda cheap digitals in about 6 months while I was deployed. I've had a Canon 20D for a couple years now and the worst I've given it was when I rolled the car 4 times. Beat my ass bad but the camera didn't care. |
|
I have a Kodak C875 that is running just under $200. It has 8 mp and takes a decent picture. Consider that or any of the name brand models in the 5 to 8 mp range. I really like Canon point and shoot digitals. Some good tips were given regarding photo setup above. If you are taking detailed pictures of highly reflective parts you may be best served with a brightly lit area, a tripod to mount your camera on so that it is stable during the longer exposure, and then take your pictures with the flash off. If you need a lot of light the 500 Watt halogen work lights run $5 to $10 at the home improvement stores. |
|
Great info. The only thing I havent done is the sheet between the light. I have 500w light that I bounce off the back of the wall behind it. I also have soft flourescents ( 6 of them in the room ) so its plenty of white light. The 500 watt is a work light with the small hotter then shit tube light bulb. It gives off a strong yellow light. I use blue or white backgrounds ( usually white ). No flash, and the camera currently is a Kodak Dx 3600. Very old setup. But its been working and working and working. It just doesnt give off the colors I need for the chrome parts I do. I ve tried its macro mode and just having it farther away and zooming in. I also use a tripod whenever I can , which is most of the time. These are just pictures for the web 90% of the time. But if I coin up on a better camera then I would probably use the new camera for other things as well. I started looking at the Olympus sp510 uz as an affordable alternative. I also started checking out the Sony DSC h2 and the Canon PS S3 and possibly the Fuji S5200. Trying to stay under $350. Thanks |
|
Part of your problem may be coming from the flourecent lights. They tend to mess with cameras a bit. They aren't a true white light to your camera. Mixing flourecent lights with Tungsten lights is bad ju-ju. Next time you shoot, turn off the flourecent lights and just use the tungsten. You might find that you will get the colors you need. The flourecent lights are throwing off your white balance. Try price checking some of the digital SLR (Single Lens Reflex) cameras. the market is moving so fast and the cameras are advancing so much, the lower end DSLR cameras can be had really cheap. A little more than a point and shoot, but will give you much better photographs. |
|
I went checked out the Olympus Ultra SP 510UZ 7.1 MP 10 x optical zoom ISO up to 4000 15 - 1/1000 sec shutter aperature f/2.8-f/3.7 plus a few other goodies. Down fall is the XD card for memory. I also looked at the Canon Powershot S3IS 6.0 mp 12 optical ISO up to 800 15 -1/3200 sec shutter aperature f/2.7-f/3.5 and its SD card for memory. I can get the Olympus as an open box for $230 circuit city, Canon Best buy $350 NIB. So its kinda a toss up between the two. My advantage with best buy is I have a 75 card for them. So that makes the Canon $275. $45 difference and the Canon is closer to a SLR type then the Olympus I would say. I took pictures with both in the store , close up and they both are 100 times better then my current camera. So I am not sure if I should spend the extra $45 and get the canon or if the olympus would suit my needs fine, then I could use the $75 carb at best buy and get a memory carb and maybe something else also. Decisions decisions..... and I still have to buy 3 ak's ..... |
|
Before you buy another point and shoot, go test out the Sony Alpha100 DSLR. Ignore the price tag, it is a shocker. That camera is really a Minolta Maxxum 5D (with some updates by Sony). Biggest difference is that the Sony is 10.2MP while the 5D is 6.1 If you like the Alpha100, start checking Ebay. The 5D can be had NIB for less than $600 and used for between $400-$500 and will do a lot more and do it better than any point and shoot. |
|
I looked at the info on the 100. I couldnt find any on ebay and the minolta had a few for about $500-600. Unfortunately thats more then I can afford to spend. Honestly the $350 is more then I wanted to spend , but with the best buy card knocking it down to $275 I am alright with it. And to be honest, I am not sure if I would want an SLR, though I agree the pictures are fantastic, for just posting on the web and emails, I dont think the money would be justified unless I was going to do printed photos. Which right now I dont ever do. My thinking was that the Canon was closer to an SLR in features and ability. While its not an SLR its basically from what I could see the last step before an SLR. And being that I am not really into photography that much, it would be a good starting point for me if I decided that I would like to get into it later. But as far as just taking pictures, I dont think I could go wrong with the Canon for now, not at that price ( $275 ). Thanks |