Opinion on digital camera for business

Discussion in 'Photography' started by TinManX, May 30, 2004.

  1. TinManX

    TinManX Guest

    Hi,

    My wife is just starting a business selling custom made dolls. We are
    thinking about opening our own website to sell her dolls. I'm looking for
    digital camera for this purpose. As you can imagine, most of the shots will
    be close-ups. We also have a daughter that I would like to take pictures and
    short movies of. Can anybody recommend an entry level digital camera that
    would meet our needs? Our budget is $250.

    Thanks,

    Francis
     
    TinManX, May 30, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. You should be able to pick up a Canon G2/G3 used in that price range.
    Easy to use, good quality photos and decent macro performance.
     
    Brian C. Baird, May 30, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. TinManX

    Matti Vuori Guest

    Your needs are selling plenty of dolls and that requires great images of
    the dolls that people immediately fall in love with. No "entry level"
    camera will do. You also need a tripod and a flash unit - the latter
    alone costs the $250. If you want to start a business, you simply need to
    invest in it.
     
    Matti Vuori, May 30, 2004
    #3
  4. TinManX

    Stuffer Guest

    Agree wholeheartedly that you need to invest in some decent gear to
    get the right results, so that your business of selling dolls will
    succeed. There is nothing worse than looking at some sunstandard pic
    of something you are interested in buying. It can lose you the sale
    simply by the uncertainty it creates.

    CG
     
    Stuffer, May 30, 2004
    #4
  5. TinManX

    Els Guest

    I agree that the pictures need to be really good, but how is
    a more expensive camera taking better website-pictures than
    say, my DiMAGE Z1? The high resolution needs to be lowered
    anyway for the web, as people need to see the pictures
    without having to wait for them.
    I think the quality of the photographer is a much more
    important part in this than the quality of the camera.
    I really doubt if a $250 flash and $1000 camera will take
    pictures that I can't reproduce using my $250 Z1.
    Provided I am a good photographer, of course. :) I'm only
    an amateur, but a pro could use my Z1 and make excellent
    web-pics, I'm positive.
     
    Els, May 30, 2004
    #5
  6. TinManX

    Stuffer Guest

    You are correct in what you say. Good gear doesn't mean a good
    pic if you don't know how to use it. And certainly the resolution
    doesn't need to be high for a web shot. However, what generally
    determines the quality of the pics (the other aspects given) is the
    quality of the lens, particularly for close up work. One generally
    doesn't get a good quality lens on a $250 camera in my opinion. If
    it's not the case, then I've wasted a lot of money on some brilliant
    lenses!!

    CG.
     
    Stuffer, May 30, 2004
    #6
  7. TinManX

    Els Guest

    Depends ;-) Just for web pics? I guess not. I guess you
    wanted those excellent lenses to make beautiful pictures
    that can be enlarged without losing quality in the corners
    and stuff like that.
    But to be honest, I don't even know exactly what the real
    difference between expensive lenses and cheap ones is.
    I bought the Z1, because it had no vignetting, but I'm not
    sure if it's the lens or the camera that gives vignetting.
    Maybe the really expensive lenses don't 'bend' the corners
    at all? I bought it for general pics and webstuff, not for
    A3 posters in a gallery. (Although I do have some A3's on my
    living room wall, but those were shot with my old Praktica,
    which I doubt has better lenses than the Minolta)
     
    Els, May 30, 2004
    #7
  8. No, not really.

    You may be the best sound engineer; if you have a voice recorder,
    all the good recording techniques you may have at your disposal
    will be rendered useless by the limitation of the equipment.

    Yes, this example is a lot more dramatic than the example of
    different cameras, in that the difference between a cheap voice
    recorder and professional recording equipment is much more
    dramatic than the difference between digital cameras *for this
    particular application*.

    But still, a good photographer will want to use specific
    illumination techniques that he/she knows will enchance certain
    important details of the dolls, or will somewhat give it a higher
    impact overall look.

    Also, good macro imaging may require better equipment than an
    all-purpose zoom lens that typical P&S cameras have.

    It's not only a matter of resolution; it's a matter of high
    quality colors, contrast, and the ability to process it to
    achieve specific effects -- processing requires that the
    source be high-quality high-definition; *after* the processing
    is done, then you can "downsample" to a lower resolution and
    even apply some compression. But if you start off with an
    already low-res image, your possibilities of processing are
    too limited.

    Carlos
    --
     
    Carlos Moreno, May 30, 2004
    #8
  9. Have you considered hiring a professional photographer to take
    the pictures?

    For pictures of your daughter, sure, you can do more than fine
    with a Canon or Nikon Coolpix in the 3 or 4 MPixel range (which
    I believe are within the $250 budget). My brother has a Canon
    (I think it's SureShot, or PowerShot), and the pictures he takes
    with it are certainly nice. I'm sure it's the same case with
    a Nikon Coolpix in the same price-resolution range.

    HTH,

    Carlos
    --
     
    Carlos Moreno, May 30, 2004
    #9
  10. TinManX

    Els Guest

    Just for the record: I wasn't talking low resolution camera,
    or do you find 3Megapixel low resolution?
    Of course, a high resolution picture optimized in PhotoShop
    gives a far better result than a picture which comes from
    the camera already in low resolution. No doubt there.

    I agree about the lighting too, but that doesn't necessarily
    mean flash. I'd prefer steady lights, so i already see what
    it will look like, whereas with a flash it's always a bit of
    a gamble. (for me, being amateur, of course ;-) )
     
    Els, May 30, 2004
    #10
  11. TinManX

    TinManX Guest

    Lot's of good input. Thanks for all your input.

    --Francis
     
    TinManX, May 30, 2004
    #11
  12. No -- 3Mpix is *plenty* (though there seem to be many people that
    are not convinced about it)
    Those were just a couple of examples that came to mind. More in
    general, what I was trying to say is that a low-budget camera
    limits you in the choice of techniques available to achieve a
    certain look in the final image (filters, ultra-wide angle
    lenses, full-automatic to full-manual control -- yes, I believe
    that cameras in the $250 range are starting to offer manual
    control, at least to some extent -- depth-of-field control,
    and many other advanced techniques that I may not be familiar
    with or even aware of). So, a good/pro photographer is likely
    to take better pictures than you or I would with the same
    camera. But they may not be able to do what they think has
    to be done to achieve sufficiently good results if they don't
    have a camera that gives them flexibility and control.

    Carlos
    --
     
    Carlos Moreno, May 30, 2004
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.