Help needed on choosing a camera

[JontyR]

Hi,

I am looking to start taking photos of some of the products I am manufacturing at the moment. Currently I have been using a set of white card sheets with a double sticky backing on to create a background and then my trusty Nokia Phone.

However....not the best!

I need to find a camera and a background that will do the job, I don't need a high end unit, Im not going to be photographing models or moving objects...(more the pity)...But I do need something that is at the very least going to produce something that gives the impression of professionalism

I was recommended looking for a Bridge Camera....and on eBay there seem to be loads...but which one would people suggest? I don't want to buy something that is crap...but as already said I don't want to spend hundreds on a camera that isn't going to do anything other than take pictures of static objects.

I intend to buy a tripod, to avoid the shaky hand look, and was also thinking of a backdrop

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/New-Photography-Photo-St...

Is this too good to be true? Are things going to start breaking the moment I pull it out of the bag?

Some help would be extremely valuable so I don't waste too much money.

Oh and I produce items such as doors and tailgates for cars or a bracket for a car, so it cant be a little photo box.

Cheers

[wildoliver]

I would say a good starting point would be a good starter DSLR. Good offerings from Nikon and Canon. Something like a Canon eos600d or 1100d. Or a Nikon d3300. Go and test them out, I was advised to do the same and found I preferred the Nikon by a large degree. However ironically the camera that came a very very close second and I nearly bought was the Pentax k500. It gets excellent reviews and as an ex Pentax film camera user I like the brand, the image quality is generally reported to be excellent and it has some lovely features, plus tends to be cheaper then an equivalent Nikon or Canon.

The only thing that put me off was how difficult it was to find a supplying dealer, if you live in a big city it will be easy but where as the big 2 are everywhere Pentax felt very niche and I couldn't help but think the same would apply for lenses and accessories later on, a big plus for the Nikon was the back catalogue of lenses which having realised an childhood dream and just bought an fm2 with some nice glass works well as I can use the lenses on my d7100. However in your case you are looking at a restrictive bridge camera which will quickly become obsolete, so this problem is unlikely to ever bother you.

Re. Backdrop a plain white sheet can work well as long as you take care to keep it clean and keep the wrinkles out.

[Simpo Two]

Any DSLR will do fine, even a 2004 D70.

Of more importance is lighting and processing. Have you got a garage? http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Mr Will]

Don't buy a bridge camera. A second hand DSLR will be miles better. A decent compact will be cheaper and better. The only reason to ever buy a bridge camera is to take low quality pictures of small things a long way away.

[JontyR]

Thanks for the advice thus far. I will indeed scrub the idea of a bridge camera and look at a secondhand DSLR

[LuS1fer]

There seems to be some lve for the Sony NEX-5R though it seems to lack a huge zoom.
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/digital-cameras/129...

[Mr Snap]

Any DSLR except one of the more recent 'mirror less' designs. You want a proper optical system for focussing accurately, not one of the cameras with what looks like an optical system but is, in fact, an LED screen.

[Mr Will]

Mr Snap said:

Any DSLR except one of the more recent 'mirror less' designs. You want a proper optical system for focussing accurately, not one of the cameras with what looks like an optical system but is, in fact, an LED screen.

Load of cobblers. You want an optical system (phase detect) if you need to focus quickly but contrast detection (as used in mirrorless cameras or a DSLR in live-view) is actually more accurate.

[Otispunkmeyer]

New SONY RX100 III?

http://www.trustedreviews.com/sony-rx100-iii_Digit...

looks like a belter!

1 inch CMOS sensor so about 3-4 times larger than a normal compact sensor. Built in ND filters, 24-70mm effective focal length, good bit of glass and good sensor. Heck I think I'll get one myself, it'd be a nice complement to any set up.

[Mr Snap]

Mr Will said:

Mr Snap said:

Any DSLR except one of the more recent 'mirror less' designs. You want a proper optical system for focussing accurately, not one of the cameras with what looks like an optical system but is, in fact, an LED screen.

Load of cobblers. You want an optical system (phase detect) if you need to focus quickly but contrast detection (as used in mirrorless cameras or a DSLR in live-view) is actually more accurate.

Yes, I'm sure you're right, I haven't read the latest review in Amateur Photographer.

OP: You say you want to upgrade the quality of your images. A DSLR will help but it's not as important as knowing how to do it properly, it's quite a complex process and you do need some technical know how.

If you're shooting products, consistency is the key. Autofocus tends to be inconsistent under studio/product photography conditions, especially if you're shooting small items under relatively low powered continuous lighting (as in the kit you mentioned earlier).
If you use multipoint autofocus (where the camera itself chooses where to focus) the camera may tend to choose to focus at a different depths on different objects (i.e. the camera may focus to the front edge of one product and to the back edge of the next - potentially introducing inconsistency from one image to the next). If you end up with a series of items all shot with differing focal planes, this will tend show up when you present them side by side (the way most catalogue/product type images are displayed). Putting images side by side draws attention to inconsistency.

On the other hand; if you use single point focus - in an attempt to maintain a consistent point of focus for all images - you may find that the autofocus won't work at all and will 'hunt' around because the autofocus won't bite (this often happens on plain or smooth surfaces). If this happens, you'll probably end up overriding the autofocus and going manual.

The answer, therefore is to use manual focus for all your images. It's the only way of maintaining consistency for a set of product images. DSLR's with optical focussing are best because you can actually see what you're doing and not trying to interpret something on an LED screen.

In fact, if you do product photography, it's best to switch off most of the auto features on your camera. By doing this you'll stop the camera making the wrong decisions on your behalf. For instance, if you use auto white balance, the colour of the objects you're shooting will influence the colour rendition on the final image (i.e. the camera may try to compensate for a blue object by adding more red to the image - giving you a red sheen to your blue object and a red tinted 'white' background) This is something you want to avoid because you don't want your products to look the wrong colour or have inconsistently tinted 'white' backgrounds (that'll all need Photoshopping out). To overcome this, you'll need to learn how to do a "manual white balance." to maintain accurate and consistent colour fro image to image.
Similarly, you may want to learn how to do manual exposures, to maintain a consistent tonal range for all your images, too…

[Mr Will]

Mr Snap said:

The answer, therefore is to use manual focus for all your images. It's the only way of maintaining consistency for a set of product images. DSLR's with optical focussing are best because you can actually see what you're doing and not trying to interpret something on an LED screen.

Wrong again. While I agree that with the points regarding manual focus, magnified live-view will give you more accurate focus than a viewfinder, especially if your camera (DSLR or otherwise) has manual focus assists such as focus-peaking.

Optical viewfinders have big advantages in a lot of situations but product photography is not one of them.

[Simpo Two]

Mr Snap said:

For instance, if you use auto white balance, the colour of the objects you're shooting will influence the colour rendition on the final image (i.e. the camera may try to compensate for a blue object by adding more red to the image - giving you a red sheen to your blue object and a red tinted 'white' background) This is something you want to avoid because you don't want your products to look the wrong colour or have inconsistently tinted 'white' backgrounds (that'll all need Photoshopping out). To overcome this, you'll need to learn how to do a "manual white balance." to maintain accurate and consistent colour fro image to image.

Or shoot RAW, set white using the dropper and assign the resultant K to all files.

[Mr Snap]

Mr Will said:

Wrong again. While I agree that with the points regarding manual focus, magnified live-view will give you more accurate focus than a viewfinder, especially if your camera (DSLR or otherwise) has manual focus assists such as focus-peaking.

Optical viewfinders have big advantages in a lot of situations but product photography is not one of them.

Completely Off Topic.

If your eyesight is ok you can critical focus a DSLR more than adequately with your naked eye. Live-view is vga quality and even when magnified is inferior to what the the human eye should see.

If the demand for focus is that critical, you shouldn't be relying on your eyes or live-view; you shoot first and check the image after, either by enlarging it on the camera (which is better quality reproduction than live view) or you shoot tethered with Lightroom, or similar, and check the image out on a laptop/monitor afterwards. Shooting products tethered has so many other advantages over using live-view that, if you have a laptop and Lightroom, live-view doesn't even enter the equation.

Don't believe all of what the camera magazines say. Mirrorless cameras are the latest thing invented by the camera manufacturers to persuade easily persuaded people to spend money. To do this they introduce ever more redundant automation and gizmos, few of these features are worth spit. Take my word for it, nobody in the trade uses a mirrorless camera to shoot products (or much else for that matter). Indeed, not even DSLR's are the best tool for that job. If you want to shoot product seriously, you need a mf digital - these also tend to have fewer automated features. The only advantage of mirrorless cameras is that they're smaller and lighter for people who can't be arsed to carry a DSLR, they're an essentially amateur product.

[LuS1fer]

I'm all for amateur because I can't be arsed towing a DSLR round. There again, some of my nicest photos have been taken with a "st" camera.

[Simpo Two]

Mr Snap said:

If your eyesight is ok you can critical focus a DSLR more than adequately with your naked eye. Live-view is vga quality and even when magnified is inferior to what the the human eye should see.

Film SLRs had focus aids in the VF - fresnel screen and split prism - and the VFs were brighter. DSLRs have none of this as they're designed mainly for AF. (well FF DSLRs wil lhave brighter VFs but that's the minority)

However if you do want to manual focus a DSLR in a studio try a right-angle finder:



Get the proper branded one not the £20 eBay special.

That said I use single point AF and check focus on the monitor using 100% crop.

[RobDickinson]

Wow who let Mr snap out of his cell and near a keyboard?

Jonyr - a question not asked yet, what are you going to use the photos for?

Small (800px) web images or 40ft billboards, glossy magazines?

A mirrorless will be fine, you will want heaps if dof so stopping down a lot focus is easy with live view. Much more important to have solid tripod good lighting and processing skills. Once you have a setup that works its an easy workflow.

[JontyR]

Thanks again for all of your help guys...it has become a little heated

The Sony that was shown...little out of my price range. Was looking to try and spend at max around the £250-£300 Mark for the camera. Was hoping for something second hand rather than new.

I understand that I have a steep learning curve....likewise I need to start getting to learn photoshop or something similar.

Just wanted to get something better than my phone! Plus I'm getting bored of having thousands of car parts on my phone!

[Mr Snap]

LuS1fer said:

I'm all for amateur because I can't be arsed towing a DSLR round. There again, some of my nicest photos have been taken with a "st" camera.

I don't have a problem with any camera but there's a right tool for the job and a new mirrorless is stupidly expensive and not the most practical tool for the job. If the images are only for the internet, the OP could probably pick up something like an old Nikon D100 with a lens for less than £200 at MPB, less if he looks on ebay.

[RobDickinson]

Again what are you doing with the photos?

But in general a 4-5 year old DSLR and kit zoom will do great

[LuS1fer]

JontyR said:

Thanks again for all of your help guys...it has become a little heated

The Sony that was shown...little out of my price range. Was looking to try and spend at max around the £250-£300 Mark for the camera. Was hoping for something second hand rather than new.

I understand that I have a steep learning curve....likewise I need to start getting to learn photoshop or something similar.

Just wanted to get something better than my phone! Plus I'm getting bored of having thousands of car parts on my phone!

Take no heed of the prices shown in reviews, when the cameras were launched, check the prices on ebay.