Camera for Web Publications

[Nigma]

Hi,

I've been looking for suitable photos to use for various web design projects. At this point, I'm fed up with searching through thousands of thumbnail for pictures that cost too much and still don't give me what I'm looking for.

My solution is to pick up a decent camera and take the photos myself. My company has enough employees that would be willing to sign the necessary paperwork. The problem is, the camera that I have now is a $150 Sony POS (piece of...you know). The pictures are so grainy that I wouldn't think to put them up on a website.

Do I need to go all the way to a DSLR? If I were to, what level (price level) would I need to meet before I see cameras that aren't compromising quality for price? I don't have a massive budget, but I've got no problem dropping $500 or more on a good investment. I also would love to learn more about photography, so learning barriers are a moot point (just another skill for the repertoire).

Thanks,

Nigma

 

[3bayjunkie]

Get a Leica D-Lux 5 i am buying one for me and my wife. so i would say yeah. good quality point and shoot camera!

Leica D-LUX 5 Digital Camera (Black) 18151 B&H Photo Video

 

[usayit]

I'm not sure what "web design projects" really means in terms of quality of image in a file. In my experience, web posted photos are not as demanding as those intended for viewing locally or to be printed. You definitely can do well with a good quality point and shoot or entry level DSLR. The advantage of the DSLR is future expansion with a selection of lenses... although I'm not sure how useful that would be to your projects.

Also, are most of your subjects shot within a studio of sorts with good control over lighting? High ISO performance is another advantage that goes to a DSLR.

Honestly, I think the best bet would be a high end P&S with the Canon G-Series at the top of my list. The current new model is the G12. Its slotted right into your budget and very capable camera. It is also an easy camera to learn. It is also not overly too compact which makes shooting long hours with it not as uncomfortable as a tiny compact P&S meant for the pocket.

The Dlux5 posted prior is also a good camera BUT do yourself a favor, get the Panasonic LX5 instead. Identical camera to the Leica with no obvious differences (and I shoot with Leica). The price difference is not insignificant.

 

[Nigma]

Thanks for the responses.

This is a great example of what I'm trying to do:

edit: need 5 posts to put this link up...

The picture in the banner is the same size and resolution that I'm worried about. I want pictures that are on that level. The quality should be the same.

This is impossible with a Sony Cybershot (at least when I use it). Personally I'd rather get an entry level DSLR than a point and shoot. Only because I hate the idea that my equipment has limitations and I went above and beyond to purchase it. Could this camera do what I need?

edit: need 5 posts to put this link up...

I've blown up pictures in the past for 3'x6' corporate banners in the past and it wasn't a problem with resolutions around 13000x1300px. As long as I can get to that I should be good. So do I need to grab a $500 camera and purchase a better lens? Or should I work on my photoshop skills?

 

[Nigma]

10 characters....

 

[Nigma]

10 characters............

 

[Nigma]

10 characters

 

[Nigma]

here're the links:

Grabill Windows & Doors

Amazon.com: Canon Rebel XS 10.1MP Digital SLR Camera with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens (Black): Camera & Photo

 

[Nigma]

Oh, come on.

Just two things I've narrowed it down to, now. I want photos like these:

42-16677739 - Fotosearch Stock Photography

Grabill Windows & Doors

...without paying $300 a piece. I like photography and would love to learn the craft.

1.) Can I pull this off with a $300 P&S?

2.) The Canon G12 is going for $450, the same price as their entry-level SLR. Amazon.com: Canon Rebel XS 10.1MP Digital SLR Camera with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens (Black): Camera & Photo Is it superior? Having to chose between them, I'd take the SLR for customizability (I hate starting with equipment I gotta toss out later).

I'm not trying to make money selling prints. I just need to take crisp photos without a bucketload of noise like on my Cybershot (if I could find the battery charger I would check that the ISO isn't set to a high default). The size I need is only 1024px x 400px or so. Anything is possible, of course, and from what I've seen so far I may even take up photography as a hobby.

I know this isn't really a beginner's forum, but any help would be appreciated. It sucks trying to tear through camera reviews to find mention of what the camera's capabilities are.

 

[enzodm]

1.) Can I pull this off with a $300 P&S?

if you are a $500 photographer, perhaps yes.

Someone will comment more on the first, but apparently it has not much lens distortion, which could be either a good lens, perhaps one of those for architectural pictures (tilt/shift), or good postprocessing aimed at straightening perspective.
The second one implies some good knowledge of lighting and of course lighting equipment too. With all such light, a good P&S might do, but is just one of the needed tools.

If your target size is so small, reducing noise should not be a great problem, since you may resize larger pictures. And noise, when you have plenty of light, is not much even on P&S.

Here you can find some samples made with G12: http://www.flickr.com/groups/1088996@N21/

 

[Nigma]

Thanks for the reply. I figured a G12 is very capable. But from what I've read you'll hit a glass ceiling if you try and use it for other things. Since the cheapest Canon SLR is nearly the same price, I'd rather get that, unless it's somehow not a fully capable SLR that would need to be replaced by a better body in order to use more customizable equipment (I wouldn't put it past a corporation the size of Canon to bin their products like that). Your $500 photographer comment didn't really make sense to me. Would you elaborate? If I can just get a $200 - $300 P&S and get the quality I showed previously, I might just walk with that and spend the extra money on a new photo printer (I do a lot of brochures that require proofing).

 

[enzodm]

Thanks for the reply. I figured a G12 is very capable. But from what I've read you'll hit a glass ceiling if you try and use it for other things. Since the cheapest Canon SLR is nearly the same price, I'd rather get that, unless it's somehow not a fully capable SLR that would need to be replaced by a better body in order to use more customizable equipment (I wouldn't put it past a corporation the size of Canon to bin their products like that). Your $500 photographer comment didn't really make sense to me. Would you elaborate? If I can just get a $200 - $300 P&S and get the quality I showed previously, I might just walk with that and spend the extra money on a new photo printer (I do a lot of brochures that require proofing).

The $500 photographer was just a joke aimed at highlighting the role of photographer in quality (a good photographer may do decent pictures with any camera, knowing its limitations). The persons shot can be done easily with a good Point&Shoot, plus some lighting equipment (no builtin flash) and lighting knowledge, plus postprocessing (and two models). This because noise is apparent mainly in low light.
The windows pictures are of different quality. The first one and some others might have been done with lenses much more expensive than a body. The last one seems made with a P&S, not even well focused (the Miziyaki picture) However, I'm not sure which are the qualities of those pictures for you: if it is just no noise, you could do with a point&shoot, ISO 100 and long exposure on a good tripod.
If it is also perspective, you need a body with interchangeable lens, plus knowledge, plus perhaps some lens (and of course a good tripod).
When you buy a dSLR you buy an open system, not a closed machine. If you need what in P&S is a 10x zoom, the kit lens is not sufficient, so you have to buy another one. This means the possibility of grow, but also expense grows .
Finally, it's not the dSLR that will change picture quality in a minute. The overall cost depends also on your cost (since we are speaking of job): how much will cost to you to learn how to do those pictures (in terms of hourly salary, if you like to quantify). Again, this also depends on what are your needs (who is the target of your products too: some more or less educated viewer).
As a beginner, I could do something like the persons shot (only because I recently bought a flash + umbrella and done a portrait short course), perhaps looking less professional. Give me models (another expense) and could be closer. I could take some of the window pictures, but perhaps with more falling lines on the borders. I have a Rebel XS.

This also to explain why good pictures may cost more than a camera .

Anyway, apart from philosopy, a middle solution from the size point of view could be micro4/3 or Sony NEX: compact with interchangeable lens and large sensors. However price is always the same, and other considerations too. I have taken pleasant pictures with a Canon SX110is, now substituted by SX130is, which should go for less than G12. Here a picture (not mine) with this camera and similar subject: http://www.flickr.com/photos/historyrambler/5406311932/in/pool-1611250@N22/

 

[Nigma]

The $500 photographer was just a joke aimed at highlighting the role of photographer in quality (a good photographer may do decent pictures with any camera, knowing its limitations). The persons shot can be done easily with a good Point&Shoot, plus some lighting equipment (no builtin flash) and lighting knowledge, plus postprocessing (and two models). This because noise is apparent mainly in low light.
The windows pictures are of different quality. The first one and some others might have been done with lenses much more expensive than a body. The last one seems made with a P&S, not even well focused (the Miziyaki picture) However, I'm not sure which are the qualities of those pictures for you: if it is just no noise, you could do with a point&shoot, ISO 100 and long exposure on a good tripod.
If it is also perspective, you need a body with interchangeable lens, plus knowledge, plus perhaps some lens (and of course a good tripod).
When you buy a dSLR you buy an open system, not a closed machine. If you need what in P&S is a 10x zoom, the kit lens is not sufficient, so you have to buy another one. This means the possibility of grow, but also expense grows .
Finally, it's not the dSLR that will change picture quality in a minute. The overall cost depends also on your cost (since we are speaking of job): how much will cost to you to learn how to do those pictures (in terms of hourly salary, if you like to quantify). Again, this also depends on what are your needs (who is the target of your products too: some more or less educated viewer).
As a beginner, I could do something like the persons shot (only because I recently bought a flash + umbrella and done a portrait short course), perhaps looking less professional. Give me models (another expense) and could be closer. I could take some of the window pictures, but perhaps with more falling lines on the borders. I have a Rebel XS.

This also to explain why good pictures may cost more than a camera .

Anyway, apart from philosopy, a middle solution from the size point of view could be micro4/3 or Sony NEX: compact with interchangeable lens and large sensors. However price is always the same, and other considerations too. I have taken pleasant pictures with a Canon SX110is, now substituted by SX130is, which should go for less than G12. Here a picture (not mine) with this camera and similar subject: Solitude | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Thanks for the information. That photo taken of the house was incredible (to my eye's at least), though I'm assuming it's mostly a post-processing job. I figured that I could get away with a $200 camera, which is the what the powershot is exactly.

If any pont and shoot at ISO 100 has no noise, then what would you say is the issue with these?

DSC00188 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

DSC00469 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

DSC00507 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The first has that noise I was talking about, which I attribute to using the camera's auto settings in a room with no lighting. The other two, though still suffer form poor sharpness. I can't even view them full size without them looking blurred, and that's just on a computer. I can't even tell where the focus is on them.

I assume I won't have that problem with a powershot or Rebel XS. Thanks for your help, I think I might end up going for the Rebel XS, since I know it's not a "wannabe" dSLR or anything like that.

 

[Nigma]

The persons shot can be done easily with a good Point&Shoot, plus some lighting equipment (no builtin flash) and lighting knowledge, plus postprocessing (and two models). This because noise is apparent mainly in low light.

That's a good point about the models. Do you think the average person (i.e. employees) are gonna be able to freeze long enough for a slow shutter speed?

 

[enzodm]

That's a good point about the models. Do you think the average person (i.e. employees) are gonna be able to freeze long enough for a slow shutter speed?

you typically do not go with slow shutter speed on portraits: you use extra lighting. The two ladies picture may have a couple of direct or indirect sources of light - not yet sufficiently skilled to tell. One could be either some studio light or off camera flash or even a window in a good day on the left, and the other could be a reflector on the other side. If you want a basic introduction to ligthing: Strobist: Lighting 101