Painter needs camera for HQ reference photos. Can't decide. Going crazy. Help! :)

[lostartist]

Sorry to post another camera-recommendation thread. I know nothing about cameras, but I DO know a good reference photo when I see one. I need a camera to take excellent reference photos for my paintings. $200 or less, BUT I would buy used (so long as in perfect working condition). Image quality for the price is my main priority. I can live with a camera that is hard to use or complicated to learn, if it has low battery life I will buy extra batteries, and I don't care if it can fit in my pocket. Image quality. I need a camera that doesn't produce much noise and captures colors and lighting beautifully. Must be quick as I want to take candid shots of people. I DO want to take some night shots and lots of low light shots.

I liked the sample images of the powershot 330 on photographyblog.com, when compared to other similar cameras on the same site (Canon IXUS 255 HS Review | PhotographyBLOG). and it used to be under $200........... but they must have recently discontinued the camera because the price went up. I can still find it for $200, but now I'm thinking there might be better options for $200? I became interested in the Pentax Q because of the interchangeable lens + good reviews, but did not like the sample photos posted on photographyblog.

I just want someone to make this decision for me! I do not have enough knowledge to make this decision. Is the powershot 330 at $200 a good choice? Or would I be better off getting something like the pentax Q that I could someday buy a better lens for? Or something else?

Any help/advice would be much appreciated!!

 

[lambertpix]

I hate to say this, but I think something in your requirements is going to have to give -- I don't know that you can accomplish all of those things for $200 or less.

Low-light and/or night shots plus low noise typically indicates the use of big sensors (ie, full-frame), fast glass (f/2.8 or faster), and a tripod. If you haven't already done so, it might be worth browsing some photos on Flickr or another site where you can see some information about the equipment that was used to take a shot -- this might give you some frame of reference for the sort of equipment other people are using. If there are some shots you're trying to emulate specifically, clue us in -- someone here can probably offer some insight into how specific shots are set up, shot, and processed.

 

[Designer]

IMO, the camera is not the most critical element. I think practically any compact camera in that price range will do just fine for reference photographs, but there are two other factors that will have a lot to do with how accurate you can see the colors.

!. The light. The light that your photograph is made in will be quite important. You will want to avoid glare, and sometimes you can't use flash, so getting a good amount of light in the right color is kind of important.

2. How your file is handled after the shot is going to be important as well. You might have to adjust the white balance on your computer and possibly other adjustments as well.

Therefore; knowing in advance what conditions exist where you want to make a photograph will help steer you toward the right camera. For instance; if you require only ambient light, and the place is dark, then you're going to have to spend a little more to get a camera that can take pictures in low light. Do you already have photo editing software?

 

[timor]

I know nothing about cameras, but I DO know a good reference photo when I see one.

Do you have any idea how those "good reference photos" were made ? Are you sure only inexpensive point and shoot cameras were used ? What aspects of yours reference pictures are most important to you ?

 

[lostartist]

I hate to say this, but I think something in your requirements is going to have to give -- I don't know that you can accomplish all of those things for $200 or less.

Low-light and/or night shots plus low noise typically indicates the use of big sensors (ie, full-frame), fast glass (f/2.8 or faster), and a tripod. If you haven't already done so, it might be worth browsing some photos on Flickr or another site where you can see some information about the equipment that was used to take a shot -- this might give you some frame of reference for the sort of equipment other people are using. If there are some shots you're trying to emulate specifically, clue us in -- someone here can probably offer some insight into how specific shots are set up, shot, and processed.

The low light performance of the powershot 330 ( http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_ixus_255_hs/sample_images/canon_ixus_255_hs_09.jpg ) seemed adequate enough for my purposes, and I've seen low light pictures from other cameras in my price range that seemed decent... I didn't think about having to use a tripod though. These will mostly be photos that I snap while out and about, rather than "set-up"... I wonder how low the light can get on any given camera before I will have to take out the tripod? It seems from your advice and others that I may have to give up low light at this price range...

What do you think of these photos taken with the powershot 330? Canon IXUS 255 HS Review - Sample Images | PhotographyBLOG Do you think think they are worth the $200 price tag? Could I do better for a similar price? What about a used older Dslr? There are some one Amazon for $200, such as the 2007 Olympus Evolt E410...
...

thank you lambertpix!!

 

[lostartist]

IMO, the camera is not the most critical element. I think practically any compact camera in that price range will do just fine for reference photographs, but there are two other factors that will have a lot to do with how accurate you can see the colors.

!. The light. The light that your photograph is made in will be quite important. You will want to avoid glare, and sometimes you can't use flash, so getting a good amount of light in the right color is kind of important.

2. How your file is handled after the shot is going to be important as well. You might have to adjust the white balance on your computer and possibly other adjustments as well.

Therefore; knowing in advance what conditions exist where you want to make a photograph will help steer you toward the right camera. For instance; if you require only ambient light, and the place is dark, then you're going to have to spend a little more to get a camera that can take pictures in low light. Do you already have photo editing software?

Thanks Designer! Do you have any tips or times of day or conditions in the environment that are usually well suited to avoiding glare and getting good quality light? I know that is a very general question. I imagine I will be taking many spontaneous photos as I am out and about in my city, with people in the foreground or background, and I would like to use natural lighting of the surroundings. If I can't take very low light shots then hopefully I can find something that can handle medium light? For example sunset, or indoors at night... and yes I do have photoshop. Any tips there would be greatly appreciated!

 

[lostartist]

I know nothing about cameras, but I DO know a good reference photo when I see one.

Do you have any idea how those "good reference photos" were made ? Are you sure only inexpensive point and shoot cameras were used ? What aspects of yours reference pictures are most important to you ?

I am currently using a [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Sony DSC-W70 bought in 2006 for my reference photos. It takes a lot of bad photos that are nearly unusable, but it CAN take a good reference photo. I am hoping, obviously, that my new camera will have a much better pass/fail ratio!! I have also used old photos taken with disposable cameras.. those were great reference photos, but not in the way I'm hoping my new camera will produce. Let's see... the things I'm looking for in my new camera's reference photos are... 1. Full and realistic range of values on subjects/objects so that they appear 3D rather than flat. Does that make sense? Some cameras take photos that I think have a "flat" look to the subjects. I'm sure there is a technical term for this. 2. Sharp in the right areas, soft in others. Or, not overly sharp or overly soft. 3. deep depth of field for landscape shots? I just looked up that term, hopefully it's correct lol. foreground, middle, and background all sharp on landscape shots. I know this is something you can manually control on fancy cameras, but I am guessing it is automatic on all point and shoots. 4. Less noise, Less blur, less strange glows of color. 5. More detail, highlights not washed out. 6. better with indoor/low light than I currently have...
[/FONT]
I probably put too much emphasis on image quality in my original post... it IS the most important thing, right after price, however, images I am seeing with the powershot 330 ( Canon IXUS 255 HS Review - Sample Images | PhotographyBLOG ) are good enough for me. What I am wondering is, does anyone know of something BETTER than the canon powershot 330 for the same price? I want to make sure I'm spending my $200 in the best way possible... Thanks Timor!

 

[Solarflare]

Digital cameras will ALWAYS wash highlights out. Thats one of the properties one has to work with when using digital.

I want to make sure I'm spending my $200 in the best way possible...

I usually tell people who want to buy such cheap cameras to just use their smartphone instead. Its kind of not much of a quality difference, really.

 

[Designer]

Thanks Designer! Do you have any tips or times of day or conditions in the environment that are usually well suited to avoiding glare and getting good quality light? I know that is a very general question. I imagine I will be taking many spontaneous photos as I am out and about in my city, with people in the foreground or background, and I would like to use natural lighting of the surroundings. If I can't take very low light shots then hopefully I can find something that can handle medium light? For example sunset, or indoors at night... and yes I do have photoshop. Any tips there would be greatly appreciated!

Some people try to use the built-in flash in low light conditions, which will usually result in a spot of glare on the subject. Taking pictures of flat artwork is an art in itself, if you want good color rendition and low distortion.

Most of the photographs in the Canon review that you linked to were not shot in low light, as I think of low light. However, it can go to ISO 6400, which will definitely help with low light conditions.

I would say that low light capability seems to be one major feature to look for in a camera.

Yes, you could use your mobile to take reference pictures, but the short focal length of the lens may be a problem.

If you have some idea of the type of pictures you will make and the typical conditions present, then you will have an idea of what kind of camera you need.

IMO, the focal length of the lens(es) and the resulting field of view could be very important. If you are considering a DSLR, you can change lenses as required, set up remote flash units, and make adjustments to the exposure to get an ideal photograph, but quite frankly, they are heavy, cumbersome, and you will probably not want to carry one around just for the chance to make pictures unless you are a photography nut.

IMO you want a camera that can change focal lengths, has a high ISO rating (with low noise) and will fit in your pocket.

 

[timor]

I am currently using a Sony DSC-W70 bought in 2006 for my reference photos. It takes a lot of bad photos that are nearly unusable, but it CAN take a good reference photo. I am hoping, obviously, that my new camera will have a much better pass/fail ratio!! I have also used old photos taken with disposable cameras.. those were great reference photos, but not in the way I'm hoping my new camera will produce. Let's see... the things I'm looking for in my new camera's reference photos are... 1. Full and realistic range of values on subjects/objects so that they appear 3D rather than flat. Does that make sense? Some cameras take photos that I think have a "flat" look to the subjects. I'm sure there is a technical term for this. 2. Sharp in the right areas, soft in others. Or, not overly sharp or overly soft. 3. deep depth of field for landscape shots? I just looked up that term, hopefully it's correct lol. foreground, middle, and background all sharp on landscape shots. I know this is something you can manually control on fancy cameras, but I am guessing it is automatic on all point and shoots. 4. Less noise, Less blur, less strange glows of color. 5. More detail, highlights not washed out. 6. better with indoor/low light than I currently have...

I probably put too much emphasis on image quality in my original post... it IS the most important thing, right after price, however, images I am seeing with the powershot 330 ( Canon IXUS 255 HS Review - Sample Images | PhotographyBLOG ) are good enough for me. What I am wondering is, does anyone know of something BETTER than the canon powershot 330 for the same price? I want to make sure I'm spending my $200 in the best way possible... Thanks Timor!

Hi.
Set of requirements you are listing is impossible to fulfill for p&s camera like this Canon you like. Those are rather things you one is getting from dslr. Everything starts with the size of the sensor.
http://images.gizmag.com/inline/camera-sensor-size-12.jpg
This IXUS sensor is of 1/2.3", second from the bottom. with such a small sensor come all the problems you want to avoid. A bit of explanation:
Camera sensor size: Why does it matter and exactly how big are they?
Bigger sensor, better control. Bigger sensor, bigger price. Bigger sensor, bigger and heavier bag to carry around. So we are back to p&s. P&s is capable of not bad pictures if one knows, how to handle it.
This is a picture taken with Canon A520

Full size from the camera (sorry mods...) not post processed. That only 4 megapixels from sensor smaller than IXUS (1/2.3 versus 1/2.5). So if you want reference pictures printed something like 10x15 IXUS is more, than good for it. But to lower your pass/fail ratio you will need to learn, how to control your camera and Canons usually have better controls, than most other brands of p&s.

 

[sm4him]

I know nothing about cameras, but I DO know a good reference photo when I see one.

Do you have any idea how those "good reference photos" were made ? Are you sure only inexpensive point and shoot cameras were used ? What aspects of yours reference pictures are most important to you ?

I am currently using a Sony DSC-W70 bought in 2006 for my reference photos. It takes a lot of bad photos that are nearly unusable, but it CAN take a good reference photo. I am hoping, obviously, that my new camera will have a much better pass/fail ratio!! I have also used old photos taken with disposable cameras.. those were great reference photos, but not in the way I'm hoping my new camera will produce. Let's see... the things I'm looking for in my new camera's reference photos are... 1. Full and realistic range of values on subjects/objects so that they appear 3D rather than flat. Does that make sense? Some cameras take photos that I think have a "flat" look to the subjects. I'm sure there is a technical term for this. 2. Sharp in the right areas, soft in others. Or, not overly sharp or overly soft. 3. deep depth of field for landscape shots? I just looked up that term, hopefully it's correct lol. foreground, middle, and background all sharp on landscape shots. I know this is something you can manually control on fancy cameras, but I am guessing it is automatic on all point and shoots. 4. Less noise, Less blur, less strange glows of color. 5. More detail, highlights not washed out. 6. better with indoor/low light than I currently have...

I probably put too much emphasis on image quality in my original post... it IS the most important thing, right after price, however, images I am seeing with the powershot 330 ( Canon IXUS 255 HS Review - Sample Images | PhotographyBLOG ) are good enough for me. What I am wondering is, does anyone know of something BETTER than the canon powershot 330 for the same price? I want to make sure I'm spending my $200 in the best way possible... Thanks Timor!

Thanks Designer! Do you have any tips or times of day or conditions in the environment that are usually well suited to avoiding glare and getting good quality light? I know that is a very general question. I imagine I will be taking many spontaneous photos as I am out and about in my city, with people in the foreground or background, and I would like to use natural lighting of the surroundings. If I can't take very low light shots then hopefully I can find something that can handle medium light? For example sunset, or indoors at night... and yes I do have photoshop. Any tips there would be greatly appreciated!

Some people try to use the built-in flash in low light conditions, which will usually result in a spot of glare on the subject. Taking pictures of flat artwork is an art in itself, if you want good color rendition and low distortion.

Most of the photographs in the Canon review that you linked to were not shot in low light, as I think of low light. However, it can go to ISO 6400, which will definitely help with low light conditions.

I would say that low light capability seems to be one major feature to look for in a camera.

Yes, you could use your mobile to take reference pictures, but the short focal length of the lens may be a problem.

If you have some idea of the type of pictures you will make and the typical conditions present, then you will have an idea of what kind of camera you need.

IMO, the focal length of the lens(es) and the resulting field of view could be very important. If you are considering a DSLR, you can change lenses as required, set up remote flash units, and make adjustments to the exposure to get an ideal photograph, but quite frankly, they are heavy, cumbersome, and you will probably not want to carry one around just for the chance to make pictures unless you are a photography nut.

IMO you want a camera that can change focal lengths, has a high ISO rating (with low noise) and will fit in your pocket.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the OP is looking to photograph his artwork. I think he is looking to take good-quality photos of a scene that he intends to use as a reference in his/her paintings. So, for instance they might take a photo of a waterfall with some pretty flowers growing up along the sides of the falls. Then they might take another picture of a particularly striking sky. At some point, you then use both of those photos as a reference point to create a painting of a waterfall scene with a spectacular sky.

I assume the desire for low-light and good color rendition is more about "remembering" the scene as accurately as possible than anything else. I also assume that the ability to print these images all that large isn't necessarily critical.

OP: If any of those assumptions are wrong, then my advice will be completely off base. Assuming that's what you're looking for though, I'd say the camera you're looking at would be decent enough to do 90% of what you are trying to do. Yeah, the low-light stuff might not be stellar, but I suspect it's STILL gonna be so much better than what you can do now with the old Sony, that you'll be pleased overall.

 

[pgriz]

My grandfather was a painter, but he could not afford to wait at the places he wanted to paint until the light and other conditions were right. So he used a cheap pocket film camera to shoot whatever he was interested in, and then back home, he'd put his snapshots besides his easel and would use them as references or as bits of inspiration. If your use is similar, then almost any point-and-shoot will work. You do need to know how to get a proper exposure, and it helps if you can do some post-processing, but other than that, you should be able to do what you want.

Perhaps we can help you better if we can see what you currently use as reference photos, and if you could describe what you regard as a "good" reference phone. Then we can ground our speculation about your needs in some reality.