Seeking camera recommendations

[Hidy Ho]

There are so many guys with cool photos of their cues ...

I really liked the "Photographing cue photos" and want to take somewhat decent photos of my cues.

What cameras, specs and etc do you recommend?

For beginner or intermediate photographers? Does it have to be SLR? I assume wide angle lense and optical zoom?

recommendation below $500?

below $1k? above $1k?

Thanks in advance .. I have really old 2 megapixel Canon ELP with really crappy battery life

 

[bruin70]

if you can find it,,,,my canon g3 must be SUPER CHEAP,,,around $350

you can get digital slr's for <$1000. almost anything you want. canon,,,nikon,,,fuji,,,sony. they all have great lenses.

 

[Hal]

Most any camera that has Macro and Super Macro will take good pictures. This picture was taken with an old 1.3 megapixel canon model A-10. I'm not saying it's a great picture, but it's decent.

 

[Hal]

Here is one more. Same camera.

 

[Sweet Marissa]

35mm

Digital will never compare to 35mm!

I use the Nikon N80 with various Nikkor lenses. When I need a flash I use the Nikkor SB-28 Speedlight rather than the built-in flash. I also have an old manual SLR, the Pentax ME Super. I would recommend the N75 for beginners.

Film: I prefer Agfa, but use Fuji also. For black & white shots, I only use Ilford.

I realise I need to make the transition to digital, and plan on purchasing the D70. I hear it's comparable to the D100 and D1X.

 

[LWW]

Photography is coming up a lot here and I like it because I can help repay some of the great advice I've received.

I'm not going to claim to be the know all and end all of photo knowledge but I will state that I have been an avid hobbyist from age 12 till now at 49 and I also make enough doing photo work part time to pay for all my photo junk I keep acquiring, I wish I could say the same for pool.

I will also add that I work for no photo company and my opinions are I feel a little more grounded in reality than the typical "this is what I bought so you should to" advice. I will also try to explain why I have some of the opinions so that you will get an idea of what to look for and why.

First off if you are going to spend $500+ for a camera do your self a favor and get an SLR with interchangeable lenses. reasons:

-If you want to expand capabilities you buy a new lens instead of an entirely new setup.
-It is the only type of camera which lets you see directly through the lens.
-Peephole viewfinders are dimmer.
-Peephole viewfinders don't frame as well.
-Peephole viewfinders never show you EXACTLY what the pic will look like.
-Electronic viewfinders are sometimes convenient but promote poor shooting skills.

so in closing on that I suggest that you choose an SLR only.

LWW

 

[LWW]

Digital vs film.

I don't know if digital will ever equal film or not, but as of today it isn't even really close IMHO.

Film offers a warmth and depth of color which digital can't even touch.

Film offers the ability to buy off the shelf film as high as 3200 speed which will have very minimal grain, anything even remotely close to that speed in digital will be fairly full of noise.

Film allows for wide angle shooting much better than digital due to the CCD size.

To me digital does have two big edges. One is that lens focal length is effectively 1.5 times longer because of a CCD which is smaller than a 35MM film frame. This is why wide angle shooting with quality results in digital is difficult. OTOH my 300 f4.0 lens would effectively be a 450MM f4.0 on a digital body...if you do a lot of extreme telephoto shooting that is a concern. For this reason alone I will eventually break down and buy a digital SLR body, I will get to which one later. The other advantage of digital is instant gratification.

In closing on this issue, if you want photos NOW digital is the way to go. If you want quality that digital can't touch stick with film.

I have read that to match film's quality digital needs to get into the 25 megapixel range. Most people don't realize this because it is masked due to the fact that way too many people will walk into a camera store and buy the most expensive camera they can afford and then hang a knockoff brand cheapie lens on it.

LWW

 

[ceebee]

Cameras below $1k? above $1k?

Thanks in advance .. I have really old 2 megapixel Canon ELP with really crappy battery life

Here is a picture (low resolution) of the BreakRAK. I just took the picture with my 5 megapixel Sony DSC-F717

 

[Hidy Ho]

Undertaker,

Any particular brand/model recommendation?

Digital vs film.

I don't know if digital will ever equal film or not, but as of today it isn't even really close IMHO.

Film offers a warmth and depth of color which digital can't even touch.

Film offers the ability to buy off the shelf film as high as 3200 speed which will have very minimal grain, anything even remotely close to that speed in digital will be fairly full of noise.

Film allows for wide angle shooting much better than digital due to the CCD size.

To me digital does have two big edges. One is that lens focal length is effectively 1.5 times longer because of a CCD which is smaller than a 35MM film frame. This is why wide angle shooting with quality results in digital is difficult. OTOH my 300 f4.0 lens would effectively be a 450MM f4.0 on a digital body...if you do a lot of extreme telephoto shooting that is a concern. For this reason alone I will eventually break down and buy a digital SLR body, I will get to which one later. The other advantage of digital is instant gratification.

In closing on this issue, if you want photos NOW digital is the way to go. If you want quality that digital can't touch stick with film.

I have read that to match film's quality digital needs to get into the 25 megapixel range. Most people don't realize this because it is masked due to the fact that way too many people will walk into a camera store and buy the most expensive camera they can afford and then hang a knockoff brand cheapie lens on it.

LWW

 

[runscott]

Photography is coming up a lot here and I like it because I can help repay some of the great advice I've received.

I'm not going to claim to be the know all and end all of photo knowledge but I will state that I have been an avid hobbyist from age 12 till now at 49 and I also make enough doing photo work part time to pay for all my photo junk I keep acquiring, I wish I could say the same for pool.

I will also add that I work for no photo company and my opinions are I feel a little more grounded in reality than the typical "this is what I bought so you should to" advice. I will also try to explain why I have some of the opinions so that you will get an idea of what to look for and why.

First off if you are going to spend $500+ for a camera do your self a favor and get an SLR with interchangeable lenses. reasons:

-If you want to expand capabilities you buy a new lens instead of an entirely new setup.
-It is the only type of camera which lets you see directly through the lens.
-Peephole viewfinders are dimmer.
-Peephole viewfinders don't frame as well.
-Peephole viewfinders never show you EXACTLY what the pic will look like.
-Electronic viewfinders are sometimes convenient but promote poor shooting skills.

so in closing on that I suggest that you choose an SLR only.

LWW

I have been using a Minolta SRT201 (fully manual) for 25 years, mostly with Kodachrome 64, and wouldn't give it up for anything.

But for pool cues, I simply scan. See Rauenzahn link below for a lower-res example. The Hightower isn't my photo - straight from Chris' website, as I was lucky enough to purchase that exact cue.

You can also check out the "early uniforms" link on my website - the baseball uniform photos were taken with a digital camera in medium non-direct light (shielded by black cloth backdrop), simply because it's simpler than developing film. I think this method would also work very well with cues and I'll try it and post an image later.

 

[LWW]

Choosing a camera body is where most people mess up.

Although it's nice to have a high tech gee whiz camera body most people pay for features they never use.

Items that I would suggest you put prefernce on, and almost all basic camera bodies will have, are:

-Matrix metering as well as the ability to use center weighted metering. A spot meter is also nice to have built in for really oddball circumstances but today'd matrix metering sytems are nearly flawless.

-A high speed shutter of a t least 1/2000th of a second seems to be the standard and for almost all situation is sufficient. Faster is always better but you won't use it often.

-The ability to use both auto focus and manual foocus. I was very anti AF in the early days because they were slow and wouldn't always lock on to low contrast subjects. Today's AF systems are still not as sensitive nor as critical as the human eye, but they are awfully close. I still like having manual override for extremely low and bright light photos as well as those that are nearly devoid of features...such as the night sky and billiard cloth.

-Aperture priority which let's you set the amount of incoming light, this is important because this is how you get pics where only the subject is in focus and the background is a blur so that they *POP* out at you. This is the most common selection I use. It also allows for the extreme depth of focus (field) shots where everything for the subject to the edge of the Earth is in proper focus...an example is a field of flowers or a scenic vista. Aperture prioity hands off shutter speed selection to the camera's brain and allows you to decide how shallow or deep the critical focus area is on the fly.

-Shutter priority exposure. This is the opposite of aperture priority exposure in that you decide how high a shutter speed that you want and hand off aperture selection to the camera's brain. Good uses of this function are high speed sporting events, pets, and kids.

-Program exposure. They will all have this and I suggest that you never/almost never use it. It hands off both aperture and shutter decisions to the camera's brain. When also in AF mode you have essentially a very expensive point and shoot camera. The only times I use it are if I'm doing something semi nuts like taking a picture while hanging with 1 arm on the mast of a sail boat in rough water...yes I've done that. The reason I don't like it is that is I shoot 100 random shots on program mode I will end up 1 or 2 dogs and 1 or 2 really great shots and the rest will be perfectly exposed and perfectly mediocre. Even a beginner using the other exposure modes will come up with a mix that's more like 10 -20 dogs and 50-60 perfectly exposed and perfectly mediocre photos and 20-40 shots that will have your friends going *WOW*.

-Manual exposure. Again the camera's brain is never as sophisticated or creative as the human brain and some great pics are taken by doing everything that would be wrong in most cases, such as silhoetting someone against a setting sun. Different exposure modes are also a great learning mode...IOW shoot a roll or 3 of film of different subjects at different aperture and shutter settings and then see the results when they come back. Your camera will show you the selected aperture and shutter speed in the viewfinder before you shoot but if you don't know what they are telling you it's useless data.

-Multiple exposure capability. This a cool thing to play around with.

LWW

 

[Sweet Marissa]

Accessories

No matter what you shoot with, you'll need a sturdy tripod and or monopod. I only use Bogen Manfrotto. DO NOT use the generic Quantaray available in Wolf/Ritz Camera stores. They will not last.

I know people who use Quantaray lenses, which are really Sigma lenses with a different name. If you're looking to save money, it's your way to go. I don't use them because I'm a label snob. I'm not familiar with their flashes. You will need one eventually, as any built-in flash isn't really good for anything.

I prefer Cokin filters, which are interchangeable with my various lenses. I have screw on filters, but I rarely use them. You will need at least two: a UV filter and a Circular Polariser. The UV filter is basically for protection. If you drop your lens, it's much cheaper to replace a cracked filter than your lens. A circular polariser, among other things, can darken the sky, remove reflections from water and glass, and make foliage appear less shiny. Colour saturation is also significantly enhanced. It is the only filter for use with colour film that can do all of this.

You will need to protect your equipment. I have a locked stainless steel case with foam packing. When purchasing a camera bag, make sure it's sturdy (not flimsy) and has seperate sections for the body, lenses, and flash. You'll also want pockets for lens tissue, film, and filters you want to carry. Lowepro and Tamrac are probably the most popular. If you want a hard case, try Halliburton.

Wolf/Ritz Camera offers a great extended warranty on their cameras and it's definitely worth the extra money. I normally don't believe in these, but you could drop your camera off a building or in a lake, just bring them back the pieces and if it's not repairable, they'll replace it. Also, I know Nikon doesn't cover water damage but Wolf/Ritz Camera's extended warranty does. To my knowledge, there is no deductable. At least cover the body of your camera. Cameras today are pretty much little computers, and if it breaks, it'll be cheaper to replace it than fix any problem that arises.

A great place to shop is B&H Photo, whether you're looking for photo or video equipment. They also carry some used equipment.

Do not use eBay for camera purchases. If something happens to your camera, your options are limited. If you're on a limited budget, B & H Photo carries some used equipment.

Hope this helps

 

[bruin70]

Digital will never compare to 35mm!

I.

the trend hit the people at b& h photo two years ago when they started noticing photographers trading in their beloved hasselblads for digital slr's.

 

[LWW]

Where to sink the money you saved on a camera body?

GLASS! That's the word to remember in photography GLASS GLASS GLASS!!! That is what actually determines your picture quality more than anything else. Ultimately all any camera body does is act as a light tight box which opens a door (shutter) allowing light in to hit flat film or a CCD.

Avoid aftermarket lenses in telephoto focal lengths as they are designed to mount to most any camera body and not all camera bodies have film in the exact same focal point. In wide angle lenses this isn't critical but in anything 200MM and longer, or 135 MM in digital, it can cause color fringing and an inherent soft focus.

Interchangeable lenses also allow the use of more filter options and such.

In any event if you stick with lenses made by the camera mfr you will be much happier in the long run. Things that you want to get in lenses are:

-Avoid extreme zoom lenses. Things like 28-200 zoom lenses sound awesome but they have to make a lot of optical compromises. They are nice to have for shooting vacation pics and snapshots but for critical work they don't get it done.

-Film SPEED! Speed is always your friend in photography. You can gain speed 2 ways. One is with higher ISO film, or IOW 800 speed fillm will get the exact same exposure result in half the light that 400 speed film will. The 800 speed film will also allow you to use twice as fast a shutter speed in the same light as 400 would, or to use twice the depth of field (focus) as 400 speed. It's a cheap way to gain speed but the non monetary price is that the higer the speed the more grain in the pic. Low grain high speed films are out there in black and white but they eat up the cost savings. If you never do anything bigger than a 4X6 it won't matter much. Remeber though if you scan a photo and then enlarge a small section to the same 4X6 that's the same as enlarging a 4X6 to a 8X10 of 14X20 and the grain difference starts to show up.

-GLASS SPEED! Faster glass can be recognized by having a huge front element in relation to it's length. This allows much more light in which allows for much faster shutter speeds and much shallower depth of field (focus) which allows for the *POP* in photos where you have a very distict subject and a bust or distracting background.

Large aperture lenses are like heroin in that they are very addictive and if you decide to get one once you become more experienced you won't regret it...except at the cah register Speed as measured in glass is very expensive in telephoto lenses but pretty cheap in shorter lengths. High speed glass with high speed film can allow for some positively amazing results however. What you want to look for is the lens will be rated as and f X.X lens. The lower the f X.X number is the faster speed you have available.

To give examples Nikon used to make a 300MM f2.0 lens. This was the fastest long telefoto lens ever sold. It was $21,000.00 in 1984 and weighed 21 lbs. It was unusable without a tripod due to the weight. They also make a 300MM f2.8 lens which need twice the light f2.0 would need. It weigh about 6 lbs and is barely usable handheld and costs about $4,000.00, this is more or less your standard pro sports photographer lens. They also make a 300MM f4.0 lens which weighs about 2.5 lbs and costs about $900.00, it is the standard serious amateur lens and I have one, it is IMHO actually more capable than the f2.8 because I can actually carry it all day and use it with a strained neck. Lastly they make a 75MM-300MM f5.6 lens which is a very useful lens and will take a beginner several years to outgrow, it costs a few hundred and weighs a bit over 1 lb. Bottom line speed in glass is pricey.

LWW

 

[shoutout33]

Mabey its just me, but I thought that digital was on the same level as 35mm film quality wise. I know you have more things you can do with film, but if you notice, almost all (if not all...) of the major publicists use digital slr's now.

I have a nice Nikon (4300 I think and its 4 mp...) point and shoot that me and my fiance use and she loves it! I haven't even begun to use everything on the little sucker yet, but we have both taken really nice pictures with it.

Now, to truthfully honest with you, if I wanted to stay with film and money was not an object, I'd definitely go with medium format. Wouldn't even think twice about it. Nothing...and I do mean nothing, can touch medium format. Period!

I'm not pro or anything, hell, I'm not even a consistent hobbyist for that matter. LOL! But you can tell a BIG difference between medium format and 35mm...film or digital.

 

[runscott]

Mabey its just me, but I thought that digital was on the same level as 35mm film quality wise. I know you have more things you can do with film, but if you notice, almost all (if not all...) of the major publicists use digital slr's now.

It's really a matter of what you are trying to accomplish with the photo - I am responsible for a black and white newsletter that includes small photos. A 2.0 digital camera is perfectly adequate. If, on the other hand, you are trying to create wall-size posters of your cue, then something fancier should be considered

 

[LWW]

I'm not a brand snob but I'm a quality snob. I will give some suggestions on equipment here.

First off if you buy an SLR remember that you aren't buying a camera but a system that can be expanded over time.

The main choices are:

Leica, a German camera.

Positives: Extremely high build quality, advanced technology in some models, very long lifespans, other photographers will look at you with envy, top notch glass quality. Resale value is pretty good. They don't change lens mounts often so if you buy a system you will probaly have access to upgrades for awhile.

Negatives: Cost. EVERYTHING leica is priced insanely. $1,000.00 will buy you NOTHING. If you want to add a new piece to the system forget it, if you have to ask how much you can't afford it. Sales outlets are limited. Service if ever needed is expensive.

Contax:

Positives and negatives. Similar to Leica in every way except pricing is merely stupid instead of insane.

Canon:

Positives. Rally good glass quality, good long term reliability, lots of system accessories available as upgrades. Priced pretty reasonable for good stuff.

Negatives. Not nearly as good of resale value. Changes lens mounts fairly often. Notice a trend here. What this means is that if you invested a fortune in manual focus lenses in the 70s and wanted to go to AF in the 80s you had to replace everything. If you then wanted to upgrade to more fully automated camera bodies in the 90s you had to replace everything. Then if you wanted to go digital now you had to replace everything again.

Nikon:

Positives. Largest system options of anybody. Price is similar to Canon and others. As far as glass their middle of the road consumer lenses are as good as anyone's and WAY better than most while you can upgrade to their pro level lenses which are the standard of the world without a second mortgage if you choose in the future. they also have unbelievable resale value. Most people don't consider this with a camera, but if you get into it as a hobby and want to upgrade your camera or lens 5-10 yrs down the road it's nice to know that you can get 50% of your money back, as long as it works, for stuff that's pretty beaat up and 80% sometimes for stuff that looks like new.

The reasons for this are:

-They have a reputation for reliability which makes Toyota and Honda seem like Yugos in comparison. I have my grandfather's 1959 Nikon F and still use it from time to time. the shutter is dead on the money at all settings. The meter is off abouy 1/4 stop from the meter on my F4 body. Considering technology improvements I really don't think it's lost any accuracy and it's almost as old as me. Any Nikon camer body that starts with F is considered a pro grade body. This sold in 1959 for about $350.00 and is today worth about $500.00. My F4 sold new in 1993 for $1,500.00 and I bought it in 198 for $1,000.00 and today it's worth about $1,000.00.

The second reason is that I can take a 1959 Nikon lens and mount it to my 1993 F4 and...voila', it works. It won't autoous of course because it never did but it is still fully functional as a camera lens. If I had bought it new and wanted to upgrade my camera body 34 years later I didn't need to buy a new lens. Witha very minor modification, parts available from Nikon for $20.00, I could take a screwdriver and about 3 minutes and be able to use that 1959 lens on a brand new 2006 Digital D70.

No other camera company has watched out for their owner base in this manner.

LWW

 

[Hal]

LWW you're my camera hero...

 

[LWW]

Mabey its just me, but I thought that digital was on the same level as 35mm film quality wise. I know you have more things you can do with film, but if you notice, almost all (if not all...) of the major publicists use digital slr's now.

This is true but it has nothing to do with being able to match quality.

If you are going to print in a newsletter at 300 DPI yes digital will cover that quality level.

If you want to use a digital point and shoot for 72 DPI screen resolution on the web it is overkill for that.

OTOH if you want to keep hardcopy prints of tack sharp quality with deep brilliant vivid colors that won't fade away like inkjet prints you need film.

I'm not lecturing anyone and it's your money...it's also your memories.

There is a photographic link in my family that goes back nearly 100 years. I can barely remember my great grandfather as a child but there is something touching about being able to see him in his doughboy WW! uniform, and his wedding pics, and my grandfather as a child, and my father growing up, and me as a snot nosed brat, and the current generation of us, and the next generation will have that also.

What value you put on that is your choice. To me if the house caught fire tonight the 1st thing I get out is people, the 2nd is the photos, the 3rd is the pets, nothing else is worth saving.

LWW

 

[runscott]

OTOH if you want to keep hardcopy prints of tack sharp quality with deep brilliant vivid colors that won't fade away like inkjet prints you need film.

I'm not lecturing anyone and it's your money...it's also your memories.

LWW - completely agree. I have gorgeous prints hanging on my walls, all taken with a manual 35mm, and several enlarged and printed from slides by a professional for no small sum - can't beat it. When I get good tickets to a ballgame, I don't even bring the digital. Last year at game 5 of the NLDS, I was sitting behind the camera pit behind home plate (1st row), and it was mind-boggling to see all the fancy digital equipment, and me with my manual 35mm with a nice telephoto. For anyone interested in really learning photography, I still suggest a manual camera first - you can get them for a very reasonable price and add-on lenses are dirt-cheap now.