Seeking camera recommendations

[TATE]

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

The photo's on my site were taken with my old set up, just a Canon S30 with no other equipment. It shows. The photo's I am taking now are a lot better and I will eventually replace them on my site.

Photography is a skill and takes a lot of practice. The equipment matters but it's kind of like pool in the sense that it's the player, not the cue.

I have a Canon G6, 7 megapixels, and I think it's fine for this sort of thing. I think you can pick them up for $500 - $600 new. The new batteries really last a long time.

7 Megapixel photo files are huge, so make sure you have a fast computer or a memory card reader for it. The larger the memory card, the better by the way. The reader is only about $20 and it will make downloading the photos to the computer a lot faster and save your camera battery. They plug into the USB port and act as a separate drive.

I've learned that the camera has far more capabilities than I do as a photographer. Operating this kind of digital camera can range from simple to quite complex. The G6 allows you to make many choices and adjustments. It's quite an advanced camera really. The pros could take a G6 and some lighting equipment and really turn out some great shots.

For general photography and portraits, I would also buy their $150 speedflash attachment with a diffuser box attachment. Jeff has suggested a circular polarized lens for glare reduction - these are only $20 - $40.

Lighting is really important in photographing cues. If you want to really get into photographing cues, you should look into some light stands with diffusers. These are as inexpensive as $100 each with different choices of bulbs. 500 watt are not too much. You will also need a tri pod - and I would say an overhead arm for it.

This will get you started for under $1000. If you want to advance from there, the lighting is where you can go. This kind of camera is plenty for the better amatuer photographer who wants versatility and performance at moderate cost.

I would find a local camera shop to buy your stuff. The guys there can help with explaining things you might need help with as you get better and better.

Chris

 

[icon]

Photography is a skill and takes a lot of practice. The equipment matters but it's kind of like pool in the sense that it's the player, not the cue.

. . . . . . GREAT point!!! i would like to add that it is also an art!

too many people think pay big bucks get good picture's

you can get good pics from paying little bucks as well!!!

 

[icon]

jeff has suggested a circular polarized lens for glare reduction - these are only $20 - $40.

the ones with better glass actually run $100-$400 and up. but i'm still not completely sold on the need for one. loss of light and color distortion as bru mentioned.
i'm wondering if i replace the lost light if i will not end up with the same glare i started with. but i havent replaced the lost light so do not know.

 

[jjinfla]

I met a man at a train show who is from South Carolina who had a nice looking digital camera. Turned out he is a graphic artist and he said he loved the Fuji S5100 he was using better than the Nikons he had at home.

Anyway I bought one, on Ebay, from a camera store in New York, under the buy it now section. Brand new. $404 delivered with the $99 ugrade feature which I recommend. Very nice.

Has two memory cards, 16MB and 128MB. Rechargeable batteries and battery charger. I normally use the 16MB for my Ebay pictures, but I carry the 128MB when I go out.

Hell of a lot more convienent then my Cannon AE1 SLR which is collecting dust.

And being able to view the pictures immediately and delete the garbage is nice. Battery life is great. And I don't even know how many pictures I can fit on the 128MB. Took about 60 one time.

I bought the camera in February, took many pictures for Ebay, and I think I only recharged the batteries twice, maybe three times.

I really should go and take a digital camera class.

In a prior life I took crime scene photos for the Chicago Police and wouldn't think of using anything but a SLR camera. But the guys in the lab made us all look good.

The really nice part about a digital camera is that you can put the pictures on the computer and pick and choose which ones you want to save and print. I really am not into taking pictures to save for posterity. So I rarely print any.

But I understand that Office Depot now has some good quality paper that people around here find is very good for printing the photos.

Maybe I will sign up for that camera class.

I don't even know how to put a picture on here.

But the camera is only as good as the monkey behind it.

 

[Hidy Ho]

A lot of good info .. definitely ate into my productivity at work today.

Thanks everyone.

I have to revisit the thread when my outdated, limited CPU inside my head cools down from information overload

So which model should I buy?

 

[Rich R.]

I'm sorry if someone told you Nikon glass wouldn't carry forward, but they at best were clueless and at worst flat out lied to you.

I can't say I was lied to. My Nikon glass was of the AI variety and I was told that full function metering would not be available. At that point, I decided I would be updating my entire system.

Although I did sell my F2 body and a few small accessories, I still have my FE and my Nikon glass, which is the best.
I haven't used it lately, but I do still have film capability.

BTW, I have enjoyed this thread and learned a lot. I look forward to discussing some pool related photography topics in the future.

 

[LWW]

As a couple of add ons I meant to have said I'm NOT trying to convert anyone.

Also, as to polarized filters, adding th light back in will cause the reflections/glare to recur. They convert unpolarised light (which includes direct light from most light sources encountered in normal photography, eg. the sun and indoor lights) into polarised light by allowing only light wave elements whose vectors are oriented in a particular direction to pass through unaltered. As such, you will always need to rotate the polariser to select the polarising axis that best suits the particular scene you are trying to capture.

They work similar to polarising sunglasses. In the case of your polarised sunglasses, they are usually similar to linear polarisers except that their polarising axis is fixed parallel to the horizontal, i.e. they filter out light wave elements whose vectors are parallel to the horizontal plane. This is because their main purpose is to reduce the most common specular reflections encountered in daily life, and most of these reflections tend to come off horizontal surfaces (eg. lakes and roads) and such reflections are best countered by orienting the polariser in this particular direction. As such, your sunglasses are not superior to your polarising filter in versatility but in fact more limited because their polarising axis is fixed whereas you can rotate the axis on your filter! Try seeing how much your sunglasses reduce reflections from vertical surfaces such as a glass window.

Also the fact that the mind of the photographer is what makes great photos is absolutely correct. The edge from better stuff evaporates if you don't comprehend how it works and how it interacts with light.

LWW

 

[cuechick]

Just for the record, I'm a pro photographer. I've been a pro for over 25 years; twenty of those years were shooting for advertising clients in NYC, where competition doesn't get any greater.

I basically agree with most of what you said about photo accessories and cameras. But I differ on a few significant points.

As far as choosing a camera these days, I agree that if ones budget allows it, an SLR or DSLR is the way to go.

But unless your budget is under $800, I would strongly advise going with a digital camera. Yes, film can produce great images, but the ease and convenience of digital so far outweighs film cameras, there is really very little reason to use film any longer. Mind you, I've shot a lot of film in my career.


The argument that film produces better images than digital is no longer valid. The typical 6-8mg DSLR produces superb quality images, every bit the equal of any film for print sizes up to 11x14, and with knowledgable tweaking, even 20x30.

The question of print longevity of inkjet prints is another area that has changed. Current inkjet prints are considerably longer lasting than standard color C-prints. Not only that, unless one shoots slides, a C-print is your only option. If slides are your choice, you can get R prints, which are terrible; C-prints from internegs (but they'd better be 4x5 internegs or the image quality will suffer greatly); Cibachrome, which can be beautiful, but are extremely demanding of expert masking and very expensive; or dye transfer, an arcane process which is monumentally expensive and only done by a handful of places anymore.

So print output basically comes down to C-prints vs. Inkjet. Inkjet prints are sharper, have better color fidelity, contrast and tonal scale. And they outlast C-prints, which are notorious for fading and color shifts. Also, it is far easier and cheaper to get a good inkjet print than a C-print. Of course you could get a drum scan of a slide or negative, and then have an Inkjet print done from that. But what's the point?

I have the greatest respect for Nikon, and I understand your loyalty to the brand, as well as appreciate Nikon's loyalty to their owners by not changing their lens mount.

That said, Nikon is constantly in catch-up mode to Canon in today's world. Canon is a vastly bigger company, with far more resources, and dramatically so in the area of R&D. With every technological advance Canon introduces, Nikon struggles to stay within 1-2 years behind.

For example, Canon makes their own sensors and has the research capability and manufacturing capabilty to set the standard. Canon offered a full-frame sensor years ago and Nikon still doesn't offer one. Another area is in IS (image stabilization) lenses. Canon introduced that technology 2-3 years ago and Nikon was at least a year behind; Canon offers it in many lenses, even down to the $400 price range, while Nikon only offers it is 2-3 of their most expensive telephotos. The list goes on and on. But one thing is abundantly clear--Canon leads, Nikon follows.

I also dispute the choice for anyone of a Leica camera. The only pro I knew in NYC who used Leica equipment was Ernst Hass, and he got his Leica stuff free. Other than him, and a few dedicated "artist" street photographers like Ralph Gibson, everyone used Nikon. Most of the people I knew who owned Leicas were doctors.

And what became of all those pro Nikon users? Well, with the exception of Pete Turner (my mentor) and Jay Masiel, who get their stuff free from Nikon, nearly all of them have switched to Canon. Why? See above. Oh, by the way, Turner and Masiel shoot digitally exclusively now.

One last thing about your comments on film speeds. High speed films are not a pro photographer's friend. We HATE using high speed films (or digital ISO). Going to a faster film speed is the absolute last resort. And I mean really last resort. Case in point, in 25 years of pro photography I've only used ISO 800 3-4 times. Nothing higher. I should also add, I've probably used a shutter speed of 1/2000 about the same number of times in 25 years. I would have to go look to see if my current cameras even offer 1/4000 or higher. I honestly don't know--or care.

Very good post. As a fellow pro with a similar background, and also teach at graduate level art school... it is funny for me to read people go on and on about a filters, glass and tripods.

A camera is a camera is a camera, it is a box with a hole that allows light in.

It is just like a cue, you can spend 100.00 or thousands but it will only shoot as good as the person holding it.

I love digital, and I have shot film for years, I have shot it for 90% of my jobs since December digitally and seriously doubt anyone here could tell me which was which.

What I would suggest for the original poster is to look into the Canon Rebel. A great starter slr that should have all the features you need and can be found for around 500.00 on eBay.

Whatever you get, read the manual from cover to cover...even pros have to do this. Learn to understand "White balance" and you should do fine.

Cheers...!

 

[Busman]

Look at if from another perspective.

In 1992 I started my own photolab, providing finishing services to professional photographers. I started out with all used equipment, initial startup cost was about 30k.
In 1995 I decided to make an investment in a high end printer. A lucht dual crop twin drive printer that prints 35mm and 6.45mm negatives. Basically it can make multiple print sizes without changing lenses like most mini-lab setups have to do. It was an 85k investment, with no digital capabilities. In 2000, within a 6 month period, about 50% of my clients had made the switch to digital. I closed my doors in 2003 because I didn’t want to make another investment into digital equipment and I was getting tired of being stuck in the dark all the time.

Basically IMHO, digital isn’t as good traditional silver halide based film cameras.

If you were to give two professional photographers high end quality equipment, one with digital and one with film. Then have them photograph the same subject under the same conditions. The results with the film camera are going to be better overall.

BUT you will have to examine the results under a loupe to see it.

Unless your entering your prints in competition, digital is good enough.

(Also for people who are environment conscious, negative film is still processed in C41 chemistry which is supposed to be refined to retrieve the silver before discharging it into the sewers, but I used to know a ton of minilab people who never did. )

Just my opinions.


BTW – I have an 85k dollar photographic printer, that can print 35mm and 6.45mm medium format negatives. I’ll take pennies on the dollar for it, or maybe trade it for some cues or a lathe.

 

[icon]

Very good post. As a fellow pro with a similar background, and also teach at graduate level art school... it is funny for me to read people go on and on about a filters, glass and tripods.

A camera is a camera is a camera, it is a box with a hole that allows light in.

It is just like a cue, you can spend 100.00 or thousands but it will only shoot as good as the person holding it.

I love digital, and I have shot film for years, I have shot it for 90% of my jobs since December digitally and seriously doubt anyone here could tell me which was which.

What I would suggest for the original poster is to look into the Canon Rebel. A great starter slr that should have all the features you need and can be found for around 500.00 on eBay.

Whatever you get, read the manual from cover to cover...even pros have to do this. Learn to understand "White balance" and you should do fine.

Cheers...!

seems like we have more serious photogs than we have pics posted!
i post my share and i'm a beginner!

 

[Sweet Marissa]

seems like we have more serious photogs than we have pics posted!
i post my share and i'm a beginner!

Here is one of mine. Of course you can see more detail in the actual print.

 

[Sweet Marissa]

Had to resize these to fit...

Singer Jeffrey Gaines

 

[Sweet Marissa]

Another one...

 

[Hal]

The same camera that took my pictures on page one of this thread can be found on ebay for $30.00 to $50.00

 

[runscott]

Here is one of mine. Of course you can see more detail in the actual print.

Here's one of my favorites (much more detail in real life )

Reds celebrating winning the pennant in '90, during rain delay.

 

[runscott]

Most of mine are sports-related, since I only scan negatives when uploading for the web-site.

"Chipper strikes out" ...so leave already. I love the "spaceman" catcher gear

 

[Hal]

runscott has the best pics so far. Here's one more from me. My boys torturing the dog.

 

[icon]

The same camera that took my pictures on page one of this thread can be found on ebay for $30.00 to $50.00

is that bryant-denny stadium in your avatar

 

[Hal]

is that bryant-denny stadium in your avatar

Why no it's not Mr. "No Sho Prothro..."

 

[Snapshot9]

Very good information

that users have shared. What I think needs to be done is
for someone knowledgable to give a summary though.

Low end user package.
Photography is not a hobby.
Just wants an inexpensive setup for pictures of cue(s).

Medium user package.
More than 1 interest in Photography.
Possible Cue Collector, or has interest in taking several
cue pictures of several cues.

Advanced user setup.
Works with taking cue pictures almost daily.
Part of the business.

Most, initial interest would probably be the Low end users,
that want a workable package that takes good pictures
for a small investment price.

I think lots of people would benefit from a summary
expressed like a spreadsheet.