Digital Cameras?
 

Recently I bought one of those Sony SPC707 for $900 but it does not work like I hoped.


I need a digital camera that takes ULTRA HIGH QUALITY shots, know any?

Get a Canon D-30... Very high quality
just a little pricy. I love it

You can see it or buy it at bhphoto.com

jt

I use an Olympus E-10... digital SLR. A little less pricey than the Canon or Nikon Digital SLRs.

THose 2 are digital? Morons at bestbuy told me this sony was the best digital camera they have. I saw the cannon section but I didn't know they where digital/

Holy shit $3000.00
just when I thought I was going all out with my $1k camera. lol

probably the best THEY have ;))

there are some amazing digital video cameras out there, but you'd be hard rpessed to find them at your local BestBuy or GoodGuys store...try a store specializing in cameras...but I agree with JT on the Canon D-30 for a decent camera

I think cyberpunk spent $7000 on his...freaking sweet....digital video.......a lot of the low budget movies are shooting on digital video now.....

I have two Digital Still Cameras.

Canon Powershot S20 - Takes OK outdoor photos.. good indoor pics.

Kodak DC4800 - Awsome outdoor pics.. okay indoor (flash is a little weak).

Check out this link to see some Hi-Res pics I took with my DC4800. Good color quality, depth, and line definition.

HI RES IMAGES

Also the Canon D-30 has the advantage of
having interchangable lenses and in addition to being an
SLR.... That is when you look thru the viewfinder you get to
look thru the lens.
Can you tell I just love this camera.

JT :2 cents:

I love my Cannon D-30 too JT!

these have been compressed and resized way down:
http://www.bikinivoyeur.com/0775.jpg
http://www.bikinivoyeur.com/plane.jpg

nice lookin photos BV!

how high up was that plane when you took the photo of it?

I'm having a hard time finding a camera that can take action shots (people running, cars driving by) and has a decent zoom.

id guess only 150 -200 feet.
i had an expensive cannon 24-85mm wide angle lens on as I was on my way to Mardi Gras. You can buy as much lens as your pocket can afford to do what you want. That's the beuty of this camera, all cannon auto focus lenses will fit.

thanks man
i wish you could see the uncompressed unresized image on this trinitron at full screen,

Lucky Ass

I got a Samtron i picked up at the flea market for 20 bux. Everyones pics look like shit on mine lol :)

Well, shoot, get yourself a large format camera with a digital back if price is no consideration. Look at http://www.sinarbron.com to see their offerings.

I been trying this one out , is not all that but I think is good enough to begin with.

Im staying with my Sony 707 until I can dish out 5 grand.

you can get a d-30 for 2k and a e-20 for 1500 or so

you just have to shop around.

Look into Canon or Olympus.Read the reviews on both(online).

Let me get this straight. You paid $900.00 ($100.00 less than me) for what is probably the best non-SLR digicam on the market, and you're not happy with it's 5.0 megapixel capabilities?

Are you sure it's set right?

I shoot with a Bronica ETRsi, and a Nikon F5, and I think the 707 is not too far behind, as far as imaging goes.

It's easy to use, it's fast (No where near as fast as the F5) The quality is tight. Better than 100 ISO 35mm film, (at it's highest setting)

Try this, adjust the settings to it's highest setting and shoot again. Play with the settings a bit. Trust me, you can't fuck it up.

The 707 is a great camera.

Being an amphotog, I'm interested in finding digi backs for both my F5 and the Bronica.

I've seen some VERY HIGH and High Resolution-pictures taken by a Minolta Dimage 7.... highly recommended!
It's like 5.4 MPixels and super-quality!

Thanks,

mellow

Actually I am in the process of setting up a content company...and this is what I found...

Keep in mind I already have a $5000 Nikon 35mm setup.....instead of a $4500 digital back or body

Just buy a $1500 negative scanner...then you can shoot with the camera and lenses you already have and are used to, plus anyone that shoots anything for you can be scanned into you pc at up to 4000dpi and up to 130megs per image...which is fuckin huge.

Without the flexibility of lenses and a good flash....photo quality will always look like amateur shoots....add in 8grand worth of studio lights and you will be sure to take the best pics possible.

Tim

For the guys that shoot full time here...what do you think about negative scanners? only real downside is waiting to develop the film to see the results...but at $1500 it keeps initial costs down and allows anyone with any camera to shoot for you?

get a nikon coolpix 5000

WTF are you talking about: "keeps initial costs down"? You can buy the camera I use (actually, I have several closely related cameras: same or similar controls, menu structure, and storage media): the C-xxxx line from Olympus (I currently have a C-3000, a C-3040, and a C-4040). I also use the off-camera flash bar option. A camera, extension flash bar, flashhead, and four 64Mb memory cards would certainly run you well under $1500 (probably $900-$1200 depending on which camera you buy...and a low-end model would do me just as well as the current top of the line for these similar models, the C-4040). AND no more film costs, film processing costs, storage costs, scanning costs (if you pay someone to do it for you). Analog cameras are for people who really need them (e.g., magazine photographers, where you will find it hard to sell anything that isn't on traditional analog film...and even then it will almost certainly have to be reversal film, not negative film). Shooting for the web, digital is really the only way to go.

Do you agree Aaron?

heh if you want to be competitive price-wise it is.

OR you could rent studio lights for about $25 for the day :)

this is true... ehy why don't you take a photo for us? tell us what you don't like about the quality of it and we may be able to help you adjust it....

You know I wouldn't even totally agree with you if you were shooting for a variety of non-web applications, but shooting for the web, you do NOT need studio lighting. I shoot almost totally with a mix of fill and bounce flash (all from the camera), and window light whenever I can get it. Maybe you'd like to accuse my customers of being morons, but I get webmasters of very important sites coming back to buy from me over and over again. These would include Amateur & Teen Kingdom and Karups Private Collection, among others. My camera and lighting fits in a relatively small camera bag. I think a lot of photographers are equipment collectors, which is swell if that's how you want to spend your money.

However, with a mid-range digital camera like the Olympus C-3000 (which has a zoom lens, not interchangeable ones) and about $400 in accessories, you can take very marketable photos. For example, this is the kind of result I get using bounce and fill, and I didn't choose it because it's above average. It's fairly typical of what I can do with this kind of lighting:

http://www.unseenworld.com/Temp/Example.jpg

One has to bear in mind that a lot of the incremental increases in "quality" (and even that word I have reservations about) are lost when the result is published on the web. If you are shooting for print media, that is a totally different world than the web, and this is not the forum to be discussing which camera to buy.

hi
If you're going to be shooting content for the net, The Canon D30 is the minimum you want. The Olympuses are not bad if you shoot VERY slow as they have crap buffer which stops every 5-6 shots for the camera to download the pictures to the disc in the camera. Not good if you want to shoot fast and free.
The best digital camera on the market today, affordable, is the Nikon D1X at $6,000 for the body, no lens no memery chip. So you are looking to spend up to $10,000. a lot of monet to shoot $30 internet sets. If you want to print or move into a better market do not waste money on anything else.

Bhutocracy is right about lighting though and digital needs a different lighting set up to film. If you want to get it right.

Bauhaus, never buy a negative scanner. If you want to shoot film shoot positive and get the nikon coolscan 4000

4pics. you need a quality zoom and fast enough film, according to the available light, to shoot at a shutter speed of 180. to get those moving objects with a zoom lens.

But all that is bullshit.
Give a pro photgrapher a simple camera and an idiot $20,000 worth of equipment and the pro will do a better job.

Heres another guy going to be a content provider asking basic questions. Or is it all SPAM

Tom
Nice picture and if you did it as you said it's very good the gilr has lifted off the bacground to the extent that it could be cut and paste.
The face is a bit soft, but the flowers in the background are sharp. Was that a cock up 9we all do them) or does the camera have problems focusing?
Not sure though you should be telling him to use available light. you know that is not as easy as you say.:winkwink:
Good picture good "Contact" from the model.
And I'm not kissing your arse, cos I dont need to.

You are right about print, for that market no one is really moving to digital yet, except one company as an experiement.

Well, Charly, I don't know where to begin. This only-the-best-will-do-even-when-there's-no-need-for-it approach is what I've gotten from you in just about every encounter.

So, fellas, if you listen to Charly, you'll probably never get into content production because you'll never save up enough money, or you'll need it to put the kids through college.

What horseshit.

Of course, one of the few things I agree with in what you said is "Give a pro photgrapher a simple camera and an idiot $20,000 worth of equipment and the pro will do a better job."

A good photographer can take a great photo with a pinhole camera. If you don't have an eye for color and composition and a way with women, your work will be crap with $50K in equipment.

Rereading, I see a couple other things I want to comment on. First off, my Oly's are plenty fast for what I do. I'm not shooting track and field events or Formula 1 cars, I'm shooting girls who are *posing*.

Secondly, I think the fact that you think a $6K camera is "affordable" and that 99% of the people here have $10K laying around to invest in a camera shows how out-of-touch you are with the people on this board.

But, after all, you are so afraid of competition that you have to go to all lengths to scare it off. That is your REAL motive here, isn't it?

Tom
You could not be more wrong.
I am not afraid of competition, I like it. It's what will make the net strong so that you can afford $10,000 for a camera.
As for the Olympus being slow, that is what I found, but I do shoot 20 rolls of 35mm in 2-3 hours when shooting the teeny stuff, don't want them looking too statuesque.
$10,000 for a camera that will last 3 years and shoot 10 sets a week, most net shooters do more, is only $0.66 a set. If you have not got the money go see your bank manager.
The film I shoot cost $15 a roll, bought and processed, that's $300 a set. Pray to god every night they invent the camera to do the job.
As for competition, where on the net or in the mags?
Neither could be further from the truth.

Hang on Tom
I told him it was too expensive to buy for the net.
But for better quality markets it's essential.
For my market it's an eos3 + fixed 85mm lens, second hand around $800-$1,000 I will even tell you the names of the magazine editors to send it too.

I still see one missing. Nikon Coolpix 950! I love that camera
and it's affordable...only downside...it's a bit big

DynaMite

Charly knows who signs the checks at Hustler.

I do, too. Like the banner says, Larry Flynt signs the checks. And banners don't lie!

(sigh) My poor, poor Charly... What are we going to do with you? I wonder if Lensman is willing to adopt a new policy to ban people who have no fucking clue what they are talking about but pretend that they do?

I would not have the audacity to try to step into the word of magazine content shoots and tell you what is right, wrong, or indifferent. You, on the other hand, enter our world and:

Insult those who know how it works.
Post spam message under fake accounts.
Run fixed contests, based on other people legit contests.
Steal Matrix Contents site design and use it as your own.
Suggest that a $10,000 setup is required for net content.
Make a complete ass of yourself.
The list goes on and on.......

Now, here are 2 photos that have not been retouched one bit. What I have done is taken them down to 300 pixels in width and 25k in size. I took these pictures with a camera that can now be purchased for about $600.00 and I am very happy with the results. I will also mention that I used ZERO (as in the number of replies you got to this thread because nobody takes you seriously) additional light sources other than the flash on my camera.

http://www.aaron-matthews.com/pics/shitcam1.jpg
http://www.aaron-matthews.com/pics/shitcam2.jpg

Now, go ahead and pic apart my work if it will make you feel better but keep in mind that this is for the Internet, not print work.

Do not get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with having high priced equipment and if you look at the front page of my website (Please do not copy the design and use it as your own) you will even see pictures of me shooting with a $10,000.00+ Nikon D1 setup. The D1 is a great camera but WAY overkill for the web.

Wake up and smell the roses. If I were you, I would verify my facts before opening my mouth.

Just one more reality czech brought to you by AaronM.



:GFYBand

Always knew you were a low-budget guy Sykk :1orglaugh

to everyone who is not *me*;
http://www.jackslappy.homestead.com/files/suck.jpg

Well, not for nothing, but I don't know Charly from a hole in the wall, but if he says he's the best, he must be.

On the other hand, I've got Unseen and AaronM, two guys who I've gotten content from...and never been happier!

Aaron's shot of the model in the jacuzzi is top shelf for the web. Vibrant, nicely balanced and more than appropriate for any site out there. Hell, if you're a lunatic, photoshop it until you're blue in the face, but for my money, the photographer who delivers the quality I need without trying to tell me what I need is the guy or gal I do business with.

This isn't the Playb0y centerfold here in large format. It's the web, stupid, and those two guys know how to do it without coming off sounding like pompous asses and even try to HELP others in the process.

My :2 cents:

The original post, said ultra high quality it did not say
good enough for the net content.
Just if we are getting our facts straight

Nothing wrong with those pictures though.

An intelligent and civil reply... You are learning, young Jedi.

sykk

leme guess

the D1
:)

that is the best digital camera on the market. i think lace uses it

Yes, he does.

Well actually I wanted this for web contents.
I guess I can live with the quality of pic this takes for now since I don't have 5,000 to spend on a cam.

i would suggest an olympus or a mavica and a good 3 light tripod set with reflectors.

the light set should run you around $200 - $300, and the camera around $800. you will get AMAZING quality photos due to the lighting.

i have a novatron lighting kit sitting in the closet, and my partner has the d1, but i started out with an olympus then to the mavica and i noticed with good lighting, i didn't have to spend alot to get a very professional looking high res. photo

just improve your lighting by getting a cheap lighting kit, you will see the difference...

For only web stuff, you do not need to spend so much.
Just be awarethe Olympus is slow and this can take a bit of the instantaneuos effect out of the shoot, which for "Amateur, teen, girl next door, is needed.
Models et pissed off when they are enjoyin posing and you have to stop every 6 pictures waiting for the damn camera to download. For the same reason get a disc big enough to handle the entire set. Don't want to stop in the middle of a set to upload onto your laptop.