I would look for something with more megapixels than the Sony F707. If my quick search was right, it is only 2.0 megapixel. This is worse than some mobile phone cameras. I use a Nikon Coolpix 8700. It is an 8mpx camera. It is about 2.5 years old and I have been very happy with it. My only complaint with it is that is does not zoom out as far as I would like. Its max is 35mm. I wish it at least went to 28mm. A lot of times I am just too close th what I am taking a picture of. I think im going to move up to a digital SLR next, so I can have the flexability of changing lenses. You can see examples of the photos on my flickr page. Also, check out Cnet.com for some good reviews. Good luck!
I have two digital cameras; the first is an expensive Canon ( $1400.00) with a 28-200 zoom with 8mpx capacity that i use for all portfolio shots and high quality family photos etc., I like it because I can plot the photos on the office plotter for presentations and all good graphic design stuff. Problem is its hevy and a bit more of a pain when moving around and tends to stay in the case until I need it.
The smaller one is a pentax optio s6 ( $390.00) which I use more often for job site pics and anytime I am active ie biking, camping, skiing etc and want to get family / friends pics, it fits in a pocket i can operate it with one hand and its 6 mpx. If I were to buy only one it would be the smaller of the two unless I was a dedicated photographer type who spent a lot of time doing more arty photos ( I use to be but don't find the time like I once did)
The sony sounds like a bad deal.
In the same price range I think the panasonic lumix series is a better option. They have a 10x zoom and a high quality leica lens. The image stabilizer and high iso settings give you much control in low light situations, very nice when taking model pictures and (like me) don't like tripods.
Personally I would like a Ricoh GR digital, 28mm prime lens, no zoom, full control, super high quality but a bit more expensive. An ideal camera for street photography which is kinda my thing.
any pointers and know hows on the latter is appreciated.
note:
i am a point and shoot-pocket camera-developing story enthusiast and i get too self conscious with large slr cameras and would hate to carry one with me. i never had a large camera since 1980 when i had a 35mm yashica.
Check out the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 - it's a really good compact digital with a great Leica lens. It's at your price point and is well suited for the kind of pictures you describe.
Have had good results with a Canon G-10 (now they are up to 11). The ability to shoot in RAW format is useful for tricky lighting situations. The new Powershot 90 looks good and is more compact and less $ than the G-11.
I'd second that on the "no need to pay for a dslr". In fact, I've often had better success with my tiny canon power shot for getting into those hard to reach places.
get a DSLR. Nikon D3000 would be a good choice for entry level photobugs. Canon Powershot G10 / G11 are good options too.
Panasonic Lumix L3 is more for landscape shots. No doubt it gives value for money, but if you are serious about churning out kickass photos for your portfolio, then I'd recommend investing in a DSLR...which costs about $400? Or less. Yes, it's that cheap yet powerful.
The LX3 is a good camera. As for the G11, only get it if you actually need a flash hot-shoe. The Canon S90 is effectively the same camera in a smaller package, but without the hot-shoe.
If you really need to get deep into the models with good depth of field, an S90 or an LX3 is the way to go - they both have decently 35mm equivalent wide angles (S90: 28mm, LX3: 24mm) and also aperture control which lets you control the depth of field.
Getting into the model with a DSLR lens can be really tricky, and requires you to strategically build your model.
For pictures further away from your model, an SLR works fine. I doubt it offers a substantial image quality improvement over an S90 set to a low ISO setting though. Probably a bit better detail resolution given the sensor size if you need to enlarge the image (not to be confused with mega-pixel count).
Personally I use a DSLR with an ultra-ultra-wide lens for closeups, a normal lens for overview shots and an S90 to get into the model.
last week i bought the pentax KX. i had a hard time not going nikon (nikon d5000), but the pentax made so much more sense. the nikon is at least 650 bucks, has a more plasticy feel to the body, and has less features than the pentax. that said, its nikon and every store has nikon accessories, blah blah. but the pentax will work with any lens from back in the day, is REALLY easy to start taking fantastic pictures, and has an awesome feel to the body. it is also smaller than most DSLRs and cheaper...i got mine for about 530 on amazon. it also has some nice digital effects built in and takes better HD video than the nikon as well, if youre into that.
digital camera question/s
i'm looking for a high quality digital camera to take pics of architecture models/models for my clothing/details on factories/etc....
i have the chance to pick up a sonyf707 for 400 and want to get some feedback on other cameras that people use.....
thanks
2:37am
nikon or canon?
budget of 400-650
2:37am
I would look for something with more megapixels than the Sony F707. If my quick search was right, it is only 2.0 megapixel. This is worse than some mobile phone cameras. I use a Nikon Coolpix 8700. It is an 8mpx camera. It is about 2.5 years old and I have been very happy with it. My only complaint with it is that is does not zoom out as far as I would like. Its max is 35mm. I wish it at least went to 28mm. A lot of times I am just too close th what I am taking a picture of. I think im going to move up to a digital SLR next, so I can have the flexability of changing lenses. You can see examples of the photos on my flickr page. Also, check out Cnet.com for some good reviews. Good luck!
lens...get one with real glass lens...
I have two digital cameras; the first is an expensive Canon ( $1400.00) with a 28-200 zoom with 8mpx capacity that i use for all portfolio shots and high quality family photos etc., I like it because I can plot the photos on the office plotter for presentations and all good graphic design stuff. Problem is its hevy and a bit more of a pain when moving around and tends to stay in the case until I need it.
The smaller one is a pentax optio s6 ( $390.00) which I use more often for job site pics and anytime I am active ie biking, camping, skiing etc and want to get family / friends pics, it fits in a pocket i can operate it with one hand and its 6 mpx. If I were to buy only one it would be the smaller of the two unless I was a dedicated photographer type who spent a lot of time doing more arty photos ( I use to be but don't find the time like I once did)
The sony sounds like a bad deal.
In the same price range I think the panasonic lumix series is a better option. They have a 10x zoom and a high quality leica lens. The image stabilizer and high iso settings give you much control in low light situations, very nice when taking model pictures and (like me) don't like tripods.
links:
panasonic.lumix
steves-digicams (for reviews and detailed info)
Personally I would like a Ricoh GR digital, 28mm prime lens, no zoom, full control, super high quality but a bit more expensive. An ideal camera for street photography which is kinda my thing.
I second the panasonic lumix. work just bought one and it does pretty well. good price I hear too.
check out dpreview.com
to this long time goal in life
is about to happen.
any pointers and know hows on the latter is appreciated.
note:
i am a point and shoot-pocket camera-developing story enthusiast and i get too self conscious with large slr cameras and would hate to carry one with me. i never had a large camera since 1980 when i had a 35mm yashica.
Check out the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 - it's a really good compact digital with a great Leica lens. It's at your price point and is well suited for the kind of pictures you describe.
Have had good results with a Canon G-10 (now they are up to 11). The ability to shoot in RAW format is useful for tricky lighting situations. The new Powershot 90 looks good and is more compact and less $ than the G-11.
It's not about the camera, it's the lighting.
I picked up that Panasonic LX3 a few weeks ago. Love it, and can also shoot RAW.
Canon S90 or and entry-level Canon or Nikon DSLR (which one doesn't matter).
I'd suggest the canon g11. for models there's really not need to pay for a dslr.
I'd second that on the "no need to pay for a dslr". In fact, I've often had better success with my tiny canon power shot for getting into those hard to reach places.
i've found this guy's videos on lx3 very helpful.
get a DSLR. Nikon D3000 would be a good choice for entry level photobugs. Canon Powershot G10 / G11 are good options too.
Panasonic Lumix L3 is more for landscape shots. No doubt it gives value for money, but if you are serious about churning out kickass photos for your portfolio, then I'd recommend investing in a DSLR...which costs about $400? Or less. Yes, it's that cheap yet powerful.
The LX3 is a good camera. As for the G11, only get it if you actually need a flash hot-shoe. The Canon S90 is effectively the same camera in a smaller package, but without the hot-shoe.
If you really need to get deep into the models with good depth of field, an S90 or an LX3 is the way to go - they both have decently 35mm equivalent wide angles (S90: 28mm, LX3: 24mm) and also aperture control which lets you control the depth of field.
Getting into the model with a DSLR lens can be really tricky, and requires you to strategically build your model.
For pictures further away from your model, an SLR works fine. I doubt it offers a substantial image quality improvement over an S90 set to a low ISO setting though. Probably a bit better detail resolution given the sensor size if you need to enlarge the image (not to be confused with mega-pixel count).
Personally I use a DSLR with an ultra-ultra-wide lens for closeups, a normal lens for overview shots and an S90 to get into the model.
last week i bought the pentax KX. i had a hard time not going nikon (nikon d5000), but the pentax made so much more sense. the nikon is at least 650 bucks, has a more plasticy feel to the body, and has less features than the pentax. that said, its nikon and every store has nikon accessories, blah blah. but the pentax will work with any lens from back in the day, is REALLY easy to start taking fantastic pictures, and has an awesome feel to the body. it is also smaller than most DSLRs and cheaper...i got mine for about 530 on amazon. it also has some nice digital effects built in and takes better HD video than the nikon as well, if youre into that.
http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-K-x-2-7-inch-18-55mm-Black/dp/B002OEBTC8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1270478680&sr=8-1
...hot damn this thread is old...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.