Good camera for taking knife pictures?

Planterz

Planterz

Іди на хуй Путін!
Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
24,513
OK, I'm sick of my POS camera (Nikon Coolpix 4800). Either it takes crappy pictures, or I'm crappy at taking pictures with it. Or both. In any case, it's too big for me to carry easily, there's no image stabilization (I'd get blurred pictures on a tripod), no shutter/apature priority mode, no adjustable shutter speed, and it makes the goofiest freaking white-balance adjustments imaginable (I have compact fluorescent bulbs in my bedroom, and under the "fluorescent" setting, everything has a neon-green hue to it. WTF?

Anyway, it's time for a new camera. I'm looking intently at the Casio EXILIM EX-V7SR (specifically, the exclusive black model at BestBuy). It has both apature and shutter priority modes, fully adjustable shutter speeds, nicely low ISO sensitivity, a fairly close-range minimum focus distance of 3.9" (I had-briefly-a Kodak with a 12" minimum--eff that), and dual-mode image stabilization. Plus it can use the 1gig SD card I already have in my Nikon.

So, this time around, I've done my research (well, more than I did the first time anyway), but I'm still fairly clueless. What I'm asking in this post is two things:

Does anybody have the Casio EX-V7SR, and what opinions do you have about it? and

Are there any better recommendations? Keep it under $400.

I want to both take close-uo pictures of stationary objects (knives, flashlights, etc), and then regular pictures of every-day-life stuff (like my brother's wedding next month). Small is good, big bulky zoom lenses are not. SD card is good, but not required (I can go with another format if necessary). It MUST have manually adjustable shutter speeds and image stabilization.

Thanks.
 
$400 ? You can get a great camera for that . I have a Sony H-1 with 1-12x stabilized zoom .Smaller than a SLR , and lighter. Newer models are H-2, H-5, And to be introduced soon H-7 and H-9. Other makers have similar cameras. They can be used point and shoot or use the numerous adjustments.If you can't get excellent photos with that you really have a problem !!!...Look around for tutorials for taking knife photos. You never use flash or direct light. Build some type of light box, get some lights and a tripod and you're all set !
 
We recently bought a Canon Sureshot A640, and so far I'm very pleased with it. Macro down to 1cm (about 7/16"). 4x optical Zoom. Plenty of controls, altohg being used to a Pentax I find some of them a bit cumbersome to get to.
It does have anti-shake (although that's the one feature that I'm not over impressd with), and I think I can control it from my PC via the USB cable - not read far enough into the manual yet for that, but it'll be handy for eliminating shake in macros if I can.
 
Have the Sony cam myself.

Also--its not about the megapixels---its about the lens---had a POS Polaroid 5 meg-pix----that was absolutely worthless.

My Sony has a Zeiss lens---Panasonic has Leica(I think?)---Kodak uses some upscale German lens too.

All the mega-pix in the world are worthless without a good lens.
 
Planterz said:
OK, I'm sick of my POS camera (Nikon Coolpix 4800). Either it takes crappy pictures, or I'm crappy at taking pictures with it. Or both.
Click to expand...

I use a Nikon 4300, (I'm guessing yours is a few steps up from mine) and I'm very happy with it. I was a professional photographer for many years and I had a lot of equipment. When I decided to go digital I decided I wanted to keep it simple, and that's what I did. Don't fall into the trap of thinking spending more for a camera will make you a better photographer, it won't. Of course a better camera will have better resolution and more features, but if you don't have the basic skills needed to take a good photo, the camera won't do it for you. I'm sure you've heard, "It's a poor workman that blames his tools".

If you've got your heart set on a new camera, go for it.
But, try my photography tutorial before you do.
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=452121
There is no reason why your results should be any different than mine. Best part is it won't cost you 1¢ to try.
 
PhilL said:
I use a Nikon 4300, (I'm guessing yours is a few steps up from mine) and I'm very happy with it. I was a professional photographer for many years and I had a lot of equipment. When I decided to go digital I decided I wanted to keep it simple, and that's what I did. Don't fall into the trap of thinking spending more for a camera will make you a better photographer, it won't. Of course a better camera will have better resolution and more features, but if you don't have the basic skills needed to take a good photo, the camera won't do it for you. I'm sure you've heard, "It's a poor workman that blames his tools".

If you've got your heart set on a new camera, go for it.
But, try my photography tutorial before you do.
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=452121
There is no reason why your results should be any different than mine. Best part is it won't cost you 1¢ to try.
Click to expand...

I'll definitely check out your tutorial (and Coop's), but I am set on a new camera (something smaller, more adjustable, and with image stablization). I've been meaning to build a light box for a while, since I know lighting matters more than just about anything else.

But since I'm set on getting a new camera, is there anything anyone can tell me about the Casio EX-V7SR that makes it one I should stay away from and get a different one? Voodoo suggests F2.8 or lower, and this Casio has F3.4 as its lowest.

I do have one general question though: How much difference does the background matter in taking a close-up stationary picture? With being limited to basic point-and-click with my Nikon, I get some really goofy variences with color balance when I use different backgrounds. Like brown carpet to white cardboard to my dark-green bedspread. I always have to end up in Photoshop trying to correct the color of the object, and when I get close, the background is never the true color. This happens whether the object is reflective or not.

Thanks.
 
Planterz said:
I always have to end up in Photoshop trying to correct the color of the object, and when I get close, the background is never the true color. This happens whether the object is reflective or not.
Click to expand...

Every photo can be helped by a little image editing.

Back in the days when transparency film ruled, if the color had to be perfect, you would take the photo, hold the set while you sent the film out for processing. When the film came back, on a light box you would make your color corrections with Color Correction gel fiters. You would use these gels in a holder in front of the lens. If the photo was a little flat you'd have the lab overdevelope it a bit. When you reshoot we would make sure this film was the same batch as the test. We'd go so far as to make sure that the film got processed the same time of day as the test shots. Just for added safety blanket I would also shoot some color negative film, just in case everything else failed.

I would have killed to have Photoshop way back when.
 
Planterz said:
But since I'm set on getting a new camera, is there anything anyone can tell me about the Casio EX-V7SR that makes it one I should stay away from and get a different one? Voodoo suggests F2.8 or lower, and this Casio has F3.4 as its lowest.
Click to expand...
Go to www.dpreview.com and compare the Canon SD700IS (which is what I suggested) and your Casio. You can do a side-by-side comparison of features.

Why pay more for less.....?? :D ;)

Coop
 
SharpByCoop said:
Go to www.dpreview.com and compare the Canon SD700IS (which is what I suggested) and your Casio. You can do a side-by-side comparison of features.

Why pay more for less.....?? :D ;)

Coop
Click to expand...

dpreview was where I've been looking at features (since bestbuy ads don't tell you jack). Bestbuy doesn't have the SD700IS, but they do have the SD800IS (I want to stick with Bestbuy because I have a BB Reward Zone CC and I get quite a lot of money back). The Cannon and the Casio look quite similar. The Cannon doesn't have shutter/apature priority, but it does have a lower apature (f/2.8). What would be the benifit of having the lower fstop? The price difference isn't enough for me to worry about if the Casio is a better camera (if).
 
Planterz said:
I do have one general question though: How much difference does the background matter in taking a close-up stationary picture? With being limited to basic point-and-click with my Nikon, I get some really goofy variences with color balance when I use different backgrounds. Like brown carpet to white cardboard to my dark-green bedspread. I always have to end up in Photoshop trying to correct the color of the object, and when I get close, the background is never the true color. This happens whether the object is reflective or not.
Click to expand...

Some of the digital SLRs have a white balance feature that lets you adjust the colour handling prior to taking the shot. My Nikon D50 lets you bracket shots with white, balance. Over three shots it will adjust the white balance by user specified steps. The same bracketing can be done for exposure compensation.

I tend to agree with Phil. Getting a better camera won't necessarily make your pictures better. The biggest improvement in my hobby shots was getting into a mind frame of using a tripod as much as possible. At first, my thinking was that this was to get sharper pictures. I later found out that it served a few purposes: 1) I became more amenable to fiddling with manual features of the camera, 2) I started to play with bracketting more which allows you to evaluate how changing settings alters the shot in a systematic way and 3) perhaps the most important of all, by going through all the trouble of setting up the tripod - I actually really looked through the viewfinder in the same way I would look at and critique a picture. I.e. I would really try to get rid of annoying background items, I would stop and think about the composition, ect.

Thinking that you will lift the camera to your eye and pop off a great composition shot is probably about the same analogy as buying one of those carbide V-knife sharpeners in the hopes that it will get your best knifes sharp in three strokes. So why, not slow it down and see what the cool pics might actually produce for you? Get a mini tripod and play with lighting. Just my honest advice that has worked very well for me!
 
Definately use a tripod

The lower f stop means a bigger aperture which means you can use a faster shutter speed, but as Voodoo said, a big aperture means a small depth of field. The depth of field will get even smaller if youre taking closeups of knives so you probably wouldnt want to shoot at f2.8 even if you could. f8 would probably be better but it depends on the shot and the effect youre looking for.

Lighting is also very important. to make a job of it you need an off camera light source like an external flash gun and an off camera cable

Point and shoot doesnt make high quality photos :)
 
I have been using a mini tripod, but I would still get pictures with motion blur just from hitting the button and it still shaking a bit when it finally takes the picture. Using the timer would help, but it has to be reset each time and it's a PITA. That's why I want something with image stablization. A remote trigger would be nice too, but small P&C cameras don't have those.
 
IMO you can't beat Canon when looking for a small digital camera.

Just get the one closest to you're budget and you'll do fine.
 
Once you get above the $350 mark you are getting into SLR price range. For the kinds of things you are doing you would be far better off with a digital SLR. The opportunity to expand to different lens and use external flashes make these systems much more flexible than a point and shoot. They have way better viewfinders that let you see the picture under full light surpassing LCDs and great programming capability. Don't get lulled into the need for more than 6 megapixels, a better digital/analogue converter in the camera is worth a lot more than the number of pixels saved.

My nikon D50 fit and used all the lenses I had with my film camera - so it was a natural choice for me. The only 2 things you sacrifice with a digital SLR are 1) size - lenses, flashes ect. require a bigger case and more lugging around and 2) no video capability.
 
My cheap enough Canon A540 has enough control (including white balance) for me to do lots of things. Holds the timer setting from shot to shot and so on. Only thing I don't like about it is the long flash cycle time. I use flash a lot outdoors (fill) and hardly ever indoors. For knives I would use a light tent and avoid flash.
My favourite camera is the one I really cut my teeth on, A Rollei 35 loaded with TriX and pushed a stop or two. Just the best for available light candids and I learned to hold steady for slow shutter speeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top