artdoggy
|
posted on April 25, 2002 07:55:48 PM new
HI, I have a sony mavica I love for posting to the net 10x zoom FD73 is great for selling jewelry however I like to take pics to sell and the resolution on this sony is not high enough to print out quality photos. What type of camera would you suggest that would be better for selling prints?
|
dadofstickboy
|
posted on April 25, 2002 08:36:09 PM new
A better Sony
|
stopwhining
|
posted on April 26, 2002 06:15:41 AM new
professional photographers do not use digital cameras,you can look at the non digital ones.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on April 26, 2002 07:08:20 AM new
Lighting is a problem with my sony. I have to shed an enormous amount of light on the subject in order to get any kind of resolution. 
|
eauctionmgnt
|
posted on April 26, 2002 07:16:38 AM new
Dadofstickboy,
A better Sony is still not likely to give printable quality digital pictures. Sony is the bargain-priced consumer end of the digital camera world. They'll produce passable images for web work, but little more.
Stopwhining,
That is a completely incorrect statement. Professional photographers use digital cameras ALL the time now... and there are many great models on the market.
Artdoggy,
What type of photos are you planning to take? And how large is your planned output? And what type of printer are you planning to use? And what is your price limit? These are all very important questions that you have to determine the answers to before you can purchase a camera.
If you're looking for one of the better cameras.... I'd strongly consider the new Canon EOS D60 camera. This is a 6.3 megapixel digital camera that looks just like a normal SLR camera. It uses any of the Canon EOS line of lenses. The body sells for $2,000, and lenses are extra. There was a nice review of this camera in PC Magazine, May 7th 2002.
Keep in mind that your printer's quality is just as, if not more, important than the quality of your camera. If you can afford a color laser printer or a di-sub printer, great! If not... you can get some really great prints from inkjet printers at reasonable costs. I would highly recommend the Epson C80 printer. This printer uses 4 -ink cartridges (so that ink replacement costs are lower) and the ink is archival (will last up to 70 years before fading). When you use this printer in conjunction with the Epson matte photo paper ($15.00 for 50 sheets). You'll get excellent prints up to 8.5x11 in size. The C80 printer sells for $179.95 (but if you buy by the end of April, you can get a $30.00 mail in rebate!)
Hope this info helps! If you post some more details and answer my above questions, I'm sure myself or others can help you more!
|
stopwhining
|
posted on April 26, 2002 07:16:48 AM new
halogen lights is very strong but also can be a fire hazard.
ask your professional photographer for advice,they use very strong flash light,one from each side.
daylight is good but it is not as professional and glamourous.
|
pat1959
|
posted on April 26, 2002 07:27:13 AM new
Stopwhining is right. Pro photographers use high end cameras from point-and-shoot to manual only.
Although I'm just a play-at-it photographer, I thoroughly love my Nikkon. Almost twenty years of service, with periodic maintenance, and it still works as well as the day I bought it. It has both point-and-shoot and manual capabilities, is not heavy or cumbersome to tote (like some top-end pro equipment) and it is easy to use, once you learn the basics of good photography...how to work with light.
I paid about $600 for mine, 20 years ago, so a comparable camera today would probably run in the neighborhood of about $1000, including essential 'extras' (lens, filters, etc.)
What kind of photography are you considering? Landscape, still-life, portraits? Be sure to include the appropriate len(s)--for your type of photography--in your budget.
The film you choose is also important for a particular style of photography. (A good, all-round film is Fuji-200.)
I suggest you pick up a copy of 'Photography Today' at your local newstand. A lot of good articles about cameras, photography and tips for many types of shooting.
Yes, the Sony Mavica ia a great little camera for computer purposes. I also use the '73' and love it.
Good luck in your new venture! It is a different world one sees through the eye of the camera. It helps one learn to focus! (No pun intended!) ;>
Pat...
|
eauctionmgnt
|
posted on April 26, 2002 07:39:36 AM new
Pat1959,
I AM a professional photographer and have been in the photography industry for about 20 years now. I can assure you that the professional trend in photography is rapidly moving more and more into the digital world. Almost all medium-format cameras have digital backs available for them. There are also many professional model cameras (such as the Canon D60 discussed above) that use standard lenses designed for 35mm camera bodies, giving the digital camera superior optics. I would estimate that less than 25% of professional photographers today do NOT use digital photography in some form or another. Film is a media that is rapidly dying out.
Artdoggy,
PLEASE be careful who you take advise from on these boards. I can assure you that I do know what I am talking about, and would be glad to reference my sources, while others here are posting out of sheer ignorance.
|
pat1959
|
posted on April 26, 2002 07:42:27 AM new
I suspect eauctionmgnt is correct about today's digitals. I've been so happy with the reliability of my 20-year-old Nikkon that I've found no reason to replace it.
Now you'll have me looking at new cameras, eauction!
Pat...
|
eauctionmgnt
|
posted on April 26, 2002 08:38:00 AM new
Pat,
Glad to help! Sorry if I sounded a little harsh in the above post... that wasn't my intention! I'm just kind of passionate about my field and hate seeing misinformation being spread. Nikon definately has made some quality SLR cameras over the years, so I'm not at all surprised that you've been happy with it for so long! One of the things you'll be happy to know is that your camera and lenses have most likely retained a good amount of their value. Your local photo store should be able to give you a good trade-in amount toward the purchase of a new model!
Incidently... you said that you liked the Fuji 200 for a general all-around film. You may want to try the Konica 400 film instead. Konica's colors are just a tad-bit more vibrant than Fuji's and the grain on 400 film is not nearly as apparrent as it was 20 years ago. (in fact the grain on ISO 400 today is more like the grain on ISO 100 was 20 years ago) You'll find that your indoor pictures (and other low-light situations) will turn out much better. If Konica is not available in your area, give the Fuji 400 film a shot. I'm sure you'll be pleased with the results!
|
twinsoft
|
posted on April 26, 2002 08:44:48 AM new
Check C|NET's www.computers.com. They offer comparative reviews based on price and megapixel rating, plus user reviews and editor's picks. It's a good place to start.
If you want to go digital with your 35mm, have your film developed on a Kodak PhotoCD. (Cost is about $.50 per pic plus $10 for the disc. I don't mean the Photo Disk which uses JPG output, I mean the one with PCD files.)
|
REAMOND
|
posted on April 26, 2002 08:44:58 AM new
The FD 73 can take high resolution pics in uncompressed bitmap format. You can get one picture to a disk though, as the pics are around 1 meg each.
|
uaru
|
posted on April 26, 2002 09:00:54 AM new
35mm film cameras will deliver the equivalent of around 8 megapixels. If justify the expense a 5 or 6 megapixel digital camera will make you some high quality 8x10s.
What I'm hoping for is some digital replacement backs that will be able to be used on existing 35mm SLRs sometime in the future.
|
pat1959
|
posted on April 26, 2002 10:42:00 AM new
Eauctiomgnt,
Thanks for the info! I will give the Konica 400 and Fuji 400 a try.
I am just an amateur--NO PRO--and was only joking about considering a new camera. Living in the wilds of Southern Utah, near Zion National Park, an early morning hike or late afternoon sojourn into the back country with my camera on my shoulder and my dog at my side is enough for me.
I do, however, understand the passion one has for their creative profession. I admire your commitment and knowledge. Let us know what type of photography you do, and where we might see some of it. Would love to take a peek!
Pat...
|
jwoodcrafts
|
posted on April 26, 2002 11:12:28 AM new
I have never seen a Sony that can do what you want it to do. No matter what resolution you use.
I have a Olympus D490 and it will do it. I paid 500.00 for it when I bought it. I have seen it for less since then.
I have taken pictures and printed them out myself using an Epson 880 printer on Epson Photo Glossy Paper. When I showed my pictures of my sons ball games last year to the other parents, and our vacations photos, they could not believe that I took them myself, much less printed them and everything.
Most people don't believe me when I tell this, but it is true. It is a great little camera.
http://julieswoodcrafts.50megs.com
|
stopwhining
|
posted on April 26, 2002 11:16:42 AM new
i have a sony fd55 which does notzoom,it is okay with small objects closeup.but i am looking to upgrade for fine details and zoom capability,i want to do jewelry and large figurines .
i like the mavica for its easy use of diskette but should i make a big leap forward into a better one and skip the mavica line altogether??
i only use it for selling in cyberspace.
any advice for an amateur??
the reason why i said pro dont use digital is that an ex customer of mine want to get his pieces to be sold in like of christie and soetheby auctions and he has been advised to skip digital and go for non digital for better results.
is there any one selling booklet on ebay on how to set up photo studio for selling on ebay??
|
REAMOND
|
posted on April 26, 2002 12:47:39 PM new
I've printed out great pictures with the FD73. Your printer has a allot to do with the printed picture quality also.
Even the best camera can not improve the quality of the printer.
|
max40
|
posted on April 26, 2002 02:18:21 PM new
Mavica 70's series-71,73,75 don't have a large enough pixel count to pick up fine details on a large object. They are great for small objects using the macro feature. I wouldn't waste the paper and ink to print most photos taken with my 71, although I love the camera for most ebay work.
|
REAMOND
|
posted on April 26, 2002 02:23:49 PM new
You must not be using the proper setting when you take the pics. I have half a dozen framed prints from my FD 73, and you can't tell them from commercial prints.
|
max40
|
posted on April 26, 2002 03:06:24 PM new
Maybe visual examples will clear this up. My Mavica 71 has the capability of recording at 640 x 480 pixel count. If you spread them around over a large area, you don't get much detail. (see my ebay auction for Sony Superbeta Theater) Now if you take a close up of a small object, the detail is much sharper, because all the pixels are used on that object. (See my ebay auction for Brother Juniper figurine)
|
REAMOND
|
posted on April 26, 2002 03:49:42 PM new
My FD 73 must have much better resolution. I have posted two pics to show what mine can do. The first is from approx 15 feet, the second is approx 45 feet. They print out beautifully, but again, you need a ggod printer, I use a 932 HP.
[ edited by REAMOND on Apr 27, 2002 08:54 AM ]
|
eauctionmgnt
|
posted on April 26, 2002 05:47:29 PM new
Reamond,
Even on my monitor I can tell that there is a large amount of pixalation in those pictures. I also am familiar with the HP 932c printer, and know that it is a far cry from a photo-quality printer. But, I'm not trying to say that it's not good enough for your purposes. Quality is a very subjective matter. It all depends on what type of quality you have been exposed to during life. If in life you are only ever exposed to Whitman chocolates, you will probably savor the taste every time you have one. However, if you become accustomed to Godiva chocolates, those same Whitman candies will not taste nearly as sweet. Always try to expose yourself to the best quality available so that you know what possiblities exist.
|
uaru
|
posted on April 26, 2002 06:19:56 PM new
Another option not mentioned is film scanners.
Nikon makes some film scanners that are awesome.
You can keep using your film gear and get scans much better
than any portable digital camera can produce.
|
REAMOND
|
posted on April 26, 2002 07:31:21 PM new
You must have crappy monitor resolution. Those pictures have as good or better resloution than a 35mm picture on my monitor.
|
rampaged
|
posted on April 26, 2002 07:53:14 PM new
Think i'll stick with my 35 year old Mamiya C220 for professional pictures until I can no longer get film. Bought it new and love it.
For eBay I use a Sony Mavica FD-91. Both have different purposes and do what I need them to do.
|
twinsoft
|
posted on April 26, 2002 08:34:20 PM new
The Mavica D-73 takes photos at VGA resolution (640x480). Printer resolution is 300 dpi. So an accurate print of your photo will be slightly larger than 2 inches by three inches. That's why larger megapixel ratings are important when printing.
|
eauctionmgnt
|
posted on April 26, 2002 09:01:08 PM new
Reamond,
You must be a whitman candy man!
My monitor resolution is quite good. (1152x870 at 75Hz) with millions of colors. Believe me.... I know quality photos when I see them... and yours are not. The ducks are cute.... but the resolution is horrible.
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on April 26, 2002 11:56:00 PM new
Reamond,
Sorry, those pix don't have a fraction of the rez of even a 1930's box brownie.
Film and digital are virtually impossible to "compare". Film being analog has an infinite degree of tonality while digital has a "depth" of so many "bits". And while people speak of x megapixels as being equivalent to film, this is dependent on the presentation size. An 8 megapixel digital photo might "compare" with an 8 X 10 film print in terms of the printed resolution but film will have a much better tonal range AND that negative can yield a 11 X 14 or 16 X 20 print. Take the 8 meg digital image and print it 16 X 20 and then compare.
Film and digital have qualities that compliment each other and each has uses where one is "better", but digital is no where near replacing film. Newspapers use digital because the images are small and can be instantly transported.
As for artdoggy's original question, I would, as has been suggested use film and a film scanner. If convenience is paramount a high megapixel digital with macro setting and a wide OPTICAL zoom range should work. Digitals are becoming commodity items and something like this is under a $1000 now.
But the most important link in the chain is what you use to output the work. Getting that sharp, corrected image and then printing it on some $150 inkjet is not very productive. If you get a dye-sub printer or even a Phaser 860, you could produce some nice work. It all depends on how much you hope to realize. None of this comes cheap.
http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,3428,a=5629,00.asp
|
uaru
|
posted on April 27, 2002 08:43:10 AM new
Redmond,
I do understand the illusion of resolution those pictures can give you but what people are telling you is correct. If you were to print that out to a 5X7 you'd basically be able to tell it was a picture of some ducks but that's about it. Even a Minox with 10mm film would far surpass that as a print.
I'll tell the orginal poster what I've told people for over 20 years. If you want to learn photography get yourself a Pentax K1000 and start from there. You can pick up one of those just about anywhere for very little and after you've learned about photography you'll know why it's such a great camera to learn with.
Modern cameras are easier and more convienient to use but not necessarily better that the old cameras. If you want the absolute finest picture possible, you'll still have to haul around a 55 pound view camera and make contact prints like they did 100 years ago. A 55 pound view camera isn't exactly practical for most uses so you make compromises.
I've got a 4 megapixel digital camera, but my wish is for a Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 or 8000 film scanner.
PS: Redmond could you please edit your post by putting an 'enter' between your images so they are on top of one another instead of side by side.
|
REAMOND
|
posted on April 27, 2002 09:02:06 AM new
I do print these pictures out on Kodak paper and print them at 8x10 and the pictures come out as good as any prints you buy. I also print them on acid free matte paper and get great prints.
I don't think you guys know how to get the results out of the equipment.
|
