imported_Reflectionz
New member
hey guys. whats a good camera to use to take detailed pictures of cars? something that'll show swirl marks and small scratches.. nothing special. possibly between the $200-$300 range. any suggestions?
Digital camera
- Thread starter imported_Reflectionz
- Start date
Porkanbeans
O RLY?
Something like the Canon A85 is an excellent choice. I'm pretty sure it's about $300. We had an A95, which I believe was $350. It was an awesome camera with so many neat features to make your pictures better. Unfortunately, it was stolen on our cruise earlier this year. We'll probably replace it with the same model.
I can't speak for any other digitals out there, but from my personal experience and after reading many reviews on them, Canon is the way to go.
I can't speak for any other digitals out there, but from my personal experience and after reading many reviews on them, Canon is the way to go.
detailthis
New member
Just remember when your chosing a camera that your going to need a few other things. The memory card the camera comes with probably only holds a couple of pictures at full resolution, so a bigger memory card, a extended warranty or product replacement plan, a nifty little bag to properly store your camera, etc. After tax and what not a $300 camera can end up costing you well over $400. And Fujifilm's finepix camera's kick some ***!
buellwinkle
New member
I've had best luck with Canon digital cameras. My tendency is to go small since I can stick it in my jeans pocket so I would get the S410 which takes fantastic pictures for a small camera and you can find it for about $250 if you shop around online. The A95 is about the same price but is considered more entry level and larger but higher megapixals at 5mp vs. 4mp for the S410 but don't hang up over that, either camera will give you a sharp 8x10" picture.
Here's a place I get my digital cameras from, fast, reliable and much less than buying it locally - http://buydig.com/
Also, for an extended warranty for 5 years, check out http://www.compuplus.com/insidepage.php3?sid=2i4tqr075s0vo5o&id=759
Here's a place I get my digital cameras from, fast, reliable and much less than buying it locally - http://buydig.com/
Also, for an extended warranty for 5 years, check out http://www.compuplus.com/insidepage.php3?sid=2i4tqr075s0vo5o&id=759
salty
Active member
I just bought a new one a couple of months back, and after doing much research, decided on a Canon S1 IS. I read many tests and Canon was always at the top. I am not saying that others aren't good, just do some checking and find out what others say. But make sure you buy a brand name and don't get sucked into cheap, high MEG. camera's.
imported_UnsanePyro
New member
I asked around on another forum for myself, and the same name kept coming up for suggestions, along with what people were using: CANON.
I'm getting, for graduation, a Powershot S60 or S70 but those are closer to $500, but a less expensive model may do you well.
I'm getting, for graduation, a Powershot S60 or S70 but those are closer to $500, but a less expensive model may do you well.
I did a ton of searches and talked to some camera guru's. The Canon A85 or A95 was the ONLY logical choice for what I needed. It blew the competition away.
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html
http://www.photoxels.com/buyersGuide.html
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html
http://www.photoxels.com/buyersGuide.html
Thomas Dekany
New member
A week ago I'd have suggested Canon as well, but mine just broke. Only 2 years old, wasn't use for the first year. Power Shot 50 Paid nearly $600.
Shouldn't have happend.
Shouldn't have happend.
JasonC8301
New member
Steve's digital camera review is excellent. GSRstilez linked it.
I am in the digital camera market myself. I currently have a Konika Minolta DiMage X20. Decent at $144 (what I paid 2 years ago.) It has been discontinued, replaced by the X31.
My previous camera was a Canon Powershot A10. It is still ticking and taking great pictures (my cousin has it.) It is only 1.3 MP though, kinda grainy for 8x10 print outs.
I am looking at the Canon Powershot A510 and A520. The A75/95 are kind of big for me and heavier, 4X AA's. The A510/A520 uses only 2 AA's.
The Sony Powershot W-1 was really popular amoung my unit. I seen 3 of them and all the owners loved them. Not bad, but memory for them is expensive. Like $150 for 1 gig card, while other cards like SD/CF cards.
I really want the A520, but thats me though. www.newegg.com is where I shop for electronics.
I am in the digital camera market myself. I currently have a Konika Minolta DiMage X20. Decent at $144 (what I paid 2 years ago.) It has been discontinued, replaced by the X31.
My previous camera was a Canon Powershot A10. It is still ticking and taking great pictures (my cousin has it.) It is only 1.3 MP though, kinda grainy for 8x10 print outs.
I am looking at the Canon Powershot A510 and A520. The A75/95 are kind of big for me and heavier, 4X AA's. The A510/A520 uses only 2 AA's.
The Sony Powershot W-1 was really popular amoung my unit. I seen 3 of them and all the owners loved them. Not bad, but memory for them is expensive. Like $150 for 1 gig card, while other cards like SD/CF cards.
I really want the A520, but thats me though. www.newegg.com is where I shop for electronics.
tom p.
Active member
There are some great cameras in that price range nowadays. I'd check the Canon and Oly...many fine choices.
buellwinkle
New member
You never know with electronics if it will last 1 day or 12 years. For my more expensive cameras I get extended warranties as $30 for 5 years brings piece of mind. Mack is the nations largest extended warranty company and many stores resell it for way more but compuplus sells it cheap and it's the same warranty. I posted the link above.
Look at the bright side, that camera is obsolete anyway and now you can get the S60 for half that price or go for their new small cameras, the SD series are so tiny that it makes my S400 look huge.
Look at the bright side, that camera is obsolete anyway and now you can get the S60 for half that price or go for their new small cameras, the SD series are so tiny that it makes my S400 look huge.
tdekany said:
imported_animes2k
New member
Just make sure the lens is big enough 
Seriously, though... The Canon A-series is top-notch and can take some very nice photos. My sister has one that she's beaten until the case is falling off and the ring around the lens is long lost... even the plastic over the shutter release fell off and it still takes great pictures.
Realize that she's a college student and beats the hell out of everything she owns and has had the camera for about 2 years. Unfortunately, she treats her car the same way
Seriously, though... The Canon A-series is top-notch and can take some very nice photos. My sister has one that she's beaten until the case is falling off and the ring around the lens is long lost... even the plastic over the shutter release fell off and it still takes great pictures.
Realize that she's a college student and beats the hell out of everything she owns and has had the camera for about 2 years. Unfortunately, she treats her car the same way
Mochamanz1
Sun Blinded Detailer
One of my first loves is and remains photography. In this post, most replies have been about digital cameras. One problem I have had is that digital cameras, although they have advanced tremendously, and are rapidly advancing still, have drawbacks in less than full lighting. I have cars that are difficult to capture in full lighted conditions because of the physics of color.... As you know, color is a "temperature value", violets, blues, being the "hottest" colors and the Reds being the "cooler" colors in the context of the energy needed to emit those "color Frequencies". Without getting into a lot of detail, the chips in the digital cameras in my experience are not as sensitive as the chemical emulsions of traditional film in certain lighting conditions.... My point is that some cars colors look best in lower light situations, and best show paint effects under other than the predominantly blue daylight.
Some of you might consider trying a good manual camera, coupled with a fast chemical film in your car pics. They can then be digitized in a number of ways and then posted. I use a 6.1 Mp Kodak digital, but have difficulty taking ambient lighted shots highlighting the reflectivity and special features of various colors of paint. Film camera can use slow shutter speeds coupled with a tripod. This allows creativity in your pictures if you desire. Some of you just might want to observe the effects of lighting and the ways it interacts with different lighting conditions.... I am beginning to experiment more with this myself. I already have several once "state of the art" cameras to use. Digitals are coming up fast though, just as in computing, generations of digital cameras are measured in months, even weeks.. It probably wont be long before there are consumer digitals which totally blow film away in the last remaining areas of film superiority.... Just another detailing tangent to explore
One more interesting side note: The traditional cameras are price-wise a very good value .:xyxthumbs
Some of you might consider trying a good manual camera, coupled with a fast chemical film in your car pics. They can then be digitized in a number of ways and then posted. I use a 6.1 Mp Kodak digital, but have difficulty taking ambient lighted shots highlighting the reflectivity and special features of various colors of paint. Film camera can use slow shutter speeds coupled with a tripod. This allows creativity in your pictures if you desire. Some of you just might want to observe the effects of lighting and the ways it interacts with different lighting conditions.... I am beginning to experiment more with this myself. I already have several once "state of the art" cameras to use. Digitals are coming up fast though, just as in computing, generations of digital cameras are measured in months, even weeks.. It probably wont be long before there are consumer digitals which totally blow film away in the last remaining areas of film superiority.... Just another detailing tangent to explore
One more interesting side note: The traditional cameras are price-wise a very good value .:xyxthumbs
imported_animes2k
New member
Mocha - I hear what you're saying and it certainly applies to most consumer-level cameras that we're talking about here... However, many - if not most - DSLR cameras are quite capable of taking low-light / high-ISO / long-exposure photos with great clarity and detail - outperforming the resolution of film of comparable speed in some cases (significantly less grain/noise, less "reciprocity failure").
I think for the uses in consideration here, a pocket digital will do just fine. I've seen some amazing shots taken with a pocket digital - but it's alllll about the lighting (adequate light, good direction, etc). It's photography - which is quite simply, the art of capturing light.
Traditional cameras ARE very good value, compared to even consumer digitals, but since most here aren't photographers by trade a little instant feedback is certainly welcomed by most (including myself), not to mention the ease of processing and posting online/sending via email/etc.
Now, if someone WANTS to get into photography, by all means, get film. I've shot more rolls of film than I care to think about. It's great stuff and you can do some amazing things with film. Just wanted to throw all this out there as I prep my portfolio for a client review/interview on Friday
I think for the uses in consideration here, a pocket digital will do just fine. I've seen some amazing shots taken with a pocket digital - but it's alllll about the lighting (adequate light, good direction, etc). It's photography - which is quite simply, the art of capturing light.
Traditional cameras ARE very good value, compared to even consumer digitals, but since most here aren't photographers by trade a little instant feedback is certainly welcomed by most (including myself), not to mention the ease of processing and posting online/sending via email/etc.
Now, if someone WANTS to get into photography, by all means, get film. I've shot more rolls of film than I care to think about. It's great stuff and you can do some amazing things with film. Just wanted to throw all this out there as I prep my portfolio for a client review/interview on Friday
buellwinkle
New member
I agree that under certain conditions film is better and I still use film for my portrait work. But in the point and shoot world I don't think there's a difference anymore and when you combine the instant gratification of seeing your picture in seconds, being able to quickly share that picture across the world, take hundreds of pictures on one memory card, not miss shots because you have to reload film, no rolls of film lost becuase it got missloaded, no lost film from the developer, no negatives to get lost or scratched, the ability to enhance and alter pictures quickly, and lastly, be able to print a picture suitable for framing in a few minutes makes it worthwhile for most. I know when I do commecial shoots, customers perfer that I shoot digital and when you consider a commecial shoot of 1,000-2,000 pictures, that's a lot of film to buy and process.
imported_kgb
New member
Porkanbeans said:
I agree! I love my A85!
imported_kgb
New member
Oh, and the last post reminds me. My Canon A85 is great on batteries. Compaired to my Sony and HP I had before this the battery life is awesome!