[OGStilts]

Can anyone recommend a high quality camera for brochure quality photos? I've been using a professional photographer for my larger projects but it just seems a waste of money to hire a photographer to come out and take a few photos of a bath or a simple kitchen yet I'd really like to capture some quality pics for future reference.

In the past, I've also tried to put off photos until I have several jobs to shoot at once to help keep the costs down but it never has that new look to it after the clients kids have had a chance to live in it for a few weeks so I want to start getting the photos done as soon as I finish.

I need something that can take wide angle shots in tight areas such as bathrooms so I'm thinking it is going to need to have a changeable lens. It probably should be easy to use too since I really don't want to spend the time to learn a fancy super sophisticated new tool. I was hoping to stay within a budget of around $700. Any suggestions?

 

[BobsLandscaping]

http://www.dpreview.com/

Try that site. Looks like they have lots of camera reviews for you to scrutinize.

 

[480sparky]

I use a Nikon D60.

 

[Leo G]

I use a Nikon D70s for my shot. You might have second thoughts when you see the pricing on bodies and lenses, at least quality lenses. If you are going to be shooting inside you will need a wide angle lens. Something on the order of a 10-20mm or 12-24mm. Most digital cameras have a crop factor, Nikon is 1.5X. So whatever the lens is listed as you would multiply it by 1.5X. This is because everything is spec-ed relative to 35mm. So a 10-20mm is really a 15-30mm (zoom). Another thing to think about is getting a fast lens. That is the 'f' number rating. The lower the number the 'faster' the lens. It means it lets in more light and lets you use a faster shutter speed. Of course, the faster the lens, the more expensive it is.

 

[Mike Finley]

Not gonna happen. Just the least expensive wide angle lens I own costs over a grand. No such thing as everything you want. Cheap, high quality, wide, easy to use. None of those go together. Keep paying the photographer, he's got high dollar equipment and he knows how to get the most of it.

The best you can hope for is some mid range equipment thats dumbed down enough to get average pics at best.

 

[Leo G]

I would disagree. The quality of the cameras they have out these days is impressive. But it is not the camera alone. First you need to know what you are doing with it. This is the 1st and most important thing to know about photography. You can give someone top of the line equipment and have them take bad photos, and you can give a pro mid to low quality equipment and have them produce stellar photos.

You also need to know your way around a photo editor. Just like the film pro tweaks his photos in the dark room, the digital photographer needs to tweak them in his computer. Most of the time you do not get out of the camera perfect photos.

If you get a good quality camera and a high quality lens you can take decent photos. If you are persistent enough.

 

[480sparky]

"Auto" is the worst feature put on cameras these days.

Take the time to learn what shutter speed, ISO, and aperture do to your images. Understand things like depth of field, shutter response, and backlighting.

One the best things about digital is that it's instant. If you screw a shot up, just delete it. But only after you fully understand what you did to screw it up!

 

[WarnerConstInc.]

Nope, no matter how hard I try, my pictures suck.

 

[Leo G]

I used a film camera for many years. Really never got the hang of it because of the time delay between shooting and seeing the results. I can see why it would take years to learn the art of photography. But like 480 said, it is instant feedback. You can see what you did, what the settings were and adjust them within minutes (seconds really) and shoot again. After a few months of this you will have the basic understanding of what makes a good photo. Then you need to work on your skills of the art.

 

[OGStilts]

OK after reading some of these responses, I'm starting to think I am sounding like a lot of these potential customers who wants the moon on a shoestring budget. I thought $700 was a decent size budget but after checking out Bobs suggested site ($5,000 cameras???) and looking up the cameras you guys use I realize my $700 budget may be on the low end. Looks like I got some more research to do (geez nothings ever easy is it).

I'm not looking to completely replace my professional photography. Just don't want to have to use him to document every single job.

What do you guys think of this deal here, would it do what I'm looking for and Leo what lens would you recommend to go with this for those bathroom shots I'm looking for. I'm obviously an amature at this and this may be more than what I need.

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11480706&whse=BC&Ne=5000001+4000000&eCat=BC|79|83&N=4001459%204294967213&Mo=12&No=3&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&lang=en-US&Sp=C&topnav=

OK I'm off to compare the D60 and D70 to this one. At least it sounds like the Nikon is the way to go so far.

 

[orson]

Look into a Pentax K10-D

It is a serious professional model 35mm digital camera in your price range.

Of course, you're going to have to drop some cash on a wide angle lense.

As others have mentioned there is a lot more to it than just a good camera, but if you're determined to spend your money on a camera rather than a pro who understands lighting and how to create a great shot the K10 will do the trick.

 

[WarriorWithWood]

This is the camera I use. They're becoming very hard to find, but if you can find one they're definitely worth it.

http://www.dcviews.com/press/Kodak-V705.htm

There's also a 5 megapixel version V570.

 

[WarriorWithWood]

Here's another VERY nice one that will be replacing my Kodak when it bites the dust.

Amazon for 1999.99
http://www.amazon.com/Leica-Digital-Camera-Optical-Stabilized/dp/B000J6FTUQ

E-bay for 429.99
http://cgi.ebay.com/Leica-D-lux-3-10MP-Digital-Camera_W0QQitemZ370220166765QQcmdZViewItemQQptZDigital_Cameras?hash=item5632d76e6d&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A12|66%3A4|39%3A1|72%3A1234|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A200

 

[Leo G]

You will only find the D70(s) as a refurbished or second hand. The D60 is a less expensive camera and it does not have a drive motor for the older screw focus lenses. This is becoming a less needed feature but it is still nice to have. If you plan on buying new, plan on spending between $700-$1200 for the camera body or a kit. A lens to take pictures in cramped spaces would be a wide angle zoom I would suggest the 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM. But this is a new lens and hasn't yet been released. This is the lens I am waiting for.

 

[Mike Finley]

OK after reading some of these responses, I'm starting to think I am sounding like a lot of these potential customers who wants the moon on a shoestring budget. I thought $700 was a decent size budget but after checking out Bobs suggested site ($5,000 cameras???) and looking up the cameras you guys use I realize my $700 budget may be on the low end. Looks like I got some more research to do (geez nothings ever easy is it).

Now you are coming around.

Take a look at this pic off our site.

This is an olympic level photograph in terms of difficulty

1) back lit (requires perfect fill lighting)
2) travertine (***** to get to look good in pics)
3) lots of glass
4) it's a bathroom! Ain't much harder of a location to get good pics because of how tight everything is with no way to keep backing up.

Nikon D300 15-55 digital nikon zoom, sunpak off camera flash

You could pick up a D200 cheaper since the D300 replaced it but you won't be able to skimp on the lens if you need wide angle. But I'd be thinking about $2500-$3000.

How many professional pictures does that buy you?

 

[Leo G]

The light coming through the window is over exposed :laughing:

No need for a D200-300 to get a picture like that. You could get it with a D40. You would just need the proper back lighting and the correct lens.

 

[OGStilts]

The light coming through the window is over exposed :laughing:

No need for a D200-300 to get a picture like that. You could get it with a D40. You would just need the proper back lighting and the correct lens.

:laughing: You two bicker like sisters :laughing: But it's good information, thanks guys.

Nobody likes my D5000 deal huh? OK well now I have to go compare D200, D300, and D40's. I may make a trip to the camera shop today just so I can see things first hand, internet is great but nothing like being able to hold something in your hands. (leaving myself open with that statement :w00t

Thanks for demonstrating your pic Mike. That's the type of pictures I would like to be able to take. My point and shoot just doesn't cut it.

 

[Leo G]

It is a very nice photo.

The D200 is a professional camera. It has the weather sealing, most of the controls are on a dial instead of in a menu, the auto focus has a fine tune adjustment so you can tune individual lenses, the high speed shooting is faster, it has a bigger buffer so you can take more photos while using the high speed shooting and many more features a guy needs if this is his career.

The D90 has a newer sensor, better image, better noise reduction and a few gimmicks that make it suitable as an all around high end consumer camera. And it is considerable less expensive. This will be my next camera as soon as it become obsolete and the price comes down.

There is no need to get a full blown professional camera if you are not going to be doing this for a living. But even if you get a good camera instead of a great camera, you are the guy who has to make the decisions on how the camera is setup and how you take pictures. As everything in this business, you can have great tools, but if you don't know how to use them it really doesn't matter anyway. :w00t::laughing:

 

[WarriorWithWood]

I wisk I was at home and had access to the full size pictures to post, but here's an example of one of them taken with the Kodak dual lens. I agree nothing beats a DSLR but bang for the buck wise you just can't beat that Kodak IMO. The rest are on my desktop at home in Pa. and I'm in NY.:sad:

 

[Leo G]

I just don't know what to say. Just that I hope you aren't planning on putting that up on a website.

I played with it for a bit and I couldn't even make it come to a good standard.

I had to correct for the lens, the white balance was off. The contrast needed a small boost and you had a lot of missing image because of the shadows. The big flash burst in the door is a deal killer for me. I probably went overboard on the right cabinet as it seems to have lost its contrast.