doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Cameras for gun photos

Under $500 budget and taking pictures for internet postings and sales-doesn't sound like any realistic aspirations toward professional photography, given that you're talking about many times that amount just to get started on a "best" quality digital SLR setup, and much more for a large format camera. However well-intended Marc's reply is, Brian can judge for himself just how helpful everyone else's replies have been.

skatr2

I've been using a Canon G-3 for about 4 years now and it's been great. But for the $600 I spent 4 years ago you can get a lot more camera now.

Acually for what you want to do any decent 5mg camera with optical zoom & macro will work. Remember the web only sees 72dpi.

The three most important things I've found for taking good pics are

1- A tripod

2- Lighting other than the flash

3- Shooting through the computer. I hook my camera up to my computer and shoot from the desktop. I can see my photos right away and reshoot if need be. They look a lot different than on the little screen. Canon's software is called Remote Capture and it's the only way to go.

4- Digital imaging software. Most cameras come with a lite version but I bought a version of Photoshop. Makes a world of difference. Pro's have to have the latest version but for your needs buy an older version on eBay.

Rob

I think Chuck nailed it on the importance of lighting. I'm thinking of building a light tent of some kind, which is just a frame covered with white fabric and lighted from the outside. It allows you to light the object to be photographed indirectly without the glare and shadows. There are ready made popup versions available. Do a google search for light tents and you'll find lots of ideas. Here's one http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/19002.html

Another valuable photography site is http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm Lots of camera reviews and helpful info.

Skatr,
I agree with you about digital magnification not producing as high quality as optical magnification. I think that's well known. But image quality capability is not necessarily about magnification, it's about resolution within the captured image no matter the magnification, IMO. For example, I have a 60mm MicroNikkor that has much better image quality, whether close or distant subjects, than my 400mm or any other lens I have. If I back up with the 400 and take a picture, then take the same picture closer to the subject with the 60mm, capturing the same actual area of the subject, my 60mm will be of superior image quality hands down. My point is, image quality and magnification are typically defined as separable.

Chuck-

I don't think that you and I are in disagreement. From my experience with film SLR's, once you get out into the 120-200mm and beyond range, build, tube design, and lense quality become huge factors in determining image quality, which neither digital nor optical zoom can compensate for. By increasing focal length and moving parts/tube sections, you increase the opportunity for the image resolution to be compromised. My comments were directed toward so-called megapixel or "digital zoom" as being unable to magnify the original "optical zoom" image without compromising image quality/resolution. The reason the best 35mm camera large zoom lenses cost so much is because of the inherent design and material challenges. In a closeup, macro environment, a 4X optical will beat a 3X optical, which will beat a 2X optical point-and-shoot, all other factors being equal. They are simply easier to build right. Obviously, at some point, as you increase the focal length and complexity of the design, you may begin to see a decrease in image quality on a point-and-shoot as well. As I said in my first post, "Lens quality and optical zoom are key".

Kind Regards,

John

For many years I have been using a Sony Mavica for online posting and posting pictures of things I sell online. This is still a good camera for that propose but not anything near good enough for pictures that are going to be published. My biggest problem is to convey the rich, for a better word, patina of a hundred year old gun. For this I need a good camera, equipment and lighting. I just took this a few minutes ago, needs some work but much better than my older stuff.



And one from yesterday.

For most practical purposes, though, is higher than 3meg and SLR needed or necessary? My four-year-old Olympus 8x optical zoom meets the publisher's quality standards for a high-end table-top book I'm writing on a distinguished marine painter.

don't be sucked in by megapixles. A 3.2 is plenty. There are great deals on 3.2 Nikon Koolpix and Cannons on ebay. Usually around $65.00 or so. As with any camera, it's about the glass more than the guts.

sktr2 is right. Optical zoom not digital. I have three digital cameras, four if you count my digital camcorder. I even studied photography under the GI Bill. The new digital cameras can give you a photo quality picture. What I would look for in a camera is first quality of lens then optical zoom, make sure it had a viewfinder and not just the LED screen. For taking pictures of your firearms, off camera lighting is the best. Then you need a good photo editing program. Mostly to reduce the size of the photo to pst on the web. A picture 7 to 9 meg is to big to post. I use photoshop, but I think there are other cheaper programs that will do the job. If looking for a bargain, read the revues, I have to high and Kodak cameras and then I have an HP camera that I bought on ebay for $12.00 plus shipping. This is the camera I use for most of my phto's to post on the web. It's an older HP, but it has all the bells and whistles. For printing your pictures for your own use, get a good photo printer. I have a kodak 4x6 printer and a cannon for larger prints. My walls besides being covered with firearms have photos of my dogs, my fishing and hunting trips and they compare with any print I used to do with my 35mm. Just my opinion.

I originally thought you were wanting to sell fine art photography of guns. Now when I reread the post, I am not sure if that is your intention, or if you want to sell guns online.

If it is #1, then go with my original post.

If it is #B, then literally any point and shoot digital you buy today is fine. No need to even spend $100 to get pics plenty good enough to sell guns.

If my first interpretation of your intent was wrong, then I am sorry about that