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

If you are having trouble with quality of photos using 3.2 or 5.0 megapixel cameras make sure you have the camera set up in the high quality mode before chucking them. Hard to believe a well lighted 3.2 megapixel photo lacks the quality you want unless it is not on a tripod or is improperly set for less than maximum pixel count.

To illustrate the effects of lighting and the versatility of a flash, I took some pics a while back. The first three pics were all taken with that little point n shoot Konica Z2. Both of the first two were taken with the onboard flash. The first one is direct flash. The second one with a mirror bouncing the light off the wall/ceiling using the technique in the fourth pic. That third pic is of BSS rib matting from the Z2 using the supermacro setting and a halogen lamp. None of these was with a tripod except that last one to capture my technique.

Chuck, That mirror bounce is flat clever. Did that come to you in a dream?? Nice photos. Randy

Randy,
I was a wannabe pro. Started in darkroom stuff when I was 10 and dabbled in and out of it taking college classes building a darkroom. Eventually lost interest and went on with life. Been away from it for a long time and just started dabbling again with digital. The mirror thing was an adhoc way to save building bulky diffusion lighting with stands and all that conventional stuff. Since I bought the Nikon D50 and a SB800 flash and remote cord I can do more than the mirror technique will allow. But honestly, the mirror technique is more convenient once you get used to it.

For sales I use a Nikon D50. Several halogen lamps (diffused) and a light box with photo paper background

Sony W-70, 7 meg, about $300. Goes in my shirt pock, so it tends to go with me. No quality issue for the camera. What problems I encounter are in lighting.

Lens quality and optical zoom are key. Last year, I purchased a Canon A530 point and shoot for a vacation trip. We spent some time on our tirp with a nephew, who had a Canon Rebel with both Canon and aftermarket lenses for use. While there is a huge price point difference-you can now pickup one of the A530 models for a little over $100, the quality of the point and shoot pics compared to the SLR were the same...and better than the aftermarket lens pics. The A530, while rated 5.0 megapixels, has a 4X optical zoom, which produces far better quality pics than say a 7.0 megapixel with 3X optical zoom. It also has a manual override (something you normally only get on an SLR) and a macro setting (which works very well). According to information at one of our better local camera shops, Canon is one of the few companies in the world that makes it's own lenses. I've also heard good things about Nikon, but have no experience with them. Image stabilization shouldn't be an issue, unless you have poor lighting. I agree with all of the above statements about lighting-the principles are the same whether you are capturing images on film or digitally. Bottom line: a good point and shoot will do it all, for far less bulk and money than an SLR. Happy shooting.

skatr2

skatr2
I'm in agreement with you that lense quality is a key. But I lost you where you compare a 5mpxl 4x zoom lense vs. 7mpxl 3x zoom lense. The zoom range has no direct connection to image quality, it is simply magnification range.

Point n shoot cameras have come a long way and your's seems like a good one. They'll do a lot, as I tried to show with my little example. With some effort in good studio lighting, a p-n-s with a good lense will make some pics of guns that a SLR couldn't improve on. But SLR's do have larger optics, giving them the advantage of lense imperfection scale reduction. SLRs also typically have features not found on most p-n-s cameras. The downside of SLRs of course is cost and convenience. My Konica p-n-s has a 10x optical zoom and macro/super macro settings. Talk about flexibility at a bargain in one package!

Chuck-

There is a direct correlation between optical zoom and image quality, whether you are talking about camera lenses, binoculars, riflescopes, microscopes or telescopes. You simply get a better quality image with higher power optical lenses because the optics, not the software, brings the image closer to the viewer. The higher the power/magnification, the closer you can get to your subject and the better the image quality.

Megapixels are created digitally and can be manipulated by the software on your camera or your computer to a higher or lower density, but they can't create a better image than what the light passing through the optical lenses created in the first place.

Please take this at face value, as I am trying to be helpful and in no way a smart alec.

Would you go to a professional photography BBS and ask, "what is the best quality vs. value in sidelocks for world wide hunting?"

I am very sure you would get well-intentioned responses, but how much value would you place on them?

You have gotten some very well-intentioned responses here, but they are not of equal value. Professional photography is a very serious business, and if one has to ask basic questions such as this, then there is a little homework that needs to be done before planning an internet-based photography business. It is the old "crawl before you can walk" thing. If you are really serious about producing professional work, then you will need to either go with a digital SLR and the highest quality lenses, or large format camera and a scanner. A little homework on your part will teach you the benefits and short comings of each. As good as this board is at distributing knowledge about doubles, it is not the best place to gain knowledge in the relm of professional photography.

Please believe me when I say I wrote this only to be hlepful. I whole-heartedly hope you pursue your idea of getting into professional photography in general, and gun photography in particular. The words I wrote were meant only to be helpful and I hope they were taken as such.