Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Anyone recently bought a camera that would be good for dual purpose family and mini picture taking?

I had an older Nikon, but my b@$tard son broke it filming skating videos with it. I've since bought him his own cheap-o video camera, but now I need a new camera of my own.

Not sure if you are looking for a pocket camera or one that you can really do a lot of stuff with, but this is the way to go if you want to start taking some really nice pictures:

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541536652.htm

The Nikkon D40 normally sells for $700 w/ lense but is on sale for just $500 this week.

I have the older version of this camera that has a smaller screen on the back. This one has a "huge" 2.5 inch screen.

The camera is the best of both worlds; you can let it do everything for you on automatically, and take awesome photos; auto focus, shutter, appature, pop up integrated flash... OR, you can install an aftermarket flash, choose to adjust one setting (like shutter speed for example) and have the computer set everything else, or even set all of the settings manually, even manual focus if you want to do that.

It's pretty fast too; 2.5 frames per second in multishot mode. I use it to take pictures of race cars, and it is plenty fast. Also, if you want to take pictures at a distance, they make a great zoom lense (which I have) that is just $200.

that's my two cents anyway

I think an SLR is pretty important for taking good mini photos. The ability to add a real macro lens is pretty significant. Additionally, SLR's tend to be more user friendly when trying to deal with weird exposure settings, computer operated remote shooting, RAW images (which you'll want to do because I have yet to find any camera that does a decent in-camera tungsten white balance) and other stuff that can make shooting minis fast and easy.

At home I use a Canon Rebel XT, and with the release of the XSi, the XT's are available for 450ish with a kit lens. I like both the Nikon and Canon lines, I've spent some time with a D50 (Nikon's older budget camera similar to the D40). The Nikon's fit in my hand very nicely and are easy to use. The Canon has a few more options and generally better technical performance at equivalent prices, but is a little too small and light. Both can produce excellent images for use online.

Sean

That D40 is a pretty stellar deal for $500. I totally agree with Zozo about the usefulness of a real macro lense for shooting tiny stuff like minis, but you are looking at a pretty serious investment to get into a digital SLR and decent lense.

I recently purchased a digital camera, mainly for minis, games, doing some random ebay stuff and other things like that. As a fine art photographer I will never be using digital for serious work, so i couldnt justify the expense of a digital body that is compatible with all my film lenses (let alone a digital back for my medium format camera).

Instead i chose a mid-range digital zoom. I got the Kodak easyshare Z812 IS. It was affordable, it is comfortable in the hand with a sensible control layout and I have been quite happy with it thus far.

Ok, to give you an idea of using the stock 18-55 lense. This is complete auto with the camera about 20" away form the mini. I am just using my Ott-Lite as lighting, but I don't recall if the flash went off for this. It's a crappy mini and I am no photog, but it was the only one that had the eyes painted at the time:

Here is a 20% version of the JPEG file, and then a full detail snap:

I use a pentax DSLR (mainly because I also have a pentax film slr with a goodly collection of lenses and didn't want to double-up on lens formats).

I agree that a DSLR will give you more control over your shots and a decent one really isn't that much more expensive than a similarly featured compact, with the additional option of you not being restricted to the built in lens.

A good macro lens working in concert with macro mode will give you images you only ever dreamed of before.

You also generally get an option to go full-manual, which means even if the background isn't giving enough contrast for the autofocus to lock, you can still go ahead and take shots, setting everything yourself.

Many people recommend the nikon, and if I was upgrading from an older nikon film camera or starting fresh, I'd go with it. They are easier for the first-timer (DSLR user) to get to grips with.

Count Bonchula wrote: so i couldnt justify the expense of a digital body that is compatible with all my film lenses (let alone a digital back for my medium format camera).

What, you don't have 40K (talking dollars not the game) to drop on a 39 mega-pixel hasselblad back?

Sean

Whose wife would kill him if he picked up another expensive hobby (like medium or large format photography)

i had a point and click fuji finepix a500, 5 megapixel...
i just got the nikon d40...i'm so stoked on the difference that another 5 megapixels makes...i can zoom way in now before my shots look grainy...
definitely a good investment...

cheers
jah

What, you don't have 40K (talking dollars not the game) to drop on a 39 mega-pixel hasselblad back?

Actually my med format is a Rollei. But no, i cant afford a back for that either

Not to mention the fact that working in my darkroom is my favorite part of the photo proccess (thus the med format, 120 film is ftw)

I just bought the Canon G9 12.1 megapixel
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=144&modelid=15669
I still have my Nikon L1 6.1mp, but the G9 is far and beyond the best bang for your buck right now

Ok, these guys have cameras that are likely well beyond what you will be needing. There are some minimal requirements for a good mini-camera though:

You will probably want a 6 megapixle camera (five will do also, and four might work in a pinch). A camera that is well beyond this won't help you much, since you'll just be reducing the size of the pictures for posting anyway.

The features that you need for mini photography are a good macro and white balancing. The Macro photography (often used for taking pictures of flowers) is indispensable, it allows you to take in focus pictures of minis.

The White Balance is necessary because the color lights you are going to be using will rarely (if ever) actually be pure white. You can correct the white balance afterwards, but messing with the photos tends to lose some details in the paintjob (the blending will not appear as smooth as on the actual mini).

Whatever camera you get, you need to learn to use the functions and set them manually. i've never found an automatic function that worked very well for mini photos.

Also, you will a tripod and some methods of lighting the minis, although that's for another thread.

Cheers.