What kind of camera is best for BJDs?

Canon power shot go for 150$ and have extremely good quality for there size....i just happen to have one i'm willing to sell for a bough a new cam.

 

My first pro-level film camera was an Olympus so I'm really attached to that brand name.
(I still do lots of portrait stuff, wedding stuff etc with it on occassion.)
currently have and Olympus Stylus 7010 that I got for my birthday (12Mp lots of bells and whistles) replacing my Stylus 710 that I dropped at my friends' wedding about a month ago. (It still works but has become quirky)

However, if you can't afford to replace the camera, sometimes there are ways to get the best out of even the crappiest camera.

1) be sure to read the manual, sometimes there are some great settings (image stablilization, macro focus, etc) that you'll never discover otherwise. (I find I really enjoy knowing how to quickly change the lighting balance from indoor lighting, sunlight, cloudy day whatever.)

2) tripod! dolls aren't going to be running around or changing position, BUT we may be photographing in a low light setting (or indoor lighting) at close range. the tripod helps! (possible exceptions, photographing real life pets, and small children.)

3) figure out the best ranges for the flash, if you are shooting close range, the flash can leave you with washed out shots.
You may be better off moving room lighting around. (small lamp with a 60w compact flourescent "daylight" bulb!) and turning off the flash.

good luck... I'll try to think up some more!

 

i agree with trinlayk on all points, especially #2. I have a Sony DSCP170 (3.2 Megapixel) which was a hand me down from my brother from six years ago and I have gotten really wonderful shots with it using a tripod.

 

Oh and if using the tripod make sure "image stabilization" is turned off...

they can confuse each other a little bit. (it can actually be kinda freaky in video mode.)

I also like to use the fastest settings appropriate for the lighting situation.
Cameras often compensate somewhat, if you have the camera on a slower setting in low light, the exposure time (when the shutter is open) can get scarily long, and make weird weird photos.
(though this can be a fun way to make fake ghost photos)

if it's set too fast in bright lighting though things can look a little washed out.
I often take several shots at different settings at the start of a shoot to decide which group of settings I want to use.
(back in the day this was called "bracketing" and was used throughout a shoot because you didn't find out which was best for that situation, till either your film came back, or you got to be a good enough photographer that you could wing-it.)

 

Ditto on #2! Getting a tripod has made all the difference in my own shots, and you get get them fairly cheap (I got mine from WalMart for about $10)

 

@ Cymorill - 10$ at walmart? a tripod, that insane! but then again i did get a table one for 1$ Lol

@trinlayk - Sweet advice! Thanks for posting!

 

your camura should have a focus setting. If it too old, then i jsut suggest getting a newer one, even if it bough secand hand.

 

talerithe:
I also agree with trinlayk and pullipdiaries...try to get the best images with your existing camera. once you learn its limitations, you may surprise yourself with how much you have learned ^_^ i also use the tripod technique that pullipdiaries suggests...it gives me really crisp, sharp pictures.

focus problem: it could be you are too close to your doll. try moving a little bit away then take a picture. you will have to experiment with moving further or closer...take as many practice shots as you like,while taking notes as to how far or close you are to your doll.then upload your pictures to a computer and view them on a bigger monitor to make sure.

BTW, what brand and model is the camera you are using?

 

Wow that is old, i used to have one of those. it might need to be tune-up (service) on the lens.

 

focus settings, like using regular auto focus when you need to us macro... or forgetting to switch it back when going from photographing dolls & small stuff to taking photos of PEOPLE.

eventually batteries get to a point where they just don't hold a charge anymore...
and that can mess up things like your focus and exposure time. It just hasn't got the Ooomph
to get it done.

 

Hmmm, I just got an upgrade recently (birthday AND solstice gift) of an Olympus 7010.

Sony are fairly good cameras to start with, so even though it's an older camera (How many MP does it have?) it's not exactly worthless or junk. -I- would get a new battery, UNLESS you think you need to upgrade the camera itself for some reason.
(taking professional photos that will get printed out larger than 8x10, doing professional portrait or wedding photography OR the camera itself has actually broken down...)

I didn't think I really need an upgrade to the 12 MP (my photos are unlikely to get blown up to poster size for example) but I dropped and really damaged my 7MP camera while taking photos of a friend's wedding. (I managed to get it working, sorta, in time to get the posed photos and the reception photos... NO photos of the ceremony because the darn thing wouldn't turn on...)


In a pinch years ago, I got good photos of a relative's wedding with a DISPOSABLE camera. (I'd some how managed to not pack my good camera...)

 

My very personal 2p on this particular question is that if you're going to make taking photographs an in any way significant part of your hobby (whatever that hobby might be), you can never go wrong investing in a DSLR.
In fact, chances are that sooner or later you will want to anyway, because point-and-shoot compacts, even the most advanced ones, only offer so much room for growth. Even the most basic entry-level DSLR is able to do things no P&S can.

The problem is that even the most basic entry-level DSLR costs in the region of £300, or $400, new with a kit lens ... you can get a doll for that!

But on the other hand, this also means that most of us here aren't strangers to forking up that kind of dosh. Scrimp and save, that's the ticket...

Perhaps it might be worth considering letting your next doll-size investment be a DSLR?

 

Hello!

I have been thinking of this subject for awhile actually. I've had two cameras before and neither was very good at photographing BJDs. It either super flashed their resin or darkened it to the point where you couldn't see any details. My mom said she would get me a camera as long as it doesn't cost too much but she wouldn't know which kind is best for dollies.

So my question as you can see from the title of this thread, is which camera is a best buy? What kind do you use? Are there cameras I can buy that won't cost an arm and a leg? What camera should I buy(if needed) in the future when I get a steady job?

Thank you for your time! Also if I didn't post this in the right section I'm sorry! I'm new to posting.

 

Honestly, it's not so much about the camera, but about how you use it.
You can make stunning pictures with a cheap compact camera, if you know how to use it properly.
So before you invest in a expensive camera, hoping the pictures will get better (which is no guarantee if you don't know what you're doing), take a course, and learn about the manual functions on camera's. Learn about shutterspeed and field of depth and ISO and all that comes along with it.

 

It really depends on what you want in a camera. Do you want something that will take really wonderful photographs? Or do you just want something that will take a decent picture?

I have two cameras. My point and shoot is a Fuji A600. This was my first digital camera, which was around $200 about three and a half years ago (although I got it for $100 due to a Thanksgiving sale). I've seen them for around $100 if you can find them. If you leave the flash off, and turn the settings to manual, it takes pretty nice pictures if there is natural light.

My DSLR camera is a Nikon D60, which is almost identical to the slightly older and cheaper (by default) Nikon D40. I got my camera last year for $500 (not including tax) however, the price of both has dropped. This sort of camera is great for taking pictures many things, and the best part about it being able to focus as you wish, and changing lenses. I definitely have no regrets on this purchase. KEH is a wonderful site for used cameras/lenses/etc. and the D40 body is currently $299. A cheaper lens might cost you a little more than $100. Of course there are other brands and cameras too.

If you really want to get into photography, I heavily recommend saving up for a DSLR.

 

@Snow Thank you for your advice, but I'm not THAT much of a noob! xD I have been experimenting with all the controls and settings and they just wouldn't take good pictures. I just want to know of what brands/cameras DO work that way I won't go buying random cameras willy nilly.

@Leenah Ah I see. Well I'm looking up both of those brands so I'll see if I can get either! =) Thanks very much for your input! I'm not really a photography buff but I do like taking pictures of the sky. ^^ Brand new it does look extremely costly! but maybe the other camera, the d-40 might work..I'm going to do more research on all three!

 

If you are sure about an SLR, then virtually any model from any major brand will do (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax). Or a newer mirrorless model from Sony, Olympus and Panasonic. Shop on ergonomics and price. Ergonomics are important--find a camera with controls you think are easy to reach, use and with logical menus. If you can, handle the bodies for weight and fit in person at a store, even if you plan to buy elsewhere.

Regardless, since you are on a budget, make sure you get the kit lens (usually an 18-55mm lens), which is the best bang-for-the-buck lens in any manufacturer's catalog. Make sure anti-shake is somewhere in your system, especially if buying used. Canon (IS), Nikon (VR) and Panasonic (Mega OIS) have it in the lens, so check the lens. Everyone else has it in the sensor, so check for "sensor shift" in the camera bodies.

If you want to stay with compacts, I'd pick a camera that has manual control over aperture and shutter speed. This by itself narrows the field quite a bit and usually rules out budget models ($150 or less). Otherwise, as above, look for optical image stabilization--that is, hardware-based anti-shake. Either lens- or sensor-based is fine. Often, manufacturers will advertise software "anti-shake" which just cranks the ISO up to unpleasant levels, which will make images super grainy.

 

In the end, BJD photography most of all resembles still life or product photography: in many ways similar scale, similar focus distances, similar depth-of-field issues, similar lighting requirements, and so on (certainly much more so than, say, landscape, portrait, sport, life-size model, or wedding photography...).

This means that the "best" camera for BJD photography, if indeed there is such an animal, would also be a fairly good camera for product photos or shooting still life. So, a camera that can handle short focus, that has manually adjustable aperture and shutter time, that has reasonably fast optics, that allows you to control flash output to some degree, would seem to me a good camera for the purpose. To me, that spells out "DSLR", but there is a problem here...

The problem in question is that the concept of a "best" camera for any given type of photography is at best subjective, since it will by necessity incorporate variables that have nothing to do with its purely technical suitability for the intended purpose. Cost, for one very big instance.

Ultimately, the question of what is the "best" camera for BJD photography will boil down to the question of what is the "best" camera for you. What you are willing to invest in terms of money, how complex a camera you are willing to learn how to operate, how deep into the arcane arts of photography you are willing to delve ... all of that, and more besides, will determine the choice of the best camera for your BJD photography.

It is by no means certain that the best camera for BJD photography in your hands is the same camera it would be in anybody else's. In fact, I dare say the opposite is true.

So, as gaisawill said, and as I have said in other threads: go to a camera store, look around, ask to handle different cameras, and find out what suits you best. And if if the store has competent staff, they can even guide you towards a camera that would suit you well and would be useful for product and still life photography. It ought to also be useful for BJD photography.

 

hmm...i definitely see your point. There's alot more to cameras than I originally thought! Good thing there's that photography help sticky thing xD

 

I've gone through several cameras as I grew in photography. I really like the Canon point and shoots, especially the Digital Elph series. They're easy to slip in your pocket and take places, as well as offer good picture quality out of the box. I've had two and will likely keep one in my arsenal regardless of where the hobby takes me. I also had a Canon SX10 (which I'm currently looking to sell) which is a great in-between for point and shoot and SLR. It has a lot of manual adjustments and you have almost the same level of control over the camera as you do with an SLR. It does have a smaller sensor like a point and shoot, so expect to see results that match. On the plus side, it does have a 28mm-560mm zoom lens, which is great for shooting things at a distance.

I now shoot primarily with an SLR and I really enjoy it. Of course, it also means I've started putting a lot of money into things like lenses and accessories, but I expected that going in...

In terms of a best buy? It all depends on what your level of interest in photography is. If you go SLR, then you're looking at getting some fairly specialized equipment for the situations you want. Certain lenses will fare better for close ups, while others will be better for portraits. If you're really serious about taking pictures and have a large budget, an interchangeable system is the way to go.

On the other hand, if you're still learning or don't see yourself really developing very much, maybe a good point and shoot will do you just fine. I really like the prosumer models since it gives balance between control and ease of use. I could flip between full manual, aperture priority, shutter priority, and full auto with a touch of the dial (like an SLR) and use the camera as I wanted to. On the downside, it wasn't as portable as the Elph, which is why I'll always keep one around.

For reference, here is what I have now:
Ultraportable - Canon SD1100IS
Prosumer - Canon SX10
SLR - Nikon D50 with 18-55mm, 50mm, 18-200mm, and 100mm macro on the way

 

Hello ^^
this sounds like a silly suggestion of mine
but maybe you can try editing your pictures on the computer?
like the tone, size etc?
(I use a canon digital~!)

 

I am fond of Nikon and Canon, though i do have an old 35mm pentax that has never failed me once, however it's not digital *sobs* I notice a lot of times it's the lighting that makes or breaks a picture. I'm not sure whether you already have one or not, but if you dont have a very steady hand, you may want to invest in a tripod as well as some studio lights

 

I don't think there's a specific kind of camera that's best for BJDs. To an extent any good camera will work well. What you want to do is think of what BJD photography entails, and find a camera that performs well in those settings.

BJDs don't move, so you don't need a camera that's good at capturing fast action, but you do want something with a good macro mode -- there's a lot of fine detail on a doll and you want to be able to capture that -- and a fairly short minimum focus distance in that macro mode so you can get right up near the doll. If you usually take your doll photos inside like I do, you'll probably also want a camera that performs well indoors and/or in relatively low light. It's pretty easy to move yourself closer to a doll, so a lot of zoom probably isn't a priority.

More light also helps a lot. I got a really cheap (a bit under $100) low-end light setup, but you can get a lot of the benefit of something like that with a pair of $10 desk lamps and something to bounce the light off of, so I'd try experimenting more light before investing in a new camera, just because it's way cheaper. If the cameras you've used perform well on subjects other than BJDs you can probably finesse them into taking good photos of dolls too.

If you're looking at a DSLR, basically any one will do fine, just go to a camera store and play with them and pick the one you find most comfortable.

 

@MonoChrome. When the picture quality isnt all that great in the first place, fixing every single picture you try to take of your dolls gets really time-consuming. On the camera I had/have now I cannot make out any dtailing on her eyebrows, her eyes, and abrely her hair. It takes so-so pictures of people as well to the point where its barely passable. But it was also really cheap xD So i guess that was it!

Wow I'm really getting a wealth of information from you guys! I'm pretty much a beginner in the photography aspect of BJDs especially since I haven't gotten to a camera that wasn't dirt cheap with a sacrifice in quality or something! I really want to get into the photgraphy taking because as much as i love being with my darlings, i can't really show people on the internet them. I even gave my MSD a haircut and its just sad that I couldn't make a thread with pictures about it.

So i think I'm gonna start out with baby steps; going from 0-120 in a heartbeat wouldn't help me to learn all i need to really understand what i'm doing. Thanks for ALL of you for your help, I'm actually saving all your responses and showing my mom what you all said so we can perhaps learn better of what to do

 

I think you should first decide whether you want a compact (small and easy to carry) or dslr (good choice of lenses). I have a Canon dslr but I'm also looking for a compact at the moment because I want something that fits in my pocket and it's light to carry...
If you go for a compact you should get something that has a decent optical zoom (yes, you can easily move closer to your doll when taking pictures but with longer lens it's easier to keep background blurred - zoom at it's longest setting is good for keeping focus on your subject, and not the background) and IS (image stabilization) would be good too, if you don't use tripod. You will definitely need the manual setting option for more control so don't get anything that only has automatic modes.

If you want a dslr just get what you can afford - they are all pretty good nowadays

 

I have three cameras- nikon coolpix- very small, but you do have to know how to use it to get good shots (always overexposes) a bridge camera- sp-500UZ - needs updating and went the little cam poops out I'll probably replace both with a nice hybrid- If you are not really in to photography these can be great cameras because the lens is better than the little ones but the settings are much more versatile.. but I like switching lenses so I have a canon 450D too, which is awesome, obviously, because it costs. Though you really have to invest the time and energy to get to know how to use a dSLR, I know peeps that just stick it on auto and never change the lens, but honestly, they could get a nice bridge camera for half the price if they want to do that..

 

In that case, I would absolutely recommend that you take the plunge and go for a DSLR.

Starting out with baby steps in terms of acquiring the skills and art of photography is definitely the way to go, and there we can recommend some very good books to help you along — see here, for instance.

However, starting out with baby steps in terms of acquiring the basic equipment tends to be an exercise in costliness. If you are determined to really get into the photo aspect of the hobby and start developing in the art, you will soon outgrow what a simpler point-and-shoot can allow you to do ... and then you'd outgrow the capabilities of a more advanced one ... and eventually you'd outgrow even the most capable P&S, and need to buy a DSLR anyway. Hence my recommendation: buy a DSLR from the beginning, and save the money from the intermediate steps to buy some lenses or a flash for it!

I second Alternacja's last paragraph, but would like to take it a step further: if you want a DSLR, get the best you can afford.
All modern DSLR's are good for doll photography, no question about it ... but better DSLR's are, well, better. Not in the sense that you will inevitably take better photos with one, because that is ultimately up to you, not the camera, but in the sense that it will allow you to do more, and do other things. A more expensive DSLR tends to be better in low light than a less expensive one, for instance. The "prosumer" Nikons allow you to use the built-in flash to control off-camera flashes, which the consumer DSLR's don't, and so on, and so forth.

And as has been said several times earlier, on this thread as well as others, the ultimate choice of which camera in general — and DSLR in particular — to pick is solely a matter of your own personal preference. Go to a camera store, look around, ask to handle different cameras, and find out which one suits you best.

 

While technically true, I have to disagree with increasing spending on the camera body. Focus your money on the lens.

Because technology keeps progressing, camera bodies depreciate quickly as new models are introduced every year. They will lose about half their value in about 3 years, unless you buy the full frame cameras ($2000 or more) in which case it will be closer to 6 years. Meanwhile, lenses for any particular function are updated every 10 years or so, so a current lens will stay current for a decade or more, and you will recover well over half of its value even if you wait that long. And if/when you decide to upgrade the camera body, you can reuse all the lenses you already own. And lenses have at least as much impact on low light ability as the camera.

Advice for technology products: buy for what you need now and the near future, because there is no limit to what you can spend now, but things will always still be better and cheaper in the future. Future proofing is largely a myth.

 

Also true, technically ... however, I still find myself in disagreement. Also, I do not feel that "recovering the cost" necessarily is a factor in the equation.

A three year old camera with a second hand value of half the purchase price is still - assuming decent build quality to begin with - every bit as useful as it was three years earlier, only that there will at that time be even better cameras available at the same price point.
More importantly though, you will after three years have had the use of the older camera, with all of its capabilities, for all of those three years...

Future proofing is largely a myth, yes. But the corollary of this is not that one should at any given time buy a lower end product, because there will in a short time be an even better high end product on the market - rather the opposite, to my mind.

To understand the depreciation of DSLR camera bodies, one must keep in mind that they do not depreciate nearly as fast as other technology products, nor for the same reasons. Look at computers, for instance:
A three year old computer is much less useful today than it was when it was new, because there will now be software available that is optimised for newer platforms, that will therefore not run as well on the old one. Also, a computer is physically built to last on average four or five years, so after three years, it is definitely showing its age. Furthermore, unless a computer is regularly "cleaned out" and reformated, various data caches will be filling up and slowing the computer down, making the average three year old computer in the hands of an average consumer much less useful than it was when new.
None of this is true for camera bodies! As I noted earlier: a camera body is after three years still every bit as useful as it was the day it was bought.

And, not to forget, camera generations do not shift nearly as rapidly as computers. For example, Nikon released the (non-full frame!) D300 body in 2007. It took two years before they released its successor, the D300S - which is really only a minor hardware upgrade. The now three year old D300 is thus to all practical intents and purposes still a current and up-to-date platform, and can be expected to remain so for some time yet. And indeed, there are many - even professional photographers - who still are quite happy to use its predecessor, the now five year old, also non-full frame, D200.


In the end, it comes down to personal philosophy. The point of all the above ... wordage is to try to explain mine, which is that once you've decided to take a plunge and invest in something, buy the best you can afford - because future proofing is largely a myth.
Investing in something cheaper, waiting for the the platform that is worth paying your best money for ... well, it's never going to happen, is it? There will always be something better just around the corner, and so it would never be worthwhile to invest in the best you can get at that time, would it? And okay, so you can buy the same capability at half the price in a few years (although perhaps not as few as three - probably more like five or six), but that means that you will have to do without that capability for those years ... and for my own part, I find that too high a cost to pay.
That is the rationale behind my personal philosophy ... or rather, perhaps, how I rationalise my expenditure when it comes to various investments in my hobbies...

Anyway, hence my recommendation: buy the best you can from the outset. Give yourself as much headroom as you can fit into your budget, rather than taking the risk of buying something you'll outgrow in a couple of years.


All of that being said, gaiaswill is absolutely right about the lenses. How fast a lens is has every bit as much or more impact on low light ability of the system as a whole as the camera sensor itself.
The problem is however that while f/3.5-5.6 zoom lenses and f/1.8 or f/1.4 normal prime lenses can be reasonably cheap, the next jump up in lens speed tends to come at a premium. An f/2.8 zoom can easily cost three to six times more than a slower zoom of similar or slightly greater range, while a wide angle or short tele prime at f/1.4 can cost about as many times more than the normal prime.

This can be a problem, as you would probably not just want the one lens for your DSLR, the ability to change lenses being one of the points of having one in the first place.
The thing to remember is that the body affects the performance you can get out of every lens you have, while if you put all your money into one really fast lens, then that one lens is the only one you can get that performance out of, until you're able to afford another one as good.
And besides ... there is a reason why you fairly often can see certain of the low cost "consumer" level lenses on the really high-end pro bodies, but just about never see a pro lens on the entry-level consumer bodies.

Hence, by my philosophy, start off with buying the best body you can afford, and then go on to invest in better and better lenses as time goes by.
And as gaisawill said: when you upgrade a lens, you can recover a much larger portion of the cost of the one you're replacing when you sell it off to help pay for the new one than you would when replacing the camera body.

 

The reason you more often see pro bodies with consumer lenses is because overbuying bodies and underbuying lenses is a common occurrence. Sellers make more money on bodies because they are more frequently "obsoleted" and newness is a strong selling point. It is simply in sellers' interest to push bodies: upsell the new customers and convince existing ones to run the upgrade treadmill.

The ability to recover cost is important because that is the cost of ownership--how much it costs to simply keep it. What if there is have a financial emergency and I have to sell? (Dolls wouldn't sell as quickly or easily and have more emotional value.) What if it's too big and heavy for me to use often? What if photography is simply not worth that much to me after all? Newbies have these concerns. Think of it as the cost to "rent" that item for an extended time. For lenses, that's around -20% to even 0%(!) of the original cost for about 3 years. For a body, it's -50% to -20% for that same timeframe.

Photography-wise, while a body does indeed affect every picture with every lens you own, the lenses are what determine the kind of pictures that body is able to take at all!

$500 is enough for one or two f/2 primes, or a 50mm f/1.4, or a 3rd party manufacturer's f/2.8 standard zoom, or even a macro lens. You don't have to buy $1000+ glass to do better than f/3.5-5.6.

So in the case of a new buyer with no existing equipment and with ~$300-500 beyond the cost of the consumer kit, I can't help but think that the extra money would be better spent on something other than a better body. Buy another lens(es) to shoot with, a flash, a tripod with remote, quality filters (circular polarizer, magnifier), a comfortable camera bag to walk around with, or any combination of the above.

These things would add capability to the kit, are updated less often, and would be "inheritable" by the next body if you decide to stay in the hobby. It's true that the body will work the same years later as when you bought it, but that's true for everything else as well. The body is only one part of the entire kit and it is usually a better value to invest in the other parts of the kit, especially if they are nonexistent.

 

Please don't misunderstand me — I am not saying you are necessarily wrong, but I must most vehemently reject the implication that the position you present is necessarily the only viable wisdom.
Nor do I find myself in agreement with the implication that "pro" camera buyers must be more prone to fall for marketing hype than "consumer" or "entry-level" buyers — in fact, I'd hold the exact opposite to be true. To my mind, it stands to reason that it must be infinitely much easier to lure the owner of an entry-level camera body, which is obsolescent in about a year, onto the upgrade treadmill than the owner of a pro level body, which is still current after five or six years.

No, the actual reason why you often can see certain (not just any) of the low cost "consumer" level lenses on the really high-end pro bodies, but just about never see a pro lens on the entry-level consumer bodies, is because some of the low cost lenses actually are "good enough", or just incredibly practical to a point of being an acceptable compromise, for certain applications, whereas a really expensive pro lens would just be wasted on the entry-level body, because it would simply never be able to make full use of the quality of the glass.

As I said in my previous post, in the end this must come down to each camera buyer's personal philosophy — and hence the priorities each one has, and subsequently the choices each one feels these compel them to make. There is, indeed can be, no absolute right or wrong.

I must say that I find it hardly surprising that the TCO is higher for more expensive equipment. That is the premium you pay for the additional capability you get. It is as it should be.
For my own part though, I am unable to see everything I purchase as a capital investment. If I buy a camera, I buy a camera, and its usefulness as an asset to liquidate into cash should the need present itself is simply not a factor in the equation. All I am interested in is maximising the amount of "camera" I get for my money, not the amount of "camera"+"security"+... . If I want to invest in financial security, I buy gold. But again, that's me, that's my philosophy. Others make other choices, and they are equally valid, for them. My philosophy is a valid option for me; I do not for a second believe it is the only valid option for anyone else.

It is true that newbies often can be plagued by many concerns. Therefore I always recommend everyone about to venture into a new activity to make their homework properly, do the research, and not plunge into anything just on impulse.
Then they will know that what they buy isn't too big and heavy to use often, and they will know that photography is in fact worth what they're willing to invest in it, before taking the plunge. (Or not, in which case they can back out of the venture without needing to pay a single penny.)
Do the homework properly first, and they won't need to pay for "renting" equipment that they risk outgrowing, but can invest wholeheartedly from the outset.

As for the lens determining what you actually can do with the system, I believe I already said something about one probably not just wanting the one lens for one's DSLR in my previous post. I shall try not to repeat myself.


The thing is, from my point of view: if you outgrow the lenses you have, you need only buy one more lens — and you get decent ones at a relatively low cost, as gaiaswill points out — to gain the capability you look for. However, if you outgrow the camera body you have, then you're in a pickle — you're in all likelihood looking at a much more substantial investment.
And all the other useful gear and gadgets ... well, some of them you can sometimes get bundled when you buy the camera. The rest you can buy piecemeal — they're practical, but seldom essential, especially for the beginner. Many of them can stay nonexistent for a while. Without a body or a lens though, there simply will be no pictures.


"Kit" is actually a fairly good operative term, here. DSLR's in the entry-level/consumer/prosumer range (which is what we're talking about here — no-one's suggesting anyone go out and buy a D3X) are usually offered in kits, and the glass that comes with them usually represents fairly good "bang for the buck". The kit lenses are fairly versatile, offering a reasonable to astonishing zoom range — not terribly fast, but certainly "good enough" to get a beginner started.

So, roxxihearts (I hope your head isn't spinning too hard after all of this) — whatever you choose to buy in the end, I believe you can't really go wrong. I recommend you invest in the best body you can afford, others recommend other priorities. In the end, only you can make the determination, based on your philosophy and priorities.
In the meanwhile, we're here to support you if any other questions crop up!

 

Wow! Well I can honestly say that you guys are extremely helpful! And I thank all of you for your informative and enlightening responses. (Didn't even know what DSLR was!)
But me and my mom have come to the decision to get a simple point and click camera. I've realized that in the long run, upgrading cameras over and over might be more costly but at the same time, if I buy the most expensive, awesomest camera out there, who's to say that I will need or use everything that it is capable of? It would be like buying the latest alienware desktop and then using it to write essays!
I'm not going to lie. Cost was a huge factor in deciding as my mom and gran have to shoulder all the costs of sending one teen off to college for the first time and another on a return trip back, not including all of our other money issues!
Just cause I'm getting that though, doesn't mean I won't welcome anymore input anyone else might have on the subject!

 

Reality is reality. You've made a logical choice.

Do get a compact with manual control. While trying out the cameras in a store, look for modes named P, Av, Tv, and M (Canon) or P, A, S, M (others). These stand for "Program", "Aperture Priority", "Shutter Priority" and "Manual" respectively. Also, test A and S: see how large a range of shutter speeds (e.g. 1 sec - 1/1000) and apertures (e.g. f/3.5 - f/16) the camera allows. The more range you are allowed to use, the better. This will be your learning space. (Don't mind the actual numbers, those are just examples.)

Point and shoots are limited by their light gathering ability--their sensors are small and their lenses not very "fast" (as in "lets in a lot of light"). This is why they are cheaper. You more than likely want to shoot your dolls while indoors at some point, and most interiors generally have pretty poor lighting for photography. With this in mind:

1. Get a tripod. Even a simple $10-20 one is better than nothing at all. In fact, try haggling with the salesman for a free one at the same time you buy your camera! If you time your purchase and choose your words correctly, you can probably get a free bag too.

2. Get lights. Scavenge one or two desk lamps, preferably with CFLs. Regular bulbs are ok too but get really hot, and it's not a good idea to expose dolls to prolonged heat, plus burn and fire risk to you.

3. Get a reflector. White cloth, a large sheet of white paper, a large sheet of white styrofoam, maybe even a hand mirror. The more light it reflects, the more powerful it will be. My personal favorite: Costco cardboard dividers for Kirkland toilet paper. (For the lulz.) Use the reflector with the lights to fill in shadows. Or do as I did and use it as an "eBay" background.

There are plenty of other things you can do with a compact, of course. What you learn definitely carries over to SLRs if you ever go that route in the future. ($300 SLR kits in 10 years? Maybe.) Like many others, I started on a compact myself (Canon A710) and the manual controls are essential to learning, trust me. Otherwise, just experiment and have fun!

 

I actually belong to the "spend less on the body initially" camp. Today's entry level cameras are great for teaching people about all the camera functions and have a lot of useful scene modes that simplify the process for someone just starting out with photography. Higher end bodies typically strip away these "n00b settings" and are far more complicated (and to a degree intimidating) for a beginner to really handle.

Yes, there may be a new model that comes out in a couple years to replace the entry level model, but that in no way make it less useful. If anything, the body is just as useful in a few years when it's time to upgrade. I bought a second hand Nikon D50 a couple months ago, which is now a 5 year old model. It still takes excellent pictures and takes all the lenses I own. When I eventually upgrade, I don't plan on selling it but instead will opt to keep i around as a spare or for taking to places where I'd be more worried about damaging my primary body.

On lighting, a cheap lighting setup isn't that difficult to make. Tissue paper and some boxes can make for a great diffuser, as does a desk lamp with a daylight CCFL bulb. I put together a cheap setup last year for photographing figures and it works extremely well. Total cost from Target for all the equipment was about $30! There are plenty of resources out there with tutorials, and I'd recommend checking out this one: http://www.happysoda.com/88/figure-on-cheap-lighting.

 

There is absolutely a difference in camera bodies. It's a sad but true fact in regards to digital camera bodies - something that is not so true with film slr bodies. The difference is in the "brains" of the body and the processor. I've seen the difference myself in various dslr bodies I've owned and there really is no question that the body - in dslr photography - IS almost as important as the lens. The adage "you get what you pay for" applies here.

Point-and-shoot cameras, digitally speaking, are serious contenders for good solid photo-taking. Sony makes a camera that is equipped with a lens made by Carl Zeiss - the same company that makes the Hasselblad lenses! This is a good compact camera.

At the end of the weighing, though, one must decide on price and ease of use!

 

Agreed, there is a difference. I just don't think it's a critical one for the budget-minded beginner. Any body sold new will be reasonably current simply because most stores don't sell long discontinued models. That's good enough. It will still be more capable than a point-and-shoot in absolute terms, which is a beginner's reference point.

Film cameras obviously use film as its sensor, and that's interchangeable and universal, so of course the bodies matter less! If only electronic sensors were so modular...

Anyway back to point-and-shoots, Sony has Zeiss lenses and Panasonic has Leica. I'm rather "meh" on the idea. Compacts do not have interchangeable lenses. They are a full package deal, and other parts of the camera are still important: form factor, interface, responsiveness, and most importantly, the overall quality of the JPEGs it outputs. The lens, sensor, and processing software all affect the final image, and these vary by manufacturer and model. Bottom line: if the rest of the camera does not perform to your liking, a branded lens is not going to change your mind.

 

Interesting - it sounded as though you were espousing glass over body - but that doesn't apply to the point-and-shoots? It does make a difference. The Zeiss glass in the compact Sony is worth taking a look at - the lens is important.

 

Oh, I'm not doubting that the glass is good; I'm sure it's great. Good glass is good glass. But being Zeiss branded is not a prerequisite for that.

As I said, it's just that the glass on a compact is permanently married to the body. If one doesn't like how a Sony handles, I wouldn't recommend buying it. Sony's image processing doesn't suck, but suppose for a moment that it did, that also overrules the lens since the body couldn't properly take advantage of the lens anyway.

When you can buy parts separately, you can evaluate the pieces separately. On a compact, you can't do that, so it makes more sense to evaluate the total performance of the package instead. Most do not shoot RAW, so the quality of the JPEG output matters too, which is a boring non-glass evaluation.

Sony Cybershots do have advantages: BSI sensors, good glass, fast focus, solid processing. I like their form factors and handling even. Kind of pricey though. And thank god the newer models take SD cards now. In the past, I would've issued warnings about that. The last time I was in the market for a compact, they still only took MS.

 

...which was exactly my point about pro glass on entry-level bodies. Seems we have reached an accord, of some measure.


@ roxxihearts: I don't think the awesomest camera out there (which would be ... oh, a Hasselblad H4D-60, I'd say. At $40,000 apiece. For the body only.) was ever in the charts; the question rather concerned the awesomest camera you could fit into your budget.
There are plenty of point-and-shoots out there that are more expensive than the entry-level DSLR's. But even the lowest cost DSLR kits - where you get a lens along with the body - are about $400, so the question bolis down to where, exactly, the limit of your budget is. $400-ish, or above? I'd still consider a DSLR, due to its expandability. Below $400? Try to find a P&S that does well in the kind of circumstances that we've discussed earlier in this thread. A competent camera store will help you, and so will we here.

As for which brand of P&S ... I agree with Zag that Zeiss glass is a powerfully persuasive argument for Sony, because Zeiss simply is the premiere producer of quality optics on the face of this planet - and that's not just camera glass, but microscopes, binoculars, anything. With a P&S, the glass that comes on the camera is all the glass the camera will ever have, so getting a camera with a good lens is even more important than with a DSLR, where you can always buy a better lens later on.
But that being said, Leica and Nikon aren't far behind Zeiss in optical quality.
But then again, it seems to me that people in general and in this hobby in particular right at this time tend to be happier with Canon point-and-shoots than with other brands, but this is prone to change with each new camera release.
In the end, once more, the final determination must be yours, based on your personal preference. And research.

The thing to remember with P&S cameras though is to steer clear of the cameras with very high (8-10Mpix+) megapixel counts.
With the tiny sensor chips and minuscule optics of these cameras, the pixel density at those megapixel counts is way beyond the diffraction limit - the absolute, physical limit to the level of sharpness that the properties of light itself allow the imaging system to ever achieve, even in theory. Add to that the practical limits of image stability (even with a tripod), thermal noise and other problems caused by small, tightly spaced sensor elements, signal amplification, and everything else ... well. It's a recipe for disaster.
It is literally marketing hype alone that drives this runaway increase in resolution. This race for market share has actually past the point where the pixel density hurts the performance of the camera more than it benefits it.

If you find that you can squeeze in a DSLR into your budget, there are many good brands to choose from: Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax... For my own part though, I'd recommend looking at Nikon or Canon first for a number of reasone, chief among which being that the selection of lenses for these two brands, both OEM and 3rd party, is so much bigger than for all the other brands.
There is a thread here on the eternal "Nikon or Canon?" question. But in the end, that, too, boils down to that only you can make the final determination.

 

But entry level bodies don't have sucky processing if they are current, which was my point.

I'll speak about Canon here since I'm most familiar with them, but Rebels often use sensors derived from those used in higher grade cameras, just introduced later--like T1i from the 50D, and T2i from the 7D. The XSi and 40D also had comparable output, even if a bit different, simply because they were contemporaries using similar sensor technology. Is the higher end processing better? Possibly, but it's not going to be a night and day difference. A beginner probably couldn't tell without pixel peeping.

Maybe Canon is unique in doing this, in which case I say, buy Canon.

There are good reasons to buy upscale--flash commander, better autofocus, higher fps, thumb wheel--but IQ is not a killer-app level reason as long as you buy current.

I already know full-frame cameras defy these generalizations, but those are just a tad too premium for this topic methinks.

(This will be the last I speak of this. I'm just going to be a broken record now.)

Dragon's point about premium P&S having prices close to SLRs is, sadly, completely true. It's easy to get dragged upscale in the compact category as well. I am guessing roxxi's budget is more like $200 rather than $400 though. Just a hunch. Can't buy much Sony with that honestly.

Too many megapixels is a popular hate subject for us hobbyists who follow the market. Dragon's right here too, of course. But my point of view is that it's not really something a buyer can control. Manufacturers won't always produce models that are exactly the same but with different megapixels. And all manufacturers get sensors from the same OEM sources anyway, so they will all spiral upwards over time. Nowadays, you'd have to do some serious searching to find any model with less than 10MP.

As with SLR bodies, I really can't recommend buying an outdated model without a good reason, like a deep discount, assuming that it's still available at all. Maybe obsolete Canon stuff, for reasons below.

Canon is a popular choice since they're kind of the "beige box" standard of the P&S category--safe and affordable. They've been pretty much manufacturing the same few designs for several years now with just minor sensor updates. This is perhaps an opportunity to go under 10MP by buying previous models. (If you can find them...) Their lenses are sadly kind of uninspired. I recall them being last to offer lenses wider than 35mm equivalent. That said, my dream compact is currently the Canon S90, for being a genuine LX3 competitor. Still costs too much though.

Interesting addendum: many Canon Powershots have been hacked to add SLR features like RAW, histograms, and bracketing and even some beyond-SLR features like motion detection. See CHDK for details about the project. It does not overwrite or alter the camera's firmware.

 

I'm not sure where this goes so I just guessed here |D

I need help with a camera choice (duh). Right now I use my mom's Kodak EasyShare. It's pretty crappy and messes up the colors, especially her skin.

My aunt owns a Nikon D3000 and it looks pretty nice. I'm having trouble finding a good price for it, but that's not really my problem.

Is it a good camera? Does it do good with the skin colors? Help me out ;n;

 

You might want to ask in the Photography Tips subforum. I have a D3000, and if you're willing to learn A LOT about how to properly use a DSLR, they're fabulous. Otherwise, a less expensive (but still nice) point and shoot might be your thing. How skin colors come out has a lot to do with how you take the photo, not the camera itself.

 

I have a Kodak Easy Share and basic photo editing software. If you're on Windows Paint.net is free, there must be an Apple version. If you're spending the average user can get away with Photoshop Elements.

Back to the camera, could half of your problems be your light source? If I use natural light or I'm outside the colors from the camera are fine. Inside with a light bulb I get a yellow tinge. The flash washes things out. Color casts and other problems can be changed with software.

Another problem could be the settings on your computer monitor. If you're using prints to judge then I'd say the printer or where you get them printed up is a problem. I know the office store prints things too dark, the 4x6" machine tends to saturate.

If your mom keeps complaining how she looks in pictures then it's your mom and no camera will fix that. If it's your doll I'd need more specifics by what you mean.

 

If you're taking pictures inside, you probably need to change your white balance. If the pictures come out too dark, you can always increase the exposure level instead of using flash. I beleive you can access the menu to change the white balance/ exposure level by pressing the "ok" button before you take a picture. Does any of that make sense?

If you really get to know a camera, then you can take good pictures with it. It doesn't really matter how fancy it is, though if it's under 5 megapixels, there's no saving it. You should probably practice with the Kodak EasyShare before you invest in an expensive DSLR.

 

If — if — you see yourself as being serious about doll photography, you can never go wrong investing in a DSLR. You can do well with a P&S, too, of course, but even the most basic DSLR gives you more options down the line than even the most advanced and costly P&S ever can.

The D3000 is an entry-level, or consumer DSLR. On the whole, it is a good camera. If you can get your aunt to relinquish it for a good price, I'd say go for it!

Like any DSLR, it will handle skin tones well — if you give it the correct input. If you set the white balance incorrectly, skin tones will look weird.

 

i would guess this to be down to your lighting or use of flash? it seems odd that if you took a photograph on the fully automatic mode on your camera, that the colour would be off. 99% or artifical light produces photos that aren't true to the colours you're seeing.

As for DSLR i use a D5000 which is just a variation on the D3000. It's an amasing camera. very simple to use and even an idiot can produce gorgeous photos using only automatic mode. i've found it easy aswell to learn on. the only problem that has ever arose from my camera is last month when i went to buy a new lense for it to discover that it has no motor so i have to pay out a bit extra to get a lense with working AF (i think only DX series lenses work fully with a d3000 but i may be wrong). But that's a must for me because my eyesight isn't sharp enough for MF.

 

I find that automatic WB can sometimes be confounded by for instance mixed lighting, for example a room with a mix of fluorescent and tungsten light sources. I am not familiar with the EasyShare and how precisely it handles WB, but the D3000 will certainly allow more control.

I can help you there: whether the lens is DX or FX makes no difference — this only pertains to the format (or crop factor) of the imaging sensor. The DX lenses are designed to only work with the smaller DX sensors, and will cause vignetting on an FX sensor. FX lenses on the other hand, work perfectly well on both FX and DX cameras.

The question of whether a lens will work fully with the D3000 comes down to if it has an integrated focusing motor or not. The ones that do have one, and hence will work fully, have the prefix "AF-S" or "AF-I" on the name (e.g. "AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G", or "AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED").

Other AF lenses (that still have the "D" or "G" suffix on the aperture — e.g. "AF 50mm f/1.4D") will work otherwise, but only with manual focus.

 

I'm a bit bias here but I am a photo journalist and while I always carry a digital camera with me I firmly believe that DSLR's are the way to go.

 

I probably could have found the answer if I did a better search but I'm in a little bit of a time crunch, so please forgive me. I just found the camera I've been wanting for a price that I can afford, but the seller states that the flash doesn't work. It won't pop up. How important is it to have a working pop-up flash? I mostly plan on using this camera for doll photography but I may end up using it over other things. Would I regret not having a flash if I got it? I have a point and shoot camera right now that I rarely use the flash on, but the thought of not having it as even an option unnerves me just a bit. The camera I'm looking to buy is a dslr. Also what would you all recommend is a good shutter speed. When I asked the seller I was told it was less then 5000 on that particular model. I know I've read that the faster the speed the better. Thanks everyone in advance for your help.

 

I honestly wouldn't buy a camera second hand that had any sort of problem with it, because one damage could mean there are others hiding.
but if you're determined to get this camera, then make sure the hotshoe works (where you can attach accessory flashes) that way you can just buy an external flash later and not need to worry about the pop up flash. The only way I know to test the hot shoe, however, is to attach a flash too it and make sure it fires. Not sure if you're in a situation where that's possible though.

Shutter speed is all relative? I'm not really sure what you're asking?
that all depends on what kind of lighting you have.


I just wouldn't touch this thing if the flash didn't work honestly.

 

Yeah, I thought about the hotshoe, but there's no way I could test it before buying, but I did send the seller another message to ask about it. So far they claim that's the only problem (the pop-up flash), but yes, there could be others. In respects to the shutter speed I guess what I'm asking is do you think there would be many occasions where I would want/need the speed to be faster then say 1/3500 of a sec. I mostly do indoor photography with desk and clamp lights, but I do/have done outdoor photography.

 

no, 1/3500 is faster than you'll probably ever need.
anything up on that end of shutter speeds is most useful when doing strobe flashes trying to capture like water droplets falling, etc.
most of my outdoor shots are shot at about 1/100 - 1/60.
Think about how fast 1/3500 second is, not that much light is going to get into your camera, so it's not going to be useful for most photography aside from speed captures.

 

Thanks for all your speedy help Knibitz. Depending on what the seller says about the hotshoe I'll have to decide whether or not I want to take a risk and get it.

 

I'm not sure which cameras have this but for some cameras having the flash pop up helps with the autofocus system. If you like taking pictures in dark rooms or at night time having the extra help may be something you need.

 

Personally I don't use the built in flash for doll photography except rarely as fill light. Depending on the model of camera, the built in flash may be a wireless controller for external flashes, although you can get other transmitters that relies on having a working hotshoe.

I wonder if somewhere there was confusion of shutter speed and shutter count, as 5000 (or 1/5000s) isn't a typical value on most cameras until you get up the range. If shutter count, that is low and nothing to worry about.

If shutter speed, generally you want it fast enough not to blur a photo. That depends on the lens and if the subject is moving, thankfully the latter isn't usually a problem with dolls. The only time you might want 1/4000s or even faster is if you are photographing outdoors in sunlight with a fast lens to get a shallow depth of field. That can give more light than the sensor and shutter can cope with, where neutral density filters will be needed to reduce it a bit. At the other end, in many indoor situations you may struggle for light, so the shutter may need to be as long as needed to get a decent exposure. If you can use a tripod that largely makes this a non-issue.