What kind of camera is best for BJDs?

Thanks mk13 and popo. In the end the decision was made "for me". I decided to sleep on it and when I woke up someone else had bought it. So now it's someone elses "problem". But it's good to know in case this pops up again. (>_> No pun intended.)

 

If you have a budget in mind for a camera body (and lenses, if you need to buy them as well), I and other posters here can probably provide some recommendations for when you do decide to upgrade. The camera market is pretty linear, the best option at the lower (sub-$1500) levels of the market is generally to stick with a brand-new camera, rather than used (unless it's a used example of a current model), and buy the best model your budget can afford. There isn't really duplication at the same price point, you get what you pay for.

It's generally possible to go back to a camera from the past two years or so, but go more than one generation back, and even the cheapest of new cameras will generally soundly outperform a midrange or professional older camera.

 

At the moment my budget is 500USD for a body and lens. I had decided on the Canon 450D, as I liked the features, and the review for it on dpreview was pretty good.

 

Personally, I'd scrape together another $100 and get a Nikon D3100. It's been getting nothing but great reviews. The new Rebel T3 is also the same price and is probably fine.

 

Personally, I would suggest that the theoretical scraped together $100 would be better spent on a 50mm f/1.8.

 

I agree with gaiaswill. :-) Plus, just to speak from experience, I ended up, out of all choices available that I could afford, including the Nikon D3100, getting the 450D. And I have not regretted it once. For its price, it's a FANTASTIC camera. The reason why I got it over the Nikon D3100 is simply because I don't need a DSLR that can take video. I say that, if you don't mind it doesn't have video and it fits in your price range, you may want to just go for it. To be honest, I believe the specs on both cameras are pretty comparable.

 

Yeah, having video isn't really a big deal for me since with the camera I have I've rarely used it in the six years I've owned it. I would like to get myself a 50mm f/1.8 prime though. I did think about possible going for the Rebel T3 since it's not that much more expensive new, but after reading some reviews I'm not sure, granted it still may better then the Canon 450D.

 

I need to know what camera I should get. Like a brand and style, ect... I would like one that is good for ball jointed doll photos, which is why I'm posting on this site.

I know that I should get a DSLR, but I can't. I can only spend $200 at most whether it's new or used. I would like it to be digital though. But I don't know much about cameras, so I needed to post this question here.

I'm sorry if I posted it in the wrong section. I couldn't find the section for this stuff, unless they got rid of it. Anyways, please don't be mad at me. ^^

 

Well, you don't really need a dslr to shoot the dolls, lol. sometimes the quality on a point-and-shoot (aka compact camera), is just as good. just look out for the megapixel, i think now most compact digital cams are about 8 to 12. and if there's manual override, so you can adjust the aperature, shutter, etc... if you want more control of how your shots will turn out.

personally, I'd go for Panasonic Lumix. Cause it uses Leica lens.
I think it's the FX series. those are good, and small, light, easy to carry around.

 

If you look around here in the Photo Tips category, I think you'll find a few different threads addressing the issue of what cameras are suitable for doll photography. Here are a few examples:

What kind of camera is best for BJDs?
Camera recomendations/tips?
Taking pictures of faceups
Camera help?

(Edit: it seems that all but the "Taking pictures of faceups" thread have now been merged into this one.)

As Tsukushi says though, particularly if shopping for a point-and-shoot, beware the megapixel hysteria! A compact camera with a 12Mpix sensor takes no better pictures than one with an 8Mpix one -- in fact, it may well take slightly worse pictures due to the higher pixel density -- but it still costs more!

Hope this helps!

 

You were both very helpful. But I have a question about megapixles. Is more megapixles better, or is less better?

 

The more Mpix, the larger blow-ups, or the narrower crops, you can publish. That's basically all the use you have for megapixels.

Now, for DSLR's, more works, if you need them. It's not necessarily better, but each additional megapixel actually increases the useful resolution of the image, if you need it.

For point-and-shoots, there's a sweet spot around 5-10Mpix. After that, more Mpix do nothing to enhance the resolution of the pictures the camera can take. This limitation is purely physical -- the size of each pixel on the tiny sensor gets to be far smaller than the diffraction limit of the small optics you have on P&S cameras.

 

I am very confused. I want a bigger camera than my lumix lx5, but it cant not be havy like my nikon d80, because I have anoreksia and I am not so strong I was looking at leica v-lux 4. I really loves what it includes, but is it good for dollshoots? it cost a little over 1000 USD in norway (6500 nok). It got a monitor I can turn around and it is all in one. But I am not shure about I can get as close as I want? I go really close on the dolls when makin pictures.

 

A theoretically physically equivalent camera to the Leica V-Lux 4 is the Panasonic DMC-FZ200, which will most likely be cheaper.

 

I know that.. but if I should swith from the one I have to day to that one, I would prefer leica. But, a photoexpert just recomended me canon powershot g15 for my use. So, I am thinking again.

 

So my family got a new digital camera recently and it just so happens to be a Canon PowerShot -*too lazy to go get it, but it's not really important anyway*-, as mentioned in post #2. Being 2 years later, the price is now $130.
I was disappointed with it. I forget its megapixel count, but my year-old 5mp camera phone took better pictures, and at higher resolution.

That was until *cue snazzy intro music* I found a site called [digicamhelp.com]! We were able to tweak the settings to smooth out the pixels, change lighting, etc, and now it works much better
hope this helps someone

 

You can buy older dslrs for around $200! Shoot in raw w/ a tripod and your pictures will come out wonderful! :3

 

How do you shoot in Raw, I mean where would I find the settings for that?

 

How about the Sony NexF3? Has anyone had any experience with that and how was it?

 

I'm looking at buying my first DSLR and am hoping for some advice!

I prefer Canons but I'm torn between the EOS 1100D or EOS 600D both of which look like a good beginner cameras.

Is it better to pay the extra $$ and get a slightly better spec'd camera or use that money towards additional lenses?

 

The thing about digital cameras is that your lenses will last forever but the body itself will always need an upgrade over time. Unless the camera has much better specs I would think making sure that you get a high quality lens or lenses would be best. But I'm sure that some digital gurus here can also chime in. I just bought my first digital camera and with adapters I'm able to use my old 35mm lenses. So I've got a Zeiss 50mm 1.4 on the end of my Sony Nex-5R. I prefer a manual lens to the auto-focus one that came with the camera. For my artwork I shoot with a 4x5 field camera but it's a bit much for doll photos and with film I have to deal with getting film or prints scanned. So it's easier to shoot digital.

 

I sold my Canon power shot but, it was one of the ELHP(?) models and it didn't work out for me the price and size was appealing though, the battery life was short however~'

 

IMO the best option is to buy new (or even find used) body of any DSLR and find compatibile 35mm or 50mm. 35mm is more versatile while 50mm is dedicated to portraits. 50mm has amazing depth of field and bokeh. You won't find better bokeh than 50mm can do!

 

Most mirrorless camera will also give nice depth of field / bokeh blur within reasonable budget. Yes, the kit len is a bane. A 50mm prime len is 1st len to get. It give nicest bokeh at lowest cost.