# What's a good camera to use?



## SeeMyWatches (May 17, 2008)

What's a good camera to use for taking nice pictures of watches within the $150-$300 price range if possible. Any information would be greatly appreciated, thanks.


----------



## workaholic_ro (Dec 3, 2007)

If nice means good, no, it's not possible within this range. $300 is a little bit below a decent SRL, it's rather the price for a lens. But if you are US located and have a some patience and luck you'll may find A Canon 300D (it's an older model), Nikon D40, Pentax K100, Olympus Evolt E-300 for a little bit more than $300. Sigma SD9 is also a good camera though not very popular.
Don't bother about megapixels. Cheap pocket cameras have 8 or more and the photo's are very poor. 5 megapixels is more than enough and there are older models as Canon D30 which take excellent shots with only 3.
If lens make is a choice take Sigma or Tamron instead proprietary lenses for the same price. Basic kits are with basic lenses and their quality is considerable lower than of those "made for", if they are of a good brand.
An alternative is to take a better and used one.
If you'll find more offers and need an expert advice to help you choose, take a look here:
http://dpreview.com (not a commercial link)
The best digital camera data base available across the internet.


----------



## SeeMyWatches (May 17, 2008)

Thank you very much. I will look into this.

Would this be a decent choice;

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-300D-Digi...39:1|66:2|65:12|240:1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

I sell watches on ebay and my pictures are pretty ugly looking..

Also, should I buy some sort of light box on where to put the watch in to eliminate glares and shadow for a nice clean crisp picture?


----------



## kiwidj (Sep 24, 2007)

You should refer to DPR for reviews on the 300D. And the light box is a very convenient and effective way to get good watch pics too. You can pick those up fairly cheap too. Good luck! :-!


----------



## SeeMyWatches (May 17, 2008)

Can you recommend a good place to buy a light box?


----------



## kiwidj (Sep 24, 2007)

SeeMyWatches said:


> Can you recommend a good place to buy a light box?


They aren't hard to find. Check out your local camera store or possibly even your local DIY/home center. You could even try making one yourself.

http://www.wikihow.com/Create-an-Inexpensive-Photography-Lightbox


----------



## MichaelPedersen (Dec 29, 2007)

I have no experience with a DSLR but the Canon EOS 35mm series were awesome. I still have one and it rocks. You could opt for a Canon Digital Elph but you'll have to really work at it to get decent pics. I like the point and shoot digitals a lot myself and don't see much value in spending more than $200 for an instantly obsolete piece of hardware. This is my own feeling being a film die-hard still even though I don't use film any more. My grail is still a Leica M6.


----------



## MichaelPedersen (Dec 29, 2007)

Wait a sec if my lens from my EOS Elan7 would work on a 300D that would be a reasonable deal..


----------



## ahavriluk (Oct 23, 2008)

MichaelPedersen said:


> Wait a sec if my lens from my EOS Elan7 would work on a 300D that would be a reasonable deal..


Yes, it should work fine.

I am a photographer and use Canon system. Do get a decent picture of a watch you would need a light box, like it was recommended already, Digital SLR camera, like Canon 300D, or any entry level Canon camera, macro lens like Canon EF 100 2.8 Macro or EF 50 Macro, tripod (must have). Some knowledge about lighting is a big help.
You can try some point and shoot cameras which have macro mode, but images won't be as sharp as from EF 100 or EF 50 lens. I have EF 100 macro lens for rings shots, very good lens.


----------



## MichaelPedersen (Dec 29, 2007)

I love Canon, I think I may pick up a 300D. I have a 10mp Kodak P&S but its not that great. Decent and easy but I suspect the 300D even though it is 6.3mp would take much better pictures.


----------



## MikalNY (Oct 17, 2008)

I have a Sony DSC series and i must say, it works fine for me. In fact, Sony has some very good models in your price range, do check it out.


----------



## Clouseau (Jul 28, 2008)

Using old lenses on digital bodys might in some cases not be so good since it can cause much chromatic aberration. On the other hand I shoot my pics with a 60mm Nikkor AF-D f2.8 that was design before the digital era and they turn out fine. Guess what I'm trying to say is that it might or might not work. Personaly I think it will work fine as long as the lens isn't TO old or TO cheap.

By the way here are some tips on how to make a light box: https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=71118


----------



## workaholic_ro (Dec 3, 2007)

MikalNY said:


> I have a Sony DSC series and i must say, it works fine for me. In fact, Sony has some very good models in your price range, do check it out.


Nothing against Sony and besides this I own a Nikon with a Sony CCD inside but I would not recommend a camera with built in lens.
You may want to use different lenses some day and this will be frustrating.
The better option is a SRL.


----------



## Matt2006 (Aug 28, 2006)

I don't think you need a DSLR to get good pictures of watches. I have a Canon 40D and Canon Rebel XT, but I also have an Canon SD1100 IS and I like it a lot.

The SD1100IS is about $200 USD or so. Some places sell it for around $170 as well.

I posted a quick shot I took with it below. That was a quick shot with the watch sitting in the bathroom. If you set up a light box for it I'm sure you'll get much better results, but this should at least show it's potential. That's the full image as well, not cropped in any way. I just reduced it's size. It's 8mp and has multiple custom functions that you can use (macro/regular, image size/quality, white balance, timed shot, etc.).

MP don't really matter much unless you are planning on printing the images out, but if you are just posting them on the internet the extra MP can still come in handy by giving you more options to crop the image since the overal resolution will be higher on the unedited pic vs. that of a 5mp pic.


----------



## Sam P (Dec 16, 2007)

Another DIY light tent set up http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber/light_box_light_tent
Lighting set up and macro capable camera is all needed to get started.

Full dslr cameras are great but expensive. There is also a group of super zoom cameras without removable lenses that do pretty well in macro and many other situations except low light. They include Canon PowerShot S5, Fuji FinePix S2000HD, Kodak EasyShare Z1015 IS, Nikon Coolpix P80, Olympus SP-570, and Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 for example.


----------



## Clouseau (Jul 28, 2008)

I really wouldn't recomend a Canon SD1100 beacause of the poor ISO performance and the lack of possibility to do everything manually. You would have to work really hard to set everything up exactly the right way to pull of a great shot with a point and shoot camera. I assume that since you bothered to ask about a camera you are looking fore the possibility to take really good photos, not just documentary one? And then you are back to a DSLR. To get closer to the object using a normal lens, not a macro/micro, you could simply buy an extensionring from Kenko or so. One thing that is really usefull is a circular polar filter on the lens. I helps in "turning of" reflections in non metalic surfaces (water, glas, plastic and so on). I don't belive there is filters like that fore "point and shoot" cameras, and if theres is it most likely crap. Without the filter It wouldn't be possible fore me to take the pictures I put in the image gallery forum. Especially not the ones of the Movade since that glas was relly reflective.

Matt2006: Considering the camera and the circumstances that's a really good picture!


----------



## Matt2006 (Aug 28, 2006)

My take on it is that he just wants decent shots for the watches he sells on ebay. There's no point shelling out the cash to buy a DSLR + good quality Macro lens if that's about all he's going to use it for. 

The SD1100's low light capabilities leave a bit to be desired, but I don't really expect good low light performance at that price point. Plus if he has it set up in a light box or takes the pics outside on an overcast day then it should be fine. 

I suppose to give him the best answer we need to find out more about what he'll use it for.


----------



## GuySie (Jan 14, 2008)

Thing is, a _good_ point & shoot camera that gives you the same flexibility and options as a beginner's dSLR will also cost nearly the same. For that money, why not invest in the dSLR?

A minimum effort product shot (quicky lightbox folded out of printer paper, no macro lens, on-camera flash) with a Canon 350d produced this:










An average consumer point & shoot is going to be hard pressed to do that. A good one can, but will cost you a lot more effort than it did me. I'd just go with the dSLR.

After all, we're into fairly expensive watches on this site. If you're willing to part with a thousand dollars for 1 mechanical watch, why not for a high-grade piece of complicated electronics and optics?


----------



## kiwidj (Sep 24, 2007)

GuySie said:


> After all, we're into fairly expensive watches on this site. If you're willing to part with a thousand dollars for 1 mechanical watch, why not for a high-grade piece of complicated electronics and optics?


Agreed...:-!


----------



## Matt2006 (Aug 28, 2006)

Maybe he's not into gadgets or trying to figure out 2 dozen features on a DSLR. DSLR's aren't for everyone, that's a simple fact. I don't recommend them to just anyone because a persons intended use will help determine what camera they should buy. It's no different then recommending a watch based on what the wearer wants it for. A person seeking a dress watch will get different responses from one seeking a rugged dive watch. 

And what one is willing to spend on watch doesn't always correlate to what they'd be willing to spend on anything else. I like some electronics, but not all - so I may be willing to spend $1k+ on a watch but I wouldn't spend $800 on a cell phone. I also wouldn't spend $10k+ on top of the line home theater equipment. The list goes on and on.


----------



## Clouseau (Jul 28, 2008)

I agree with everyting you say Matt. In the end it's all about what you are willing to pay and how much you know about photography. If you won't use the manual or semi-manual modes and you are only selling cheap watches on the bay you might just get a P&S. On the other hand, if you are willing to learn a trick or two about taking photos and you are selling more expensive watches it might very well pay of to get a DSLR. It is much more easy to sell something on the net I you got good pictures of it. 

Guysie: With on-camera flash, did you mean you used the built in one? Because the I don't know how you pulled that one off?


----------



## WNUT (Oct 20, 2006)

I recently purchased a Canon SX110. It has a great macro range and it has image stabilization (which would be perfect for watch shots).
I also have a Canon 20D but like to use the little SX110 for quick watch shots.
It also has a 3 inch LCD on the back.
Excellent camera for about $279 US


----------



## Clouseau (Jul 28, 2008)

You should never use the IS when taking a shot like this. Instead get a cheap tripod so you can use the lowest seting of the ISO instead. It will make wonders fore the detail in the photo. Especialy when they have cramed 9Mp inte such a litle sensorplate. Another great thing with using a tripod is that you can use a high aperture and by that gain DOF (depth of field) witch tend to be extremly short in macro mode.

Does IS work in macro mode by the way? On some lenses and cameras it doesn't i belive... (I can be wrong about that 

Good night frome Sweden, it's lights out here now!
Henrik


----------



## GuySie (Jan 14, 2008)

Matt2006 said:


> Maybe he's not into gadgets or trying to figure out 2 dozen features on a DSLR.


True, but look at it the other way around: say you want to get a certain quality pictures to properly sell your watches on eBay. I can fold a box, throw in the watch, pop off 5 shots on P-mode and push them through some automatic leveling and balancing in Photoshop in 10 minutes. They won't be mindblowing, but they will sell the watch.

With my point & shoots I had to juggle additional lights (can't use that built in flash), suppress the resulting noise since I have to shoot 400/800, and generally work my ass off in Photoshop - all to get pics similar to what my 350d gets me almost instantly.

Yeah, learning how use a dSLR can be hard work. But trying to get the same pics without one can be hard work too. I'm just saying I'd rather put the time to use learning the dSLR and as such, that is what _I_ advise.



> And what one is willing to spend on watch doesn't always correlate to what they'd be willing to spend on anything else. I like some electronics, but not all - so I may be willing to spend $1k+ on a watch but I wouldn't spend $800 on a cell phone. I also wouldn't spend $10k+ on top of the line home theater equipment. The list goes on and on.


I get that from a rational point of view, but I do find it hard to understand how people who know that high quality objects cost a correlating amount of money and who can appreciate the finely detailed and tuned mechanical works in a watch, then look at a digital camera - a revolutionary combination of electronics and optics that are many times more incomprehensible for me than watches - and be totally uninterested.

Sorry, I'm not ranting about anyone here, this is just something that has been frustrating me for a long time - you see people who buy hideously expensive luxury watches, based on years of careful research and weighing of many possible options... and then go around and buy the cheapest point & shoot at the dutch equivalent of Walmart. I understand they don't care. I just don't get _how_ they can not care.

@Clouseau: With on-camera I meant the flash attached to the camera, as opposed to using radio triggers or other off-camera flash methods. I have a 430EX for my canon. I wouldn't try doing that with the built-in flash, no  and I prefer my lighting off-camera. Great fan of Strobist.


----------



## WNUT (Oct 20, 2006)

Clouseau said:


> You should never use the IS when taking a shot like this. Instead get a cheap tripod so you can use the lowest seting of the ISO instead. It will make wonders fore the detail in the photo. Especialy when they have cramed 9Mp inte such a litle sensorplate. Another great thing with using a tripod is that you can use a high aperture and by that gain DOF (depth of field) witch tend to be extremly short in macro mode.
> 
> Does IS work in macro mode by the way? On some lenses and cameras it doesn't i belive... (I can be wrong about that
> 
> ...


I'll have to check on the IS working in macro mode. "Never" use IS in that situation? Never say never.
I use a tripod a lot...I'm just sayin....If someone wants to spend around $300US for something to photograph watches with, something like the canon SX110 is nice.
Have plenty of light to keep the ISO down and the aperture up. ;-)


----------



## GuySie (Jan 14, 2008)

WNUT said:


> I'll have to check on the IS working in macro mode. "Never" use IS in that situation? Never say never.


Actually, in this particular case... IS lenses work by moving parts to counteract your movements, which actually introduces shake to your image if it was otherwise perfectly still - like on a tripod. Better to shut it off when you've got it on a 'pod.


----------



## WNUT (Oct 20, 2006)

GuySie said:


> Actually, in this particular case... IS lenses work by moving parts to counteract your movements, which actually introduces shake to your image if it was otherwise perfectly still - like on a tripod. Better to shut it off when you've got it on a 'pod.


I really don't think that IS will induce shake if the camera doesn't move. 
If I was going to use a tripod for a watch photo I'd probably use my DSLR on a full-size tripod - with 60mm macro. For a quick snapshot, in good light, I'll just grab the point and shoot. Then point and shoot!
I've been involved in photography for more than 35 years. It seems there's always something to debate about. :-d :thanks


----------



## GuySie (Jan 14, 2008)

WNUT said:


> I really don't think that IS will induce shake if the camera doesn't move.


*shrug* What you do is your choice, ofcourse. But i'm not just making this up for ****s & giggles. For example, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization
"Most manufacturers suggest that the IS feature of a lens be turned off when the lens is mounted on a tripod as it can cause erratic results and is generally unnecessary."


----------



## WNUT (Oct 20, 2006)

****s and giggles :think: Is that anything like piss and vinegar?
I had recently read about a canon a 28-300 lens and falsely attributed it's IS performance to most canon lenses. 
From Canon Press Release:
Among this lens' most significant enhancements is its highly refined Image Stabilization (IS) system with new shake-detecting gyro sensors. IS is now effective for correction of up to three shutter speed steps for handheld photography, 50% better than the original EF75-300mm IS lens. Additionally, IS remains effective with the new EF28-300mm L lens even when it used on a tripod, improving image quality by helping to eliminate the effects of reflex mirror vibration at slow shutter speeds that are typically required in low light.
I stand (sit at computer) corrected.


----------



## workaholic_ro (Dec 3, 2007)

Buy whatever you want but buy it fast, or, after a long debate started from a simple request for advice, you'll end by buying a camera cell phone with high resolution and anti shaking system, very recommended for studio shots. The rest of my post is in my signature.


----------



## workaholic_ro (Dec 3, 2007)

Clouseau said:


> You should never use the IS when taking a shot like this. Instead get a cheap tripod so you can use the lowest seting of the ISO instead. It will make wonders fore the detail in the photo. Especialy when they have cramed 9Mp inte such a litle sensorplate. Another great thing with using a tripod is that you can use a high aperture and by that gain DOF (depth of field) witch tend to be extremly short in macro mode.
> 
> Does IS work in macro mode by the way? On some lenses and cameras it doesn't i belive... (I can be wrong about that
> 
> ...


No, you are not wrong, cameras with built in lenses work with the the "eyes wide open". The aperture is limited to 5.6 for most of them.
Good enough for family photos.


----------



## Matt2006 (Aug 28, 2006)

workaholic_ro said:


> Buy whatever you want but buy it fast, or, after a long debate started from a simple request for advice, you'll end by buying a camera cell phone with high resolution and anti shaking system, very recommended for studio shots. The rest of my post is in my signature.


Based on some of the other advice here he'll end up with $10k worth of DSLR equipment just to take pics of some watches he's going to stick on ebay. Wonder how many years it'll take him to recoup the costs of his camera equipment o|o|o|

Another analogy - he's asking to buy a bicycle so he can ride 2 miles to work and then 2 miles home from work from time to time (not daily) - 4 miles round trip. A $300 Schwinn from Walmart will do just fine, but everyone is recommending he go out and buy a $9k Pinarello or Cervelo. \

Ya, both options work, but one is a bit on the overkill side. Same thing with the cameras, there's no need to get all that stuff just to get some good shots of some watches.


----------



## workaholic_ro (Dec 3, 2007)

Matt2006 said:


> Based on some of the other advice here he'll end up with $10k worth of DSLR equipment just to take pics of some watches he's going to stick on ebay. Wonder how many years it'll take him to recoup the costs of his camera equipment o|o|o|
> 
> Another analogy - he's asking to buy a bicycle so he can ride 2 miles to work and then 2 miles home from work from time to time (not daily) - 4 miles round trip. A $300 Schwinn from Walmart will do just fine, but everyone is recommending he go out and buy a $9k Pinarello or Cervelo. \


I don't know where you picked from the ten grands suggestion, I can only see DSLR cameras around $400 recommended in this thread. Take any compact toy as sophisticated as you want and will fail the DOF test. They have limits in aperture.
And about the analogy with the bicycle, the mileage option doesn't work here. He didn't say he needs many photo's or few photos, just good photos. I don't blame built in lens cameras, they are more confortable and easy to use but they are simply designated for something else. The macro function is in the category "just in case".


----------



## Matt2006 (Aug 28, 2006)

A $400 DSLR would still require a good lens as most of the kit lenses aren't all that great, and definately don't do macro work. Someone also mentioned flashes, etc. Not $10k, but not $150-$300 either which was the original posters given price range.

The bike analogy does make sense because you are asking him to spend more than is needed to get the job done. Maybe not to the same monetary degree, but it is still more than is needed.

My personal opinion is that you can get very good pictures from a point and shoot. As with all instruments - a major portion of the outcome is the person using it, not the equipment itself. If you can achieve good results with a $200 camera, why spend $400 or $500 or more?

I'm no pro by any means and I don't mean to argue with you or anyone else on here, I just don't see any reason to slag off a point and shoot simply because it does not have the same 'prestige' or cool factor that a DSLR might. I own both types of cameras and use them both regularly depending on what I'm doing. They both have their uses and depending on what you are doing their use can overlap and they can both be good at a given task.

These shots below were all taken with a Panasonic FZ20 a few years back (2005 or so for all but one). The close up shot of the anole is the same anole that was on my hand in the other pic in order to give a size comparison. The pic of the Stowa sitting on a Canon lens is a little bit newer, but was taken with the same camera. With the addition of a light box or diffuser to get rid of the reflections of tree leaves on the crystal it'd be a good photo. It took no time to set up, was simply a quick snap shot. The shot of the Hamilton was in a makeshift light box where I used PVC pipe to make a frame and then draped bed sheets over it to diffuse the light of some lamps I had set up.

The close up of the anole had some Nikon close up/macro filters ($50 or so each - they make 2 versions) attached to the camera, if I remember correctly none of the other shots below had them attached. I just included it to show the capabilities of a "crappy" point and shoot. If he wanted to do landscape shots I would suggest a DSLR because you can't get a good ultra wide angle in a point and shoot. If he wanted to shoot sports I'd suggest a DSLR because you can't get a point and shoot that will focus or shoot fast enough to work well at shooting most sports. If he wanted to shoot something that was far away I'd suggest a DSLR because there's no point and shoots that have good enough optics for long range because they are always a compromise in order to get 12x, 13x, 14x zooms out of them. However, for shooting pictures of watches and stuff I just don't see the need for one though. That's just my opinion.

Don't be so quick to judge point and shoots as they may suprise you. I'll try to dig up the link, but I once saw a page where a pro photog had taken a lot of pictures with either a Panasonic or Leica point and shoot. They were amazing and rivaled anything I've seen from a DSLR.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and there honestly is no right or wrong answer to his question.


----------



## Clouseau (Jul 28, 2008)

Ok $10k... that's more then my entire photo equipment cost and it consist of Nikon pro and semi-pro stuff.

Using a Nikon D200, a Nikkor 60mm micro f2.8 and a Nikon SB-800 (and my bathtub as a reflector/lightbox) I shot these galleries:

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=196128

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=195522

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=199023

and that combo you could get used fore around 1500$ (not including bathtub). And that's overkill, you could buy even cheaper equipment and still take the same photos. Say you are selling watches within a price range of 500-4000$ then I'm fairly convinced that you would get those money back quickly if you could take better "selling" pictures.

You could on the other hand go with a P&S but then you would have to spend more time and money on the lighting. And as we all know lighting is not only the most important factor when it comes to taking photos, it's also by fare the hardest thing to master, especially since it requires both artistic eye and technical knowledge.

PS: I don't belive the original poster even reads this thread any more 

Matt: I don't disagree with what you are saying, I just don't agree.


----------



## workaholic_ro (Dec 3, 2007)

Sorry Matt but I'm afraid you are just confusing the poor guy. Sadly, instead of helping, you took it personally, trying to convince us of the contrary of the obvious, just to point out that you are right.
We all like the things we own (that's why we bought them) but this doesn't necessarily mean that "mine is better for everyone and in any situation".


----------



## kiwidj (Sep 24, 2007)

workaholic_ro said:


> We all like the things we own (that's why we bought them) but this doesn't necessarily mean that "mine is better for everyone and in any situation".


*>> Spot on!* |>


----------



## Matt2006 (Aug 28, 2006)

workaholic_ro said:


> Sorry Matt but I'm afraid you are just confusing the poor guy. Sadly, instead of helping, you took it personally, trying to convince us of the contrary of the obvious, just to point out that you are right.
> We all like the things we own (that's why we bought them) but this doesn't necessarily mean that "mine is better for everyone and in any situation".


Really, I've confused him? Wow, can you can read his mind? Did he send you private messages telling you that I've confused him? If not, don't put words into his mouth.

I never tried to claim I was right or that he should go with my choice, if you believe that I did maybe you should go re-read my posts and re-read yours while you are at it. I stated my opinion, you basically said I was wrong, so I offered more info to support why I have the opinion that I do. The entire time you have been the one suggesting you have the end-all-be-all answer by saying "the rest is in my signature", basically saying others should not respond as apparently only you know the correct answers. You are the one that has had a "GO DSLR OR GO HOME!" attitude from the start of the thread without even attempting to explore the other possibilities. I've given him options and nothing more. I've made my points, others have made theirs, it's up to him to decide - not you. Why shelter him from information that could possibly save him money? If he gets confused by the possibility of having multiple options fit his needs then I doubt he would have asked for suggestions in the first place.

Any time someone in the thread suggested a point and shoot you replied by saying no, go DSLR. And instead of providing him with more information you end up insinuating that the others who posted here don't know anything thus the original poster will end up buying a camera phone. The entire point of the thread was to offer up suggestions, but you spent the entire thread telling others that they are wrong and you are right. Now go ask yourself who is trying to convince whom of what.

- - - -

At any rate, at one point in the thread things went from responses to the original poster to people going back and forth with one another. He still hasn't replied and said exactly what he's looking for, so that limits what responses one can give him. He gave one small piece of information - he wants to take pictures of watches. That's all. It's hard to make a suggestion based solely on that. That's as if I just asked you what watch I should buy for work. Well, do I work in an office, do I work at a mechanics shop, am I a pilot? Depending on my answer to that question your answer to me would be different, right? It's the same here. We both offered up suggestions to him, only *HE* can decide what is right and wrong based on what his criteria are. Not you or I.

By posting examples the original poster could look at them and compare them to the idea he has in his head of what his intended outcome will be as far as photo quality goes. If they are on par with what he's looking for then he knows what camera it came from. If not, then he can go with another camera.


----------



## Clouseau (Jul 28, 2008)

workaholic_ro said:


> Sorry Matt but I'm afraid you are just confusing the poor guy. Sadly, instead of helping, you took it personally, trying to convince us of the contrary of the obvious, just to point out that you are right.
> We all like the things we own (that's why we bought them) but this doesn't necessarily mean that "mine is better for everyone and in any situation".


That's a bit nonchalant IMHO (and what's up with the turtle?). I belive Matt is arguing his point fairly well. I'm a entousiast photographer so I know my equipment demands are fairly high so fore a counterpart I belive Matt is doing a good job. He will never convince ME but that's not the idea. To be honest the entire argument is without a point untill the original poster gives as more facts about what he is selling and what kind of photos he wants to shoot.

Say that he is only doing stictly informativ pictures of "cheaper" watches. The he might as well go with a P&S shoting full frontal in tele mode and do a digital crop later in the computer. Using one of thees: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...ctor_402078_TST_F2_Two_Light_Fluorescent.html

or

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/296554-REG/Photek__Digital_Medium_Lighthouse_Kit.html

he could fore a low price be sure to reproduce the same ligt over and over again making those simple shots very fast. It wouldn't be interesting orfunn to look at but that might not be what the original poster wanted anyhow. I know that not all people are like me (thank God) so I thank Matt fore arguing another angle on the subject.

Good night fore now and when I wake up tomorow I realy hope I won't feel as sad as the last time America hade a presidential election 

Henrik


----------



## globalfish (May 19, 2008)

Even my old 6MP Canon S3iS managed this shot. It focuses down to zero cm and can be found very cheaply these days.

regards to all

Mark


----------



## duckduck (Nov 5, 2008)

I shoot with a canon s3 is, that and its newer sibling can be found in the range you are looking for.

Its a great super zoom with fully manual features as well as highly hackable with chdk for custom scripts, forced operations modes, killer electronic shutter speeds, and nice overlay grds. It has an adjustable fold out viewfinder for great shoot from the hip or above your head views.

With a simple adapter you can add on filters and lenses. the filters are cheap as dirt on sites like dealextreme.

I carry a Coated UV, kenko circular polarizer, hoya linear polarizer, and a cheap massa IR filter. With the 2 polarizers on top of one anohter you can use them as varialbe neutral density filters, they work well until the near black end where there is a blue shift. but great for space saving and speed.

Also pick up a rubber eye cup for this camera it greatly helps the evf in all situations, had on ebay cheaply.

I made this whole set for under 250 bucks as i got the camera really cheap. check out the flikr groups for this camera, you will be impressed.


----------



## Clouseau (Jul 28, 2008)

Realy guys... that's not a good camera for shooting close up pictures of watches. It has horrendous chromatic aberration and purple fringing (as shown in globalfish picture) and shooting watches that is something that will be a problem even with realy good equipment.

Globalfish: That's is not qritique aimed at you, it's all about the camera.


----------

