Best Point and shoot Camera

[big_teee]

I take a few digital pictures of Amps, guitars & Guitar Pickups.
The Camera media interfaces with computers, so I put this thread here.
So What do you guys use and what do you recommend?
Sam's Club has some inexpensive Nikon and Cannon brand Cameras.
Thanks in advance
B_T

[riz]

I've been using a little red Canon for shop stuff for several years now. It's been around the world with me, too! It's an awesome little tool, and it's in my pocket almost always. My wife has all kinds of nice cameras, and lenses and stuff. And guess which camera gets most of the work? I can't imagine working in the repair shop anymore without a digital camera.

[big_teee]

I've been using a little red Canon for shop stuff for several years now. It's been around the world with me, too! It's an awesome little tool, and it's in my pocket almost always. My wife has all kinds of nice cameras, and lenses and stuff. And guess which camera gets most of the work? I can't imagine working in the repair shop anymore without a digital camera.

Do you have and use macro?
Seems like I use macro a lot.

[John_H]

I've got a panasonic Lumix That I bought a Big Lots for around $60. It's unreal that this kind of technology can be had so cheap.
I think most are created fairly equal anymore. Look for one that is rechargeable. Batteries are a pain. Hi-def video is nice to have too.

Macro shot from my cheap camera.

[km6xz]

If you are not needing release response times in the ms range, for static objects all the point and shoots now are quite good. Most have very close focusing. If you not mind a little more weight and size, getting one with a wide range of optical zoom. Digital zoom is useless.
$70 gets a lot of camera for casual shooting in decent light.
Many of the newer cameras have really high resolution but the major downside is the files become gigantic and gives little in improved images unless printing very large. Otherwise, the normal display size on a monitor, A4 or smaller prints all have to be down-sampled anyway so the higher pixel count is wasted and just causes slow downloads and more post processing to get then small enough to send by email or post on a web site. 8-12mpx will give great 10x14 prints. I would not suggest over 12mpx unless you want to deal with large files and print large. Web display is fine with 6mpx.

The things that point and shoots are not great on is high ISO, low light shooting and fast shutter release response time. If you need it to trigger instantly a "Bridge" camera or a small DSLR is a better route.
My only point and shoot now is my Galaxy SIII phone. Everything else is Nikon DX and Full Frame DSLRs. The D800 produces spectacular detail with a 36 mpx 35mm sensor but uncompressed each image is 72 mb!! Quality lenses are really expensive for full frame, $10,000 is a typical value for lenses by serious amateur photographers unless they want to cover field sports in low light or birds in flight than double that.
So it is amazing how good a $70 point and shoot is now.

[John_H]

Many of the newer cameras have really high resolution but the major downside is the files become gigantic and gives little in improved images unless printing very large.

True, but it also gives you plenty of room to crop your photos, and still have good resolution.

[big_teee]

If you are not needing release response times in the ms range, for static objects all the point and shoots now are quite good. Most have very close focusing. If you not mind a little more weight and size, getting one with a wide range of optical zoom. Digital zoom is useless.
$70 gets a lot of camera for casual shooting in decent light.
Many of the newer cameras have really high resolution but the major downside is the files become gigantic and gives little in improved images unless printing very large. Otherwise, the normal display size on a monitor, A4 or smaller prints all have to be down-sampled anyway so the higher pixel count is wasted and just causes slow downloads and more post processing to get then small enough to send by email or post on a web site. 8-12mpx will give great 10x14 prints. I would not suggest over 12mpx unless you want to deal with large files and print large. Web display is fine with 6mpx.

The things that point and shoots are not great on is high ISO, low light shooting and fast shutter release response time. If you need it to trigger instantly a "Bridge" camera or a small DSLR is a better route.
My only point and shoot now is my Galaxy SIII phone. Everything else is Nikon DX and Full Frame DSLRs. The D800 produces spectacular detail with a 36 mpx 35mm sensor but uncompressed each image is 72 mb!! Quality lenses are really expensive for full frame, $10,000 is a typical value for lenses by serious amateur photographers unless they want to cover field sports in low light or birds in flight than double that.
So it is amazing how good a $70 point and shoot is now.

I agree, they have gotten out of hand on Resolution size.
I bought a Olympus camera in 2000 that is a 3mp, it is fine, the problem with it is the media type.
It uses the old small smart disk. It is hard to find and won't fit in the side of my laptop.
been looking at a Nikon L810.
It is 16mp and has a pretty big lens for a point and shoot.
It is around $180 at Sams club.
Don't know if it will do smaller resolution or not.
I'm just in the looking phase right now.
So please keep the advise coming.
T

[John_H]

Many of the newer cameras have really high resolution but the major downside is the files become gigantic and gives little in improved images unless printing very large.

True, but it also gives you plenty of room to crop your photos, and still have good resolution.

[Steve A.]

True, but it also gives you plenty of room to crop your photos, and still have good resolution.

Hard space is as cheap as ever (well, after the floods in Thailand they did go up a lot for awhile.) With music I rip my CD's to a lossless format and then convert them to MP3's if I want to load them on a MP3 player. You can always reduce the resolution of a high-res image but you can't convert a low-res image to high-res. Another analogy- I like to record audio in 24bit/96khz because it allows me to edit without losing bit depth (assuming that I am eventually going to convert it to 16/44.) But I would not pay a high premium just for a few extra megapixels.

While most of the new point and shoot cameras are great I have had problems with some of them getting really good close-up shots- like your picture of a humbucker which is top-notch. I am not trying to win photography awards here, just faithfully capture images of my projects. A tripod or monopod helps a lot if you have shaky hands like me (when I click the button the camera always moves- I guess I could try the timer setting.) With my aging Sony I might take 100 pictures of a printed circuit board hoping to get a dozen good pictures in which the components and board markings are very clear and legible.

Steve Ahola

P.S. If anyone wants to post the brand and exact model number of a camera that works well for electronic project close-ups please go for it!

[bob p]

Here are a couple PCB-type shots that I made recently using a Nikon D7000 DSLR and a Nikkor 60mm Micro AF lens. These were done in point-and-shoot mode, no tripod, with auto-focus, auto-metering, and auto-flash control all enabled. The pics were downsampled from 16 MP to make them fit here. The close-up of the JFET is a crop from the original photo at it's native resolution. Not too shabby for a hand-held snapshot.




I must confess, I am using a modern DSLR (D7000) and an "obsolete" screw-drive AF macro lens, and even though I'm using "obsolete" gear, this is still an unnecessarily expensive way to do digital macro work. You could do it a lot cheaper if you were to buy an "obsolete" manual-focus 55mm Micro Nikkor and put it on an "obsolete" 2-year old DSLR that has a lower megapixel count. Of course, you wouldn't have auto-focus, auto-exposure, or auto-flash control, and you'd have to do all of the set-up manually, but most pros who do serious macro work always turn those features off anyway.

[bob p]

I'll take the opposite side of the argument, and recommend that you should never rely on a P&S camera with a fixed lens to do macro work. The lens just isn't designed with that role in mind and when it's pressed into that role, the results aren't as good as what you can get with a purpose-built macro lens. I think you're always better off with a camera that has removable lenses and using the right lens for the job. In photography, the lens is what's really important. The lens is what renders the image. The camera is just a box that you hang on the back to capture the image. Today, the cameras cost a lot more because they incorporate technology that rapidly becomes obsolete. If you're willing to buy used/old technology instead of new then the prices can be incredibly cheap.

[big_teee]

I'll take the opposite side of the argument, and recommend that you should never rely on a P&S camera with a fixed lens to do macro work. The lens just isn't designed with that role in mind and when it's pressed into that role, the results aren't as good as what you can get with a purpose-built macro lens. I think you're always better off with a camera that has removable lenses and using the right lens for the job. In photography, the lens is what's really important. The lens is what renders the image. The camera is just a box that you hang on the back to capture the image. Today, the cameras cost a lot more because they incorporate technology that rapidly becomes obsolete. If you're willing to buy used/old technology instead of new then the prices can be incredibly cheap.

I respect your position, but that is not the market I'm in at this time!
T

[bob p]

Everyone has to find a solution that works well for their individual needs. I understand that no one solution will work for everybody.

If anyone is interested in leveraging old-tech in the way I've described, I've seen the manual focus 55mm MicroNikkor lenses consistently sell for $50-$75 on ebay. That's about 10% of what you'd pay to buy the equivalent new fully-automated lens from Nikon.
.
Older digital SLR camera bodies are pretty cheap too. They're commonly in the same price range and sell for pennies on the dollar because nobody wants an older digital camera; everyone wants something new with all the bells and whistles, and the option of pushing a single button and letting the camera do the thinking for you.

The price that you have to pay for automation is really high. If someone is willing to do manual composition, and a little research to find the compatible parts, then there's no reason that you couldn't build a dedicated system for macro work out of professional grade components that will provide professional quality results, while spending less than the cost of a new low-end automatic consumer grade camera at Sam's Club.

[Steve A.]

I'll take the opposite side of the argument, and recommend that you should never rely on a P&S camera with a fixed lens to do macro work.

I agree with your point but nonetheless there have been many very fine close-up shots down with a less expensive P&S camera. My complaint with them is that they are so "iffy" for me.

Steve

[bob p]

Hi Steve.

I can't explain why things don't work, or why your macro shots turn out "iffy" for you. My guess would have to be that the camera's computer is becoming confused. It might help to know what's wrong with your pictures. Such as whether the exposure comes out wrong or whether things are out of focus.

The camera that I used allows you to set a focus target in various locations on the screen, so that it will autofocus on an off-center subject if that's what you want. With the combination of auto-focus and auto-exposure, I get about a 99% satisfactory result when I snap macro shots of a PCB. The only time I really have problems relates to flash reflections, etc. The exposure and focus are just about always correct.

If I turn off the autofocus and auto exposure then I can take the same photos manually, and I get a similar percentage of good photos, once I have the focus and the exposure dialed-in.

If consistency is a problem, try shutting off the automatic features and set the controls manually. That way you can figure out what setting is wrong that is causing your problem.