Hello,

I was trying to get a recommendation on which camera would be best for the pictures I take. Yeah, I know, it depends!!! All helpful comments are welcome. This will be like one of those brain teasers in the newspaper. There's a right answer, but getting there will be a challenge, even for the experience techies!!

I'd like to keep the price under $1000, although for the ideal camera I'd pay more.

I'll try to describe how I use my current digital camera, that might help, and it might not. I currently use a Kodak DC-210 (for the last year and a half), and find that model adequate, except in a couple areas that I'd like improve upon when I purchase my next one, and I believe that time has come.

I use the camera primarily for taking photos of antiques for my eBay auctions. I sell mostly small items, china, glassware, lamps, advertising items, etc. I take about four pictures per item, front, back, close-up or two of the pattern or special detail, etc. I think I can do real nice on a flat thing. But with curves, distances, shadows, contrasts, etc. (think of a cup and saucer not a dollar bill!!), they add some unusual difficulties.

I list about 50 items a week, so that's 200 pictures a week. If each picture is over 50k each, I run out of space on my 10 meg limit with my server. What I need most is the best camera, with the smallest jpeg file size, with great resolution, and great close-in shots. Files of 30-40k with better quality would let me do more pictures, more auctions, better representation of my merchandise. Most folks hook into an auction on a dial up modem, big files are slow to down load, and turn them off viewing the item.

The things I like about the 210:

- Simple to use. Point and shoot works good. Simple dials, controls, and menus. Hooks into the back of the computer, could download a little faster. Swapping between normal resolution and high resolution is cumbersome. The additional detail improvement the camera provides in high resolution isn't that great. When using high res on this camera, you get huge files, few pics, little detail improvement, lots of switch changes and wasted time. I will get a bigger memory card for the next camera.

- Software is easy to use, big icons, etc. Do a lot of cropping, zooming, expanding. No brainer figuring what you need, large web page (480 x 360), small web page (240 x 180), or thumb nail (96 x 96). Software tends to lock up the computer once in a while, which is a real pain after down-loading 40 pictures, and having to do it all again.

- Don't care about batteries much, I have to plug in to the electric all the time, as I use it a lot and it takes time to change subjects. Have done about 5000 pictures in the last year. Would be nice to take it out with me occasionally, think the batteries wouldn't last but about 15 minutes though.

- Durability is important. The port where the power supply cord goes into the camera is about shot. Have to twist and turn and push to get the juice going through.

- I shoot most of the pictures with artificial light, inside, with flash. I do most of my photos, etc. in my free time after work and the kids go to bed. Some bigger and dark items, like a blue and white china platter, I need to redo in the day time. Just can't get enough light on them. They just come out too dark and brownish on the bright white china parts (due to the dark blue or brown parts, and being far away from the subject. Probably need better lighting or area to shoot, but that's an area I need to pursue later. Embossing on glass items is real difficult under the same conditions, and it doesn't improve a whole lot in daylight.

The first area I need improvement on is in close-ups. I take pictures of the back of plates, for a pottery maker's mark, or the scene on a 9" plate, or markings on metal parts (say the size of a quarter). I never had any thing close with my 210 that compares to the quality I saw on the 3 pence piece on this site with your 210, just blurred and out of focus. Could get it in focus, but then its too small to expand to a small web page size. This may be my poor picture taking techniques. But if so I need a simpler Macro.

The second area is color in glass. The difference in price on some antique bottles varies by $5,000 depending on the color. I tend to shoot glass bottles and jars in the day time, with some light behind. Need to be able to distinguish even the slight hues, and embossing details on the glass. They need to be accurate, many times I'll use other common subjects for comparison shots. The color enhancers work OK to get them close to what I think I see or what the customer may see on his computer, but it is easy to tell that it is an enhanced picture, versus an unenhanced picture. I took over a hundred pictures of a dark strawberry puce historical flask one time trying to get the color right. The color was close in the end, but in no way did it begin to show the colorful beauty of the glass.

The third area for improvement is on gold gilded items. I sell gaudy ironstone and other painted china. These pieces of pottery often had hand painted gold or copper or luster ware highlights on top of the glaze. I can't really get a picture of the beauty of the highlighting on these items, no matter what I do. Not flash, not in sunlight. Sometimes if I tilt them and get a good reflection off the sun or lights, part of it will glint just enough to crop it down where you can see the highlighting in the picture. But I go through 10-15 photos to do it. Good thing I don't use the old rolls of film!!

Well I guess I rambled on a bit, but hopefully that helps you to help me.

Inputs are appreciated!!!!

Thanks,

Rod L.

-- Rod Leathery (rawhide2@home.com), August 12, 2000

Answers

Rod, I am going to comment only on the last paragraph in your letter. There was an excellent posting on this site recently recommending the use of a milk bottle to diminish reflexes on glossy (gilded) objects. There is, however, an other method you may want to consider as well -- immerse the object in a pan of water -- the "glossyness" of the gold will be retained, but the reflexes will be gone.

-- T. Muhlstein (tom.muhlstein@sympatico.ca), August 12, 2000.

That sounds interesting Tom. But, the first guy who plunks an expensive non-water resistant time piece into a pan of water has to agree to share his embarrassment here... ;-) (ROTFLMAO!)

Sorry Tom, it sounds like a great idea, it just struck me funny. I'm bent that way.

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@surferz.net), August 12, 2000.

Rod,

It sounds like any of the newer digicams would probably do, perhaps even an older 1 or 2MP model since you really don't need a lot of resolution. Nikon possibly has the best macro range. But you can get +1, +2, +4 diopter accessory lenses for most digicams for really small items. I prefer Toshiba's new PDR-M70, it also has a just documented "hidden" full manual mode and manual focus as an option! To make it even sweeter they just came out with a $100 rebate. You should be able to find them for $100-$200 less than competing Nikon or Oly models, from between $600 and $800.

I do differ with you on one point, while you may need a better or perhaps simpler macro mode that alone won't allow you to get certain pictures you can't get now. You really have to make the commitment to doing some research and learning technique to get some of these shots. Reflections, lighting, etc. can confound even the most professional of photographers. The advantage they have, as in any other field of endeavor, is that the best in the field do the experimenting and research to find ways around those problems. For some things there are no shortcuts. You might find some helpful reading material at www.shortcourses.com where you can read online or purchase some pretty good books. You might also consider a trip to the local camera store and peruse through the books on lighting and close up or product photography. Almost anything written for a 35mm camera should be applicable to a digicam with manual features. Frankly, I suspect that a lot of the problems you describe have nothing to do with camera settings, but more to do with lighting, etc.

You may find that a copy stand or tripod, a couple white garbage bags for a light tent and two or three halogen lamps or work lights to light the tent from outside may be a great help in photographing these items. You arrange the bags around the items with some sort of simple frame, maybe made out of a few coat hangers or somesuch making sure no light enters without being diffused by the bags and place the camera at the top of the frame with bags gathered to it and the object to be captured under the camera. Simple! The idea is to diffuse the light and minimize reflections while allowing the camera to peek in and grab the shot.

Try it, how much could it cost? $20-$50 including a copy stand?

Make sure the flash is off. Using the self timer and a stand will also help you eliminate blur due to camera shake.

As for the image sizing issues, take the shots at a high quality setting(minimal compression setting like FINE) and reduce them with your editing software. After you've reduced them to an appropriate size, then save them under a different name with higher compression. Get them down to a decent file size and reload the image just to check that you haven't introduced artifacts by compressing it too far.

You're done. If you can't get a small enough file with compression that still preserves acceptable quality, make a thumbnail for the page and link it to a larger full size low compression file for those who are willing to take the time to download it! Links to these larger files can really be a big help to serious buyers. If storage space is at a premium set the link up to send you an email requesting the file and email it back to them.

Good Luck!

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@surferz.net), August 13, 2000.

Gerald,

Thanks for the detailed and informative response.

I was looking at the Olympus D-360L, but that was in the $300 range. In Nikon, what model do you recommend, since they do good Macro Models? I'll check on the Toshiba also. I will get lots of practice, so I think you may be right in going for a model with more capabilities, where I can experiment in the finer techniques.

Will definitely take your recommendations on the lighting, I know that is a big part of the problem. Money's not the real problem, but time. So maybe I'll check out a local photo specialty store, if there is one around here.

I thought I would attach some of my more difficult subjects for your viewing pleasure. I am an amateur, so don't roll on the floor too much!!!! I sell things of beauty (in the eyes of the beholders of course), just want to represent them as accurately as I can.

Thanks again,

Rod L.

-- Rod Leathery (rawhide2@home.com), August 13, 2000.

Gerald,

Just thought I would report back. YOU ARE THE MAN!!

Found a "reasonable" Toshiba PDR-M70. Was about $1150 with a 64 (?) card and Sandisk reader. Everything but the battery charger, still need to get that, somehow got 2 batteries though.

Well, so far, I am absolutely delighted with it!!! The Kodak is a very expensive paper weight at this point.

Close ups are fabulous. In fact, I don't need to get so close most of the time, holds the quality from a better distance. Still working on the lighting thing, and the courses, but I'll get there eventually.

My biggest fear, was the file size. They are HUGE, about 1 meg coming off the camera. So I take 40-50 pics in Full High resolution, will do about 57 pics with the 64 (?) disk. The down load of 40-50 pics with the San disk doofer into the USB thingy, VERY FAST, compared to the old pin port I used previously. Didn't think I had a USB thingy in the back of my computer, what a panic, but, there it was, just plug in. Thanks Gateway!! Well with the 1 Meg+ file, until I crop the subject, and put on low (high compression), I get 20- 60K Jpeg files, perfect size. Maybe its my eyes, but I can see any difference in quality from the very high settings there. Even better.

The software is a little more fiddly than Kodak, but got the hang of it in about 3 days. Has lots of gizmos and gadgets I haven't the faintest idea what they do.

Two or three little gotchas, and they are operator error things. It has a lens cap!!! Unlike the Kodak, take off the lens cap!! Another, the apparent default is flash off position. Since it is normally night when I shoot (or poor lighting), I take 2-3 pics until I realize the flash isn't going. Probably a setting I overlooked, should be automatic. Another change, wait until the auto focus works. Slow down, it does great, but be patient.

Thought I would include some pics!! See if they are improved. I think so...

Thanks for all the help!!

Rod L.

-- Rod Leathery (rawhide2@home.com), August 30, 2000.