What Camera to Buy

[MrB]

YMMV? Is this project so secret that comments must be encoded? Please write the language in a form that makes sense to everyone.

Thank you.

Philip

[Colin Southern]

YMMV? Is this project so secret that comments must be encoded? Please write the language in a form that makes sense to everyone.

Thank you.

Philip

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.

(and OP = Original Poster)

[Inkanyezi]

Is there consensus about deviating from the main topic of how to take pictures and instead focus on technicalities that are of no great importance? Should I have put a little "r" after the model number, to make things clearer? In my opinion it is moot, and that YMMV on the web would mean Your Mileage May Vary is hardly a secret code.

It has been understood here, that from a viewing distance of 7 m and an image width of 2 m, most any high quality APS-C sensor may be sufficient for the task. If not, there is the possibility to go up another step also over the FF in sensor size, where the budget choice might be Pentax and the rest is to drool over for most of us. Whether the camera is a Leaf, Mamiya, Phase One, Sinar or Hasselblad, it can produce good image quality.

But megapixels won't get marginal between 36 MP and 24. It is a puny 20 % difference in resolution, which for most photography needs is just moot. Whether to use a larger camera or not is a matter of budget as much as other factors involved. All cameras discussed here are excellent image-capturing devices, and the viewing angle from 7 m distance won't put a stress on megapixels. Many photographers happily did such jobs with 6 MP cameras in the past - hint: 24 MP is twice the resolution of 6 MP.

The important matters, as all of us hopefully know, is how the light and subject matter are treated, light and shadow, direction of light, depth of shadow, highlights and image composition. I am sure that all those will be covered by a good photographic tuition, and Scott Kelby might be the man to contact to that end. I know that a talented person can learn it within a year, but still, the camera question is a moot one. Why quibble about MY preferences? I hope that the comments of varying mileage as well as different preferences covers the matter that we don't all prefer the same camera - and from my point of view, the camera is secondary to knowledge of how to perform the task.

[Inkanyezi]

A D800 is going to give him 94 DPI - the Sony A7 only 76 DPI. 76 DPI is getting pretty marginal.

Not at all marginal, and those are not DPI, but pixels per inch. Why are we getting into this nonsense? 75 PPI is about 400 DPI in a printer and can be more. If the R model is chosen, pixel count is equal. But neither is marginal. The megapixel count is moot here, and other matters are of much greater importance.

I would prefer that the discussion focused on the needs of the original poster, not the preferences of different members here. We all have our own very personal reasons for choosing a particular kind of equipment, and those reasons might be valid or not for another photographer. We choose the equipment we like to work with. People choose different cars, different garments, different shoes - different cameras as well.

[Colin Southern]

Not at all marginal, and those are not DPI, but pixels per inch.

PPI is what I meant - my apologies. It's what happens when I sit up and type replies when I should be fast asleep in bed.

Why are we getting into this nonsense? 75 PPI is about 400 DPI in a printer and can be more. If the R model is chosen, pixel count is equal. But neither is marginal. The megapixel count is moot here, and other matters are of much greater importance.

Because it's not nonsense and it's not moot. In this case pixel count is going to be the single most important factor in camera selection, if we want to stay out of the MF realm. Recommend the 7R if you like - I don't have a problem with that, but the Alpha 7 isn't going to cut it as well as a 36MP camera for this job.

I would prefer that the discussion focused on the needs of the original poster, not the preferences of different members here.

EXACTLY. Which is the very reason I (as a life-long Canon shooter) recommended the Nikon D800 as the stand-out choice for his needs; you coming along with your member preference for a camera with a 1/3 less pixels doesn't help the OP, and it seems that I'm not alone in that opinion.

We all have our own very personal reasons for choosing a particular kind of equipment, and those reasons might be valid or not for another photographer. We choose the equipment we like to work with. People choose different cars, different garments, different shoes - different cameras as well.

Which is the reason we've taken the time to ask questions and to understand just what his needs are -- and then you pop up with a - frankly - ridiculous recommendation.

I'm off to bed. Goodnight all.

[Inkanyezi]

I did not recommend a camera, I said it would be MY choice. And it is not ridiculous at all. I popped in suggesting that one should choose the kind of camera that will be the final choice. I.E. not start with a smaller one, believing it would be easier to handle. The larger model has exactly the same workings, only that the sensor size, camera size and lenses are larger.

24 megapixels on two metres is three pixels per millimetre. At 7 m distance, i doubt anyone here could discern nine pixels on a square millimetre, or see the difference between nine pixels per square millimetre and twelve.

But apart from the megapixel quibble, in my opinion a FF camera is easier to work with than a smaller camera. If technical properties of sensors come into the equation, I am with Colin that one should choose a sensor with larger dynamic range and without banding problems in the lowlights. The D800 is a good choice, for anyone who prefers a DSLR camera.

As a sidetrack here, a friend of mine was looking for what to choose for migrating to digital. Her work is mostly portraiture and weddings, but also a fair deal of product shots. She laughed at my little camera that she borrowed on vacations here, and her choice became a Rollei SL66 with a custom back, 60 MP, which she uses set to 15 MP most of the time, because otherwise RAW files become too large. She says in the final image she cannot see the difference between 60 MP and 15. Customers mostly take a wall print 20" wide and a book of smaller sized prints. Her reason for choosing the old Rollei was that it tilts, and thus it can also replace the Sinar P she had for some work that benefits from that feature. And she wasn't impressed at all by autofocus.

Any FF camera can do the job decently. The most important factor is the person behind it. Knowledge before gear.

[shreds]

I now feel sorry for the OP. He came here for some simple advice, which indeed he has received if he sifts out all the chaff.

Generally this place is a good one to be, but very occasionally, some posters paddle upstream.

As Kelby often quotes: "I will tell you how to do it, as if you were my buddy standing next to me". (Not a direct quote, but you get the idea). Having determined the OPs reasons I hope that he can go away and prepare himself for whenever (next year?) and gain loads of experience and kit at his employers expense.

My parting shot, is to please keep dropping in, posting shots for constructive crit, along the way and I am sure most people here will try and help you develop. And don't hesitate to ask more questions. Lots more, its the best way to learn.

I sure wish that when I was employed by a company (other than my own), where the bosses were prepared to sink that amount of money and confidence in me.

I want you to succeed and hopefully with a positive attitude and absorption of lots of knowledge, you will develop and it will bring you success. And as I said earlier, we are all learning, all the time.

All the very best of luck.

[jcuknz]

I can see various arguments about things mentioned here but you need to point out to your boss that a digital camera is NOT a 'long term investment' and they rapidly go out of date. They are only an investment if they are used a lot thus paying for themselves in a relatively short time. A lot of us kid outselves we are making an investment but the truth is the reverse .... how long does the boss keep his cellphone? A camera is largely electronics like the phone.

Basically to partly re-assure you that a 2x1metre print is possible by any good camera but acceptance depends on how close it is viewed. If you take a shot of a car and enlarge it to 2m x 1m and then get a print made of an interesting part of it printed to say 10" x8" you will get an idea as to if it is sufficiently good enough. For that print the post processing will be a key part after the camera team have done their stuff and you need to ask about and who are printers engaged is such large printing ... I don't know but faced with the problem that is one of the questions I would ask and hope an answer came from CiC.

[Stagecoach]

John,

You make an interesting point about getting a print made of a part of an image once it has been enlarged to 2 x 1 mtr to see the result.

Yesterday I found an image I had taken of a car with my 14MP D300 showing the front and full side and enlarged this to 2 x 1 mtr and viewed some of the detail of it on the screen actual size from various distances. Considering it had been taken hand held at ISO800 I was quite surprised at the standard although not sure if this is a reasonable indication of what you would get from a print.

Grahame

[ajohnw]

I can see various arguments about things mentioned here but you need to point out to your boss that a digital camera is NOT a 'long term investment' and they rapidly go out of date. They are only an investment if they are used a lot thus paying for themselves in a relatively short time. A lot of us kid outselves we are making an investment but the truth is the reverse .... how long does the boss keep his cellphone? A camera is largely electronics like the phone.

Basically to partly re-assure you that a 2x1metre print is possible by any good camera but acceptance depends on how close it is viewed. If you take a shot of a car and enlarge it to 2m x 1m and then get a print made of an interesting part of it printed to say 10" x8" you will get an idea as to if it is sufficiently good enough. For that print the post processing will be a key part after the camera team have done their stuff and you need to ask about and who are printers engaged is such large printing ... I don't know but faced with the problem that is one of the questions I would ask and hope an answer came from CiC.

This is the sort of thing I have been stressing - find out before taking the plunge. Another method might be to go out and buy everything including a studio set up and PP software and then learning to use it all. The total budget for that end to end would be interesting. Hence suggesting making use of northern light either a window or the right side of a building that gives a sufficient area of shadow from the sun. That in it it's self will minimise the need for PP. Flash might too but may to turn out to be more complications. As to size I am pretty confident the sizes I mention will work out past that pass.

Further editing to remove a sentence that no longer made sense as the following comment had been removed.

John
-

[Inkanyezi]

To get a hint of pixel resolution, we can look at the computer screen. Mine is 16" wide and 12" high, 20" diagonally. My resolution is mostly set to 1600x1200, which gives a pixel density of 100 PPI, or four per millimetre. Thus I can view about 2 megapixels on the screen, and this is mostly sufficient resolution for screen viewing. The naked eye does not discern individual pixels from 60 cm viewing distance (2'). To see what three pixels per millimetre would make at a distance of 7 metres, I can back off to about 5 m from the monitor and see whether individual pixels would be discerned, and if the image on the screen looks sufficiently sharp for a 2x1 m print from a 24 megapixel sensor. To my eyes, it definitely does.

The resolution for a 2x1 m print can be much lower than 24 megapixels and still not show jaggedness or pixelation. It becomes visible somewhere clearly below 6 megapixels (50 pixels per inch), and there should be many photographers here that used 6 megapixel cameras ten years ago for any size of print. Any modern camera, also the puny compact cameras, have chip resolution that is sufficient for this type of print, although the larger formats will render better results due to many other factors. Any modern full frame camera is suitable, and the pixel quibble, in my opinion is moot. (Compacts of today have 16 megapixel sensors.)

Other considerations are paramount; lighting and the photographer's knowledge of how it works in the image.

So if you think you should get a camera now (keep in mind that it is outdated tomorrow), get a full frame camera, brand or type is not of great importance, neither is pixel pitch. The reason for choosing a large camera are several, as colour depth, dynamic range, overall sharpness, and the ability to get a shallow depth of field, as well as ease of handling for this kind of photography. Smaller cameras also work, but they are a bit toy-like for professional work. A FF camera is more like a tool.

Or begin in the correct end, take a photography course as suggested, use any camera, borrowed or the full or medium camera of your choice (preferably a system camera with all manual settings possible), and learn as many tricks you can from professional photographers doing similar types of job. If you cannot leave the images for post-processing to a professional or another confidential employee, you have to learn that too.

And with post processing, also printing comes into play, creating a standardised workflow with colour calibration and printer profile. You might want to leave the actual printing to professionals.

[BUGSBUNNYBOSS]

Due to the nature of the project are you going to be allowed freedom of location, time of the shoot etc? Are you going to have assistants to help you? Hold reflectors etc? Set up lighting? Are you going to be expected to produce the image inc. post production to hand to the printers?

Hi Ian,

I have the freedom to the time of shot, though with location; I'm restricted to my company facility and our test site.Both being outdoors. The locations are open place and there is nothing around. Regarding assistants, I will be helped (just have to tell, what to be done). And sadly YES. I'll be doing post prod. as well.

You mention taking 'landscape shots' but also say that you will be generally shooting at 5m (with flexibility). I would have considered 5m relatively close for a 'landscape shot' of the object.

The distance of the subject is not very important, as long as I'm shooting the entire subject. and mentioning 5m was just the average distance, 2m being closest.

Assuming your location is close to your stated location, do avoid mid day as Colin says, a very early morning or late evening may produce better light for you to shoot in. Even consider shooting at night, where you can bring in lighting and control the situation more, for a dramatically different take!

Yes, it is! and I've registered the point in my head,"Never shoot at mid day". Though I'm not very sure how good the picture will be; when shot at night. The surrounding will be close to pitch dark (on a no moon day), so not sure how i'll manage the lighting.

Just bear in mind that you can set yourself on that learning track (Kelby being good to listen to) and there is a lot to learn. Twelve months will fly by!
I just hope your employers are happy for you to be immersed in photography learning for the next year!!

I've seen kelby, just waiting for approval to enroll. and I understand, Photography is an ocean! and I'm about to step into it. My profession is Engineering, and I can only be dedicated to photography in the weekends and my free time.

[Colin Southern]

Yes, it is! and I've registered the point in my head,"Never shoot at mid day". Though I'm not very sure how good the picture will be; when shot at night. The surrounding will be close to pitch dark (on a no moon day), so not sure how i'll manage the lighting.

At night or in a studio you get total control over the lighting, which is generally a good thing for product photography. One technique is to keep the shutter open for around 30 seconds and then illuminate the vehicle using nothing more than a single hand-held light (that you move around).

Ken Brown has a cracking example of this in the strobist book "Photo Trade Secrets Vol 1"

[Adrian]

I am absolutely bemused by the way in which this thread has gone. The OP expressed a fairly straightforward requirement. He didn't say what purpose his prints are going to be used for though. If it is going to be commercial or advertising reproduction, then a professional is needed. If it is some internal use then more amateur skills may well suffice: anyone can learn to take good pictures with a bit of practice.

It seems to me that as the OP is starting from zero equipment and is not locked into Canon or Nikon, there are major advantages in the Nikon D800 with an appropriate lens for the task in hand. This was suggested on Page 1 of the thread. Start with that and add lighting as necessary once you have seen the results and decided if they meet your needs. I use a Canon 5DIII myself and would be happy with that too since I don't print at anything close to poster size, but for the specific application stated, I would buy the Nikon. No question. No hesitation. With a good lens, probably a fill in flash, and a really good, sturdy and easy to adjust tripod.

I hope you have a lot of fun with it and learn a lot. Please don't be put off by the arguments that have developed on this thread. It is untypical.

Adrian

[BUGSBUNNYBOSS]

And with post processing, also printing comes into play, creating a standardised workflow with colour calibration and printer profile. You might want to leave the actual printing to professionals.

We have professional printing team. They just request for the type of file, dpi etc.

[AB26]

Now this is where I like turning the Apple cart upside down.

There seems to be a little something in this thread about a discussion some time ago about photons, resolution, pixel count and size of prints, hie,hie,hie.

I really admire Colin’s advice to the OP. An avid Canon shooter advising the OP to use a Nikon, now that is what I call objectivity.

Vyas, you do have another option you might consider – LEICA S2. My personal opinion: the only cameras I would consider for what you want to do, Nikon D800 or Leica S2. The only thing about the S2 I do not like, you do not get a Leica zoom lens for it. You suggest a Leica S2 to your CEO and he might get a heart attack, but then again, Dubai, oil, money – not a problem.

Vyas, I did this without any special lighting on any other tricks. You can do it under the right circumstance and time of day using available light. Studio lights are always a beter option, however, you can do without it if you know how to use available light.



Shot with a model 2006 Nikon D200, one of those outdated old DSLR's using a Sigma 70-300mm lens (not the best of lenses).

Cameras are not an investment?

If you get the right one you will be using it for a very long time before new technology catches up with you.

[shreds]

Andre,

You know your stuff and know how to create beautiful photos like this one. That is the learning curve that Vyas has to go through to satisfy his employers and some.

I loved the D200 when I had one. I even kept it in that bottom drawer marked, 'reserve' for some time. (Still have a film Nikon in there somewhere even now!) About five years ago, I had an offer for it, from someone who knew I had it spare, so I let it go. Before I did so, I ran off a card of images for comparison purposes using the same top end Nikon lenses.

Bit unfair as the D3 is a true professional steed with FF and it left the D200 standing, which is DX, but it wasn't just that, the big difference was really noticeable once printed out. We are viewing your shot on (hopefully) calibrated screens, but it is difficult to be objective about the final printed product (I am sure it would be good), especially if it were taken to 2m x 1m. Having experienced the difference between the D200 and the D3, my second steed these days is a D3x and there is a similar noticeable difference in output (although the D3 and D3x are designed and I use them for differing projects). I suppose there will be considering we have double the pixel count on the D3x. And that hasn't reached the heady heights of the D800/D800E 36MP.

Can't disagree about the Leica S2 but the lens limitation might send me off in the direction of a Phase One using Schneider lenses, including some beautiful leaf shutters. It would be good to be in that ball park, but I have not won the lottery yet.

Anyway, we are talking about work tools, not dreams and as you have just proven, even 'last decades model' in the right hands can produce stunning images, even if the world has moved on.

Just think what you could do now with the D800E, Leica or a medium format camera!

[Adrian]

Doesn't make sense to buy a Leica S2 for an admittedly novice user? Serious money, especially when lenses factored in. Has been around a while now, too.

[Inkanyezi]

Must remember that these cameras tend to decrease pixel counts by cropping the sensor.

I don't know of all MF backs, but the ones I have seen don't do that. They decrease pixel count to ¼ by bundling them together, making the 60 megapixel back 15, the 40 megapixel back 10, effectively increasing pixel size four times, no cropping.

[AB26]

Just think what you could do now with the D800E, Leica or a medium format camera!

Thank you Ian, It is not always all about the photographer, the equipment does contribute a lot.
Most of the skills, the little that I have, was obtained in the last year doing lots of practice shots and spending many hours with the camera. Getting decent shots with any camera is possible but there are limitations we got to keep in mind. With a D800 you have very few limitations.

Exactly the point I am making: Colin gave Vyas the best advice anybody could have given, IMHO. The Leica or any other MF camera cost a lot more but will not necessarily render much better images than that of the D800, for the specific application. The Nikon will allow much more freedom of use than a MF camera. Combined with 14-24 F2.8 and 24-70 F2.8 lenses Vyas should be able to do a very decent job.

Vyas:

The D800 is a complicated “image capturing computer” with no Auto setting. The P – for Programmed Auto will however get you out of any trouble you might experience. Reading as much as you can and asking as many questions as you need to, will help you greatly. You will be “specializing” in one tipe of photography and you will be able to master it in a short period of time. It is not as difficult as many would like to make it. Common sense and lots of practice.

Remember Vyas, most Professionals will be reluctant to give you the right advice as you are “infringing” on their terrain. There are those whom are so good at what they do that they will be more than willing to share their knowledge with you. You will just have to sift all the information you are getting and follow your instinct and use your common sense.

Now go get that D800 and at least two NIKON lenses, not cheapies, and start practicing.

By the way, if you are going to shoot in direct dessert sun you can always use screens to soften the light. You guys know about tents and how to get out of the sun, using the same methods to do your shoots will help you. When using screens it should be pure white material. You might consider shooting inside a pure white marquee tent, hiding from curious eyes and an almost perfect dessert studio.