Good camera for photos?

File: IMG_20170319_125142.jpg (410KB, 912x1600px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 912x1600px

Example: This is how bad my recent "camera" quality is. I'll honestly take anything better than this.

File: Jehuty.jpg (556KB, 1712x1046px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 1712x1046px

>>6359078

A lot of it is lighting. Lighting will make a good camera crap and a bad camera passable. Lets see if I can show you the difference. Pic related is done with a Canon PowerShot ELPH 180, a relatively cheap point and shoot camera. It's alright. It's cheap, which is good for me, since I'm poor as fuck.

File: ^83EAEB82785AEEEE490625DC57D797DB61BB084AE31F10CDA2^pimgpsh_fullsize_distr.jpg (80KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 640x480px

>>6359095
I definitely agree lighting is a big factor, but this camera is crap in any lightning period.

Even if I can get something that clears up the clarity i'd be happy.

File: PenceatronMarksAShotabottForDeath.jpg (1MB, 1377x1321px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1377x1321px

>>6359095

Same camera, worse lighting. Things look a lot grainier in this because of it.

File: SounwaveAndTheGloryOfTheSharkitariot.jpg (788KB, 1574x1398px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 1574x1398px

>>6359096

It comes down to how much you want to spend really. My setup is cheap as fuck. Not the absolute cheapest, but still barebones as fuck. I've got $1's worth of posterboard, a $10 desk lamp from Walmart, and the camera was around $120 from Walmart at the time.

A real camera-That is, a DSLR-is gonna run you like $250+ easily, probably closer to $300-400.

You can get alot of mileage out of playing with the options of your camera though. The one you're currently using, can you mess with the ISO setting? Because for me, at least, you need to turn that ISO as low as possible, and mess with a few other settings, to get decent pics.

>>6359101
>The one you're currently using, can you mess with the ISO setting?

No because its literally an Amazon kindlefire. I need to get a real camera, i've just been holding off and pinching my pennies. I might as well go for a good $300 quality one at this point if I can find a decent one.

>>6359075
Good quality camera usually isn't the problem with grainy and distorted photos.

You need about 3-4x times the amount of Light that you *think* you need for toy photos. Flash is a poor option for lighting.

If you can't improve the lighting, then you need a camera stand to increase exposure time.

A quality camera helps. I use a Fuji XE2 with 35mm prime lens.

File: BruceLeeWatermelon.jpg (420KB, 1133x1171px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1133x1171px

>>6359108

I'm sure someone can point you at some good ones for that price range, but not me. Never had a DSLR myself, they're out of my poorfag range.

>>6359108
Try this with your kindlefire and see if photos improve.

Go outside on a sunny day with object for photos.

Use some bricks or weights to hold the kindle securely in place when you snap a photo.

That would probably dramatically improve your outcomes.

File: IMG_20170313_191732_hdr.jpg (378KB, 912x1600px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 912x1600px

>>6359110
Right. The grainyness is annoying but the worst part is like if I take pictures of media or books, you can't read the spines because it gets all blurry.

I want something that can clearly take a shot so you could read all those spines, and make out all the letters. so for toys it'd be kind of the same jsut with much better lighting.

File: C6vTinDVwAAfi47.jpg (253KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1200x675px

>>6359117
Where as say (This isnt mine) this guys collection, even small and out of focus, can still be read clearly and looks sharp and clean.

>>6359117
pic looks like a focus problem, aka your hands are shaking the kindle and the exposure time is too long because theres not enough lighting indoors.

File: img_35.jpg (263KB, 795x1200px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 795x1200px

>>6359075
>>6359078
Like the anons already said, start with the lighting. You can spend $40 on a couple of cheap desk lamps or you can spend $100 on a couple of soft boxes. Either way, $100 spent on lights will improve your pictures as much as $500-$1000 spent on a camera.

Next, get a tripod and use timer to delay your shots. That way you will be able to get pictures with low ISO and your camera won't be shaking as it takes a picture.

Finally, get the cheapest used DSLR you can find (for example: https://www.ebay.com/p/Nikon-D100-6-1-MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Black-Body-Only/100058184) then get a good quality lens for it (it will run you a couple of hundred but it is the most important part of the setup).

While you do that, read books and educate yourself on the techniques.

>>6359149
For a book, I would recommend reading Understanding Exposure as a good general primer

The advice of anons here is mostly pretty good, but you need an actual camera first. A kindle fire and a phone from 2009 won't get you the results you seek no matter how much you fuck with the lighting.

So in your OP post you say you want a camera not just for toy snaps, but also general snaps.

I notice later ITT you mention $300. Is that the limit of your budget towards the camera?

>>6359263
Not limit, but a target. I just want a better camera period just because I'm tired of living behind the times. Heck, I still have a CRT TV.

>>6359289
Hey, nothing wrong with a CRT. If you still have a regularly played game console from 6th generation or older, its the better way to play them.

Well for your money there's these:
Canon Powershot N
Canon Powershot S100
Canon Powershot S110
Canon Powershot S120 - used
Olympus XZ-1
Olympus XZ-10
Olympus XZ-2 - used
Fuji XF-1
Fuji X10 - used

For this list I actually tried to come under $300. My reasoning is because I agree with other anons you should get some lamps, some white LED bulbs, and a cheap tripod.

I also don't think you should buy a DSLR for $300, because your needs don't really match the need for interchangeable lenses. If I'm wrong though and you want to mess with different lenses I can come up with another list though.

>>6359395
Oh man, so true. My 6th gen consoles look like shit on my HDTV, but hooked up via component to my CRT, they look legitimately amazing. It hits that perfect sweet spot of smoothness and crispness.

Anyway OP, I'd recommend a Powershot that's within your price range. They're pretty good and have a nice macro mode. And yeah, invest in some good lighting and maybe a desktop tripod, even a DSLR can take shit shots in low lighting.

Just use a nice smartphone as your toy camera, all you will need is good lighting.

>>6359474
If OP is looking to upgrade their phone anyway (cause like damn, it's been almost a decade since 2009), then yeah, that might work. Phone cameras are getting pretty good lately. But if OP wants to really get better with photography, I'd recommend a dedicated camera. It will have more settings to play with and will be a better learning tool. Most phone cameras simplify things down or lock out certain settings from being changed.

OP, the most important thing you need to know is this:
In 99% of the time, a camera is simply a tool. You have to know how to use it correctly to get the best results. A super duper high end camera isn't going to do squat for you, if you don't know the ins and outs of how it works. Just as a shitty phone camera won't hinder you if you have the skill. Obviously there's the 1% of the really shit cameras, like the one you're using, which I doubt even the best photographer couldn't do above a mediocre job with.
I suggest finding a decent point and shoot that has changeable settings, and lets you do macro shots, and work with that a while to develop your skills. Read and watch tutorials, pay attention to the tips people give in the photo threads. Learn as much as you can. THEN graduate to a more complex camera.
Point and shoots are pretty reasonably priced and produce good results. The advantage is, if you go that route, you won't be out of a lot of $$$ if you find that you aren't as interested later on. Nothing's worse than spending a few hundred bucks on a set up, and a year later it sits in a drawer gathering dust because you got bored with it.

>>6359075
not an a 7s. Just get a cannon 5d. mark 2
t. photographer/videographer

>>6360189
>t. guy who thinks he's a photographer/videographer while he's actually completely clueless about the subject
Fixed that for you.

>>6359075
Just get a Nikon/Canon DSLR from the last 10 years with a simple lens like a 35mm 1.8 and you're set. As long as you have good lighting, taking pictures will be easy as fuck and they'll look great even if you're not a great photographer. About $250 second hand.

Don't listen to people saying you should buy expensive stuff. The evolution of cameras is super slow and the new specs and gimmicks they add to them every year are unnoticeable/useless for 95% of the users.

File: 1496210924745.jpg (724KB, 4640x3713px) Image search: [Google]

724KB, 4640x3713px

>>6359075
Are toys the only thing you're going to take pictures of? Is there a chance you'd like to try more?

My personal experience is that you may want to spend those extra 100 dollars and buy a dslr.
The possibility to change lens means that you can always improve or change your experience, instead of getting stuck with something that is not enough in a few months.

I'm no expert, my only dslr is a nikon D3300, and l think it's a great starting point without spending too much.

As others suggested, a tripod is essential to get better results and make your life easier.

File: 31.jpg (3MB, 2370x3966px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2370x3966px

>>6359095
Pretty much this. Unless you want to go for macro or portraiture stuff which some phones can do now I would invest in a lightbox or setup. I think I do alright with nothing but a phone.

>>6362084
for a while now phone cameras have been pretty good, not great, but definitely possible to get decent results with. One of the biggest issues however can sometimes be the software is not right for the camera, these phone designers are not camera people after all. I wish I still have it saved but a couple years ago someone in either the gunpla thread or photo general posted comparisons of using the default camera app and a third party app on I beleive a samsung of some kind. Made a big difference.

Some of the comments here...yes, it's true, a camera is just a tool.
However, anon here owns a potatoe with a piece of glass attached, no amount of light will be able to change that. Same for a tripod, steady hands, going outside or whatever.

So instead of repeating what you read in a bunch of blogs/you keep telling yourself to feel better about being a poorfag, ask him the right questions and give him proper advice.
Shit like this >>6360189 for example is bullshit, >>6360376 this is good.

>>6359075
OP, answer these questions:
> What is your max. budget?
> What exactly do you want to photograph?
> Are you interested/willing to learn how to use a camera?
> Do you want to edit your pictures or are more interested in something "good looking fresh from the cam"?

A DSLR gives you a lot of flexibility, however, you need to learn how to use it to get the best out of it and some of that flexibility has to be bought extra (i.e. lenses). One of the newer smartphones can do great pictures with minimal effort, but you have a lot less flexibility (i.e. changing parameters, no lens swapping, shitty base for editing often etc.).

If you "just" want to be able to take a proper picture once in a while you can honestly go for a new phone or a camera like here >>6359395. Everything is better than that thing you currently have.
If you want to go all in, actually take up photography as a hobby or just want more flexibility, go for a cheap to mid-entry DSLR.
Even older/used models will still be fine (like >>6360376 said), and you can save some money on buying used lenses.
35mm is a good starting lens for toys and portrait on those models.
Even the kit lens on a beginner DSLR will already blow you away compared to what you currently have.
Add a reflector and some lamps and you are good to go.

>>6362084
>blurry
>muddy
>not resized

At least resize the picture, would help a lot making it look better. And something that looks like a catalogue picture (i.e. white background, lots of light) really most cameras can do nowadays.

File: 1496754759453.jpg (359KB, 600x1004px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 600x1004px

>>6362084
Resized. Looks way better already.

File: IMG_9894.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>6359075

I'm not a gearfag and I think that the photographer not the camera makes a great photo, plus I have one as you can see in pic related but...

I think it's funny that you're asking what a great camera is but chose to use a Sony in OP. /p/ would have a field day with that.

The toy photography thread usually has some tips from myself and others if you wanna check that out. The current one is a little weird though but drop by and ask away

>>6362173

I have no idea why this is upside down

>>6362173
I bought a DSLR, but I'm still a shit photographer. Feels bad, man

File: DFCF9242-7C7E-421C-8CA4-DCB294E3C750.jpg (1MB, 3023x1699px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3023x1699px

>>6362176

It's a just a tool, you gotta learn how to use it. Picking up a paintbrush won't make you an artist automatically. You gotta learn about theory and the tools, and the various ins and outs first.

My advise, start on Auto mode while you learn then experiment with different programmings once you start learning.

And for fucks sake just stay away from the ACBA, anything they say, and anything they do. Bad advise from mediocre at best "photographers." The whole Spider-Man in a brick alley with undersized buildings fighting a million Marvel Legends hentchmen with paper cutout sound effects and poor white balance because "le we don do any shop" is bullshit.

Learn actual photography and you'll learn that post editing isn't just part of the process, it's ESSENTIAL especially on a DSLR because you'll end up with dull gray heavy colors

>>6362198
Yeah, I've owned my camera for about 5 years now, and I've read a good bit of photography stuff. I even did an online course, I'm just not good at it. I have no eye for composition, no imagination to set up shots, and I over-correct everything in post. Used to be too dark? Now it's blown out. Too yellow? Now everything's blue. I also can't seem to make photos consistent with each other from the same shoot.

>>6359096
Your pictures aren't clear because you do not have enough light and your camera is lowering the iso to compensate.

Listen to what these people are telling you, get better lighting first.

>>6362198
>Learn actual photography and you'll learn that post editing isn't just part of the process, it's ESSENTIAL especially on a DSLR because you'll end up with dull gray heavy colors

This, it's a part of it the same developing your film was back then.
Even the smallest correction (i.e. resizing, sharpening, contrast) does make a huge difference already.
Best editing is the one that is invisible, even if in reality it took hours in Photoshop.

>>6362123
>However, anon here owns a potatoe with a piece of glass attached, no amount of light will be able to change that. Same for a tripod, steady hands, going outside or whatever.
Which is why people who say that are also telling him to get a new one, and stop using what amounts to a pin-hole camera. You should take more time to read and understand what people are saying.

>So instead of repeating what you read in a bunch of blogs/you keep telling yourself to feel better about being a poorfag,
Oh I get it. You're just acting like a twat for whatever reason. That explains it. You don't really have anything to add, so you try to puff yourself up and repeat what everybody else said while trying to sound like you know more.

File: DSC_0451.jpg (3MB, 4928x3264px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4928x3264px

>>6362206
>Best editing is the one that is invisible, even if in reality it took hours in Photoshop

Yup. Compare >>6362198 with pic related

>>6362213
>TP Link will be here tomorrow
>Want figma horse
>Neither are Epona colored
Feels bad.

File: IMG_9895.jpg (119KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 500x600px

>>6362244

Get to customizing the brown one

>>6362254
I don't have a work-space to paint anymore. House is too cramped... between being married, taking care of my elderly/ailing mother, and roommates moving in temporarily while they get readjusted, I lost my work space.

>>6362209
Lots of the post are basically just "you need more light" though?
First posts are all that, even though from the moment anon mentioned he uses a Kindle to take pics it should have been clear no amount of light/non-shaky hands can save anything there.
First helpful post was >>6359263 and then >>6359395.

And sorry, not a twat, but it's obvious that most people here just wanted to humble brag a little with posting their "white BG with toy in front" pics claiming you don't need much for pictures because the tool is totally unimportant as long as you have enough light and knowledge.
I mean, it's true for those kind of pics. Which is also why I asked what anon actually aims for, because if that's not his goal the anons here are not really helpful.

>>6362655
You sound like somebody who got criticized for posting less than desirable pix, and instead of listening to it and learning, you got pissed off and are butthurt about it. You definitely have a very obvious streak of jealousy in what you post.

Hell I'd wager you're one of those ABACABADAB or whatever dolts trying to stir shit up.

>>6362655
>And sorry, not a twat
You sure come across as one.

File: DSC_1230[1].jpg (521KB, 1116x912px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1116x912px

Nikon D70, 2004 camera.

File: DSC_1274.jpg (1MB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3008x2000px

Nikon D70 + 50mm 1.8d.

File: DSC_0904_.jpg (780KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

780KB, 1500x1000px

A working Nikon D70 you can find for around 70 usd.
Plus an used 50mm 1.8d for around another 70 usd.
Plus a iTTL bouncing flash for 50 usd.
Total: 190 usd.
You may also have to buy rechargeable batteries if you don't own any already.
You can't go much chaper than this.


Off course a better camera will get you much better photos.
This is a D7100 + 85mm 1.8g.

>>6363055
Not even close, but keep guessing.

And weird, sounds like you are more butthurt about me saying that most people here humble bragged, didn't help or that there's just not much behind the mentioned “toy with white BG stuff“ that it's worth acting all “well, the tool doesn't make the pic“ about.

>>6359075
Kindle Fire?

Step aside thread, I got actual experience with this device. Yes the light levels will help a lot even for this thing. However it is a ton of effort and was always a pain in the ass to get the image to come out to just 'barely decent' levels, but it WAS possible that I will admit. A new camera/device in my opinion definitely needed though. To make things worse the way the kindle fires are set up means they actually have very little in the way of app compatibility compared to other android devices. So I never was able to find a camera app that helped out with it.

>>6359234
Underrated Post!
A friend recommended that very book many, MANY years ago. I think their own the 3rd edition of it now. The fact that he shot for SI meant I trusted his judgement.

Fast forward many years later...

I've shot everything from toys to food to big name concert venues. In fact, I'm currently in the AP press pool covering a murder trial in court.

This book is a *Must Read* at any level.

It will Help you understand the fundamentals and explain how important lighting among other things are.

Best if luck!!

File: 660271b356cf5d6932ba32c2dda78a62.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

Since this is a camera thread, anyone care to recommend some nice cameras more geared towards video recording?

>>6367788
Any newer smartphone can support 4K videos now. No need to splurge on a super expensive dslr for video. I personally have a canon 70d and an iPhone 6s Plus. I use the canon for photography and the phone for video.

File: wizard-hamhands.jpg (238KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 750x600px

>>6367788
Dear God, stay away from that figure!

File: pig's feet.jpg (126KB, 793x617px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 793x617px

>>6367788
Holy shit, Porky...

>>6367807
>>6367811
Sorry guys, just googled "figure review youtube" and grabbed whatever was closest to depicting what I wanted to shoot. I know nothing about the figure or the person's hands

>>6367792
Cool. What about prolonged video use though? Or do newer smartphones tend to heat up less these days?

bumping for more video recording recommendations

>>6367788
>>6367959
>>6367960
>>6368978
How much do you want to spend?

>>6369134
Let's start with $300 and work our way up there

>>6369134
>>6370113
Let me rephrase that, most affordable entry level video camera of acceptable to decent quality

>>6370114
Sony a5000
Sony a5100
Sony a6000
Canon EOS M3
Panasonic Lumix GH3

In my research I've found digital cameras at this price point offer more quality for the money than comparatively priced digital camcorders. The sensors are better and will give you better video. The trade off of course is only being able to film 30mins of video at a time.

You could also go the route of just using a recent smartphone too, in a well lit area. In fact a fairly well known toy reviewer on youtube used their iphone for quite some time and still might even.

>>6371101
>In fact a fairly well known toy reviewer on youtube used their iphone for quite some time and still might even.

Who?

If you are by any chance still following the thread you started anon, They only thing these guys and girls left out that I can see is when you go camera shopping you will want a camera that can shoot RAW. When you start to master editing in photoshop and lightroom it will make a lot of difference to you. (At least it does to me as it gives me a lot more editing power and freedom to select from all the the sensor saw rather than just what was captured in a jpeg.)

>>6371101
Great info. Thanks

File: DSC_6814_1748.jpg (653KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 1500x1000px

Just get yourself any camera + prime lenses.

>>6376409
Which prime?

>>6362123
GEARFAG Detected

>>6376741
Whatever prime lens that will fit the camera!
The focal length for toys ought to be around 50mm - 75mm in a prime lens.

>>6377928
Except that the anon both said phone can be fine and old, used DSLR gear too?

This is a gearfag >>6360189

>>6377928
>The focal length for toys ought to be around 50mm - 75mm in a prime lens

For smaller figures 35mm is better on a crop.
Next to that minimum focal distance is important too though, doesn't help when you have to take several steps back to take a picture of your figure (especially since most people here collect figures in smaller scales).

At least on Canon the 35mm 2.0 I is a cheap and okay choice when you need a prime that allows you to get pretty close to your object (the II version is sadly pretty expensive). The non-Macro 50mm lenses force you to go back too much.

File: gang war faces.jpg (144KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 800x600px

Really glad this thread exists

Can you anons recommend a cheap (less than $300) camera that can take good macro photos with a large depth of field? I'm currently using a Canon PowerShot SD790 IS, which works really well for posting funny pictures on 4chan, but I've been thinking about upgrading.

I really like my camera because it's tiny so I can fit it in close spaces and shoot minifigs from underneath. I also really like its digital zoom function, which I usually keep set at 2.3x because it makes the shots look more immersive.

The things I don't like about it are that its depth of field is pretty shallow when shooting extreme close-ups, which is most of the time, and that its highest resolution is a jpg 1600x1200.

I am super tarded when it comes to cameras.

>>6362200
Honestly it sounds like you might just be retarded.

>>6378078
Macro on digicams usually comes with shallow DoF because the camera struggles with light when you are getting that close to an object. To avoid the picture getting too dark the aperture is being opened wide, which in turn means a smaller sharp area.
However, how some model acts in detail when it only can do auto/has fixed modes I can't tell you (really depends on the camera/manufacturer in detail).

If you shoot manual the best you can do to avoid this is:
>provide more light
Your camera/you aren't forced to tinker with the aperture in order to get more light, because there is enough light already just tweaking with ISO/shutter speed is enough

When you do true macro stuff (like with a dedicated lens and getting as close as possible), it's best done with a static object, lots of light and a tripod. That way you can bump up that aperture, have low ISO, slow shutter without having a shaky and dark picture.

Unfortunately (due to the mentioned reason in the beginning) I cannot tell you a camera for less than 300$ that will definitely act like you want it to act. What you need to achieve that is definitely a camera that a) allows for macro shots and b) gives you full manual choice on settings. Definitely easier with a DSLR, but even an older model with a used lens (especially one that gets you that close with a Minifig) will be way more than 300$.
Macro is unfortunately something most regular cameras don't support right away (or at least not in a way you need it) because it's not something most people need.

File: airborne infantry.jpg (193KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 800x600px

>>6378518
Thank you for your very well thought-out reply!

I got lucky that the random potato I grabbed on a clearance sale turned out to be excellent for shooting the way I want to shoot this, but I figured that there was a pretty steep plateau in front of me.

I wonder if there's a modern version of the Elph that's just like it but better...

File: bateman figure laugh.jpg (86KB, 541x763px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 541x763px

>>6359111
That melon is fucked.

Anyway, I am lucky that my dad had an extra DSLR and barely knows how to use digital cameras so I ended up taking one.

Also, checked.

>>6371256
There's Peaugh, he shoots with an iPhone and edits it on the iMovie app.
Type V3 records on iPhone too I believe.
And so does Jobby.

File: 20140612_173132 - copy.jpg (179KB, 600x798px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 600x798px

>>6386190
I've actually got a number of decent shots on my Samsung Galaxy S7 and even my old S4.

Don't spend more than $200-300 on a camera unless you know exactly what you're looking for. Buy a decent $100 digital camera that gets good reviews and is not too big (like an SLR). Many people who go all out and big some fancy DSLR wind up rarely using it because it's too annoying to carry around. A simple point & shoot that you can slip into your pocket will get way more use. And even then it still might not get carried around because it's just one extra item to carry. Instead, people will just whip out their phone. "A crappy photo is still better than no photo" blah blah blah...

Everyone else here has already hammered away with the usual advice... "It's not the camera, it's the photographer!", "you need more lighting", "you don't need more megapixels", etc... so that's that.

I dunno. I just don't want people wasting their hard-earned money thinking it'll fix some easily correctable problem when they could instead be using that cash for some crack.