It turned out that I never picked up a camera last year due to lack of money. But this year, I have the money to do it.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/333a8/333a8ecbe33ea89eeadd7a334b24f05351d6e51d" alt="Smile :)"
I'm looking at about $200-$250 range max.HighOctane_Jared wrote:those are pretty mediocre cameras. I just got a Casio Exilim for $200 and I am extremely impressed (its a compact too). It takes better pictures then the $350 huge kodak my parents just got.
You need to learn how to use manual focus, and all the other settings, such as ISO and exposure. Mine has up to a 60 second focus, I have gotten some really good pictures.
If you want to get really intense, get a Canon Rebel. But unless you know how to use it, the results will come out poor.
I got a Digital Rebel XT for graduation but this is what I was looking at before being surprised with the graduation gift. It has awesome ratings and is the same megapixel as my Rebel...[]V[]essenjah wrote:I was just wondering what the best Digital Camera for a 3D artist? For say, using the camera to take pictures of nice patterns for photo realistic textures inside Photoshop. I plan to use it to take pictures especially of rock, tiles and metal of different sorts. I would also like a zoom of about 4x at least. From what I understand, it's optical zoom that you want. Any recommendations?
It turned out that I never picked up a camera last year due to lack of money. But this year, I have the money to do it.
There would be no noticable difference between the 8 and 10. Since money is a factor, and according to consumer reports, the camera in my link has better quality than the ones you show and is cheaper... plus it ships for free.[]V[]essenjah wrote:But how much of a difference with the megapixels make for such a high resolution? Especially between the ranges of 7.2 to 10 megapixels?
I should not have said lower quality, I was in a hurry when I posted and I saw Samsung. We never had any luck with that brand.[]V[]essenjah wrote:Better quality? How so? It does have 8 Megapixels but the ones I show are between 7.2 and 10. Also, the camera you show is about 4X Optical Zoom. These range from 6X-12X. 12X= 4 times the optical zoom of the camera you pointed out. Wouldn't it?
The one I like has 6X optical zoom and 10 megapixels.
Still better than 4X optical zoom and 8 megapixels.
I'm just a little confuzzled.
Hey Thrawn, could you explain exactly what macro is and what I'm looking for with Macro and Flash?
I don't know much about macro. I go the other way using a canon 70-200 f2.8L but according to the canon site for that camera... (select features and scroll down)[]V[]essenjah wrote:Looks like that Cannon has macro. What is a good macro range would you say?
Also, about external flash.... from what I was told, that allows you to remove the flash. Can't you just shut the flash function off?
BTW Thrawn, I ran a search on there and I'm not seeing any cameras with external flash for under $300. Which is my price range. :\\
As for the flash, you can always turn it off on the camera and use some inexpensive studio lights if the textures are indoors. If outdoors, you can use a reflective mirror to brighten the subject.[]V[]essenjah wrote:http://www.cgtextures.com/
That is a great example of the kinds of textures I'm looking at shooting.
I did some reading on external flash. Basically, it is supposed to even out the light a little bit better, but it is recommended that rather than do that, aim the flash up at the ceiling as it will still be very uneven.
I'll quote a statement by a guy that does photography for that site on macro functionality:
"A macro lens is not needed either, unless you want to photograph from very closeup (insects, coins, etc). Most textures are a bit too 'rough' when you photograph them really closeup, so they are not very useful. You can also use a macro lens for normal photography ofcourse, it can also photograph objects from a distance."
Another interesting quote:
"If you want a camera purely for texture shooting get a SLR and a non-zoom lens (also called a 'prime' lens). Prime lenses are very sharp and usually have no distortion, these are the two most important things for a texture. Since you only want to take pictures of static objects you can afford to walk back and forth to get your whole object in the picture. Most if my pictures are shot with a prime 50mm f1.8 Nikkor lens which cost me about 100$. This lens has no distortion at all (so straight lines stay straight), and is very sharp and light sensitive. " -Marcel
The problem though, is that SLR camera's are very out of my range and I'd like to have one that is decent for texture work, but also is useful for taking on trips. Especially since I'll be using it a lot for taking pictures for textures when I go on trips.We spend a lot of our trips in canyons in Utah or places like Wyoming. Even Colorado in places like Mesa Verde (we went there last year).
I also occasionally go to airshows when I get a chance.