I am an old SLR guy, having a quartet of Nikons (Two NikkorMats, a F2 and a F3). So I know what good lenses (have 14 Nikkors) and sharpness are all about.

Also have a Sony Mavica, first generation. I use the Mavica for photos of things to post here on AR (most of you have seen the photos) and various gun photos to send to customers.

I really like the Mavica as it used 3-1/2 inch diskettes, easy to transfer the images to the computer.

But, the Mavica is very dificult to obtain sharp photos with. Focusing in manual is impossible, not enough difference when turning the focus adjustment. Throw in a little poor light and the photo is very fuzzy, even when I use a tripod.

So, my thinking is it is time to upgrade to a new camera with more resolution. (Meaning more mega pixles??)

I looked at a late generation Mavica yesterday, this one used small CD's and I think it has a card or memory, did not have enough time to check it out. It is a 2.0 mega pixle unit. But, after reading some of the posts here, looks like a 4.0 mega pixle camera or so may be better??

I take photos of: Guns, shop machinery and setups, small items like bullets & cartridges, tools, etc. And I am working on a book of shop techniques, I would like to use digital photos for the illustrations. Lighting in the shop is overhead fluorescent. I often take the gun photos outside in ambient light.

So, any comments on cameras? Any experience out there with obtaining sharp photos of similar items that I take photos of?

[ 04-08-2003, 08:45: Message edited by: John Ricks ]

The cats meow with current technology would be one of the digital SLR. Choice of any of the makers' lenses and along with all the bells and whistles. It eliminates shutter lag found on many of the digital cameras that make moving pictures difficult. Downside will be added cost and larger camera/lenses. A new body for a Canon 10D is about $1,500 US.

Some of the newer non SLR digital cameras are pretty nifty. The Canon G3 has a pretty fast lens and has a a good size file. Nikon has camera's in the same ballpark like the 5700 and 5000. Cost on these are going to be about $600 and up.

If you have older Nikon Lenses, you might be able to use them on one of the Nikon SLR's--I don't know the compatibility issues.

No, I am not concerned with using old Nikkor lenses on a digital, I am sure this is out of the question.

I am just after a digital that gives sharp images of small objects up close. The lense and zoom of the Mavica is fine, just a sharpness issue of the final product.

John,

As you have so many Nikon lenses, why don't you take a good look at the Nikon D100?

The reason I say this is that no fixed lense camera is going to give you the versatility and sharpness of an SLR.

If you still do not wish to spend this much on a camera, I recommend you take a look at the Nikon CoolPix 5700 and the Canon S50.

Both are 5 MB cameras, but the Nikon has an 8x optical zoom.

I have tried both, and have the Nikon 5700, but it is not as good as the Nikon D1x of course.

Any camera you purchase today will knock spots off your old Mavica.

John,

If you are sold on going digital you might want to check out reviews on sites like www.zdnet.com

Depending on your needs you might not want to rule out taking the pics with your 35mm, then purchasing a decent scanner (I just picked up an excellent one - even scans negatives) for under $150. This allows you the flexibility and experience you already have with your current equip. Technology is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't mean that the old stuff still doesn't do a great job.

Hello John, You could certainly use many of your Nikkor lenses with a digital SLR like the D100, or D1 series camera as long as they are at least AI lenses. Some of the features of the camera won't work but of course that would be expected. You will see a 1.5x multiplication factor of the lens focal length but the speed stays the same. I don't think a 2Meg Mavica would produce images that would be suitable for publishing in a book or magazine. All pixels are not created equal. I have a D1H and I would say it is right on the borderline for publishing work - most editors say it doesn't have enough res. but I think sometimes they are misinformed too. A D100 is about 2K and a D1X has dropped to about 3800. The D100 is not near as rugged as the D1,H&X body. My personal opinion is the D1X will do a lot for several years to come. I think the super high res cameras that are on the leading edge are more about having the biggest this or that and won't have much of an effect on overall quality of the image of normal sized photos.

I wouldn't even consider a camera that used floppies, the higher res cameras more than fill a floppy with just one image. CF cards are the way to go right now a 1G card is only about 600. As you move into higher res images computing power can also become an issue. You really need about 256 Megs of ram and 1G wouldn't be too much. Better be able to burn CD's or DVD's too or the hard disk will fill up in a jiffy.

Nikon is tops for macro photos

John-
As a Nikon user as well, I'm here to tell you the best route is to stick to your current setup and simply have your lab burn a CD from your roll of film. Granted, it's not an instant proposition as digital is, but the quality is far better.

The quality of digital will be better in another year or so, and the prices will be coming down also.

Stick with the old Nikons. They are my bread and butter, so to speak -- and with these cameras and lenses, there's simply no comparison.

John i'm with BT on this. Utilize the equipment that you now have & are fimilar with too. Have a lab burn cd when you have the film processed. The problem with digital cameras currently is like it was with computors a few years back. It's a game of catch-up. The technology is rapidly advancing to the point that not long after you buy a digital (except for the very expensive ones) they fast become outdated. This is what has kept me from going digital. Also an important feature that manufactures have been slow to include in the disigns of the midrange priced cameras is a hot shoe which I consider essential. I have been using www.MysticColorLab.com for about 10 years now & there work is excellent & the turn around is fast. I'm certain that you can find an equally good outfit on the West coast.

I have been very impressed with the Canon S45.

It's only a point & shoot but with 4.0 megapixels and a lot of optional settings (including macro, various exposure modes including manual, B&W, etc.) you can do a lot with it.

Rather than slow everyone down by posting entire photos, here are a couple links:

Ruger .280 still life

Shot tripod-mounted on slow exposure mode to get rid of flash reflections, then underexposed a couple stops to take off some shine. Lighting was a 6-bulb 40w chandelier in my dining room. If I were doing it over I might set a custom white balance.
Black & white panorama

The first one I tried, shot out the window of a Chevy Suburban.

Trophy photo

Photographed by Kyler Hamann -- flash photo (obviously) and underexposed a bit to take some of the shine off my face & pants.

Possibly of note in terms of resolution, is that all of these were reduced 50% for use on the web. (The panorama alone is a 1.2 MB file and couldn't be uploaded to my website in its original form.)

I believe I originally shot all of them except the .280 using image size M2 (the second smallest, which Canon considers suitable for 4x6 prints) and standard resolution. The .280 may have been shot on fine or superfine.

On "M2/standard" the camera can hold about 150 shots.

John

Take a look at the Nikon Coolpix 3100...about $300 and very user friendly.

John i'm still pushing this one from Olympus.
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_product_lobbypage.asp?l=1&p=16&bc=2&product=910

Cannon G2 owner/lover.

[ 05-31-2003, 18:00: Message edited by: Zero Drift ]

This from my Canon S40 this AM and shot(mistakenly) upon it's poorest resolution setting and further compromised by Imagestation.

I have abundant 35mm equipment,but it's all on the back burner. Purchasing today,I'd opt the 5 mega-pixel version of same in the S50.

Your mileage may vary..................

I too was in your position. I just carry on with my Nikons and got a Prime 1800 U film scanner. Makes beautiful image files to 11 meg. Takes a big dollar digital camera to even come close.

John,

From your post I take it you want to use this as a tool for pics to quickly send out over the net if the need arises.

I too was faced with this question about 6 months ago.I wanted to start selling my pipe collection on ebay. That meant lots of close ups of small items.

Here's one of the auctions, be sure to supersize the picture.
Pipe

I have very little photo experience and no digital until now.

I researched for 6 months and decided that best one for my purposes was the Canon G3. It was a good price at the time, $600, probably cheaper now.

Easy learning curve, great shots.

I use it with the Remote capture feature which allows me to set all the controls and view through the lens, but all on my computer. I shoot from the keyboard.

Check out this site for great tech reviews and comparisons. Digital Camera Review

Regards,
Rob Di Stasio

BTW I may want a .404 Jeffery's like the one you're making for Rusty. Can it be done on a 1935 Chilean mauser action?

[ 07-06-2003, 02:08: Message edited by: Recoil Rob ]

I had 2 Canon's in a year that both just died for no apparent reason. I now have Sony's and have been pretty happy. You could find something like a dsc-75 (possibly) or 85 pretty reasonably these days, I think. I'd say you'd want a minimum 2 meg or so, w/ above 3 being better. If you can afford the 4 and 5 meg ones, better still. But you can get a camera that will do as good or better than a basic 35mm for $300-$400.

I have an olympus c-730 and really like the 10x optical zoom for longer distances.It is relatively easy to use and reasonably priced.

[ 07-12-2003, 07:59: Message edited by: stubblejumper ]

I too am trying to find THE digital camera. I have been using 35mm SLRs for years and did a lot of dark room work (very satisfying). About every 3-6 months I go by a few camera shops to see what's up and have yet to take the plunge. The shutter lag on the digitals I've actually tried is totally unacceptable. Resolution is another big issue. When digital cams first appeared they were rated in resolution (eg 1024x768) now it's MegaPixels. Some sales guy told me that a 2.1 MegaPixel digital was the minimum acceptable to reach 35mm 'snap shot' level, so I'd probably want to at least double that. If you're doing macro work with a ring flash I'd be interested in knowing what you buy. The ability to review a shot in the field with the little battery burning LCD display to see if you need to take another shot of the animal that just disappeared back into the woods is handled on SLRs by 'bracketing' shots. I think I'll stick with film (and scanners or CDs made during development) until I see a real reason to buy another camera just because it's digital. To each their own...

Cheers,
XWind