Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Camera Recommendations

Looking for a camera that will take nice and clear, hi def(?) photos for a website. 

Or are the camera phones just as good?

Comments

  • johnboy is your man, he will see this and comment no doubt 
  • edited January 24
    Depends what type of images do you want to take? - If you're looking to take the sort of images that Seth shows, then yeah camera phones are bloody decent these days, and will get the job done.

    If you need to start zooming in though, thats when you may need to start thinking about a DSLR or Mirrorless Camera, as the zooming optics of a phone really do start to pixelate the further you zoom in on a shot - But then you also need to think about whether the subject you want to shoot is moving or not.

    Some DSLR's / Mirrorless cameras are really shite when you want to be able to hold your finger on the shutter and get a burst of images - If your shooting something that isn't moving, then it doesnt matter how fast / slow the camera can manage in that scenario - If you're tracking moving wildlife though, you might need to continuously hold down the shutter button and track it, rather than trying to get the one image, so you'll want a camera that can cope with the high burst rate.
  • What sort of images do you want to capture?
    You say for a website...whats the website? are you selling a product or a service?


  • It's only to take photos of installations, which are stationary, so that I can add them straight to socials and the website. Just sick of taking photos with my Galaxy that look good at the time, then time you look at them on a tab or pc, looking really bad.

    I had a Galaxy a few phones ago that took amazing photos, like Seth's, but I've since changed and can't remember what the phone was.

    Looking last night and the DSLR's kept coming up
  • JohnBoyUK said:
    What sort of images do you want to capture?
    You say for a website...whats the website? are you selling a product or a service?


    Yeah, selling a product. They're green rooved bike storage lockers, so there's quite a bit of colour and, as said above, I'd like the photos to look as clear as possible.
  • Gribbo said:
    It's only to take photos of installations, which are stationary, so that I can add them straight to socials and the website. Just sick of taking photos with my Galaxy that look good at the time, then time you look at them on a tab or pc, looking really bad.
    Might just need a basic edit through something like Lightroom, you can get a version of it for Free (I think) on your phone, rather than having to shell out for an Adobe Subscription, albeit just £10 p/m.

    I find DSLRs more fun because you can have full control of the settings

    Of course you can leave it in Automatic mode, but then your using a glorified phone
  • Gribbo said:
    Looking for a camera that will take nice and clear, hi def(?) photos for a website. 

    Or are the camera phones just as good?
    I've got a Canon T90 including set of lenses if you fancy a bit of retro 😁
  • @Gribbo, ah, this is an all too common problem.  Let me explain.

    Your galaxy screen will be so differently calibrated to your monitor or your tablet.  Mobile phone screens are all over saturated and vibrant.  So much more than a pc/mac and thats why colour critical work is usually done on a calibrated monitor.

    Thats one hell of a can of worms opened as @ForeverAddickted will concur.

    However, part of what @ForeverAddickted is true above.  Download Lightroom.  It will help.  But, most importantly, shoot in raw profile, not jpeg.  It will be a setting buried in your phone settings.  So when you put that photo into Lightroom, it will be in a much flatter profile, with all the vibrance/saturated almost removed.  (When Samsung save that file as a jpeg file, they have the highly saturated/vibrance embedded!)

    So at least you've got a chance of tailoring the photo to how you want/need it to look, rather than Samsung telling you how it should look.

    https://www.makeuseof.com/how-to-shoot-raw-photos-samsung-galaxy/

    Do bear in mind though, if you're editing on Lightroom on your phone, it may well still look different in the monitor on your pc/mac.  The only way around it is by calibrating your editing machine with the correct profile for the monitor.

    Make sense?
    If not, give me a shout.
  • Sponsored links:


  • JohnBoyUK said:
    @Gribbo, ah, this is an all too common problem.  Let me explain.

    Your galaxy screen will be so differently calibrated to your monitor or your tablet.  Mobile phone screens are all over saturated and vibrant.  So much more than a pc/mac and thats why colour critical work is usually done on a calibrated monitor.

    Thats one hell of a can of worms opened as @ForeverAddickted will concur.

    However, part of what @ForeverAddickted is true above.  Download Lightroom.  It will help.  But, most importantly, shoot in raw profile, not jpeg.  It will be a setting buried in your phone settings.  So when you put that photo into Lightroom, it will be in a much flatter profile, with all the vibrance/saturated almost removed.  (When Samsung save that file as a jpeg file, they have the highly saturated/vibrance embedded!)

    So at least you've got a chance of tailoring the photo to how you want/need it to look, rather than Samsung telling you how it should look.

    https://www.makeuseof.com/how-to-shoot-raw-photos-samsung-galaxy/

    Do bear in mind though, if you're editing on Lightroom on your phone, it may well still look different in the monitor on your pc/mac.  The only way around it is by calibrating your editing machine with the correct profile for the monitor.

    Make sense?
    If not, give me a shout.
    Cheers fellas, I'll have a look at the settings. Already got Lightroom installed
  • JohnBoyUK said:
    @Gribbo, ah, this is an all too common problem.  Let me explain.

    Your galaxy screen will be so differently calibrated to your monitor or your tablet.  Mobile phone screens are all over saturated and vibrant.  So much more than a pc/mac and thats why colour critical work is usually done on a calibrated monitor.

    Thats one hell of a can of worms opened as @ForeverAddickted will concur.

    However, part of what @ForeverAddickted is true above.  Download Lightroom.  It will help.  But, most importantly, shoot in raw profile, not jpeg.  It will be a setting buried in your phone settings.  So when you put that photo into Lightroom, it will be in a much flatter profile, with all the vibrance/saturated almost removed.  (When Samsung save that file as a jpeg file, they have the highly saturated/vibrance embedded!)

    So at least you've got a chance of tailoring the photo to how you want/need it to look, rather than Samsung telling you how it should look.

    https://www.makeuseof.com/how-to-shoot-raw-photos-samsung-galaxy/

    Do bear in mind though, if you're editing on Lightroom on your phone, it may well still look different in the monitor on your pc/mac.  The only way around it is by calibrating your editing machine with the correct profile for the monitor.

    Make sense?
    If not, give me a shout.
    Pretty much want John said and if you can shoot in raw then process in Lightroom you should notice better results.

    If you do decide to go and get a camera then the future is mirrorless. Nikon, Canon (spit), Fuji, Panasonic, Sony all have good cameras that won’t break the bank. If it’s Nikon avoid the Z30 though as it’s not very good. 
  • I would recommend buying the cheapest new DSLR from either canon or Nikon that you can find.  Entry level dslrs now have the same amount of megapixels that expensive ones had 7-10 years ago and will give you nice sharp photos for a website.  Phone cameras have improved tremendously over the last couple of years but if you are not liking what you are seeing from your phone it might be worth an upgrade. Think along the lines of the canonT7 or Nikon 3500.  If you are taking photos in low light situations (ie indoors or later in the day), you might want to buy a cheap tripod as well.  If you are shooting in auto mode in low light your camera automatically compensates for this and the byproduct is a grainy/noisy photo
  • I'd think you're probably safe to completely ignore the number of pixels. All cameras have so many nowadays that unless you're looking at high end art shots, it's a red herring. But it is a red herring that sales people will use. Of far more importance is sensor size. If you have a small sensor with a huge number of pixels crammed onto it, the sensitivity and accuracy of each cell of that sensor will be reduced in comparison to having a similar number of pixels on on bigger sensor. I'm certainly not saying you need full frame - if I'm being honest I suspect that's probably overkill. But if you're looking at like for like between similar models, having a slightly bigger sensor might be a useful deciding factor at least in terms of image quality. 
  • BDL said:
    JohnBoyUK said:
    @Gribbo, ah, this is an all too common problem.  Let me explain.

    Your galaxy screen will be so differently calibrated to your monitor or your tablet.  Mobile phone screens are all over saturated and vibrant.  So much more than a pc/mac and thats why colour critical work is usually done on a calibrated monitor.

    Thats one hell of a can of worms opened as @ForeverAddickted will concur.

    However, part of what @ForeverAddickted is true above.  Download Lightroom.  It will help.  But, most importantly, shoot in raw profile, not jpeg.  It will be a setting buried in your phone settings.  So when you put that photo into Lightroom, it will be in a much flatter profile, with all the vibrance/saturated almost removed.  (When Samsung save that file as a jpeg file, they have the highly saturated/vibrance embedded!)

    So at least you've got a chance of tailoring the photo to how you want/need it to look, rather than Samsung telling you how it should look.

    https://www.makeuseof.com/how-to-shoot-raw-photos-samsung-galaxy/

    Do bear in mind though, if you're editing on Lightroom on your phone, it may well still look different in the monitor on your pc/mac.  The only way around it is by calibrating your editing machine with the correct profile for the monitor.

    Make sense?
    If not, give me a shout.
    Pretty much want John said and if you can shoot in raw then process in Lightroom you should notice better results.

    If you do decide to go and get a camera then the future is mirrorless. Nikon, Canon (spit), Fuji, Panasonic, Sony all have good cameras that won’t break the bank. If it’s Nikon avoid the Z30 though as it’s not very good. 
    Whats wrong with Canon? - Apart from the fact that the twats have decided to block any third party development on their RF Mount - Such a brainless decision, when you can slap on an EF Adapter and still use third party glass!!
  • I now have 4 Canon cameras. 2 with interchangeable lenses. Traded up on second hand cameras through CEX shops. They come with a 2 year warranty. Fairly good cameras for around £60 to £80. 
  • When you've got an idea of what camera you want to buy. Go on Flickr, and search for images with that model name. That should give you a good idea whether or not you can get the quality you want out of that model. Though do be aware that people might be using other stuff (lenses, filters, lighting, post-processing) that's different.
  • on the same theme, any recommendations re binoculars? Doing two weeks around the Scottish West Coast in April and would like to pair to look at scenery, spot wildlife etc. Don’t want to go mad though, £100 tops. 
  • edited January 24
    I'm very happy with mine: Bresser Hunter 8x40. They are well built with a rubberised body. For the price, the optics are decent but obviously aren't going to be top of the range. From memory they were about £80, but with inflation I'd expect them to be nearer a ton now.

  • on the same theme, any recommendations re binoculars? Doing two weeks around the Scottish West Coast in April and would like to pair to look at scenery, spot wildlife etc. Don’t want to go mad though, £100 tops. 
    The firm I currently work for import Minox. The X-lite 8x26 retail for around £125. 

    They come out of a high end company and their rifle scopes are very good, but not too sure about the binos
  • Sponsored links:


  • BDL said:
    JohnBoyUK said:
    @Gribbo, ah, this is an all too common problem.  Let me explain.

    Your galaxy screen will be so differently calibrated to your monitor or your tablet.  Mobile phone screens are all over saturated and vibrant.  So much more than a pc/mac and thats why colour critical work is usually done on a calibrated monitor.

    Thats one hell of a can of worms opened as @ForeverAddickted will concur.

    However, part of what @ForeverAddickted is true above.  Download Lightroom.  It will help.  But, most importantly, shoot in raw profile, not jpeg.  It will be a setting buried in your phone settings.  So when you put that photo into Lightroom, it will be in a much flatter profile, with all the vibrance/saturated almost removed.  (When Samsung save that file as a jpeg file, they have the highly saturated/vibrance embedded!)

    So at least you've got a chance of tailoring the photo to how you want/need it to look, rather than Samsung telling you how it should look.

    https://www.makeuseof.com/how-to-shoot-raw-photos-samsung-galaxy/

    Do bear in mind though, if you're editing on Lightroom on your phone, it may well still look different in the monitor on your pc/mac.  The only way around it is by calibrating your editing machine with the correct profile for the monitor.

    Make sense?
    If not, give me a shout.
    Pretty much want John said and if you can shoot in raw then process in Lightroom you should notice better results.

    If you do decide to go and get a camera then the future is mirrorless. Nikon, Canon (spit), Fuji, Panasonic, Sony all have good cameras that won’t break the bank. If it’s Nikon avoid the Z30 though as it’s not very good. 
    Whats wrong with Canon? - Apart from the fact that the twats have decided to block any third party development on their RF Mount - Such a brainless decision, when you can slap on an EF Adapter and still use third party glass!!
    You answered your own question 😜 though waiting for third-party Z glass is almost as bad. 
  • BDL said:
    BDL said:
    JohnBoyUK said:
    @Gribbo, ah, this is an all too common problem.  Let me explain.

    Your galaxy screen will be so differently calibrated to your monitor or your tablet.  Mobile phone screens are all over saturated and vibrant.  So much more than a pc/mac and thats why colour critical work is usually done on a calibrated monitor.

    Thats one hell of a can of worms opened as @ForeverAddickted will concur.

    However, part of what @ForeverAddickted is true above.  Download Lightroom.  It will help.  But, most importantly, shoot in raw profile, not jpeg.  It will be a setting buried in your phone settings.  So when you put that photo into Lightroom, it will be in a much flatter profile, with all the vibrance/saturated almost removed.  (When Samsung save that file as a jpeg file, they have the highly saturated/vibrance embedded!)

    So at least you've got a chance of tailoring the photo to how you want/need it to look, rather than Samsung telling you how it should look.

    https://www.makeuseof.com/how-to-shoot-raw-photos-samsung-galaxy/

    Do bear in mind though, if you're editing on Lightroom on your phone, it may well still look different in the monitor on your pc/mac.  The only way around it is by calibrating your editing machine with the correct profile for the monitor.

    Make sense?
    If not, give me a shout.
    Pretty much want John said and if you can shoot in raw then process in Lightroom you should notice better results.

    If you do decide to go and get a camera then the future is mirrorless. Nikon, Canon (spit), Fuji, Panasonic, Sony all have good cameras that won’t break the bank. If it’s Nikon avoid the Z30 though as it’s not very good. 
    Whats wrong with Canon? - Apart from the fact that the twats have decided to block any third party development on their RF Mount - Such a brainless decision, when you can slap on an EF Adapter and still use third party glass!!
    You answered your own question 😜 though waiting for third-party Z glass is almost as bad. 
    Yeah not surprised with that answer :D - Both are just playing into Sony's hands at the moment
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!