I read the NYT article Gary cites, and he seemed to me somewhat more enthusiastic and forgiving in general than most reviewers. However, even DPreview (no pushovers), when reviewing the f50 said that it was a very good camera, and even noting ints inferiority to the f30/31, found that it eked out a "higly recommended" designation. So, I was actually still considering it.

Therefore, I'm curious to know what in particular about the f50 made you (Gary) wish you'd bought something else. Was it the low-light performance under discussion, or other issues?

Among the many cameras I've had / currently have is an F50. I generally shoot at its 6-megapixel setting using manual aperture and shutter adjustments. It's my shove-in-the-pocket-when-heading-out-the-door camera and I've been pleased with the results.

I did read the criticism about shoving more mega-pixels into the sensor and I'll trust that the criticisms are valid. However, at least in my experience, and given the messages that I'm trying to convey with these photos, I've had only good experiences with this camera. Granted, my subjects these days tend to be kids running around a playground or a half-eaten cheeseburger that will generate - at max - an 8x10 print.

Besides DPReview.com and other photo equipment blogs, I like to look through Pbase.com's Camera Database for examples of images taken by various cameras.

When I care about image quality more than convenience or portability, I'll grab the SLR and a prime lens. It's a cost-benefit analysis, like everything else. But, of course, now I'm wondering about the Canon SD-1100. As if I needed an excuse to pick up a new camera. Thanks a lot, Gary...

ChgoMike wrote:I did read the criticism about shoving more mega-pixels into the sensor and I'll trust that the criticisms are valid. However, at least in my experience, and given the messages that I'm trying to convey with these photos, I've had only good experiences with this camera. Granted, my subjects these days tend to be kids running around a playground or a half-eaten cheeseburger that will generate - at max - an 8x10 print.

I think it is, generally speaking, a very good camera. But when you're talking restaurant food photography, this is the image comparison, taken at 1600 ISO (which is what I use for low light restaurant situations) from dpreview that sent me running to eBay:



I'd read about the change in image quality elsewhere, but the dpreview sample shots really hammered it home. That'd be the F50 on the left, and the F31fd on the right -- not just noticeably crisper, but a lot crisper despite being two generations older. There are a lot more comparison shots in dpreview's piece on the F50 and they're almost all like this at the higher ISOs. It's still much better than other similarly priced cameras, but it's not nearly as good as the F30 and F31.

For what it's worth, the successor has been released - the F100fd. I haven't seen any comprehensive reviews, yet. I'm anxious to hear what the photo press thinks of this new machine.

Thought I'd bring this thread back to life. I'm looking at buying a new camera sometime this week. So I thought I would start here, as I too am looking to primarily use it for food pictures. I'm looking through some of the suggestions upthread but know that digital cameras update and new ones come out frequently so was wondering if there were any new suggestions.

Thanks!
Heather

Heather,

I am not currently in the market but have obviously faced the same dilemma. What is your budget for the camera? Is physical size an issue?

The best food pics are generally taken with digital SLRs that are pricey. But you can do great things with a $200 camera that fits in your pocket. My camera is such, and is already long outdated, but able to take pictures such as these, chosen on a whim:

Both from Steve's Shish Kabob last year:



That's with no retouching, not even idealizing size. I'd tell you what camera I took those with, but it is long not available.

In the end, it's not the camera, but the photographer, the inspiration, and the subject. The best songs I have written don't sound much different on my $200 guitar or my $5000 dollar one.

-ramon

I'd be willing to spend up to 300 but would prefer to spend in the two hundred range. I know SLR's are the way to go, but it's just not in the cards right now. Or anytime in the near future. I don't really know much about digital cameras so don't really know what functions to even look for. Any suggestions at all would be helpful.

Ok, Heather!

>$300 digital camera primarily for food photography

The best rule I learned about taking good food pics is never to use the flash. So you need a camera that excels in low-light conditions (natural light is best, but anything is better than a flash) and is good at macros (intense close-ups!). Stability control is also a very good thing. That's your starting point. Others will help below.

-ramon

The world is full of really quite nice $200 cameras with very much the same features. SLRs are a step up in quality, but they're also ten times as big and heavy. I started carrying a pocket camera after a professional photographer told me I was crazy if I thought I'd ever get pictures of my kids doing something cute in the time it takes to find the bag, open it, get the camera out, and aim.

I like Canons, which would suggest something like this, but somebody else could make an equal case for another brand.

The real step up in quality is to learn how not to take crappy pictures, and how to take pretty ones. My perpetual best photographic advice for the food photographer has nothing directly to do with the camera: go at lunch, and sit by a window. If it's a little overcast, or the food is especially photogenic, you can get something wonderful.

The other great advice (this goes for all art) is: take 50 pictures. Throw 49 away.

Also, at the risk of revealing the man behind the curtain, I'm personally of the opinion that you're better off spending $300 on a $200 camera and Photoshop Elements than you are spending it on a $300 camera.

I'm not a fan of actual touchups (feels dishonest to me), but when it comes to basic exposure and color correction, the digital darkroom is frequently undervalued:





And I couldn't agree more with Ramon's sentiment above. Even setting aside the courtesy issue, flash is your enemy.

For my money, I have never owned a better point-and-shoot than the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX30. It's around $200. It has a high-quality Leica lens that (at the time of its release) was the largest lens of any cameras it's size.

It's small, durable, has a great screen, and the presets for things like closeups or landscapes actually work.

If you are interested here are some recent untouched flash-free photos, taken point-and-shoot style in natural light:
http://flickr.com/photos/mmchicago/2800845023/
http://flickr.com/photos/mmchicago/2800832551/
http://flickr.com/photos/mmchicago/2782804482/
http://flickr.com/photos/mmchicago/2632947917/

Best,
Michael

Ramon wrote:Stability control is also a very good thing.

How is this measured? We've got a Kodak something or other, I hate the flash, but no-flash almost always leads to blurry. It has to be something in the camera, but I'm not sure how to avoid this in the future, in terms of looking for camera features. A tripod is not an acceptable answer.

Hi,

I am in the market for a camera presently. I have an inherited trait of a slight (and annoying) tremor in my hands. I have been borrowing a camera with optical stability. I find I am still having to take several pictures to get one that is perfect. Unless I get one of this portable stands, I am still confined to taking multiple pictures. However I always find one I like and toss the rest.

Regards,

Aaron Deacon wrote:

Ramon wrote:Stability control is also a very good thing.

How is this measured? We've got a Kodak something or other, I hate the flash, but no-flash almost always leads to blurry. It has to be something in the camera, but I'm not sure how to avoid this in the future, in terms of looking for camera features. A tripod is not an acceptable answer.

Forgive me if I'm going over information you already know, Aaron, but have you tried manually increasing the ISO on your camera? Higher ISO = more sensitivity = shorter shutter speed = less blur. The downside being that with digital cameras, you get noise at higher ISO.

Dmnkly wrote:Forgive me if I'm going over information you already know, Aaron, but have you tried manually increasing the ISO on your camera? Higher ISO = more sensitivity = shorter shutter speed = less blur. The downside being that with digital cameras, you get noise at higher ISO.

Yes, you're gonna get a little graininess in the photo, but I do this often in lower light.

Also, I've learned the "makeshift tripod" trick of propping the camera atop a glass of water or some other stable item on the table. I even use my wallet sometimes, stood up on one side.

Have you seen these gorillapods? I have one and love it! They are very compact and perfect for the tabletop.

Dmnkly wrote:Forgive me if I'm going over information you already know, Aaron, but have you tried manually increasing the ISO on your camera? Higher ISO = more sensitivity = shorter shutter speed = less blur. The downside being that with digital cameras, you get noise at higher ISO.

I'm kind of an idiot with cameras. Don't even know what "ISO" means. But I have tried to see if there was any obvious way to shorten the shutter speed, and I haven't found it. I should probably look harder.

Thanks, all, for the tips.

I am an idiot when it comes to cameras and dont have many food pictures to post because my wife wont let me take photos when we are out to dinner. Most of my food images are taken on my sad little blackberry camera.

However, my Nikon D80 DSLR is the best digital camera that I have ever owned. I find it annoying that digital point and shoot cameras dont react as quickly as regular camera when you press the button and i find i often miss the shot. This does not happen with a DSLR (The D80 shoot almost three images a second). The images are incredible and it is incredibly easy to use in full auto mode, even for an idiot like me. The downsides are size and price. Abes of Maine has it for about $750, down $100+ from when i bought it. It is definitley not pocket or purse portable, but I dont really mind. I cannot recommend this camera more highly.

Pucca,

Can you comfortably keep the gorillapod in your purse? If yes, then it is on my list of things to purchase.

Regards,

If it helps, I love our little Olympus Stylus 770SW - it has a macro feature for food with a little LED light (though it only works for EXTREME close-ups) and it's shatterproof and waterproof, which I find indispensible when photographing while cooking. Except the really blurry obviously phone-camera shots, all of my pics are taken with it. It does have image stabalization, but that feature only works if you don't use a function that decreases the shutter speed - and it also has a "shoot and select" feature I find handy when taking action shots.

Professional photographer I am not, so the fact that isn't much of a think-factor with this camera, and it fits in my purse, and it's nigh on indestructible are huge plusses.

That, and I'm with Dom in that I don't mind tweaking the color if it gets the color back where it was to begin with - which I don't often have to do (For reference, none of my picnic photos are retouched at all, just cropped.)

Cathy2 wrote:Pucca,

Can you comfortably keep the gorillapod in your purse? If yes, then it is on my list of things to purchase.

Regards,

Yes, and I have been known to carry small handbags! You just have to detach it from the camera before inserting it in your handbag. I have the original size. You can get it at BestBuy or REI if you want to see it in person.

Mike G wrote:I like Canons, which would suggest something like this, but somebody else could make an equal case for another brand.

I have the the SD870 IS which is a minor upgrade over the one Mike mentioned. It has image stabilization and and auto-ISO shift that can be turned on, off, or toggled with a button. I find this helpful.

The other nice thing about this camera is the huge-seeming 3" LCD that covers nearly the entire back of the body.

Natural light is a big help:



But I also firmly believe this:

Mike G wrote:The other great advice (this goes for all art) is: take 50 pictures. Throw 49 away.

gastro gnome wrote:But I also firmly believe this:

Mike G wrote:The other great advice (this goes for all art) is: take 50 pictures. Throw 49 away.

But doesn't that waste a lot of film?

=R=

btw, I agree, too.

Mike G wrote:The other great advice (this goes for all art) is: take 50 pictures. Throw 49 away.

Heather,

That means you need a camera that takes pictures quickly, both from power-on to between-shots. I think the statistical phrase is "shutter lag time" but someone can correct me below.

My camera is always set to burst, which means I automatically take more than one pic at a time.

One of my own favorite shots was composed with me holding a Hello Kitty light, off-camera, to light the sandwich.

-ramon

Heather,

That means you need a camera that takes pictures quickly, both from power-on to between-shots. I think the statistical phrase is "shutter lag time" but someone can correct me below.

My camera is always set to burst, which means I automatically take more than one pic at a time.

One of my own favorite shots was composed with me holding a Hello Kitty light, off-camera, to light the sandwich.

-ramon

Thank you so much for the explanation. I've been reading all day and a lot of what everyone is saying makes sense, but goes over my head. The one class I wish I took in school was a photography class but it never happened.

I do however want a camera for when I start culinary school in a few weeks, so it literally will primarily be for food use.

Thanks for all the help, I guess I should really start looking

Heather22 wrote:Thanks for all the help, I guess I should really start looking

When you look, be sure to check out DP Review. Exhaustive reviews of most of the cameras out there with all kinds of samples. If you're a camera noob, 90% of it will go over your head, but they still do a great job of finishing each review by summing up pros and cons in a more approachable manner, and they know their stuff. An absolutely fantastic resource.

Hi,

The camera I have been considering is the Canon SD890 largely due to zoom and the somewhat larger diameter the lens.

What bothers me is I may be just as happy with the camera Mike linked to for $150 less.

I'm glad Heather22 woke up this issue, because it may get me off the fence.

Regards,

Cathy2 wrote:Hi,

The camera I have been considering is the Canon SD890 largely due to zoom and the somewhat larger diameter the lens.

What bothers me is I may be just as happy with the camera Mike linked to for $150 less.

I'm glad Heather22 woke up this issue, because it may get me off the fence.

Regards,

Anything I can do to help!

The gigantic photo trade show, Photokina, which is held every 2 years, is coming up on September 23. A flurry of digital camera announcements from all of the manufacturers usually precedes it. If you wait until then, you may hear about a new camera that better meets your needs or a price reduction on an existing model that is now discontinued.

Bill/SFNM

Can anyone recommend a decent 'point-and-shoot' that can shoot in RAW format? I've looked at the recently-discontinued Canon G9 -- which did offer this feature -- but I was scared off by a consensus of a specific negative feedback. And the discontinuation of the model didn't instill much confidence, either.

I love my Canon 20D SLR because it takes fantastic images. It's so responsive and versatile, too. But I'll admit that there are times when I'd like to be more covert and having a smaller camera would be helpful in that regard. I do have a few others (a tiny Olympus, Nikon Coolpix 5400) but they don't deliver the image quality I'm seeking.

Anyone know of a good one?

=R=