ronnie_suburban wrote: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.

All of the pros and serious amateurs I know who have one heap praise on the G9. Rumor is that the scarcity of the G9 is due to the upcoming announcement of the G10 at Photokina. Nikon recently announced a P&S with "RAW" capabilities, but unless you use Nikon editing software, this new "RAW" is only going to be supported under Windows.

Bill/SFNM

Bill/SFNM wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote: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.

All of the pros and serious amateurs I know who have one heap praise on the G9. Rumor is that the scarcity of the G9 is due to the upcoming announcement of the G10 at Photokina. Nikon recently announced a P&S with "RAW" capabilities, but unless you use Nikon editing software, this new "RAW" is only going to be supported under Windows.

Bill/SFNM

Thanks, Bill, for the excellent information. I really appreciate it. The few folks I know who own G9's really love them, too. But I've also read some negative things about the color balancing and that point seems to come up in many different conversations. It'll be interesting to see how the G10's work out.

=R=

Perhaps interesting to some, I just stumbled across Panasonic's soon-to-be-out DMC-G1. This is a revolutionary digital SLR, using something called Micro Four Thirds, a mirrorless design, that allows the camera to be significantly smaller and lighter than traditional SLRs. It is still far from pocket-sized, but it looks like that day maybe coming soon.

-ramon

Canon G10 has been announced. Looks very nice on paper.

Against my better judgment, I will be purchasing a digital SLR this week. I've narrowed my choices down to the Nikon D80, which I have used and like, and the Canon Rebel XSi, which I'm leaning toward because of the live-view display.

Help me blow my money responsibly!

-ramon

Ramon wrote: and the Canon Rebel XSi, which I'm leaning toward because of the live-view display.

Hey Ramon, I highly recommend the XSi. Are you getting it with the kit lens? It has image stabilization and can focus fairly well even with those extreme closeup shots for food. Not exactly macro, but close enough.

Ramon wrote:Against my better judgment, I will be purchasing a digital SLR this week. I've narrowed my choices down to the Nikon D80, which I have used and like, and the Canon Rebel XSi, which I'm leaning toward because of the live-view display.

Help me blow my money responsibly!

-ramon

ramon,

Ultimately, this decision will depend a lot on what your photo needs/goals are and how much money you want to spend. I owned the D80 for about a year and ended up selling it because I was not very happy with it for food shots. Not that I didn't take some nice photos with it, but I always seemed to be fighting the exposure system, having to take more than a few shots before I got it just right. I didn't much like the 18-135mm kit lens either - too slow for indoor food shots. . Thom Hogan, highly respected Nikon reviewer, recently said of the D80: "Old before its time, now retired". Can't comment about Canon.

Bill/SFNM

kanin wrote:

Ramon wrote: and the Canon Rebel XSi, which I'm leaning toward because of the live-view display.

Hey Ramon, I highly recommend the XSi. Are you getting it with the kit lens? It has image stabilization and can focus fairly well even with those extreme closeup shots for food. Not exactly macro, but close enough.

Kanin,

I was planning on getting the kit lens if I purchased the XSi, in part because image stabilization is a must for me. I plan to obsess about additional lenses later. Are the gorgeous pictures on your linked blog taken with the XSi and the kit lens?

-ramon

Bill/SFNM wrote:ramon,

Ultimately, this decision will depend a lot on what your photo needs/goals are and how much money you want to spend. I owned the D80 for about a year and ended up selling it because I was not very happy with it for food shots. Not that I didn't take some nice photos with it, but I always seemed to be fighting the exposure system, having to take more than a few shots before I got it just right. I didn't much like the 18-135mm kit lens either - to slow for indoor food shots. . Thom Hogan, highly respected Nikon reviewer, recently said of the D80: "Old before its time, now retired". Can't comment about Canon.

Bill/SFNM

Bill,

Your advice is appreciated as your photography is top notch.

Well, you've pretty much nixed the D80 for me now. Besides, I have one available to me if I want it bad enough.

I'm actually against the purchase all together as I am quite satisfied with my food and other pics with my $200 Panasonic. But my art student daughter simply must have one. Despite buying her boat load of cameras over the years, including a traditional SLR, I don't remember her ever taking anything all that memorable, and the camera is not going to change that. Maybe the photography course will.

Odds are, I will be the one to use the camera the most, in any meaningful way (I hope I'm wrong. I just bought the younger daughter a trumpet, and I hope I'm wrong about that too.) If you ask my family, they will say I take pictures of nothing but food, so the camera must take good food pics. So the overt goals are a good, all around, entry level, digital SLR, while the covert goals are in the hands of a lecherous food pornographer.

-ramon

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.

The Panasonic LUMIX DMC LX2, which I own- and can't recommend enough- shoot in RAW.
This great Leica Lensed pocket? sized 10mp camera is being replaced with a model called......
LUMIX DMC LX3-http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp
and
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-LX3 ... B001CCLBSA

Great camera.

Hombre de Acero wrote:

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.

The Panasonic LUMIX DMC LX2, which I own- and can't recommend enough- shoot in RAW.
This great Leica Lensed pocket? sized 10mp camera is being replaced with a model called......
LUMIX DMC LX3-http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp
and
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-LX3 ... B001CCLBSA

Great camera.

Thanks, HdA. Another friend also recommended those models and I will definitely check them out.

=R=

Ramon wrote:Well, you've pretty much nixed the D80 for me now.

If you're thinking Nikon, I'd look seriously at the new D90. It's a hell of a camera at a pretty decent price for what you get. The Canon's are nice, too. It just depends on what you like. My decision to go with a Nikon SLR was based on years of owning Nikon film cameras and my familiarity with the Nikon system. Plus I already owned a bunch of older Nikon lenses, which ultimately I ended up not using on the DSLR.

Ramon,

I do use the XSi, with a lot of help from Adobe Lightroom software. I mainly shoot with a 50mm fixed lens because it's so normal and low-key -- it closely replicates human eyesight. It's also great in low light plus the entry level lens (1. is a steal at ~$80.

If I need to do wider shots or get closer, then I switch to the kit lens. It can focus at much closer distances. The IS is a huge upgrade from previous Canon Rebels.

kanin wrote:I mainly shoot with a 50mm fixed lens because it's so normal and low-key -- it closely replicates human eyesight.

Most of my food shots use a focal length closer to 35mm (on a Nikon DX sensor with a 1.5x crop factor). This mainly applies to shots of food on a dinner-sized plate. I want the plate to fill the whole frame and I want the camera to be at about the same distance and angle as the eyes of someone sitting in front of the plate for a more realistic perspective.

Bill/SFNM

Bill/SFNM wrote:... I want the camera to be about the same distance and angle from the eyes as someone sitting in front the plate for a more realistic perspective.
Bill/SFNM

I like that idea very much, Bill, and doubt I'd ever consider it if you hadn't posted that here. Thank you. Not sure I even agree, but you have given me much to ponder and experiment with in just that one sentence.

-ramon

Ramon,

I have edited the text you have quoted - not exactly what I meant:

I want the camera to be at about the same distance and angle as the eyes of someone sitting in front of the plate for a more realistic perspective.

Bill/SFNM

stevez wrote:

Ramon wrote:Well, you've pretty much nixed the D80 for me now.

If you're thinking Nikon, I'd look seriously at the new D90. It's a hell of a camera at a pretty decent price for what you get.

I've had my D90 for a week or two now and I love it lots. It's the first digital SLR that shoots video, too. I haven't played much with the video and it certainly will not replace a camcorder, but in a pinch I imagine it's nice to have. The D90 also has a live preview of the shot if you don't care to use the viewfinder. What I've been most impressed with at this point, compared to previous dSLRs, is the lack of noise at high ISOs. This will certainly please folks who enjoy taking inconspicuous photos of their food in dimly-lit eating establishments... whomever that might be.

I'll try and post some 1600 and 3200 food shots in the next few days, for what it's worth.

- Mike

EDIT: See ISO noise comparisons here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page20.asp

Hombre de Acero wrote:

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.

The Panasonic LUMIX DMC LX2, which I own- and can't recommend enough- shoot in RAW.
This great Leica Lensed pocket? sized 10mp camera is being replaced with a model called......
LUMIX DMC LX3-http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp
and
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-LX3 ... B001CCLBSA

Great camera.

I picked up an LX3 fairly recently and love it.. I'm especially pleased with the low light performance and the very fast, wide (f/2.0 at 24mm) lens. Pop-up flash means you won't accidentally fire it in a dark restaurant, RAW gives you a whole lot more flexibility in editing, it's got full manual controls, and it focuses pretty well an inch away.

Main sticking points:

* The 35mm equivalent zoom range is 24-60mm, so it doesn't zoom much. Might want to look at the G10 if that's an issue.
* The raw format is proprietary and not supported by everything yet, but the latest versions of Adobe Camera Raw (and therefore photoshop/lightroom) work fine with it.
* There's barrel distortion at the very wide end of the lens, and it's pretty noticeable. ACR, Silkypix, and the camera's onboard jpeg processing all do a very good job of removing the distortion, though, and if you're shooting JPEG or using lightroom/photoshop/silkypix you might never notice it.

Overall, I'm really happy and I'd recommend it to people looking for something comparable to the canon G10. I think DSLR shooters might be very happy with it as an unobtrusive street/restaurant camera, as long as you don't expect miracles.

Agreed on the LX3. It's a a very nice little camera, way better than the previous LX2. Takes great macro shots...

My "want" (for many reasons other than taking pictures of food) was a high end Nikon or Canon SLR.

But I don't want to spend that much, or lug something that large and heavy.

My list of requirements were:

10+ optical zoom (digital just wastes resolution)
optical image stabilizer ( " )
low shutter lag
uses generic (AA) batteries so I'm never stuck with a dead battery
does NOT use one of the proprietary (expensive) card formats

So I got one of the many Super Zoom cameras, the Canon S5 with the image stabilizer. Others I considered were the Nikon P80 and the Lumix FZ50.

BTW, my favorite camera reference web site is http://www.steves-digicams.com/

I bought a G10 on Craiglist and have been very very happy with it.

ronnie_suburban wrote:Can anyone recommend a decent 'point-and-shoot' that can shoot in RAW format?
=R=

if you're feeling adventurous, there's a firmware "upgrade" (lives on the mem card) for some canons that add RAW support and a host of other features.

personally i'm not phototechnical enough to even comprehend half of the terms used, but maybe it will help:

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK

j r wrote:So I got one of the many Super Zoom cameras, the Canon S5 with the image stabilizer.

I should expand on this a tad...

I actually bought an S1 (10x zoom, 3MP) several years ago at a store that was going out of business. It was one of 2 cameras I was looking at seriously, and their demo was $128 instead of $499. At that price, who cares if it didn't come with the box, cd, instructions (downloadable off the web site), AA batteries, or whopping 16 MB flash card. And it had the full warranty.

So I got several years of use out of this camera. Then about a year ago it started acting up. I'd get streaky color blotched images, then nothing. After sitting a while, it would again work a while, then fail again. Eventually it wouldn't take pictures at all, but could still display whatever was on the card.

I found a service bulletin that described the problem on Canon's web site that sounded like it described my problem. I called them, and they said they'd repair my camera no charge. They sent me a prepaid UPS shipping label to return it.

Several week later I got a box that was a lot bigger than what I sent them. In it was a note that they couldn't get parts to fix my camera in time, so they replaced it. They sent me the S5 with 8MP and 12x zoom and lots more. What I would have bought for $350 if I hadn't found the service bulletin.

Canon definitely goes on my GOOD list. It's going to be very hard for me to buy another camera in the future from any one else. Due to very opposite experiences not relevant to this thread, Sony has been on my BAD list for a long time, and won't get any of my future business.

You can tell a lot about any business by how they handle problems, and how they go (or do not go) above and beyond to satisfy customers. Doesn't matter if it's an electronics company, a car manufacturer, or a restaurant. Those on the GOOD list understand that satisfied customers tell their friends, generating more business. Those on the BAD list don't realize how much a single unhappy customer can cost a business. Over 2 decades ago, GM determined that a satisfied Cadillac customer was worth half a million dollars to GM over their lifetime. I'd say adjust that for todays price by doubling or tripling the number. So what does an unhappy customer cost a company?

OK, maybe I've expanded too much.

i've found that the number one barrier to getting good food shots for me is...not having my camera with me.

so i've decided that when i get a new cell phone, i want one with a high quality camera in it.

this may be a whole 'nother topic, and i confess to not having read all of this topic, but anyone know of a phone that includes a pretty good (or better) camera?

elakin wrote:i've found that the number one barrier to getting good food shots for me is...not having my camera with me.

so i've decided that when i get a new cell phone, i want one with a high quality camera in it.

this may be a whole 'nother topic, and i confess to not having read all of this topic, but anyone know of a phone that includes a pretty good (or better) camera?

It's often been said that "the best camera is the one you have with you." No matter what, make sure you get something that you can conveniently tote around or there's no point to having one. If that's a cell phone camera, then go for it. If that's the route you take, at least you'll always have it with you.

=R=

FWIW: my father, who was always an excellent amateur photog and who went digital in the early days with no nostalgia or remorse just bought the XSi (for about 1/2 the list price on eBay), and is very happy so far. He had a G9 and had never warmed up to it, but for reasons that I don't recall.

Okay, my trusty, but by now outclassed Canon SD600, is sort of reaching the point where the end is visible for Ol' Shep, and one of these days we're gonna hafta put our old friend down.

Pocket size is a must. I remain impressed as ever by the products of Ronnie's Lumix DMC LX2, but one question I have is: where do people who shoot in RAW with cameras like that do the most fiddling? I think on the whole, I'd like to be able to shoot quickly and automatically, not be a pain in the ass at dinner, but have the capability to fiddle to my heart's content on the computer.

The other one I've been looking at, and I just saw that cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld recommended this in Esquire, is the Lumix DMC-ZS7, which however doesn't shoot in RAW. I'm guessing, but don't really know, that that reduces its utility for the kind of low-light shooting which is such a part of food photography (and why people like Ronnie and Stevez can pull it off in conditions where I get an amber cast at best, even with some p'shop wizardry on the back end).

As an amateur photographer, and I do most of my 95% of my post processing in Lightroom 2.0

If something needs a lot more adjustments, I'll open it up in Photoshop CS4.

Shooting in raw doesn't have much to do with low light shooting, as it does with post process adjustability. If you have a product in raw, and assuming your post processing software can open that raw file (Nikon raw is different than Canon raw is different than Olympus, etc...), you are able to adjust everything from exposure to white balance to color specific corrections, the list goes on.

If shooting in low light is your thing (without flash), the two biggest factors for sharp, vivid pictures will be sensor size and the speed of your lens. The larger your sensor size, the higher you can bump up the ISO to compensate for your slow shutter speed. The faster your lens (the lower the f/stop number), the faster your shutter speed can be to get the correct exposure (but more shallow your depth of field).

The reason why the Panasonic LX-3 and Canon S90 are so highly regarded is because of their relative large sensor size (compared to other point and shoots), and how fast their lenses are (f/2.0 at their widest angles). Another good one to look at would be the newly released Samsung TL-500, but be careful of software raw support. Last I heard, Adobe products do not support Samsung raw as of yet.

Shooting in raw doesn't have much to do with low light shooting, as it does with post process adjustability.

Well, for me, that's the main form of adjustability I'd be doing-- I think. What else do you, or would you, do to food photos?

Mike G wrote:

Shooting in raw doesn't have much to do with low light shooting, as it does with post process adjustability.

Well, for me, that's the main form of adjustability I'd be doing-- I think. What else do you, or would you, do to food photos?

Well...ideally, you'd want the right equipment so that you'll have to do as little post processing as you can to get to your desired end result.

Think of it this way, you have a photo, but the exposure is way off, slightly blurry, and the subject isn't centered correctly...theres only so much you can bring back from post processing. Too many folks rely nowadays on post processing (I admit, I'm guity of this too), but even something as simple as overexposing a picture by a stop or two, bringing that exposure back using software still won't compare to that shot being taken correctly in the first place. You lose dynamic range, detail in your highlights (or shadows if you underexpose) that you really can't bring back.