Comments on: camera recommendation for graphic designer?

Question: camera recommendation for graphic designer?

MaddyRex — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:13:52 -0800

What's the best camera for a cash-poor graphic designer?

I'm making my big camera purchase & I realize I'll have to compromise on something. I don't know too much about cameras but I know a lot about graphic design & I'm looking for something that will basically help someone with currently minimal photo skills (I promise I'll work on them) generate clean, high resolution images. My price range is around $400. Ideally I'd want something that's at least semi-portable.

How important is it to have a dSLR? One photographer I know recommended the Canon Powershot g10 for a graphic designer. Another told me this was a total waste of money & that I should go straight to a dSLR. Thoughts? Help! Thanks!

By: allelopath

allelopath — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:17:07 -0800

Can you tell more of how the graphic design relates to the use of the camera?

By: ttyn

ttyn — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:18:58 -0800

The predecessor of Canon G10 was a Canon S5 IS. And it is magnificent; the macro on it is probably the best I've ever seen on a non-dSLR camera.

Additionally, I don't know about the G10, but with the S5 IS you can buy a lens converter and then purchase/attach lenses or filters just like you would with a normal dSLR.

I've had that camera for the last 2 years and I wouldn't trade it for anything.

By: Bunglegirl

Bunglegirl — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:34:38 -0800

It really depends on what you're using the images for. I have a Nikon D70s (SLR) with a few lenses and I use it once in a while for small projects (a quick thing for the web or a small print piece) and photos for my portfolio but nothing serious. What's semi-portable? I'd say no SLR is semi-portable in my eyes (because I need an extra bag to carry it).

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:49:57 -0800

The G10 or something like it would probably be best (although, yeah, maybe even overkill). Unless you really, really need to change lenses a lot, a DSLR, for its dusty-chip potential alone, is just not worth the hassle. Also, they are big and heavy, and the lenses and accessories are a whole extra cash-suck.

By: _dario

_dario — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:19:21 -0800

I gave up photography to focus on the design side a long time ago (at the end of the film days). I'm tempted to take up photography again and asked for advice to a few photographers with whom I work regularly. The general consensus is that -on a reasonable budget- your money is better spent on a really good compact camera than on an entry-level dSLR and the Canon you're linking to seems to fit the bill.

By: The Michael The

The Michael The — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:33:02 -0800

I have and love my Powershot G9, and the G10 is a step above. Lensmate makes a great aftermarket lens hood onto which you can attach filters and teleconverters.

From The Online Photographer:
Canon has now demonstrated that a small camera with a small sensor can provide the ergonomics, speed, flexibility, and image quality that would please most serious photographers.

If you have the cheddar to drop on a good mid-range SLR and a selection of lenses, go that route. If you don't, the G10 will make you some gorgeous images. Do those photos look like they suffered because they weren't made with an SLR? Didn't think so.

By: RubyDoom

RubyDoom — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:33:35 -0800

I use a Nikon D80 for all my freelance work. The D40 is more in your price range and it take beautiful photos as well. It's an entry level dSLR so you'll be able to learn how to effectively use aperture and shutter speed to get the photos you want. It's a pretty good little camera for someone who wants to improve their photography skills.

By: krisken

krisken — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:45:04 -0800

I just bought a Canon G10. Solid. I love it, even more than my Nikon D50.

By: chairface

chairface — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:14:23 -0800

I love my Canon DSLR but I think Nikon is doing better by the low-end DSLR market right now. However, unless you know you need depth-of-field control and good low light performance, a P&S would probably be a better choice. And since most Canon P&S cameras can be hacked to get access to the RAW images (CHDK), that would be my recommendation.

By: bradbane

bradbane — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:30:23 -0800

Just buy an older DSLR (ie Canon 300D/350D or 10D/20D) and an entry level lens or cheap prime (50mm = $80). This will be infinitely more flexible and better image quality than even the best compact. Even with these older models you're still getting better quality than 35mm.

By: Thorzdad

Thorzdad — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:11:55 -0800

What do you intend to do with a camera? Are you intending to shoot images for your clients and print reproduction? Or are you just looking to fool around with it?

By: The Deej

The Deej — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:16:01 -0800

People who have the G10 seem to love it, and I've often thought of buying one as a supplemental camera. But if compactness is not your highest priority, I'd highly recommend the Nikon D40 at a little over $400 (search Amazon), including the 18 - 55 mm lens. Its bigger sensor will give you way better low light / high ISO performance than the G10. Don't worry about the pixel count; 6.1 MP is plenty.

The D40 is not as compact, but it's very light and easy to handle, plus you will have more flexibility in the future to add lenses as your needs grow.

By: pokermonk

pokermonk — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:36:43 -0800

If you'd like a rival to the G10 option, Nikon released fairly recently the Coolpix P6000. Same basic premise and general functionality--the G10 has 1 megapixel bonus and 1x zoom bonus. Its MSRP is $500, but should be available from reputable dealers for under $370 (there's an instant rebate currently running, plus the usual less-than-MSRP pricing). That might fit in a little more comfortably with your budget.

Of course, Luminous Landscape does prefer the G10 in a head-to-head comparison.

By: miss lynnster

miss lynnster — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:12:39 -0800

I've loved my Canon Powershot.

By: liquoredonlife

liquoredonlife — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:17:55 -0800

If you're new to photography from a technical standpoint, a pseudo slr like the g10 (also SX10 IS) will get you up and shooting without much fuss while having the room to play in manual and aperture/shutter priority modes. Been using an old S2 IS for a few years and it has taught me quite a bit (third digital camera, along with p'n's film and slr).

You can take great pictures with all kinds of cameras- a dslr may be helpful under certain conditions and knowledge set, but I've shot better pics with older cameras than my friends with dslrs because of the comfort and experience. I'll upgrade when I feel my equipment is holding me back and money isn't an issue.

By: echo target

echo target — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:43:20 -0800

Another reason to prefer one type over the other - if you need to shoot people as they move around, the faster autofocus of a DSLR will save you a lot of missed shots. Certainly for sports, but even for candid shots of slower-moving targets.

If you're doing product photography or other things that don't move around, focus speed won't matter, and high ISO won't ever be necessary - you can always put a compact on a tripod and keep it at the lowest ISO.

By: mygothlaundry

mygothlaundry — Fri, 29 May 2009 19:30:44 -0800

I started with an ancient Canon Powershot, upgraded to an S2 IS and now I have an old Rebel. Got them all used on Ebay and they've all been wonderful. Frankly, though, if you're new to photography I'd really recommend the S2 IS or whatever the current top of the line almost but not quite DSLR is - I loved mine. I moved into the DSLR because I started focusing a lot more on pure photography but honestly, for the majority of the design work that I was doing, the S2 IS was more than enough and it was way, way easier to use.

By: Magnakai

Magnakai — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:27:16 -0800

Oh christ almighty. People, this is awful advice.

Yes, I'm a photographer, but I'm surrounded by bloody designers, and I've done my share of design work. The G10 gives nice results considering its size, but a budget-level DSLR is always going to be better choice. $400 though... that's not very much.

I have a Canon 400D as a backup/smaller camera, and on automatic mode it produces stellar results, plus it has every step beyond that for you to grow and stretch your photographic muscle. Just promise that you'll hire a pro photographer when you need client-ready images. I've got to scrape my rent together somehow!

By: imjustsaying

imjustsaying — Sat, 30 May 2009 03:32:10 -0800

I too am a photographer, and my current small "always with me" cameras is a Canon G9. In addition to my working equipment, I've always had something small for this purpose.

My G9 replaced a Nikon D40 and D40X, and there were other compacts prior to those.

Every compact camera I've ever owned or used absolutely pales in comparison to every entry level DSLR I've ever used. This goes for everything from shutter delay, to optical quality, to high ISO performance, to speed and ease of camera adjustments, and so on.

The only reason I still have my G9 is pure laziness because I just don't feel like boxing it up and selling it yet. When I'm going out for personal reasons to a place where I think I might actually want to shoot something semi-seriously, I just grab one of my DSLRs.

Were I in your shoes I'd try and scrape up a relatively few more dollars and get the lowest end new DSLR and kit lens outfit you can find. You'll have a way more functional camera that's not tons physically larger than something like a G9 or G10.

By: tallus

tallus — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:04:13 -0800

I recently brought the Nikon D40 as a beginner's DSLR, which it is often recommended for, and have nothing but good things to say about it. It is lighter than DSLR's typically are and with the standard lenses supplied its quite compact too. Light and compact enough that I frequently throw it in my bag when walking or biking around on the off chance that I might come across something I want to photograph. You can get it on Amazon for just under $400 dollars right now which compares very favorably price wise with later models.

By: MaddyRex

MaddyRex — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:36:15 -0800

thanks for the advice everyone. i think there's a lot to be said for, as liquoredonlife says, getting me up and shooting. i know a lot of serious photographers wouldn't even glance at a non-SLR, but i think i'll leave the serious photographing to the serious photographers. looks like i'll be getting a G10 at a discount ~350. if it agrees with me, then i'll start looking at the dSLRs. thanks again!