"Real time preview" isn't going to help you much for fine art photography. There is really nothing better than the "live", optical view of a dSLR..

What types of fine art are you going to shoot?.

Brian A...

I guess my point is that given how much work I shoot in a given day, it's MUCH easier to be able to frame shots via a large (adjustable) LCD than getting on my knees every 2 minutes to squint through the optical view; I've been using a 5MP Nikon E5700 which I love for some time, but increasingly frequent print-related output is requiring more pixels, so the time has come for an upgrade..

I guess I'm hoping for the "best of both worlds," but it seems a compromise is going to have to be made somewhere (apparently between comfort vs. quality);.

Ps. I shoot paintings, sculpture, etc...

Npish wrote:.

I guess my point is that given how much work I shoot in a given day,it's MUCH easier to be able to frame shots via a large (adjustable)LCD than getting on my knees every 2 minutes to squint through theoptical view;.

I don't think many DSLR owners would agree with you. I'm not denying that there are circumstances where an LCD preview is handy, but for the majority of situations an optical viewfinder is far superior..

In any case, if you are serious about fine art photography a DSLR is the only way to achieve the image quality you need. Shooting 'tethered' is a great way to do this kind of work, if you can...

Thanks for the responses guys; Steve, would you please explain what you mean by "tethered"? (I would image this entails hooking the camera up to a computer)..

Also, assuming I bite the bullet and go with an SLR, what would be your first recommendation as far a mid-priced/intro DSLR?..

Npish wrote:.

Thanks for the responses guys; Steve, would you please explain whatyou mean by "tethered"? (I would image this entails hooking thecamera up to a computer).

It's exactly that. If you can either work close to your desktop, or use a laptop, you can see the image instantaneously on your computer screen..

I don't do fine art work, but I do a lot of product photography which is obviously very similar. I have a 400D (XTi) which is supplied with Canon's simple but very effective Remote Capture utility..

You will never fill a memory card because you don't need to use one (although you can optionally save to a card if you wish) and your work is never interrupted by the need to download a batch of images. I get by with batteries but an AC adapter is on my wanted list..

Distance from the computer is a potential problem, because in theory the longest USB cable is 5 metres (16 ft). However, I regularly use an extension cable which gives me about 8 metres in total and it seems to work just fine. You can go much further by joining cables together with USB hubs, but I've never tried that...

Npish wrote:.

Thanks for the responses guys;would you please explain whatyou mean by "tethered"? (I would image this entails hooking thecamera up to a computer).

Yes, the shot arrives full screen in about a second. It is a good way to work if you are shooting the artworks at your place (studio, etc), but can be a hassle if you are shooting in situ..

Npish wrote:.

Also, assuming I bite the bullet and go with an SLR, what would beyour first recommendation as far a mid-priced/intro DSLR?.

There are many good choices, again, what are you shooting? 2D paintings, water colours, photographs, or 3D works, or a mixture of things?.

Brian A...

If you're going with a non dSRL, I find the Sony R1 superb for this type thing. You can visit my website here and see R1 art photos:.

Http://www.lin-evans.net.

Lin.

Npish wrote:.

Hi, I'm looking to purchase a camera for fine art photography toproduce images for both web and print and while my budget issomewhat limited (around $1000), I would also really only consider acamera with a real-time preview to assist in framing the shots;consequently, I'm looking at both pro-sumer-type models (like thePowerShot S5 IS) and full SLR-s with real-time preview (like theE-Volt E330);.

In short, I would like the most pixels and the best quality I can getwhile still retaining the "real-time preview" capability; I'm leaningtowards the Canon S5, but I'm a bit concerned about noise/artifacts;in any case, I'm open to all suggestions, so I appreciate anyfeedback..

Thanks!..

Thanks again for all the input; Hugowolf, I'll be shooting all manner of art objects, but primarily flat paintings; the camera should be able to handle both 2d and 3d objects (ideally)..

Lin, that looks like a GREAT camera, thanks for the suggestion; how do you feel about the noise factor with the images? my experience with different models/brands is fairly limited, but my friend recently purchased a Canon G7, and while there's a lot that I like about it, the images at 100% are quite disappointing...often grainy/noisy with an almost "watercolor-filter-like" effect......are you pretty happy with the image detail?..

For two dimensional art, there really isn't anything that will beat a dSLR with a macro lens. The colour reproduction, contrast, lack of geometric distortion, resolution, truly planar plane of focus, and edge-to-edge sharpness cannot be bettered..

For three dimensional works, the increased depth-of-field of the smaller sensors of P&S cameras can be an advantage at times..

You mention having to kneel to use a viewfinder. When I'm shooting on site and have to use low angles, then I use the Canon Angle Finder C (there are cheaper Chinese knock offs now)..

Brian A...

Npish wrote:.

Thanks again for all the input; Hugowolf, I'll be shooting all mannerof art objects, but primarily flat paintings; the camera should beable to handle both 2d and 3d objects (ideally).

Hi npish - the details about the size of the artwork and end use of your photographs would be key. If they are only for reference than some of the features I would suggest you look for are good manual focusing capabilities and a lens that performs best at the distances you will be using it. The Sony R1 already suggested works well under studio lighting conditions, as will many others..

If the photos will be used for reproduction purposes, then a DSLR with a view piece magnifier and a specialized copy lens would give better results, and depending on the reproduction size needed, a medium format similarly equipped would be preferable..

The primary reason to tether a camera is normally to be able to confirm immediately on a big screen that the shot is in focus and doesn't have to be retaken. Just a suggestion, but if your concerns are only high volume, larger memory cards would be more a lot more convenient than being tied to a long cord...

If you shoot the R1 in RAW mode with proper lighting at lower ISO there will be no noise. The lens is superb and color accuracy is very good. I use a wide variety of fixed lens, dSLR and film cameras and actually shoot art for a living and I've been very happy with the R1 for much of my work expecially with small and highly detailed pieces. I find that having the ability to instantly see changes in exposure compensation in real time are very helpful and the LCD and EVF are both very good on this camera..

For dSLR's I really like my Sigma SD14. I also have the Canon D30, 10D, 1D, 1Ds, 1D Mark II, Nikon D2X and Kodak DCS-760, and Sigma SD10 but I really prefer the SD14 for the image pixel level sharpness and enlargeability. I had a couple A0 sized pieces on display at PMA this year from this one..

I have also used the Sony F828 in the past and had very good luck with it - in fact if you look at the Anderson Art link on my page that was all done with the F828. The R1 is overall a better camera with a nice sized sensor and plenty of features. It's also quite affordable now so definitely worth looking at..

For large paintings which are going to be reproduced at full size I like MF film but for other art I prefer either the R1 or my SD14..

Best regards,.

Lin.

Npish wrote:.

Lin, that looks like a GREAT camera, thanks for the suggestion; howdo you feel about the noise factor with the images? my experiencewith different models/brands is fairly limited, but my friendrecently purchased a Canon G7, and while there's a lot that I likeabout it, the images at 100% are quite disappointing...oftengrainy/noisy with an almost "watercolor-filter-like" effect......areyou pretty happy with the image detail?..

Wow, thanks Lin; you seem like the perfect person to consult; now let me ask you this: looking at the line-up of Canon models, it seems like the rough equivalent to the Sony you've recommended would be the Digital Rebel XTi even though, of course, the Canon is an SLR with respect to MP and price point; considering the Rebel XTi as an entry-level SLR, do you think the difference in quality between the two cameras or between the Sony and any other similar entry-level SLR is *that* significant?.

I'm definitely leaning towards the Sony at this point, but if the difference is that great, I might be persuaded to forego the "comfort" of the live-preview..

Thanks again for your feedback; it's much appreciated...

Hi B Gavin, thanks for the feedback; the images will be used for web as well as for print; so for the latter, it seems clear that the best results will come from a DSLR; but I'm wondering if the recommended Sony R1 would constitute a "happy medium" of sorts (given my wish for the live-preview); although, you mentioned a view piece magnifier for use with a DSLR is there a specific model you would recommend?..

Npish wrote:.

Hi B Gavin, thanks for the feedback; the images will be used for webas well as for print; so for the latter, it seems clear that the bestresults will come from a DSLR; but I'm wondering if the recommendedSony R1 would constitute a "happy medium" of sorts (given my wish forthe live-preview); although, you mentioned a view piece magnifier foruse with a DSLR is there a specific model you would recommend?.

All major SLR mfrs have a 90 degree angle viewfinder. Certainly Nikon and Canon do..

You mention the XTI. There are two things that MAY make it unsuitable for you:1) Viewfinder image is very small.2) It is far less flexible with flash than the Nikon equivalent.

2) may not matter to you (but Nikon makes firing off cameras flashes to back light e.g a statue SO easy) 1) is defintely relevant. You will have to get your hands on one and decide..

I have VERY limited experience of shooting art (one gallery) so bare that in mind but my shortlist of SLRs for you to read up on and try out would be.

Nikon D80Canon 30D.

I list those a) because they both have very good viewfinders b) they are good at high ISO for low light shots c) they both have big LCDs (older used cams will tend to have 1.8" or 2" low res LCDs).

I still have not got a handle on where you will be shooting this art i.e what the lighting will be like but I suspect that you will need a good low light wide angle lens. The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a good affordable low light wide angle zoom lens that would go well with either cam BUT it will give you a wider angle with the Nikon (25.5mm as opposed to 27.2mm in 35mm terms because of the different crop 1.5 v 1.6)..

IF you can wait a while Sigma have just (yesterday) announced an 18-50mm f2.8 HSM lens that will work with the Nikon D40. That would give you a quite affordable package. Sigma tend to make announcements of new models long before products become available but this lens replaces an existing non-HSM model so I suspect supplies will be available soon as otherwise they would shoot themselves in the foot with sales of existing stock drying up..

Hope that helps..

P.S If you decide the XTI viewfinder is enough for your needs the Tamron 17-50 would work well with it. It is universally acknowledged that the 18-55mm kit lens is very poor. Buy the body only and the Tamron lens..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Generally good advice from Chris - just a few comments....

Chris Elliott wrote:.

You mention the XTI. There are two things that MAY make it unsuitablefor you:1) Viewfinder image is very small..

Certainly this is a weakness of the 400D, but speaking as someone who also has a film SLR with a top-notch viewfinder, I find the 400D perfectly adequate and not nearly as bad as some reviewers have suggested. And *much* better than any EVF!.

Nikon D80Canon 30D.

... good at high ISO for low light shots.

This is actually not such a big issue, because you will always use a tripod for this kind of work so ISO 100 and long exposures is the way to go..

C) they both have big LCDs.

Also true of the 400D of course..

IF you can wait a while Sigma have just (yesterday) announced an18-50mm f2.8 HSM lens that will work with the Nikon D40..

I bought an 18-50/2.8 just a few weeks ago - great lens, the one thing it needs is HSM/FTM. If Sigma follows this up with an HSM upgrade to the Canon version I'll be more than a little irritated!.

If you decide the XTI viewfinder is enough for your needs theTamron 17-50 would work well with it. It is universally acknowledgedthat the 18-55mm kit lens is very poor..

Well, I'm no fan of Canon's kit lens and when I bought my 400D I went for body only then later bought the Sigma as mentioned above. However, like all cheap lenses the kit lens's performance is considerably better when stopped down, and at 30 mm and f/8 or ideally f/11 it is pretty good. And, amazingly, it actually has less barrel distortion at the wide end than either the Sigma or the Tamron f/2.8's. If money is tight it could do the job the OP needs...

Npish wrote:.

Wow, thanks Lin; you seem like the perfect person to consult; now letme ask you this: looking at the line-up of Canon models, it seemslike the rough equivalent to the Sony you've recommended would be theDigital Rebel XTi even though, of course, the Canon is an SLRwith respect to MP and price point; considering the Rebel XTi as anentry-level SLR, do you think the difference in quality between thetwo cameras or between the Sony and any other similar entry-levelSLR is *that* significant?.

I'm definitely leaning towards the Sony at this point, but if thedifference is that great, I might be persuaded to forego the"comfort" of the live-preview..

Thanks again for your feedback; it's much appreciated..

Hi again npish - Since Lin is actually doing this for a living, and has experience with a variety of cameras, I certainly agree she's in a good position to share her experience. It's been a while since I've done this myself, but my background is in technical photography. My 2 cents? Aside from the camera, the lens may affect your result when you go to print. Copy lenses are a specialized item with a highly corrected design and very flat field but may not be available for all DSLR cameras. You'll have to decide yourself if they are worth looking at based on your own criteria..

You haven't mentioned it yourself, but IMO proper lighting is going to be as important as the camera. A good quality reproduction involves accurate color reproduction, even lighting and when doing a lot - ease of operation is important. For that you'll want a calibrated lighting setup with the camera rigidly mounted (tripod or rail) for best alignment. You want that shot perfectly square to start off with so that all you have to do is adjust distance and focus. The object is to give yourself minimum PP work and maximum thruput. I've used both hot lights and flash myself and have found that better results can be had by polorizing the light sources.



Can't offer you as much hands-on experience with DSLRs as Lin - I've only had a Sony R1 for a couple weeks now and can only confirm that in Manual Focus Mode - there is a magnification functionality built in. The Sony has some low-light focusing issues - but under studio lighting conditions they are very irrelivent. The zoom will also facilitate a variety of artwork sizes without changing the camera to subject distance. If you aren't looking at producing huge high definition posters - it'll probably do very well..

Sorry I can't be of much more help ... I might suggest that if you have any reservations or doubts - try renting or borrowing some equipment before making any final decisions...

Image quality is essentially the same with all the 10mp dSLR's if, of course, you have an equivalent lens. With the Xti or Nikon D40x the secret to getting stellar performance is the glass. To match the quality of the R1's lens will cost you at least $400 for a decent prime such as a Sigma 105 F2.8 macro or the Canon 100mm F2.8 or Nikon equivalent. Then you would also need a wide angle so something like the Sigma 15-30mm would be necessary. So the "value" for the R1 is that you have a very capable sensor and a very high quality zoom lens both for a reasonable price. Of course you give up the tremendous flexibility of the sSLR in that whatever you invest in lenses is a life-long investment.



If you were "only" going to use the camera for art object photos in a studio environment the the R1 is a significant value. If you want an all-around tool then the Xti, D40x, Sony Alpha 100, Olympus E510, etc., are fantastic values and much more versatile and are very good values..

Much is made over testing and lots of disussion over which is better is mostly a "tempest in a teacup". I find very little qualitative difference between any of the 10 megapixel dSLR's in terms of image quality. They all have sensors which are very much alike in that the absolute resolution differences are virtually insignificant. There are substantial differences in the camera bodies and in features. For general purpose photography, especially at longer focal lengths, the in-camera stabilization represents a major step forward in value. Being able to hand-hold at a 400mm equivalent focal length and get excellent results with out paying for expensive stabilized lenses is a very good thing with some of the bodies..

There are many factors to consider. I wouldn't suggest the R1 as an all-around camera if it will be your only camera, but it does represent a great value for the specialized purpose you expressed..

Best regards,.

Lin.

On the plus side.

Npish wrote:.

Wow, thanks Lin; you seem like the perfect person to consult; now letme ask you this: looking at the line-up of Canon models, it seemslike the rough equivalent to the Sony you've recommended would be theDigital Rebel XTi even though, of course, the Canon is an SLRwith respect to MP and price point; considering the Rebel XTi as anentry-level SLR, do you think the difference in quality between thetwo cameras or between the Sony and any other similar entry-levelSLR is *that* significant?.

I'm definitely leaning towards the Sony at this point, but if thedifference is that great, I might be persuaded to forego the"comfort" of the live-preview..

Thanks again for your feedback; it's much appreciated...

You mentioned the Evolt E510, which I happened to be researching a bit as well; seems like the responses here are quite positive; do you have any experience with this model in photographing art? also, I'm looking at amazon.com, and they have a kit deal with two Zuiko lenses...any thoughts on that brand?..

I don't have any personal hand's on experience with it, but do have several friends who have purchased it and are very happy. I will be getting one soon for my wife to use for an African trip. The light-weight and 2X crop are compelling for telephoto. Remember that for extreme close-up or macro you will need either some distance to subject or wide angle macro for best results..

Best regards..

:om.

Npish wrote:.

You mentioned the Evolt E510, which I happened to be researching abit as well; seems like the responses here are quite positive; do youhave any experience with this model in photographing art? also, I'mlooking at amazon.com, and they have a kit deal with two Zuikolenses...any thoughts on that brand?..

Npish wrote:.

I guess my point is that given how much work I shoot in a given day,it's MUCH easier to be able to frame shots via a large (adjustable)LCD than getting on my knees every 2 minutes to squint through theoptical view; I've been using a 5MP Nikon E5700 which I love forsome time, but increasingly frequent print-related output isrequiring more pixels, so the time has come for an upgrade..

I guess I'm hoping for the "best of both worlds," but it seems acompromise is going to have to be made somewhere (apparently betweencomfort vs. quality);.

Ps. I shoot paintings, sculpture, etc..

I guess after only having this R1 for a couple weeks - there are some things I just wasn't familiar with. Ok so since my last posting here I have connected my R1 to a 20in Sharp Aquas LCD screen via the Video Out port. Now thats live preview!!.

The Video output signal essentually replicates the LCD display in all modes, which means it could be used as an auxiliary viewfinder or to display shots on an external monitor for review and QC evaluation. I guess a laptop would be nice if you can get one that will interface with the sony cable - I haven't really looked into that yet..

BG..

B Gavin wrote:.

I guess after only having this R1 for a couple weeks - there are somethings I just wasn't familiar with. Ok so since my last posting hereI have connected my R1 to a 20in Sharp Aquas LCD screen via the VideoOut port. Now thats live preview!!.

Yes, and this is very good to know, Although having done it with video cameras, I should have imagined it possible with digicams too..

However, it still isn't a view of the shot as taken. It is a preview. I don't know any P&S (call the better ones bridge cameras if you like) that allow one to view the image immediately after it is taken. It is the ability of dSLRs to simultaneously write to internal media and to a laptop that makes them so good for studio work. You have the image there, you can look at the colour balance, DOF, etc, you can manipulate it or whatever..

Brian A...

Hugowolf wrote:.

B Gavin wrote:.

I guess after only having this R1 for a couple weeks - there are somethings I just wasn't familiar with. Ok so since my last posting hereI have connected my R1 to a 20in Sharp Aquas LCD screen via the VideoOut port. Now thats live preview!!.

Yes, and this is very good to know, Although having done it withvideo cameras, I should have imagined it possible with digicams too..

However, it still isn't a view of the shot as taken. It is a preview.I don't know any P&S (call the better ones bridge cameras if youlike) that allow one to view the image immediately after it is taken.It is the ability of dSLRs to simultaneously write to internal mediaand to a laptop that makes them so good for studio work. You have theimage there, you can look at the colour balance, DOF, etc, you canmanipulate it or whatever..

Brian A..

Hi Brian,.

I haven't bothered to look into the details of exactly where the R1 LCD signal output for the Video Out signal comes from. The main item I was interested in was the possibility of reviewing images to confirm focus DOF etc while trying to understand the limits of the AF system and put together some calibrated settings for studio use..

To that end it works perfectly and shots can be previewed, reviewed and deleted without first downloading them to a PC. I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding DOF and color balance. Anything that can be viewed on the R1 viewscreen - menus, photos and curves - are available and viewable in real time on the monitor. Making any adjustments to the final photograph requires the importation of the photo into another software environment anyway - tethered DSLR or not..

The Video Out interface does seem to be a serious limitation, however, because I haven't been able to find any laptops with a composite Video-In port and very few with an S-Video-In port. But considering that the R1 performance specs are very close to the EOS 1Ds that Canon introduced in 1992 for $9,000 - and that Sony is throwing in a nice lens to boot - I won't complain too much..

I did work with film SLRs for quite a number of years and compared to the lag time involved with having film processed, moving the CF between two pieces of equipment in the same studio doesn't seem like that big a deal. I'm anticipating that within a few years it'll be possible to pick up a used 1Ds Mk II for about $2,500. Do you think we are getting a little spoilt with all this technology??..

B Gavin wrote:.

But considering that the R1 performance specs are very close to the EOS1Ds that Canon introduced in 1992 for $9,000 - and that Sony isthrowing in a nice lens to boot - I won't complain too much..

Ooopppsss !!- I guess that should read '..introduced in 2002..'.

Yikes!! Oh well - sometimes my spellings terrible too!!..