Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 29, 2004, 6:54 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10
Default

I"m hoping to do a bunch of eBay selling...need to take photos. Will use a cheapo lighting with 3 reflector lamps (using Reveal bulbs), in a set-up similar to this: http://www.bulls2.com/indexb/picturesonabudget.html

I've seen recommendations that say you need minimum 3, 4, or 5 MP to do effective shots. I realize it's somewhat subjective...I want decently sharp photos, I do plan to tweak them a bit...but don't need anything fancy.

So is it 3, 4, or 5? What's the least I can get away with?

I see the Fuji A340 is really cheap right now, though I'd hoped for something a tad more versatile (use for indoor/flash shots, more manual overrides, etc). Price is a major concern though
jimbotron is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 30, 2004, 5:06 AM   #2
Baz
Senior Member
 
Baz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 219
Default

Hi Jim,Most 2mp cameras will dofine.After all displaying pics on ebay is only forpeoples monitors. Very different from printing. The resolution required for this is minimal. Depending on what you wish to photograph, it may be useful to have a good macro option on the camera if you want to get close.
Baz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2004, 9:26 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
speaklightly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 721
Default

I do a lot on E-Bay and I use a Pentax 33WR digital camera and have had excellent results. I use natural lighting (IT ALSO SAVES MONEY) to achieve the best and most accuarate colors. The Pentax 33WR has great macro or close-up capabilities.

Sarah Joyce
speaklightly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2004, 1:47 PM   #4
Zal
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 78
Default

I sold a ton of stuff on eBay using a 3MP Nikon Coolpix 3100.

For ebay, you're going to be resizing them down to 640x480 or so anyway, so anything above 2 or 3 MP is overkill.

What's much more important is lighting, your camera's macro mode (if you are taking photos of small objects), and the ability to manually set white balance. Ignore megapixels and focus on the lighting.
Zal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2004, 6:14 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10
Default

Zal wrote:
Quote:
For ebay, you're going to be resizing them down to 640x480 or so anyway, so anything above 2 or 3 MP is overkill.
But I'm expecting to do lots of retouching, so more pixels is good, no?

Quote:
What's much more important is lighting, your camera's macro mode (if you are taking photos of small objects), and the ability to manually set white balance.* Ignore megapixels and focus on the lighting.
re: white balance, can't that be done in the retouching? Small objects I'll photograph via scanning. MUCH higher quality than any digicam.
jimbotron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2004, 7:25 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
speaklightly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 721
Default

Retouching will not fully correct white balance. I have found the digital photos using the macro or close-up mode is much more effective than scanning. Unless perhaps you spent several thousand dollars on your scanner.

Sarah Joyce
speaklightly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2004, 8:26 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10
Default

speaklightly wrote:
Quote:
Retouching will not fully correct white balance. I have found the digital photos using the macro or close-up mode is much more effective than scanning. Unless perhaps you spent several thousand dollars on your scanner.
Can you be more specific about your thinking on this? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. Scanners have greater resolution than cameras, and far truer and more even lighting than any built-in flash. The limit is the inherently limited depth of field with bulky objects, but if your subject is truly deep or bulky, scanning's obviously not the solution, regarless of scanner quality. I don't understand why 1. relatively small and/or flat objects aren't better scanned rather than shot (unless you have a pro camera and pro lighting setup), or why 2. price of scanner would be a factor, since the resolution of a cheap scanner beats the resolution of a good (though maybe not great) camera.
jimbotron is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:30 AM.