10.1 verses 12.8 digital camera for van wraps and more.

[flat rock stan]

I’m ready to buy as new digital camera to use for my van wrap business and have looked at several great 10.1 MP units in the 800 to 1,000 dollar range. I also am considering the Cannon EOS5D 12.8 MP with comparable lenses in the 2,500 to 3,000 range. Any feed back on the worth of the extra 2.7 MP in finished product?
Will the extra resolution make my life easier?
thanks
Stan

[Geary]

My 3.0 Nikon Coolpix ($139) works just fine for enlargments. My opinion is it's all in the printer not in what's taking the picture. Just make sure you have no "camera shake" and you've got 98% of the clarity battles won. :wink: I can't really see the need to spend 3,000 dollars for anything that a 5 mpix camera will do.

~Gear

[iSign]

getting the right image to incorporate into a marketing image clients are willing to spend thousands of dollars on, is a bigger challenge then buying the right camera. Most wraps I see with very large images, the images need to be staged & shot with lighting & models and top of the line photography skills. You can't buy that. Also, getting a client to commit to a layout & to driving around with it is another challenge. I think the size of your camera is the least of your worries to make a serious go of a wrapping business. I think the majority of wraps will require a lot more in cohesive marketing savvy, excellent salesmanship & of course us sighshops real niche service of printing & installation. Without a doubt, I predict the most profitable wraps will be ones where the design is already handed to you... UNLESS, you are truely marketing yourself as a high end design firm capable of creating the effective layout of copy & images that can command the design fees that caliber of design work should command. IF you can be that $200 an hour designer... forget wrapping... or if you can be that $200 an hour photographer.. forget wrapping... if you want to wrap, sure go ahead and have a nice $1000 camera on hand, & hone your design & selling skills to help put your one-stop-shop clients into nice wraps... but the really excellent wraps that would require a 12 megapixel camera are probably not going to be one-stop-shop clients. ...In my humble opinion, of course.

[Bobby H]

If you're going to do your own product photography and other sorts of photography for display on billboards, vehicle wraps and more you really should be working with professional quality equipment. For digital shooting I recommend the minimum of a D-SLR system and high quality lenses.

A low cost point and shoot camera might be fine for some quick and dirty projects but it would not capture the image quality expected by larger, bigger named clients. Lower cost cameras are also much slower and cannot be used in as many shooting situations -making it less likely you're going to get the shot you really want.

Pixel count is important, but the quality of lens and quality of lighting used makes an even bigger impact on image quality.

The Canon EOS 5D is an excellent camera. Its imaging sensor is known as a "full frame sensor" in that it is the same size as a standard 8-perf 35mm film frame. The size of that sensor is a major reason why the camera body costs $3000. The 5D is the least costly of Canon's full frame cameras. The EOS 1Ds Mark II is the most expensive, boasting a 16 megapixel sensor.

But all that money on the camera body would be wasted if you don't have some high quality Canon "L-series" lenses attached to it. You'll also need an appropriate lighting kit for the kind of photography you'll be doing. An external speed light flash (optimally with a side mounting bracket) is a must for the 5D since it does not have a built in flash (and because most built in flashes on other cameras suck).

To stick within a budget, a lot of people getting into the D-SLR thing are going with less expensive "crop body" cameras, such as the 10.1 megapixel Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi or the Canon EOS 30D. The crop body cameras with their APS-C type sensors are compatible with all the standard Canon EF series lenses and the EF-S series lenses.

Basically the idea is to get a good collection of lenses going. Camera bodies themselves depreciate and get obsolete fast. The lenses do not. They hold their value well. You'll have to figure out the focal range you'll need to cover since there are so many different kinds of lenses and differing focal lengths.

The two lenses I use the most are a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L telephoto zoom and a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L wide angle zoom. The next lens I buy will probably be Canon's 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens. It's a slower lens and demands bright light, but has some powerful reach and is image stabilized. Every photographer is different and has different shooting needs. Some people need macro lenses. Some prefer shooting with only fixed focal length prime lenses. Basically you just have to get out there and do a lot of shooting to see what you really need.

[noregrets]

I second what has been said. You will not notice the difference in the megapixels. Get a camera that you feel most comfortable with, i.e. which one fits in your hand better etc.

If you are getting DSLR I would be inclined to go for a lower end body and spend the extra money on the lense. Go for glass lenses with some type of image stabilisation built in.

On the other hand as Geary said, some of the digi cams are more than suitable and could be a lot more practical, both with their size, and their ease of use.

I have a Nikon D70 and a Fuji S7000. We expected the Nikon to far outshine the Fuji, especially with the price difference - but in reality it is sometimes the other way around.

Hope that helps

[Bobby H]

Go for glass lenses with some type of image stabilisation built in.

While image stabilization will help in certain areas, particularly in panning sport photography shots, it also has drawbacks as well.

I specifically chose the non-IS version of Canon's L-series 70-200mm zoom because it produces significantly sharper image quality than its counterpart bearing a $600 higher price. The problem is the IS version has so many extra glass elements in it that they all become possible variables in manufacturing quality. A lot of people have had to send in their lenses to be recalibrated and still never get quite to the tack sharp level of image quality the non-IS version has.

Nikon and other lens builders have had similar challenges in their image stabilized lenses.

Image stabilization also does not stop action. You must have a fast enough lens to get the frame rate needed to prevent blur and other stuff happening in shots with objects or people in movement.

Finally, image stabilization really is no substitute for a good tripod or monopod.

I have a Nikon D70 and a Fuji S7000. We expected the Nikon to far outshine the Fuji, especially with the price difference - but in reality it is sometimes the other way around.

What kind of lenses do you have matched to that D70?

Some low cost point and shoot can generate seemingly good results. But their images really tend to fall apart when you look more closely at them.

Chromatic abberation is a common problem to any point and shoot camera. Any kind of high contrast object, such as bare tree branches or telephone lines against a bright sky will typically have colored fringing around the edge detail. A really good D-SLR lens won't have that problem. D-SLR cameras can shoot in RAW format, vary JPEG compression levels for that format and shoot without any of the auto sharpening features most point and shoot cameras use. The auto sharpening can worsen the effects of chromatic abberation in cheap lenses and add other problems like edge halos, mosquito noise and all sorts of other unsightly stuff that will be made great big on any large format digital print.

[Pro Signs & Graphix]

You will not see the difference between a 10 and 12 megapixel camera. Sure, more is better BUT not cost effective. If you truly want a DSLR then allow the justification to be the flexibility of lenses and accessories. Telephoto lenses are actually fun, and sometimes are necessary to avoid disturbing someone/something. There are some image quality differences between DSLR's and fixed lens cameras - but not really noticeable to the human eyes. (Proven fact: Ansel was notorious for carrying a compact camera in his pocket to catch that "perfect shot").

Still assuming that money is burning your pocket...may we suggest the Sony A100K DSLR or even the Pentax. Both cameras have the built-in anti-shake, also called image stabilization (in the body, not the lens AND can be turned off if wanted) and can readily accept lenses from the "past". We dis a lot of research before we bought our Sony (which is actually Konica Minolta), and we found that the most manufactured lenses were for the Minolta's and Pentax.

Check this out: www.broadwayphoto.com

Their Sony's are now going for sub $600 (Camera and lens). The Pentax is even cheaper yet. Both cameras have excellent write-ups, and we can vouch for the A100K.

Good luck!

[Bobby H]

You will not see the difference between a 10 and 12 megapixel camera. Sure, more is better BUT not cost effective.

Actually, that's not true. The old argument of "you don't need any more than X number of pixels" is counterproductive. More resolution and image detail is simply more resolution and image detail. Some "digital backs" for large format view cameras have image sensors up to 40 million pixels.

The best lenses from Canon and Nikon, as well as others from companies like Zeiss, have glass that is more than capable of getting more than enough image detail to 10 or 12 megapixel sensors. Results on a good photograph can be tack sharp even on something like the 16.7 megapixel sensor from the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II.

Another issue to consider is the size relation of each pixel unit on a given camera imaging sensor. The Canon EOS 5D has a much larger sensor than something like the 1.6 cropped Digital Rebel XTi sensor. Since the XTi is packing 10.2 million pixels into a sensor 62.5% the size of the EOS 5D's sensor less light is getting to each pixel sensor. You lose 1/3 of a stop on exposure because of that. The EOS 5D has a faster frame rate, spot metering and more points of auto focus. Finally, because the sensor is so large it has a superior capacity for capturing color fidelity -and it sees the full view of any EF series lens, not a cropped view of it.

Their Sony's are now going for sub $600 (Camera and lens). The Pentax is even cheaper yet. Both cameras have excellent write-ups, and we can vouch for the A100K.

Camera bodies are one thing. When you buy a certain model of camera body, you are buying into that platform of lenses and accessories. It's a little similar to the whole Mac versus PC thing. Because of that, I'm only comfortable recommending Canon and Nikon to anyone serious about D-SLR photography.

[Bogie]

I can blow a 3 megapixel up to 24x36 without a lot of problems (I tend to do one scale in photoshop). Any larger, and I want some serious pixelage.

Personally, I lean toward Nikon, but for point and shoot, the Canons win hands down... They've got a faster "trigger" speed than most of the others... around 0.1 second. Some of the others will go upwards of a half second. Doesn't seem like much, but if you've got someone standing around, well...

For good product photography, etc., etc., hire a pro. Or spend some real money on how you set up your lights, etc. Because you're basically "painting with light."

A camera that'll run RAW format is a plus too.... Give the choice, that's the way to go.

[Pro Signs & Graphix]

Bobby,

You are very correct in regards to the cameras although for the majority that know nothing about the DSLR's, and their individual differences, spending the additional $2k-$3k would not be cost-effective. I should have used the term "un-trained eye".

It is obvious from your posts that you know and use these DSLR's. While I completely understand what you are saying, most will immediately get lost in the curves (yes, plural :biggrin: ).

The way we have found it to be is that there are high-dollar units for "bread and butter" pro shooting, mid-level exceptionally priced units (less than $1000), and then the latest low-dollar pocket technology in a DSLR body.

[Bogie]

Oh, and what I'd probably go for...

Nikon D40 or Canon equivalent. Widest zoom I can afford, probably one of the aftermarket brands. Then likely a 70-200 or somesuch... I tend to shoot more wide than tele...

(I tend to rack up over 5,000 frames/year...)

[player]

I have been wanting a 60 mm macro lens for my Cannon for awhile. They are about $650 Can plus 14% tax.


P

[fozzyber]

I have been doing photography for a bit, learned enough to know I don't know it all, but here are a few tips.
1. SHOOT FROM A TRIPOD AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE!!!!!
2. A good lens is a must!!!! with out it. It is like owning a Porsche and putting Farm Co-op mudder tires on it.
3. Shoot shoot and shoot some more. Change your settings and repeat.
4. Mega pixel is not as important as you think, remember to double the resolution of a 6.0 MP camera you have to go to a 24.1 MP camera
think about it
3008x2000 = 6016000 = 6 MP
6012x4000= 24048000 = 24.1 MP
Mega pixel has become a marketing game, If you need the best fine, but I doubt your eye will see the difference between the 10 MP and 12 MP.
but you will see the difference between that $200 lens and that $800 lens.

The 2 lenses for my Minolta 7d that I love the best is a 50 mm F1.4 the other is a 70-210 prime F4.
5. outdoor light will be better than any flash you can buy, shoot the "golden hours" sun rise and sun set. or shoot sun light and a flash.
6. Owen a high end digital camera, you better know how to spank photoshop on the ass and make her scream like she likes it. 50% shooting, 50% post-processing.
6. The cheapest option is to hire a shutter jockey.

These are the best tips I have learned, some the hard way and some the $$$ way. Take it as you want, free advice is worth what you pay for it...

[Ken]

I have found the chromatic abberation issue to be a problem on a couple of occassions. Trying to isolate fine lines on a photo cut-out is where this shows up. I bought the wife a 6MP Canon at Christmas, I'll try that over my 3.2MP "in the name of science and discovery"..lol
Cheers!
Ken

[flat rock stan]

I am going with the EOS5D body and start with a very good lens for shooting macro and general close ups. I need to take a customers sandwich and make several of their delivery vans look pretty much the same (very tasty). I will check out some of the lenses mentioned here by those of you with experience. Are off brands still good for casual usage? In one of my other businesses I shoot and produce educational training DVD’s and have found proper lighting and video camera quality directly equal amount of work done as well as quality! Most of my work is done with an Adobe program named Serious Magic using green screen. The new camera will come in very handy with those projects also.
Thanks for the input
Stan

[fozzyber]

If you want to save a bit of $$$ on lenses go to WWW.KEH.COM (http://WWW.KEH.COM)
They sell used. This is not flea market, or ebay, KEH is the largest camera repair in the nation. They grade their used equipment.
I have bought used from them and like many others have been verry happy.

Jerry