Digital Camera

[d_Guy]

This may not be the best place for this post but it does concern photos. I use my iPhone for all the photos I take, with mixed results.
Sometimes I'll get a clean high def pic - in focus - colors about right - etc but I often can't reproduce it even with the same setting (not very many) and lighting conditions. I would like a digital camera - wifi enabled - with decent zoom, depth of field and maybe something akin to an f stop. Oh - and I can't spend more that about 150£ - tops!  Does such a think exist?  Any recommendations?

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Yes,
Have a look at this, refurbished Fuji cameras, often ex press, fixed faults or seconds, enables you to purchase a much better camera for a much cheaper price.
http://shop.fujifilm.co.uk/refurbished-digital-cameras

[fred.]

I have a proper DSLR camera (a Canon D450) with a couple of extra lenses - and I now barely use it, because of the camera in my iPhone (a 6s). The cameras in the newest iPhones are really good, even the ones in the 5s are pretty good.

You know about clicking on the screen on the iPhone to set the focal point, and the exposure point?

There are also camera apps that can give you more settings, but I haven't bothered with these as the basic camera app seems perfectly good enough.

I'd spend some time exploring what it does, as with a £150 budget I don't think you are going to get much more than a point and click camera.

[Techno]

No one is to say....."Techno will help you.....He was a professional photographer, for the Evil Empire."
(I had £10k's worth of equipment to play with there, in the late  80's)

I have two digital cameras to play with now.......A digital 'Instamatic' (Pentax) which cost around £500 20 years ago......I'm sure that'd be a 10th of the price for something similar nowadays.....And a Canon digital SLR (Plus a couple of lenses) which came out at over £1,000......Which I think is complete cr*p.

Some of the guys on the forum get FAR better results from their phones, than the piccies I send to Leon, saying....."Are these what you're looking for ?".

Cheers - Phil

[d_Guy]

Thanks for the replies.

Fred - yes I do know about setting the focal point but that is still a very good point worth mentioning. Had not considered looking at camera apps - thanks

ML - refurbished cameras I had not thought about so thanks for the link - looked at several other sites also - most are still pretty pricey

And based on what Fred and Techno have said probably not going to find something better than my iPhone 6+ for 150£s. When Techno says that £1000 got him a piece of cr_p - well that's pretty definitive! 

Rather spend it on little guys anyway. Still wish I could solve the riddle of why sometimes I get good results and other times not.

[Techno]

And based on what Fred and Techno have said probably not going to find something better than my iPhone 6+ for 150£s. When Techno says that £1000 got him a piece of cr_p - well that's pretty definitive! 

I really am genuinely disappointed with the 'posh' camera. The little Pentax still gives better results....(And is quicker and easier to use)...Though I'd have to admit there's FAR more resolution available on the Canon.
The results that Forbes (Fred) gets with his phone, are hugely superior, quality wise, to the Canon. (Which I find somewhat irritating....Not with you Forbes. .....I'd just expect something whose sole purpose is to take photo's to give better results than a phone. )

Fred's piccies look pin sharp, whereas the Digital SLR's always look the tiniest bit out of focus (at best).

Cheers - Phil

[Matt J]

I use a light box, cost £20. Pretty much use any camera if the lighting is right.

[Aksu]

Hullo,
If you want a deep depth of focus i.e. more of your tiny chaps are in focus, a small sensor size helps (and a small aperture). That's why the tiny phone cameras are easier than the big DSLRs with their full frame sensors (which are great for the brooklyn hipster approved shallow depth pics). If you do choose a digital camera, you might want one of the smaller ones, and if you go for an exchangable lens body, micro four thirds (m43) is a pretty good choice I think. Panasonic and Olympus for example. Some of the older models might be around on e.g. Amazon deals. I got the missus a Panasonic GM1 with a pretty decent kit zoom from one of the local dealers for a very good price. And you can also use older manual lenses from Nikon, Canon etc on these bodies with suitable adaptors.
Cheers,
Aksu

[fred.]

I use a light box, cost £20. Pretty much use any camera if the lighting is right.

Lighting is really important.

I don't think I'd go as far as saying I get better photos from my iPhone than my DSLR - but the difference is so small I can rarely be bothered getting the camera out. 

[ronan]

Lighting is really important.

I don't think I'd go as far as saying I get better photos from my iPhone than my DSLR - but the difference is so small I can rarely be bothered getting the camera out. 

I agree. As the pics are going to the internet, (resized etc. ) I find my smartphone is largely sufficient.

Remember : there's always not-enough-light 

[fsn]

Remember : there's always not-enough-light 

Ooooh! Controversial!

I would add that the great way to screw up a photograph (or make it) is with greatly differing levels of light.   

[d_Guy]

Again - more good advice, thanks - I really like this board!
Light box is great idea - if I could actually paint stunning figures I would have one immediately and drag out my old Canon A1 with tripod.
(Assuming someone still processes film - oh wait the last time got pics on a CD - who knows what is done now)
My game board is on dinning table on our sun porch - SUN porch!
I did find some decent deals on Amazon (as was suggested) but now pretty well convinced to just stay with my iPhone and buy more little guys.

[Leon]

I use a Fujifilm bridge camera for all the web photos and sculpts, etc. which has done a decent job for me so far.  I have a bit of trouble with the lighting at times and have to play about with the images in Photoshop, but it's not too bad. 

[Norm]

Phil, something is not right, it sounds like your lens and body are slightly out of tolerance or at least at the opposite ends of tolerance. A good match too body should get pin sharp.

If you want shallow depths of field, then without modern specialist software, the only physical way of doing it is with a large sensor (at least 1 inch) and a long lens or a macro lens.

For deep depths of field the small sensor in a phone or compact is very good. The real advantage of a big sensor is keeping good resolution when printing bigger than A3, but since we are all mostly downsizing images these days for uploading or small screens, then that benefit is not rally relevant.

Your iPhone might perform better if you had a little LED unit for more light, that should substantially bring your ISO down and image quality up. Out of interest, on the shots you think are good and the ones you think poor, just compare their ISO's, that might tell its own story.

[Techno]

I use a Fujifilm bridge camera for all the web photos and sculpts, etc. which has done a decent job for me so far.  I have a bit of trouble with the lighting at times and have to play about with the images in Photoshop, but it's not too bad. 

I've thought that the piccies you take, with that, Leon...look really good !

Phil, something is not right, it sounds like your lens and body are slightly out of tolerance or at least at the opposite ends of tolerance. A good match too body should get pin sharp.

I think you may be right, Norm.

I know the Canon does NOT focus on 'infinity'....which I find a bit vexing.....Apparently it's not made to. 
The other 'problem' that I have, is that having used a 5" x 4" plate camera, with lenses that cost as much as the whole camera 'kit' I've got now ....(That's 25 years ago, now).....I expect the Canon to produce something as sharp as those big 'slides'......and it just ain't gonna do that.... 

I get 'acceptable' shots from it.......But nowhere near as good as I think it should manage.
Like I've said...I think Forbes' shots from his phone are a far superior quality.

Cheers - Phil