camera buffs: most lifelike color for <$400?

[dpopiz]

I want to get a new camera because the pic quality of my Canon SD200 sucks. The most important thing to me is pro-quality lifelike color (accurate balance and good shadow detail and such).

I know $400 is pretty low for this, but I'm willing to buy an old used model. I'm sure there are some old good quality DSLR's getting cheap these days.

What do you recommend?

 

[Ornery]

Need a camera? You're in luck! Call the local Sears. Mine had three discontinued DSC-V1's in stock for $279.00. If yours has one in stock BUY IT! It's Sears, so very easy to return if you don't like it. For under $300.00 you get:

• Pocketable camera with 4X optical zoom with Zeiss lens
• NightShot using on-camera IR illumination and enhanced ISO along with imaging chip IR sensitivity elevation techniques.
• Night Framing using a small laser projected holographic pattern that can focus on nearby subjects (think 10 - 20 feet or so) in complete and utter darkness.
• Accessory intelligent hot shoe.
• Metal body with plastic access hatches.
• Self-capping fold-up lens that doesn't screw up.
• Threaded mount for converter lenses.
• A laser holographic pattern projector helps you focus in total darkness.

Basically a no brainer.


Edit: BTW, there's no reason why your current camera shouldn't shoot "life like" color. Is your white balance dialed in correctly?

 

[Anubis]

ornery, does sony and/or sears pay you for that? cause its getting a bit rediclious IMO

 

[Anubis]

as for the question at hand, Nikon and Olympus have the most "natural" looking colors out of the camera, Canon, sony an d well just about everyone boosts everything in camera, especially saturation which is why the pics come out of their cameras looking the way that they do

Canons DIGIC chip is what is doing it in your SD200

the panasonics arnt bad either you can prob get an older FZ20 for 400 ish, 5mp nice lens Image stabilazation. not so compact tho

 

[dpopiz]

hm I heard fuji was good for natural colors

 

[Dubb]

keep in mind that the brain makes shifts in color that aren't really "there" - especially in largely monochromatic surroundings. cameras (obviously) don't pick up on that, so "lifelike color" is kinda an oxymoron.

if you find yourself frequently disappointed in photographs, it might just be that your brain pushes things farther than most.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Anubis
ornery, does sony and/or sears pay you for that? cause its getting a bit rediclious IMO

Afraid somebody might snag a deal?

That camera was discontinued a year ago. This is the LAST CHANCE for anybody to get the best bang for the buck piece of equipment available in the last 18 months. My Sears has at least one floor model left. I may snag the SOB myself, just because it is the end of an era. Nothing in Sony, Canon, or Panasonic's line comes close to that deal, now or ever before. When they're gone, they're gone, and there will be no more copy & pastes. Till then, stuff it!

 

[imported_Snagle]

I'd say accurate color isn't as important as pleasing color. Get a camera that shoots RAW so you can have complete (near lossless) control over color temperature in post-processing. Auto white balance has gotten better over the years but it still isn't going to produce pleasing color in every situation.

Oh, and learn to use photoshop. Once you learn to manage color well in Photoshop your pictures will improve quite a bit.

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: Anubis
ornery, does sony and/or sears pay you for that? cause its getting a bit rediclious IMO

LOL

The V1 is a nice camera. My father has one. Takes great shots imo.

Koing

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Anubis
as for the question at hand, Nikon and Olympus have the most "natural" looking colors out of the camera, Canon, sony an d well just about everyone boosts everything in camera, especially saturation which is why the pics come out of their cameras looking the way that they do

Canons DIGIC chip is what is doing it in your SD200

the panasonics arnt bad either you can prob get an older FZ20 for 400 ish, 5mp nice lens Image stabilazation. not so compact tho

I know you can adjust how much the DSLRs do this... But it's best to shoot RAW if possible in order to fix white balance issues later.

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: Snagle
I'd say accurate color isn't as important as pleasing color. Get a camera that shoots RAW so you can have complete (near lossless) control over color temperature in post-processing. Auto white balance has gotten better over the years but it still isn't going to produce pleasing color in every situation.

Oh, and learn to use photoshop. Once you learn to manage color well in Photoshop your pictures will improve quite a bit.

Only snags then are he has to make sure his monitor/ print/ inks settings are ACCURATE also!

Koing

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Anubis
as for the question at hand, Nikon and Olympus have the most "natural" looking colors out of the camera, Canon, sony an d well just about everyone boosts everything in camera, especially saturation which is why the pics come out of their cameras looking the way that they do

Canons DIGIC chip is what is doing it in your SD200

the panasonics arnt bad either you can prob get an older FZ20 for 400 ish, 5mp nice lens Image stabilazation. not so compact tho

I know you can adjust how much the DSLRs do this... But it's best to shoot RAW if possible in order to fix white balance issues later.

yes, shooting in raw is almost always the best idea, even if you set everything correctly for the shot, converting it from raw even if you have to fix teh smallest detail is a better idea then working from a jpeg

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: Anubis
ornery, does sony and/or sears pay you for that? cause its getting a bit rediclious IMO

LOL

The V1 is a nice camera. My father has one. Takes great shots imo.

Koing

its a great camera ive got nothing aganst it
(other then its a sony)
but he plugs it like its his job, and has for a few years

 

[Ornery]

1. I take it you have/had a better deal for the boys... you're on, let's hear it. Links?

 

[yhelothar]

I'd say the Fuji F11. Best sensor in a P&S. Sensors are the most important for color accuracy.
If you really want lifelike colors, DSLR is the only way to go. You just can't get a good dynamic range out of such small sensors in P&S cameras.
You might be able to find an old used Canon D30 or the likes on ebay.

 

[dpopiz]

well ok about color: I've seen the shots I take with my SD200 and I've seen the shots my friend takes with his Nikon D50. There is a difference.. Let's just leave it at that. I want smooth color range like the D50 without paying $700.

 

[PHiuR]

photographer > camera

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Ornery

1. I take it you have/had a better deal for the boys... you're on, let's hear it. Links?

Fuji F10 for a little over $200.
Who needs IR for nighttime shooting when you have a usable ISO800, not to mention you'll get better colors than just black and white.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: dpopiz
well ok about color: I've seen the shots I take with my SD200 and I've seen the shots my friend takes with his Nikon D50. There is a difference.. Let's just leave it at that. I want smooth color range like the D50 without paying $700.

that would be had to pull off the sensor in teh D50 is liek 9x larger then that in a P&S, its alsop got a much better piece of glass in front of it

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: Ornery

1. I take it you have/had a better deal for the boys... you're on, let's hear it. Links?

Fuji F10 for a little over $200.
Who needs IR for nighttime shooting when you have a usable ISO800, not to mention you'll get better colors than just black and white.

the IR is for focus, its like a super AF assist lamp, but it actually works

 

[RossMAN]

Originally posted by: Ornery

1. I take it you have/had a better deal for the boys... you're on, let's hear it. Links?

/me grabs popcorn, Pepsi and sells a few front row seats.

ROUND ONE!

 

[Ornery]

...smooth color range...

Could you actually link to a sample page of your current shots or something?

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: dpopiz
well ok about color: I've seen the shots I take with my SD200 and I've seen the shots my friend takes with his Nikon D50. There is a difference.. Let's just leave it at that. I want smooth color range like the D50 without paying $700.

As I said, there's no P&S that can get DSLR colors, unless you spend $800 on the Sony R-1 that has a DSLR sized sensor.
Again, get a used DSLR.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: RossMAN

Originally posted by: Ornery

1. I take it you have/had a better deal for the boys... you're on, let's hear it. Links?

/me grabs popcorn, Pepsi and sells a few front row seats.

ROUND ONE!

Let's see your HOT DEAL bro!

Adam will be a great help in this topic, because I think the OP doesn't know what he's talking about. No doubt he'll be set straight in the long run.

I actually did post that link about one hundred times since just before Christmas. The Mods saw fit to blow away my original topic on the subject, because I offered it up to ATOT instead of Hot Deals, with that disclaimer in the topic title. Fvck those leaches. They'd have just bought it up and flipped it on Ebay. Sorry you've had to read about it so frequently, but the whole thing pissed me off.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: Ornery

1. I take it you have/had a better deal for the boys... you're on, let's hear it. Links?

Fuji F10 for a little over $200.
Who needs IR for nighttime shooting when you have a usable ISO800, not to mention you'll get better colors than just black and white.

the IR is for focus, its like a super AF assist lamp, but it actually works

Ah yeah you're right, I missed the illumination part. The review he posted said the sensor is IR ready.