Affordable Camera, what's your favorite?

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by astokel

As a pro for 17 years, I'll just add for what it is worth that the camera should have a substantial wide angle lens or a really good panorama setting for interior shots of boats.

My latest Lumix has a pretty wide angle at the "normal" (non zoom) setting but it also has a setting for "stitching" photos together to get a wider angle. I haven't tried this yet.

[FutureStories]

Originally Posted by rwidman

BTW: I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but I ended up with the cameras I did from reading reviews on camera sites, not boating forums.

I am well aware. I have been doing plenty of poking there. However I figured more people here are taking pictures of boats, and can explain things in laymen terms. This same post on a camera forum makes me feel like anything under $1,000 is insufficient

I cant believe with the uncanny whit of the cruiser forum it took to the end of page 3 for someone to mention this, I knew it was coming.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by astokel

As a pro for 17 years, I'll just add for what it is worth that the camera should have a substantial wide angle lens or a really good panorama setting for interior shots of boats.

This I will agree with. Trying to take a picture of the head thru a narrow door is near impossible to get a full view with a standard lens...of course, you can get a wide angle lens that attaches to your phone.

Likewise, a $20 battery powered light will take care of most poor lighting if you are going the inside of a hatch or engine room.

Also while I haven't played with it, my basic phone can be turned in place to stitch together a 360 degree view. Might need to cover the mirror to stay out of the picture but very doable otherwise.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by FutureStories

I am well aware. I have been doing plenty of poking there. However I figured more people here are taking pictures of boats, and can explain things in laymen terms. This same post on a camera forum makes me feel like anything under $1,000 is insufficient .

Yes, but folks on a camera forum aren't suggesting using a telephone to take photos.

I was thinking of camera reviews usually done by photo magazines, not forums. They usually compare brands and models and you can select a price range.

[barnakiel]

I think the best affordable cameras today are the ones in some smartphones.

You can only take a picture WHEN you have the camera with you and most people actually sleep with their phones these days.

So, maybe what you already have is good enough for the job?

b.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I think the best affordable cameras today are the ones in some smartphones..

The key word here is "some". I think that totally depends on the phone ... my low-end android phone makes a lousy camera.

It's got all the megapixels, and digital image manipulation you could ask for but:

a) It has a tiny low-quality lens with all kinds of aberrations
b) The lens is unprotected, and is now scratched
c) The touch-screen is barely daylight visible without shading
d) It is difficult to operate the touch-screen controls one handed (one hand for the boat).
e) There is no manual control for aperture, exposure or focus on difficult shots (actually it has no focus at all)
f) The battery is doing all kinds of things in the background ... I may even need to make phone calls, reducing the battery capacity available to the camera.
g) It has a weak and pathetic flash.
h) It has no optical zoom.
i) It doesn't have a wrist lanyard, making it easy to drop (in the water)
j) It isn't waterproof, and now has a big splodge on the inside of the screen where some rainwater got in and dried out.
k-z) probably a bunch of other things too.

The end result is dramatically inferior pictures compared to my small Olympus camera. If I'm emailing a snap to a friend the phone is good enough, but if I want good pictures, it just doesn't cut it.

A high-end phone may well have a better camera. But most cheap cameras will take better photos than most cheap phones, and most expensive cameras will take better pictures than an expensive phone. I have no idea how a cheap camera compares to an expensive phone.

However, regardless of the camera he uses, if the OP can just take pictures in focus, looking in the right direction, and within 5 years of the listing date he'll be ahead of the game compared to a lot of the photos I had to look at while boat shopping.

[FutureStories]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

However, regardless of the camera he uses, if the OP can just take pictures in focus, looking in the right direction, and within 5 years of the listing date he'll be ahead of the game compared to a lot of the photos I had to look at while boat shopping.

Feel free to PM me the next time you're in the market! I tend to take a really long time taking my pictures specifically for this reason. And got really annoyed when brokers KNEW I was driving 2+ hours to see a boat. A curtosey "just so you're aware the pictures I have are dated and the price has been reduced for the little extra TLC"

I'm shipping a Beneteau to Oregon next month for a buyer, he called and put a deposit on the boat (sight un-seen, probably because I take a lot of pictures!) and wisely so. My phone got blown up the next day (listed the boat 10k below market price for a quick sale) the only thing I didn't outline in the pictures is the drooping headliner, I made sure I told the buyer BEFORE he flew across the country to see the boat! All in all I believe my honesty could have saved the deal. If he showed up and saw it he would probably wonder what else is hiding.

I believe honesty is the best policy! Again large reason for getting into brokerage is the sheer number of people just not doing it right.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

The key word here is "some". I think that totally depends on the phone ... my low-end android phone makes a lousy camera.

It's got all the megapixels, and digital image manipulation you could ask for but:

(list)

(...)

Yep.

But I am afraid you cannot have ALL that (see list) at below USD200.

Technically-wise, one wants a huge sensor matched with a huge lens and this implies huge money.

If one can live with a camera that is not extra small (but at lest it is relatively light) I would suggest a camera similar to say Panasonic FZ70. Not latest and fanciest but capable and nearly in the sub $200 range. (Shop around, $249 at amazon). I think the call them bridge cameras or something.

specs:
https://www.dpreview.com/products/pa...cfz70/overview

image samples:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/fz70/pool/

USD 249 at Amazon.

You can step it up (much smaller, somewhat 'better', more expensive) if you go for a not latest but still a top shelf compact. I am using a Nikon P7800 and my ex camera was a Canon G3. Before that I had the best Nikons (film) with assorted prime lenses. But I took my best pictures with that G3 as it was so small and light that I had it in my rucksack during every single trek and trip. I paid USD1000 (2002) for G3 and now USD 250 for P7800. I must say the P7800 was a rip off. It is not quite as good as G3 despite it is about 10 years more advanced and packs 4x the pixelcount.

But a top shelf compact is $$$.

So I say get a better smartphone or else buy a good bridge camera from around 2013/2014. That's how you squeeze the best images out of your $200.

Cheers,
b.