what type of camera for web design.

trueman · February 12th, 2004, 07:31 AM

I want to buy a digital camera for web design but am not sure what type to get. I have seen cameras ranging from 1 or 2 megapixels up to 10 megapixels. I cannot afford the 10 megapixel models and figure these would be over kill for web design anyway.
So what would the lowest megapixel camera be that I could use for web design and still get good results?

Alternatively I do have a very good Canon SLR with a range of lenses and a decent flash unit. I also have a scanner.

Would I be better off to use this camera to get a better image and then simply scan the photos or would a digital camera be the way to go?

crystaldragon · February 12th, 2004, 08:04 AM

The best quality images for the lowest out of pocket expense?

Use your current camera and forget about the scanner (use tha scanner for pics you have that are already printed). Have the pics put on cd-rom when they are processed.

The film camera captures more detail in the images than any monitor is able to display. To get that kind of actual detail in digital you would have to use at least a 10 megapixel digital camera.

The only real advantages that a digital camera might offer is no processing / film cost and immediate access to your pics. You will also be giving up many of your film cameras exposure and lens capabilities.
The 2-3 megapixel digital cams will give plenty of detail for web / computer monitor use.

Prison Kids · February 12th, 2004, 10:08 AM

It really depends on how far you are planning to crop down, or enlarge the photos. For most general applications, and web apps, CD is correct, 2-3 megapixels is fine and will give you decent quality. I actually have an Olympus D-460z, that is only 1.3 megapixels, and it has 3 quality settings. I keep it on the middle setting, so I can get more pics. These pics were all taken with this camera. I think they are decent quality for working with standard designs.

crystaldragon · February 12th, 2004, 10:57 AM

I'm glad you posted PK. It made me remember something.

In digital cameras, especially in the 1.3 - 2 mega-pixel range The lens becomes a major factor. Its resolution determines how fine detail is captured, then of course comes quality settings which determines how much detail is available to be used within the limits of the cameras capture circuitry (mega-pixels). Olympus has long been known for the quality of the lenses they use.

For use on the web 100 dpi is usually more than sufficient resolution in the finished image. Most image degradation that is seen in web images is due to poor processing of the image before it is posted. Usually excessive enlargement (too small original size) or poor choices of format (too much compression in a jpg for example).

The reason I mentioned that he use his existing film slr (if the processing time is not a problem) is that film natively resolves more detail than digital systems. Only in the last few years have digital systems reached a point that they can compete on an even footing with film and that is only in the extreme high end equipment.

Nice pics btw. Looks like you follow the old rule that always helps get better pictures. " Get closer!"

Even in film cameras the less cropping / enlarging that you have to do the better

Prison Kids · February 12th, 2004, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by crystaldragon

Nice pics btw. Looks like you follow the old rule that always helps get better pictures. " Get closer!"

Thanks.

Good point CD! It's amazing how many people still use zoom, to fill the viewer.

More zoom = Less quality.

CookieBox Inc. · February 12th, 2004, 05:31 PM

if the camera's for artisitc use, as long as u know how to compose ur photo and work with lightning, u'd be amazed @ how "artsy" that crappy free web cam can get. the crappier the camera, the more it distorts reality artistically. look on the bright side: u don't hafta pay for those filters!

here's 2 pics i took on my webcam, one's my guitar, the other's a new painting i did for school. both on this bulky, made in china freebie

ps. u see that flash on the camera? it's a sticker.

trueman · February 12th, 2004, 06:06 PM

Thanks for the replys guys.
I suppose one of the drawbacks of using an SLR is peoples perceptions that you MUST use a digital camera for web design. I was at a mechanics workshop yesterday to take some photos for his website using my SLR. One of the mechanics looked at me and said "You cant take pictures for the internet with one of those cameras, you need a digital camera."
My first thought was well if you know so much about webdesign why arent you doing this for your boss instead of him paying me. However I calmly explained to him that I can scan the pictures later on.
That incident prompted me to ask the question.
I might stick with my SLR for now as I have a great zoom lens and a wide angle lens which is great for shots of inside stores etc. I also have a good flash unit for it.
I will purchase a digital when the funds are there.

Cookiebox,
I wish I could get one of those freebie cameras youve got. It would be fun to play around and the photos look good for a freebie.

CookieBox Inc. · February 12th, 2004, 06:10 PM

oh so ur like a journalist almost?
if it's for web design go ahead and buy a cheap small one over the net, they're about 20-30 bucks. if u want fish eye view, u can always photoshop that effect

the thing with digital cam, especially with LCD screen is, u get to see what u've taken on the spot and be able to retake it if whatever doesn't look right. plus, u don't pay for ur trial and error.

freakster · February 12th, 2004, 09:55 PM

i actually have a 3.3mega pixel camera... its great. i have taken some really great clear pictures and have even used them for a couple of websites that i'm doing...

just wanted to say that i prefer using a digi, rather then having to pay money to get the pictures put on to CD, its cheaper for me to upload them on to my comptuer, then to burn them to disc...

so yup. digi's rock. I just wish i knew how to use it as a webcam... which would be kickin'... but i think i just have to fork out the 30plus bucks to get a good one!

by the way... cookie, nice guitar you have...

and trueman... what kind of site are you building?

Freakster.

trueman · February 13th, 2004, 03:04 AM

Freakster,

I do all kinds of sites as I am just starting out doing web design as a part time business. The sites I have designed in the past I always managed to borrow a mates digital camera.
As I am getting more serious about it I wanted opinions as I like using my SLR but felt like I should be upgrading to digital.

CookieBox,
No Im nothing like a journalist, I do website design. I was taking pictures at the clients premises to use on his website.