Camera Labs

I have already decided to buy a Sigma DP2 Merrill for my recreational photography, but it occurred to me that the Sigma may not be good for product photography. I sell beads on the internet, so my product photography is all macro (I generally taken the photos from 10" to 12" away). Also, since the beads come in a zillion colors, I need a camera that reproduces colors well, and the Sigma isn't known for that.

My thinking is that what I need is a good compact camera with a smallish sensor (not necessarily the smallest, but smaller than 4/3rds). Please tell me if I am wrong, but my impression is that smaller sensors can take macro photographs with a larger focus area and less barrel distortion -- is that right? Since all my images for the web are reduced, any pixel-level imperfections would disappear during resizing.

If it's true that a smaller sensor is what I need, then my concern is color accuracy. I'm guessing that an enthusiast compact or a DSLR will have better color accuracy than a run-of-the-mill compact. Or do manufacturers try to put the same color accuracy into all their cameras?

My reasoning is leading me to cameras like the Canon S95 and S100, the Panasonic LX5 and LX7, and the Nikon 1 series. Do you agree with me that that's the kind of camera I need?

If anyone wants to see the kind of photos I take, my shopping cart is www.purebeads.com/catalogue/

Thank you.

Whilst you may take the trouble to get the best colour accuracy you can when taking your product shots, be mindful of the fact that the myriad devices used to browse the internet will represent colours in many different ways.

The reason paint and appliance manufacturers produce colour cards and coated swatches is to overcome the failings of other methods of showing their products.

Maybe include a pantone swatch card in every shot to indicate the potential error in any viewing device.

_________________
Nikon D90
Nikkor AF-S DX; 18-105 f/3.5-5.6G VR, 55-300 f/4.5-5.6G VR, 35mm f/1.8G
Speedlight SB-700

http://keystrokesukimages.com

Key, you have a good point. I don't even know if my monitor is calibrated accurately.

Indeed, monitors are a big problem. LCD monitors are not as good as the old CRTs were. My monitor, made by Planar, is darker at the top than at the bottom, so I don't even know which portion of the screen has the right brightness. The monitor has 4 color temperatures, none of which looks 100% accurate. In fact, grays on my monitor look slightly pink. Since the monitor has so many apparent display defects, I feel that it would be a waste of time to try to calibrate it.

However, I'm still curious to know: Will a camera with a smaller sensor give me better macro photographs than a large-sensor camera?

It's not that straightforward as there are benefits and drawbacks to a larger or smaller sensor.

With a smaller sensor the subject will appear larger at a set focal length and distance than with a larger sensor. At a set f/stop, you'll also be able to achieve a greater depth of field. Handheld macro photography is generally easier with a smaller sensor camera than with a larger one.

However it's not all one sided in favour of a smaller sensor. The smaller sensor usually has a smaller pixel size so they are more prone to generating noise at a lower ISO.

The lenses used on DSLRs and CSCs are of generally better optical quality than those used on compact cameras as well.

Perhaps it's worth considering whether you prefer the relative ease of using a compact camera or if you'd prefer to achieve the best quality albeit with greater difficulty and expense using a DSLR or CSC.

_________________
Bodies: Canon EOS 550D w/ Magic Lantern
Lenses: Tokina AT-X 116 Pro DX f/2.8, Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Accessories: YongNuo Speedlite YN-468 Flash, Neewer Macro LED Ring Light, Meike Battery Grip, YongNuo RF-602 Wireless Flash Trigger & Receiver YongNuo WR-128 Wireless Remote Control