I’ve noticed many pictures posted in the Knots Gallery are of very high quality, so I am hoping some out there may be able to help me figure out what kind of equipment to purchase.
I am starting the process of designing a website, brochures, and business cards, so my first step is return to several homes in my area to photograph pieces I have commisioned over the last couple years; the photos I have now are definentaly not website quality.
What I am looking for is a digital camera that has good wide-angle capacity (capturing a whole custom bathroom, for example), and high quality ultra close-ups for details of jointery. I know the key to great photos is great lighting, so I’m hoping to find some kind of studio lighting kit that I can set up in the shop, or take with me to show the piece in its new home.
I know this is a very broad question; I have done some internet searches, and talked with a local camera shop owner, but was thinking that some of you, as fellow craftsmen, would have some experience in this field. I’m sure many proffesional woodworkers hire photographers, but this is something I would really prefer to do myself.
Thanks for any advice,
Max
Replies
maderamax,
Rob Millard has posted some beautiful pictures and has described his camera setup. You may want to check the archives here.
BG,
I think you could take pictures of Rob's furniture with any old camera and the photos would still look pretty awsome. A large part of the magic is in the subject..
Best of luck
Edited 9/29/2006 5:07 pm ET by BOBABEUI
..very true...
If you are taking pictures of room interiors you will probably want not only a wide angle lens, but a perspective correcting wide angle lens. Otherwise you will get too much Wide Angle Distortion (falling verticles etc.). These lenses are often called Tilt-shift lenses.
A good lighting setup is also going to be critical (I can't help you much there).
If you are going to use digital cameras exclusively, there's a magazine called "PC Photo" and they have camera reviews, advice columns, etc. One thing to remember is that not as many cameras have a variety of lenses- most are fixed lens and won't do everything well. If you find one that's great for wide angle, the lens won't be good for long range shots, and vise-versa. There are some digital cameras from Nikon anc Canon (there are others but I'm more familiar with these) that have the ability to use lenses from regular SLR cameras and both companies have glass made for architectural photos, where perspective is maintained and straight lines aren't curved. Another thing that happens on a lens made for longer shots is called spherical abberation, which is optical distortion of the subject at the outer extremes of the image. Usually, this happens when the lens is set wide open (shortest focal length) and the largest apature. Don't use the digital zoom if you want the best detail in the photos.
You may not find a camera that does what you want in your price range but if it does everything except the extreme wide-angle shots, you can use a tripod (which is an absolute necessity for the clearest shots) and a medium focal length, taking several shots as you pan around the room. Then, you can create your own panarama shot wth photo editing software, some of which is relatively inexpensive and easy to use. Otherwise, maybe separate shots of different areas of a room or parts of a project aren't a bad thing if the quality doesn't show what you want.
There are some good books on photography and they are very helpful. I used film for a long time and have some images that I'm very happy with. With some, I consider myself lucky to have gotten them at all, the fact that they turned out the way they did is just gravy on the icing. It's just a lot easier to get a good photo digitally, if you know the basics. The colors are saturated, the focus is automatic in most cases and unless it's set for manual operation, the only things needed from the operator are steadiness and good composition in good lighting (to avoid shadows and excessive contrast).
I think the trick is using a tripod. You can take nice clear pictures with a tripod. Reading the photography magazines is a good idea. But in the end I think photography is just like woodworking. If you want professional results you need professional tools and experienced photographers can do more with less, tool-wise.
For furniture specifically you can get out of many of the problems photographers spend lots of money fixing by using a tripod. This should allow you to "get away" with a less expensive camera.
If you can afford it, you won't go wrong with any DSLR. I have a canon 20d and I love it. Canon makes a baby version for a lot less money- the digital rebel. The 30d is essentially similar to the 20d. Don't get a 10d because the lens mount is different and you won't be able to use the new EF-S lenses (which is a major problem, IMHO).
I don't know if you read my articles in PW but the saw article was shot entirely with a 60mm macro and the sharpening article was shot with that macro and a cheap 50mm/1.8 (which I love). Neither is wide angle. The wide angle zooms just aren't as crisp as the primes so I use them only infrequently (17-85 IS, 18-55 kit lens). You can look at those pictures and see what you think. I like Chris Schwarz' pictures in his newsstand only ad-less "Woodworking" magazine. I think he still has a canon 10d.
Adam
Max,
I've had pretty good luck using off camera flashes ( in my case a Nikon SB- 50 and a SB-80) mounted on inexpensive tripods, for working photos. You have to experiment a bit to see what placement works best, but I like to bounce the light off the ceiling whenever possible. The flashes can be set up as slaves and will fire when the on camera flash activates. The on camera flash will some times have to be shielded to avoid causing glare on the subject. I do this with a piece of white cardboard or my hand. The flash will still activate the slaves, but won't hit the subject. The real key is having a camera that will allow a slow sync speed with the flash. I use a Nikon D-70 or D-100 both of which have this feature. The slow sync flash speed allows for a small aperture which will give you a good depth of field and gets the most out of the flash, eliminating a lot of shadows. The down side to this is a good tripod is essential, because in most cases the shutter speed will make a hand held shot out of the question. I set the camera on a Bogen tripod rated for a fairly heavy camera( they cost about $80.00) and use the timer to insure a crisp photo.
I've not done much wide angle work, but I have a Tokina 17mm 3.5 lens for my cameras, and it has been excellent; allowing some good hand held shots under adverse conditions, yet offering a good depth of field and little distortion. See the attached photo taken at the US Air Force Museum, and note how the structural members in the hanger appear straight. You'll also see how even widely spaced elements in the photo are in focus. This would make a great lens for taking photos of rooms. When used on most digital cameras, the crop factor downgrades the wide angle effect when compared film cameras, but it still allows for a pretty good field of view.
When photographing a individual piece of furniture against a plain backdrop I like to use dedicated photo flood lights. They are less harsh and therefore it is easier to eliminate glare. I use a set of two lights made by Smith Victor. They take 500 watt photo floods.
Adorama and B&H Photo are excellent sources for the equipment.
Rob Millard
A couple of posts have mentioned digital SLRs. If you want digital, for the needs you describe, that's what you want -- a digital Single Lens Reflex camera. This opens you to all the lenses available for Nikon, Canon, or whatever you buy into. I have the Nikon D50 and love it. This is an "entry level" DSLR and is available with one lens at Ritz for about $600. At that price, and for the picture quality you get, it would hardly make sense to buy a film camera (which is probably your only good one-camera alternative for a combination of wide angle, macro, studio flash etc.) when you factor in the cost+hasle of a scanner, film development, etc.
I'd like to buck a trend I see in the posts here. I recommend, if your budget is even slightly limited, that you carefully review some "regular" digital cameras that are available rather than jump into a Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) camera. Unless you're well into the nuances of photography you will find DSLR's to be extremely complicated and especially* with extra lenses they are rather expensive.
A couple of years ago I sold (on eBay) a 35mm Leica that I bought while in the Army in Germany in 1954. Yes, I made a killing, but I carefully researched digital cameras to replace the Leica and I now have a Kodak 7640 4 megapixel camera. It, for my purposed, far outperforms even what the Leica would do.
Look here: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php
This is a well organized, comprehensive and up to date review of what's out there. My Kodak 7640, for which I paid $275, is no longer available but I would recommend looking at the specs of the Kodak V705 and the DCRP Review, accessed from the URL above, of the Kodak V610. Note that the DCRP review of the V610 references, toward its end, other wide angle capable cameras (besides Kodak) for consideration. The DCRP review is by far the most comprehensive I have found anywhere. The guy knows his stuff!
Yes, I may sound as though I'm biased toward Kodak but I like what I have, without reservation, and I picked through what was available *very* carefully.
For good wide angle results you need a lens in the range of 38mm to 24mm equivalence (to 35mm standards), the smaller the number indicating the wider angle. This is not always visible on the camera itself as the focal spec for a digital lens is different from the old 35mm standards. I do not know of a direct conversion factor because different digital sensors require different lenses. Yes, you can go wider than 24mm but the cost will be very high. My Kodak 7640 goes down to 33mm and I have been pleased with results from it - as witness the attached photos, taken in my shop, of a walnut cabinet I recently finished.
By all means, use a tripod *and fill-in lighting* when taking pictures of your pieces. Digital allows you to play (experiment) with lighting, flash or no flash, etc., without the expense of using up film and with the incredible advantage of instant review. Because digital cameras are very light-sensitive I am able to use ordinary lights, usually whatever is handy including shaded or unshaded ordinary floor lamps. With all due respect to the professional photogs here, I do not see any need for off-camera flash or fancy lighting gear if one has other lamps that can be moved around the subject and/or the background.
Of the characteristics I would look for in a digital camera are resolution (number of megapixels, the higher the better up to a point - 4MP gives superb 8" X 10" prints right off my computer and "ordinary" HP 6540 printer), wide angle capability (for your purposes), a large (2" or larger) display on the camera itself to allow effective "proofing" of the shot on the spot - and I'll probably think of others after I post this.
Good luck but shop carefully. Digital camera prices are coming down fast as long as one stays away from unnecessary resolution which, for my own purposes, is anything greater than 4 to 6 Megapixels.
Respectfully, Pete
I have no doubt you can get great pictures for less cost from a basic fixed lens digital camera. There are plenty of good products available for anyone who can accept the limitations of these cameras.However, I don't agree that DSLRs are extremely complicated. My own Nikon D50 was designed to be easy-to-use for family photography. It has the same point-and-shoot modes you get with a fixed lens. Of course it is bigger and bulkier, so you can't just stick it in a jacket pocket, but that also means your hands have a bigger box to grip and control. An added bonus is that DSLRs tend to take far more pictures per charge, reducing the complication of having to diddle with batteries and charger so often. Another way DSLRs are LESS complicated has to do with the very thing that defines any SLR, digital or film. You get an optical viewer free from both parallax and lag. So you don't have to be thinking about compensating for either of these while you frame a shot.Of course it's true, you could buy TWO decent fixed lens cameras for the price of one DSLR. And, you can spend a fortune on lenses. You may want to avoid this temptation to conserve more cash for wood & tools!
Thanks Tom,
I would rest my case on this:
>>"
Of course it's true, you could buy TWO decent fixed lens cameras for the price of one DSLR. And, you can spend a fortune on lenses. You may want to avoid this temptation to conserve more cash for wood & tools!
"<<
except that what you refer to as "fixed lens" is fixed only in the way it is attached to the camera. It doesn't come off as does your DSLR lens. The "fixed" lens on my Kodak 7640 has a zoom range from 33mm to 132mm, a respectable 4X which I find much superior to the prevalent 3X. It's a huge help in correctly framing pictures! (Call it "pre-cropping") It sure beats the old days when, in a series of busy shots, I looked like a nut as I dug into my bag and frantically switched lenses back and forth on my Leica.
'Sides, I'm retired now and I can't afford the "big" stuff that you have. *grin* (Read "jealous".)
Pete
Thanks everyone for your generous responses; you have given me alot to chew on. Hopefully in the near future I will post some photos with my new equipment (funds provided)...
Max
Hi Max,
I did a presentation on Digital Photography for Remodelers a year ago and posted the presentation on my website.
http://www.chodlang.com/NARI_Presentation/
I, personally, bought the Fuji E510 for $150 earlier this year. It has a terrific wide angle lens perfect for those interiors shots. A decent 5 MP and a fine little camera. It has been discontinued but you can still find it in various places. I saw one two weeks ago on Ebay for $88. Tough to beat at the price.
Good luck and enjoy.
i shot 35mm until five years ago or so. now i have a nikon d 100, a few lenses and a flash unit. it works very well. recently i bought the canon s2is and this camera is much more portable, takes excellent video, and very good pics. so good, in fact, that i often carry the canon around instead. that said, furniture can be shot well with many cameras, digital happens to be more convenient right now. the canon which cost thousands less than my nikon set-up will do very well indeed. i'll second the earlier post and recommend a tripod and some auxillary lighting (not necessarily flash or on camera lighting) soft lighting from a large window or shooting outdoors on a cloudy day will produce beautiful results as well. take test shots until you get the results you like. a digital slr is not necessary, although it too will produce nice results.
good luck with your search and please post some pics.
greg
Hi Maderamax I was a professional photographer in a past career so if it is of some help a few tips might be of help. As far as digital cameras go Canon is the dog and the rest are tails. Canon has a huge r&d budget and has managed to exceed the other companies in this area. (I know Nikon fans might argue but watch the sidelines of any sporting event and you will see that Canon out numbers the others 5-1) For your own use 8 megapixels will get you a very nice 11x14 print. With lenses you have two needs, a very wide lens 24mm or wider for shots of interiors such as kitchen cabinets(35mm film equivalent is the way you can compare lenses ie a lens on the digital camera should be at least equivalent to a 24mm lens or wider. Canon makes some nice 17-40mm lens. For the close ups a longer lens 85mm to about I'm (35mm equivalent) will work well look for something that will focus to about 1 foot. True macro lenses will focus to about life size (a postage stamp will fill the view finder. One last thing furniture photographs likpeople in that people look better when photographed with a longer focal length lens (look at a person photographed with a wide angle lens and there nose will look bigger than it is. One poster mentioned perspective controls on lenses. Canon and Nikon both make lenses that do this but they are very pricey (you could by several nice lie-Nielsen planes with this money;) with programs such as photo shop you can learn to correct for distortion. Anyway if I had the money to spend I would by the Canon 5D 1st the 30D 2nd and not mess with the rest. I hope this was not to much info and pardon my grammar and poor sentence structure. If you have any questions contact me anytime.
Have fun.
Troy
Max,
If you are doing brochure, web and other graphics requiring relatively small pics,I would avoid spending loads on the DSLR moneypit. They are very good indeed but will cost you much, as you add lenses, lighting stuff and a whole list of other "system bits". I doubt you need that quality for the purposes you mention.
Also, the quality of pictures these days is determined much more by post processing with image software like Photoshop, than was the case in the days of film. Few photographers were also good in the darkroom but anyone can learn basic Photoshop techniques that will make a huge difference to their pics.
I would recommend a "prosumer" camera with a fixed zoom lens having a wide angle at one extremity (At least 28mm focal length equivalent in a 35mm film camera). 5 - 10 megapixel models are common these days, at anything from $300 - $700. Canon, Nikon, Panasonic and Sony make some stonkers. They have the bonus of a live LCD view of the pic you are about to take along with additional features such as making movies (very good quality movies, these days). You could do a workshop tour or even a "this is how I made it" video brochure!
For lighting, I suggest an add-on flash gun with a swivel head and circuitry that your camera understands. You can then bounce the flash light off a white card or the walls of a room and the camera will squelch the flash gun when the exposure is right. In my experience, this provides very good, even lighting for furniture, without spending $1000 on dedicated lights, triggers and so forth.
If you want to keep the perspectives of your furniture straight, use Photoshop or similar to apply correction to the bending effects of the camera lens. This is a lot easier and cheaper than buying a DSLR and $2000 worth of perspective-correcting lens.
This is just my opinion (based on quite a bit of photography expereince) of course. You may prefer to go the DSLR route and use it for many other photography tasks that need the quality.
Lataxe
This is a little off the subject but what kind of software do you guys use to remove the background of your photos? I would like to create photos much like you see in the gallery section of Fine Woodworking where only the subject remains with a white background but no matter what photo editing software I use, I can't seem to do it.
Tell me and I'll forget, show me and I'll remember, but let me try and I will understand.
Photoshop. It still takes alot of work to make it look good though.
The right way is to use a white backdrop when you are taking your photo.
This is how I get a plain background. The roll of paper is mounted above the garage door, a place that's never going to be blocked. A great book on lighting is Product Shots by Hicks and Schultz. ISBN # 2-88046-228-2
Edited 10/4/2006 10:47 am ET by Bill Lindau
Bill, Thanks for the photo. That's awesome! I kinda figured it was using a white background to begin with but I wasn't too sure.
Tell me and I'll forget, show me and I'll remember, but let me try and I will understand.
What lights are you using? How many? Are they always on or do they sync to the camera? I've been using 500W floods with cheap Home Depto metal reflectors and naturally the quality leaves a lot to be desired. Do you feel the umbrellas are the best way to go? If so, what brand do you recommend? And where were you on the night of the 23rd? (Sorry, got carried away with all the questions)Thanks.
Alan
Alan, I use the umbrella for my secondary or fill light and a soft box for my primary. The diffuse, indirect light makes for a better looking picture. At the other extreme, direct light gives more of a "document" look. Having two different quality lights coming from different directions, gives a better feeling of depth. I use the umbrella just to lighten some of the shadows created by the softbox.
The lights themselves are Lowel Tota with 500 or 750W bulbs. Here is a link to the soft box. Bill
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=140665&is=REG&addedTroughType=search
For your lighting you might want to try putting some tracing paper (the kind they sell in rolls at the art supply stores) in front of your lamps . On some lights I just hold the paper on with clothes pins, others I use a seperate stand in front of the light. This method gives you a little bit more control over the light. Just don't let the tissue touch the bulb or you will get an interesting smoke effect in your shop.Troy
Alan, I forgot to answer one of your earlier questions. I don't use the sych lighting. When I have been around professionals setting up for a shoot, they use this type of lighting along with light meters and Polaroids to see how things are going to look. I'm not that sophisticated, I want to see things the way they will photograph before I shoot. As for using combustible paper as an inexpensive alternative to a soft box, I would advise against it. Especially since I shoot in my wood shop, 500W would set tracing paper on fire really quickly, and the dust under foot would join in readily. If you are trying to keep costs down, start our with one umbrella and build yourself some screeds. These are reflectors that will bounce the light into the shadow areas. White foam board works well for this. The book I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread is full of info on lighting. Bill
You would think the tracing paper would go up in flames very easly but in probably 20 years of shooting proffesionally I never had a problem but if your paper did touch a live bulb it would burn but so would a softbox. I would also agree that burning paper and a dusty shop would not be the best of ideas.troy
Sorry about that Troy, I didn't know you had used it so much without any trouble. I've had some filters burn holes in them. Even the wood dust that gets on my softbox smokes after the lights have been on for any hour or so. I guess this is the big drawback to using continuous lighting as opposed to a snyc approach. Next to trying not to breathe it, the next biggest problem with dust is catching it on fire. Once again, I apologize for putting down your suggestion without knowing more about it. Bill Lindau
I have ruined a few filters also, I think that hot lights are always prone to that especially the physically smaller fixtures that use the high wattage bulbs such as lowell lights. The lights I have used with the tracing paper with are old Mole Richardsons that take a 1000watt mogal bulb and have large aluminum reflectors so the tissue does not get really close. Whats interesting is that the big (16x20) size gel filters actually is much more fragle than the tracing paper. Anyway the tracing paper is more of a way to avoid spending money on a soft box because after all that leaves more money for clamps and lie nielsen products.Troy
White anything does not do well in my shop... i recently went down and got some indoor / outdoor carpet 12'wide that stores very well, cleans up, and provides a very nice background. Bonus, no wrinkles.... and you can walk on it during the shoot. Cost about 70 some bucks at the Depot.
Haitai, I'm not familiar with Waiaha. The table is about as beautiful as I've ever seen. The design is as fabulous as the wood! The backdrop is a good idea. I might try it when it's time to reorder a backdrop. Like you were saying, you can't walk on paper and it's lifespan is a drawback. Between the woods you've used and your screen name, I'm guessing you are in Hawaii. Bill
Yup... Big Island in Kona.
Awesome table. Can we see more pictures in the gallery maybe?
that is one gorgeous table, in fact, i forgot all about the backdrop when i brought up the photo.
Well thanks !!
But back to THIS thread,,, seriously,, do check out the indoor outdoor carpet deal. I roll mine up and hang it from the roof So I can be ready to shoot in no time. I've used everything else over the years and unless you've got a great space available to shoot in, this beats them all. I can use these shots as is , or the background is consistent enough that Photoshopping is easy if I need them without background.
I'd love to get a real lighting system etc, but for now I went down and got those bathroom vanity light bulb fixtures , Mounted them on some playwood, stuck 4 -100 watt light bulbs in 3 of them, and got the drop ceiling diffusers and am getting good enough results for not a lot of $$.
these also store nicely And get used on dark days when we need good light somewhere.
If you decide to buy profesional quality lighting especially incandesant lights buy used, you can often find stuff that is surplus from film companies or from equipment rental places (if your are far from the big cities this is harder of course). Anyway photogs and film people often change lighting styles and buy the next new thing. Good luck and have fun.Troy
I like a light gray background, white can flair back in the lens. A sugestion for background when you are doing photoshop, use a colored background such as light blue that way when you strip the furniture out you can select the color of the background as what you don't want. Another look that can work for larger pieces is a canvas background. You can also get seamless background in 12 foot wide rolls which makes it easier to fit larger items on the paper.Troy
I take it I can get this 12' wide paper at a photography supply store?
Tell me and I'll forget, show me and I'll remember, but let me try and I will understand.
Yes, you can get seamless background paper at photo supply stores. Here is a website that sells seamless.http://www.calumetphoto.com/ctl?ac.ui.pn=search.Search&query=seamlessSeamless comes in a variety of colors and widths.--Whit
M,
Big Frank is right to suggest that you should idealy use a plain background in the photo. However, as this isn't always practical, you can cut out or "mask" the background using tools lke the Photoshop selection or masking tools. If you can get to grips with the technique, the pen tool works best (for the cleanest cut).
As the masking or selection takes time, it is best to get that plain background in the photo to begin with, if at all possible.
I might have some relevant video lessons somewhere on my Photo-dedicated PC - but they may be rather large files to post over the net.....?
Lataxe
I disagree about using the pen tool for doing your selections. I find that its hard to get a seemless transition for your image. I prefer using layer masks. that way you can get a nice edge transition that blends with any background you put the layer in front of.
Frank,
I imagine we could begin a Photoshop thread that would rival any of the WW threads for esoteric arguments! :-) There do seem to be "schools of thought" in Photoshop land concerning the best way to cut and paste image elements togther. Like you, I prefer layer masks but largely because I find the pen tool hard to use. However, I know a photography lecturer who can perform faultless collages with the pen.....
Getting the right photo (with a plain background, in this case) must be the best way to go, though - as you said originally.
Lataxe
I have the Canon S2 IS and am really liking it. It will take extremely close macro shots, and even long telephotos. 12X. The I S stands for image stabilizer, which allows for hand holding shots that would normally require a pod.
It has stitch mode, which will allow you to shoot 360º if you choose, and it is only using the middle portion of the lens for each of the segments that it stitches together, so it doesn't distort the image like a super wide is prone to doing.
Here is a link to the next newer version. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022111canons3is.asp
You can find them online for $350. I would add another 120 for a fast gig of memory card to that. These cameras are amazing for that low price. K
Keith, thanks for the link, that seems like a quality camera--and more in my price range than a DSLR. Just curious, do you have the close-up lens for your macro shots, or have you found the existing zoom lens good enough? Also, is the image stabilzer a feature you have to select, or is it constant? Does that create more of a 'shudder' speed delay?
Thanks again to everyone for all the help! This is exactly the kind of info I was looking for.
Max
I leave the stabilizer on all of the time. It uses 4 AA batteries, and is very fast to come on, and zoom, and switch over to view. There is a button on the left side of the lens that you press to do macro, which will work even zoomed, so catching things like a butterfly on a flower 8' away will nearly fill the frame, and the same button held for a bit longer gets it into super macro, which is only in the wider field, but it will focus on a subject that is against the lens, if there is enough light, like coming through the subject. A postage stamp will fill the frame. I have been using the continuous shoot mode a bit lately shooting kids. They move so fast, most of the time, you will be a second behind the best shots, but with this mode, I may shoot a 100 shots in a minute, and throw 99 of them away, but that one frame will be the one you always wished you could get. This little camera is just awesome. I will send you some shots if you want to see what I have shot, Just send me an email. K
Keith,
Would love to see some of those shots--you can send them to [email protected] if you want.
Thanks alot, Max
Max,I just spent a lot of hours researching these smaller cameras. I narrowed my search down to the Canon mentioned earlier, Canon S3 IS, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic models. While Canon is the leader in SLR digital photography, I ended up buying the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7. Years ago I was into photography and spent several years as a salesman in one of the five biggest camera stores in the Country, so I do have a little background. When I started my search, I had some trouble even taking a camera from Panasonic seriously. I certainly understand any hesitation by others. The Canon S2 is a good camera but I think the Panasonic was a little better in most categories and compares more to Canon's S3 IS. I suggest you compare these, preferably in a store where you can handle them. A few of the Panasonic features that swayed me include Leica optics, 6 mega pixels rather 5 in the Canon S2, and a significantly bigger LCD screen. Both cameras are "stabilized" and most commercial reviews favor Panasonic's system. Both Cameras are in the same price range. Canon's S3 IS sells for about $100 more.
yep, i've got that one too. it's great. the s2 is i mean.
Edited 10/5/2006 10:06 pm ET by gmoney
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled