• the "Which camera is right for me?" Megathread
    3,830 replies, posted
So, you're a budding photographer, or will be taking a class soon and the teacher is a jerk and won't let you rent from the school. Now what? There is a wild world out there full of things to be pic-tu-fied, and seemingly just as many things to take the pictures with, all at horrifyingly different prices. Where do you start? First off, know [i]why[/i] you need the camera, and what you'll be doing with it for the next few years. There are several levels of camera to think about, each level having its own levels of performance, features, and things you won't need. The next three sections will be based off of three groups: "I Wanna Camera", "High-End Casual", and "Prosumer". The "Professional" category will be left out, because if you were there, you wouldn't be here. [release] "I Wanna Camera", $50-200 range [img]http://a1672.g.akamai.net/7/1672/116/20100201/www.ritzcamera.com/graphics/products/e-61/large/EP63833261_bg.jpg[/img] [Samsung SL30, $75, [url=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2696/4134980367_87da6127f9_o.jpg]Example[/url]] So, you don't have a camera and want one. Chances are, you really don't need much, mostly because you don't have any reason to take pictures larger than 500 pixels tall because your random photobucket collection, myspace and facebook compress them down that far anyways. Most of the cameras you will find in the low price range are more than adequate, pushing out from 6 to 12 megapixels in size. This does [i]not[/i] mean that the massive 3000x4000 picture you just took will be of any useful quality at full size. You are more likely than not to get bad picture noise, from grain to color splotches, and all the horrors of digital zoom. Honestly, cameras of this range are meant only for snapshots, and the more expensive ones are filled to the brim with useless gimmicks and such to trick soccer moms into spending an extra chunk of cash. The most money you really need to spend on a little snap'n'shoot is around $125.[/release] [release] "High-End Casual", $200-600 [img]http://a1672.g.akamai.net/7/1672/116/20100201/www.ritzcamera.com/graphics/products/e-20/large/EP65481820_bg.jpg[/img] [Canon Powershot SX1 IS, $500, [url=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3208/3080185120_41b9bf9264_o.jpg]Example[/url]] This is considered "the aspiring young student", or "I want my pictures to look good, but I'll have to start rationing cans of soup to buy something worthwhile". Personally, I'm a bit iffy about this mid-range selection of cameras. It's a strange world of snapshot-meets-SLR hybrids and trickster lookalikes. For the time being, I'm going to leave the description on this section at this, because the only experience I've had with this particular camera was fixing one (similar to the powershot pictured above) that had a jammed lens. It was so common of a malfunction that it was in the product's FAQs, and the best "advice" others could give was smacking it against a table or a wall. [i]seriously[/i]. :raise: Anyone with helpful information on these types of cameras feel free to chime in with a comment or a PM, and it will be added. [/release] [release] "Lower-End 'Prosumer'", $600-1500 [img]http://a1672.g.akamai.net/7/1672/116/20100201/www.ritzcamera.com/graphics/products/5-i2/large/541533881ai2_bg.jpg[/img] [Nikon D5000, $750-850 Kit (body + Lens) [url=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2797/4278623854_6343e82aef_o.jpg]Example[/url]] the Professional Consumer is someone who is seriously looking into doing photography for a living, or at least as a very serious hobby. The cameras you focus on in this grouping are D-SLRs, which are a camera body and detachable lens. This is the kind of camera you will likely learn about and be told to buy when taking a college course on digital photography. If you're getting one of these cameras and aren't in a class for it, I suggest you find a community college and take the class, you will learn a lot (depending on your teacher). These cameras are [i]meant[/i] to be controlled manually, but have all of the fancy features you would find on the average point and click, including a variety of different "modes" for taking pictures. We're going to pretend these modes are there only for when your mom is trying to take family photos but wants you in the picture. The best part is RAW format images. Taking photos in this format collects all the data as possible, and utilizing photoshop's RAW editor (or another program such as Lightroom), you can fine-tune a photo MUCH more efficiently, productively, and artistically than with editing a flat ol' JPG. These are highly customizable to your needs, allowing for different lenses, flashes, and random doohickeys to be slapped on for your every need... [img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2581/4190865517_5ccec0ca64_m.jpg[/img] [i]what I need is for my neighbors to open their curtains up again.[/i] DaveP adds: the Key advantage of DSLR's and why they're touted as the best even though cameras like Rangefinders also have removable lenses; the Single Lens Reflex means that what you see in the viewfinder is exactly how the shot is going to look through exactly the same glass; compared to a viewfinder that can be the crucial difference between a fantastic picture and a blurry mess LeYang adds this nice guide to different levels of DSLRs. Entry Nikon D3000, D5000 (D40 is being killed off in retail market) Canon XS(1000D), XSi(450D), T1i(500D) (1000D is also being killed off) ProConsumers Nikon D90 Canon 40D, 50D ProConsumer+Semi-Professional mixture Nikon D300, D300s, D700 Canon 7D, Canon 5D MK II Professional Nikon D3s Canon 1Ds MK III Canon 1D MK IV (1.3x Crop) [/release] OK, now that you [somewhat] know what camera type and money range you're looking into, you need to start thinking about specifics... Here's a few FAQs and general thoughts to look over: [quote]Q: What brand is 'better'?[/quote] A: None. Brand makes very little difference in the camera aside from aesthetic. Decide on the brand, if you're that picky, based on how a camera looks, feels, and behaves in your hands. It may sound trivial or extremely picky, but I personally can't stand the trigger button on Canons, nor do I like their circular scrolly wheel on the back, so I ended up rolling Nikon. [quote]Q: What are megapixels, and why shouldn't I get the biggest number possible?[/quote] A: it refers to how many pixels there are, times a million. my old OLD 1.3 megapixel camera took pictures that were somewhere around 1280x1024, which is about as much as your average point-and-shooter really ever sees when dumping things to their online galleries or keeping stacked up in their 'My Pictures' folder. Larger mp means you have a bigger picture, and there are two reasons this is useful- cropping out smaller parts of a picture and blowing them up, and [b]printing[/b]. The larger the picture, the larger you can print at a set DPI. Refer to the below image for mp needed for different print sizes at 300dpi. [img_thumb]http://www.design215.com/toolbox/images/megapixels.gif[/img_thumb] it's telling you that if you don't have a photo printer that prints on something bigger than normal 8.5x11 paper, you will never need more than 8 mp. Here's a sample of the 12.1 mp put out by my D5000, ask yourself if you need this much detail, [i]ever[/i]. [quote][img_thumb]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2797/4278623854_6343e82aef_o.jpg[/img_thumb][/quote] (2848x4288, click the thumbnail... Try and figure out her name looking at this, I dare you) [quote]Q: This cheap-ass point-and-shoot says it does 12.1 pixels. Why should I spend $900 on a camera like yours if $100 will get the same size photo?[/quote] A: QUALITY. Why should I waste two minutes slowly toasting toast in my toaster, when soaking it in kerosene and tossing a match on it gets it crispy in seconds flat? because the result is NOT the same, despite it being the same size of toast... er, image. The sensors are not big, the lenses are not so fine-tuned, no exposure controls, ISO levels (sensor's light sensitivity) are so high that you get grain and discoloration out the rectum... and aperture? Good luck. [quote]it isn't the camera it's the artist[/quote] Artistic talent is necessary for art, yes... but bringing a portfolio of cameraphone or point-and-shooter snapshots to a job interview at the local studio will get you nowhere... likewise, if you take emo self-portraits of yourself in the bathroom mirror or at arm's length NOW, not much will change when you dump the better portion of a thousand dollars on an SLR, except now it's hard to hold it at arm's length and take a picture at the same time. [release]Helpful Links in deciding on what you want [quote=Perry Mason]reviews.cnet.com dpreview.com I also recommend reading Consumer Reports magazine. They're really reliable in their reviews for well, anything. Online access costs money so if you're cheap you might just want to borrow it from a library or read it at a book store.[/quote][/release] [release]If your questions have not been answered, you haven't asked them yet. ASK. This thread is a work in progress and is to be treated as a collaborative knowledgebase from all the different level photographers here at Facepunch. PM me with any additions/revisions you would like made and I'll take care of it in a timely manner.[/release]
What about people posting some kind of small reviews about cameras they own? So we could have like a wider range of devices that people can look at (including example pictures, etc)? I for myself own a Samsung WB1000 which I'd put to the starting range of your "High-End Casual". I bought it for roughly 210€ (around 300 USD) [img]http://www.cubeupload.com/files/a5ac00samsungwb1000.jpg[/img] It's not a SLR but besides it's automatic mode it also comes with a very nice manual mode that allows you to set exposure time from 1/2000 to 16 seconds, an aperture of 1:2.8 to 1:5.8, ISO 40 to ISO 3200 (not recommended tho) and a focal length of 4.3 to 21.5 millimeters (super wide angle when zoomed out) An unedited example of a quick snapshot (automatic mode): [img_thumb]http://filebox.me/files/8c9d8d0jf_SDC10627.JPG[/img_thumb] Two edited, downscaled images where I took some more time to get good pictures (manual mode): [img_thumb]http://filebox.me/files/3tsjdhg7c_SDC10022.JPG[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://filebox.me/files/ui4c1m8h3_SDC10016.JPG[/img_thumb] I also got some 12mp pictures of flowers and other objects (which look amazing for such a small camera) that I might upload laters if anyone's interested :)
I own a Rebel XSi which is a DLSR. I learned on a Cannon Powershot A80 or such. To some extent you can learn to take great photos on any camera, things like rule of thirds, color contrast, etc all apply to any camera. However, once you start getting more creative you'll have to start finding more workarounds on a cheapie camera. This is what pushed me to get a DSLR.
I just bought a Nikon D3000. I really like it, but I still haven't gotten fully used to it. However, I would have to say that the SD line of Canon point and shoots take really good pictures with decent controls. I've had my SD750 for almost two years and it's got a big screen, great battery life, and it's quite durable and small.
Thread needs more 30,000 dollar Red Scarlet and Epic: [IMG]http://gearpatrol.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/red-scarlet-dslr.jpg[/IMG]
[B]Hey OP here are some helpful review sites that you may want to add to the list.[/B] [URL="http://reviews.cnet.com"]reviews.cnet.com[/URL] [URL="http://dpreview.com"]dpreview.com[/URL] I also recommend reading Consumer Reports magazine. They're really reliable in their reviews for well, anything. Online access costs money so if you're cheap you might just want to borrow it from a library or read it at a book store. _____________ [QUOTE=Daolpu;19988748]Thread needs more 30,000 dollar Red Scarlet and Epic: [IMG_thumb]http://gearpatrol.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/red-scarlet-dslr.jpg[/IMG_thumb] [IMG_thumb]http://gearpatrol.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/red-scarlet-3d-camera.jpg[/IMG_thumb][/QUOTE] Or how about people stop trying to shit up a thread by recommending that we talk about "which camera is [I]not[/I] right for me?" I thought you were a good contributer. This thread comes from a long line of potentially useful and well-meaning threads made to help people make more informed decisions. Most of the time they die off after several pages but I don't see that as a reason to do such things. I know you're better than this.
[QUOTE=PerryMason;19989609] Or how about people stop trying to shit up a thread by recommending that we talk about "which camera is [I]not[/I] right for me?" I thought you were a good contributer. This thread comes from a long line of potentially useful and well-meaning threads made to help people make more informed decisions. Most of the time they die off after several pages but I don't see that as a reason to do such things. I know you're better than this.[/QUOTE] Slow down there killer, just a joke. Here I'll submit my opinion to the thread. [IMG]http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/images/rebel-xt.jpg[/IMG] I use a Canon Rebel XT. I got it for around 300 dollars** including 2 lenses, one kit lens (15-55) and a Tamron 18-275. It's on the lower end of SLRs as far as features/capabilities/MP count goes, but as a more serious hobby camera it performs well. It is fairly cheap if you're looking for something to use on the side. If you feel that a small Point and Shoot is not and you wanna go SLR without breaking the bank, I'd say go with something like this. (** The 300 dollar price tag is due to it being on clearance. I work at an electronics store and I keep an eye out for those sort of things. [B]Do not[/B] be afraid to ask employees to see clearance stock or open box returns, as they can land you some sweet deals**) It has an 8 MP sensor and can be cranked up to 1200 iso. So not to high on the pixel count and there is some serious noise at 1200, but I do have some Photoshop software called Imagenomics Noiseware Professional. It can essentially nuke nearly the worst noise without so much as scratching the detail. The lenses are not the top of the line, but again, they get the job done. At 275 mm the Chromatic Aberration can get pretty nasty on the Tamron, but again, if you shoot in [B]raw[/B] this is nothing but a slight inconvenience. Can be quick fixed with Photoshop Raw. Here are some example shots this camera has taken, to give you an idea of the quality even an entry level DSLR is capable of: (click for higher res) [URL=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2676/3981387557_688435f6b2_b.jpg][IMG]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2676/3981387557_688435f6b2.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [url=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2655/4031542657_3e80b764dc_b.jpg][IMG]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2655/4031542657_3e80b764dc.jpg[/IMG][/url]
[QUOTE=PerryMason;19989609][B]Hey OP here are some helpful review sites that you may want to add to the list.[/B] [URL="http://reviews.cnet.com"]reviews.cnet.com[/URL] [URL="http://dpreview.com"]dpreview.com[/URL] I also recommend reading Consumer Reports magazine. They're really reliable in their reviews for well, anything. Online access costs money so if you're cheap you might just want to borrow it from a library or read it at a book store.[/QUOTE] Added at the end, there is now a helpful links section. Thanks! also, I'm fine with that insane camera being there. Anyone thinking about cameras enough to come to this thread would be interested in the 'ooh and ahh' factor, and 30,000 helps to make an $800 camera seem MUCH more attainable. :v: For an example of WHY you'd need a $30,000 camera, watch District 9. That was all shot on RED. The video taken with those cameras is SO huge you can crop out whatever you want from video and get everything JUST right, without losing quality.
I have a Nikon D40, 18-55mm, 50mm (f/1.8), and 55-200mm. I want to upgrade to a Nikon that will record video, should I be looking at a D90 or a D5000? Which one can I buy cheaper? How much can I sell my used D40 + 18-55 for (my dad might buy it)
[QUOTE=PetervG;20005329]I have a Nikon D40, 18-55mm, 50mm (f/1.8), and 55-200mm. I want to upgrade to a Nikon that will record video, should I be looking at a D90 or a D5000? Which one can I buy cheaper? How much can I sell my used D40 + 18-55 for (my dad might buy it)[/QUOTE] if your dad's buying it, ask him for what he feels a nice camera like that is worth, maybe pull up a few eBay listings to show what others are paying right now. Trade-in at a camera store won't net ya much, I was told that the most stores tend to pay is 250 towards your next camera in a trade, and that's if it's a new camera you're trading in the first place. (jerks). For the record (I know you know this already, but for newcomers reading this later), keep your old lenses, since they work with all nikons. (I have a 50mm off a [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/daijitsu/4179558172/in/set-72157623007668314/]30-year-old Nikon FE[/url]). Obviously your dad needs A lens, so giving him the old 18-55 and getting a new one as part of a kit is best. As for comparison between the D90 and D5000, it's a bit of a close call to some. The 90 is the next step up from the 5000, but shares a few key features like the 12.3mp sensor and AF points and the like. The 90 cost considerably more. [url=http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D5000/verdict.shtml][source to look at the comparisons][/url] If you're going to be doing a lot of video, I'm going to suggest the 5000 due to its articulated screen. Getting dynamic shots is hard when you're holding it above a crowd or really low to the ground when the screen is flat to the body, so having it pulled out and facing you is a godsend. I've done this several times myself at concerts, I don't know how I'd have aimed the camera right otherwise. If you're not using all of the high upgrades for photo quality, why bother putting in the hefty extra chunk of cash when you can use that money on other things... For instance: the audio quality of the recorder is tuned for quiet rooms and small groups of people, for catching sound a bit farther off. NOT for loud environments like concerts. The sound you'll get at a concert is somewhat like this: KSSHSHSSKKSHSKSHSSHSSHSSKSHSBOOMBOOMSHHSHKHSKSKHHSHSSKS :byodood: You can use all that extra cash you saved for a nice audio recorder with noise reduction, a sound dampening windsock to avoid pops and distortion, and so on. Just smush the audio and the video together in the post-production software of your choice. Good luck, and please come back to share your videos when you start!
Well I feel that the D90 might be more aimed at me because it sure would be nice to have auto-focus on my 50mm ;/. Then again, maybe that wouldn't be worth the few hundred bucks.
[QUOTE=PetervG;20005514]Well I feel that the D90 might be more aimed at me because it sure would be nice to have auto-focus on my 50mm ;/. Then again, maybe that wouldn't be worth the few hundred bucks.[/QUOTE] I focus manually most of the time anyways, but if you need the auto-focus on a 50mm that much, it's still your decision.
You should post the Canon G-series in the OP. It's the best you can get that isn't a DSLR. Except maybe the Leica cameras which are all about $99999999999999 [img]http://bocktherobber.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Canon_G11.jpg[/img]
I'm looking at the [URL]http://www.canogacamera.com/detail.aspx?ID=48213[/URL] Comments?
I'm looking at this camera, [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830179218[/url] The only bad thing I've seen in the photos taken is it's grainy-ness, but that doesn't bug me. Is it a y or a n?
[QUOTE=marvinpone;20186082]I'm looking at the [URL]http://www.canogacamera.com/detail.aspx?ID=48213[/URL] Comments?[/QUOTE] I have the D5000, and I love it very much. The only issue I have is with the particular listing you brought up; the price seems a bit steep compared to normal, and I think it's because of that massive lens. I bought the camera with an 18-55 zoom lens for around $850, and spend another hundred on a 55-200 lens to cover the longer distance shots. As convenient as it is to have such a varied range lens, you'll rarely find the need to be changing from short range to long very often, depending on what you're doing. ...What ARE you doing with this camera? Architecture, Portraiture, Landscapes...? [edit] wait, found your thread. Thanks for the referral, LordNed! [QUOTE=marvinpone;20185664]I take photography in school, and use cameras in school and I enjoy it a lot and have decided to maybe get a camera. I don't know where to even begin to pick a camera, So that's where you come in. Budget is $1,200-$1,300. Thanks[/QUOTE] I like how you found the D5000, I was actually drawn to it at the beginning of my collegiate photography class... though I've had experience with different cameras before then. If you're just in a class and looking to start out, I might suggest saving a little cash and buying the D3000 for a few hundred dollars less. I know you have a higher budget than $600 or $700, but being a student myself I know that money isn't free, and it all has to be paid back (sometimes at rather harsh intervals). You can use the extra cash to pick up extra equipment to go with it, such as a flash, different lenses as you need them, and so on. But, if you're really set on picking up the D5000 and don't mind putting in the money, I spent just a few dollars over 1300 on my total setup, including: Camera body 18-55mm lens 55-200mm lens SB-600 Flash Macro Filters Polarized Lens Filters tripod 4gb memory card cleaning stuff an Infrared remote camera Sling-bag [img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2760/4189828186_a70a54aa3a.jpg[/img] *pocketwatch, mini business cards and fancy table not included. [editline]02:18AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Teh_Cheese;20186104]I'm looking at this camera, [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830179218[/url] The only bad thing I've seen in the photos taken is it's grainy-ness, but that doesn't bug me. Is it a y or a n?[/QUOTE] Judging by the customer reviews, it's very well received, especially for its price. a minor drawback of this camera, depending on what hardware you're using along side it, is that it uses the Memory Stick Pro cards, as is expected with sony. Given the price vs the product, I'd suggest finding a model in a store and toying around with it, see how you like the feel. It's a casual camera with a few small mixed in features for advanced users, looks like a good bridge for the gap between snapshooter and SLR.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;19984042] [img_thumb]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2797/4278623854_6343e82aef_o.jpg[/img_thumb] (2848x4288, click the thumbnail... Try and figure out her name looking at this, I dare you) [/QUOTE] Is it Ginger?
Strike 1. Hint: it's written somewhere.
After actually looking, it is 'Holly'. But I assumed you were being comedic.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;20186545]I have the D5000, and I love it very much. The only issue I have is with the particular listing you brought up; the price seems a bit steep compared to normal, and I think it's because of that massive lens. I bought the camera with an 18-55 zoom lens for around $850, and spend another hundred on a 55-200 lens to cover the longer distance shots. As convenient as it is to have such a varied range lens, you'll rarely find the need to be changing from short range to long very often, depending on what you're doing. ...What ARE you doing with this camera? Architecture, Portraiture, Landscapes...? [edit] wait, found your thread. Thanks for the referral, LordNed! I like how you found the D5000, I was actually drawn to it at the beginning of my collegiate photography class... though I've had experience with different cameras before then. If you're just in a class and looking to start out, I might suggest saving a little cash and buying the D3000 for a few hundred dollars less. I know you have a higher budget than $600 or $700, but being a student myself I know that money isn't free, and it all has to be paid back (sometimes at rather harsh intervals). You can use the extra cash to pick up extra equipment to go with it, such as a flash, different lenses as you need them, and so on. But, if you're really set on picking up the D5000 and don't mind putting in the money, I spent just a few dollars over 1300 on my total setup, including: Camera body 18-55mm lens 55-200mm lens SB-600 Flash Macro Filters Polarized Lens Filters tripod 4gb memory card cleaning stuff an Infrared remote camera Sling-bag [IMG]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2760/4189828186_a70a54aa3a.jpg[/IMG] *pocketwatch, mini business cards and fancy table not included. [editline]02:18AM[/editline][/QUOTE] See that's the thing, the only thing is that I have experience with is camera and lens not all the filters and extras you pointed out, although I did find myself looking at the SB-600 before you posted this. The thing is that if my price range is good enough of for the D5000 then why not buy cause I know down the road I'll want a better one, and ultimately buying the D500 without ever buying the 3000 is going to save me the most money, Also what would be cheaper, buying one with JUST the Body and getting those two lens you suggested or buying the one with the 18-270mm lens and THEN buy a shorter ranged one? [URL="http://www.canogacamera.com/SearchResult.aspx?KeyWords=Nikon%20D5000&All=True"]http://www.canogacamera.com/SearchResult.aspx?KeyWords=Nikon%20D5000&All=True[/URL] here is a link to the list of different packages of D5000 that I found. One with with no lens, one with 18-55, one with 18-55 and 18-200 etc..
[url]http://www.canogacamera.com/detail.aspx?ID=49690[/url] the 18-55+55-200 package is a good deal, if you ask me. If you're planning on going for the long-haul, the 5000 will definitely last you a while. It's versatile, has a very convenient flip-out screen (I've used this in different configurations for different situations; it's a BIG time and neck-cramp saver), and has live view mode so you can look at the screen instead of the viewfinder. I suggest using the viewfinder anyways, but it's nice to use it to zoom WAY in on your subject and focus on fine details. Video taking is also nice. Filters are nothing big, they're between 10 and 30 bucks for a set. Macro filters are basically like magnifying glasses attached to the end of your lens, so you can take pictures of stuff up-close. A polarizer is useful outdoors, as it cuts out angular glare. It's neat, actually- if you hold one up and aim it at a car's windshield, you can rotate it in your hand and it will actually fade in and out the [i]reflection of the damn sky[/i]. It's crazy. [QUOTE=SherpaMurphy;20188127]After actually looking, it is 'Holly'. But I assumed you were being comedic.[/QUOTE] Yes, but I was also making a point of just how much detail is in such a large file by making people go and look closely. It's just not necessary if you're not going to use it all, so it shouldn't be a main focus to get the most megapixels you can find.
[QUOTE=Daolpu;19988748]Thread needs more 30,000 dollar Red Scarlet and Epic: [IMG]http://gearpatrol.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/red-scarlet-dslr.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] While the RED ONE is a fantastic camera to use with stunningly sharp results (Was doing some compositing of some red footage we shot the other week), its major fallback that would turn me away from the scarlet (which costs more in the region of $5-6k for the cheapest model) is how unintuitive the menu system is, requiring you to scroll through literally hundreds of parameters using a single little navigation nub. I'm planning to have a look at the Scarlet if RED are showing at the Broadcast Video Expo next week (I can't remember), if so then I'll report back findings Your reviews fail to mention the Key advantage of DSLR's and why they're touted as the best even though cameras like Rangefinders also have removable lenses; the Single Lens Reflex means that what you see in the viewfinder is exactly how the shot is going to look through exactly the same glass; compared to a viewfinder that can be the crucial difference between a fantastic picture and a blurry mess
I doubt prosumers are looking to do photography for a living. Even though the word contains 'pro', prosumers are hobbyists doing a little bit of paid work at most, they certainly don't live from it, because that would make 'em professionals. Prosumer camera's are just cameras for the advanced/passionate amateurs...
[QUOTE=DaveP;20193433]While the RED ONE is a fantastic camera to use with stunningly sharp results (Was doing some compositing of some red footage we shot the other week), its major fallback that would turn me away from the scarlet (which costs more in the region of $5-6k for the cheapest model) is how unintuitive the menu system is, requiring you to scroll through literally hundreds of parameters using a single little navigation nub. I'm planning to have a look at the Scarlet if RED are showing at the Broadcast Video Expo next week (I can't remember), if so then I'll report back findings[/QUOTE] Some interesting stuff, would be nice to hear your results. [QUOTE=DaveP;20193433]Your reviews fail to mention the Key advantage of DSLR's and why they're touted as the best even though cameras like Rangefinders also have removable lenses; the Single Lens Reflex means that what you see in the viewfinder is exactly how the shot is going to look through exactly the same glass; compared to a viewfinder that can be the crucial difference between a fantastic picture and a blurry mess[/QUOTE] Thank you for pointing this out, it will be added to the SLR section. [QUOTE=Hammertime;20193809]I doubt prosumers are looking to do photography for a living. Even though the word contains 'pro', prosumers are hobbyists doing a little bit of paid work at most, they certainly don't live from it, because that would make 'em professionals. Prosumer camera's are just cameras for the advanced/passionate amateurs...[/QUOTE] LOOKING to do photography for a living, not actively doing so with their equipment. It's a crucial stepping stone, if you ask me, to start 'small' with prosumer equipment and get a handle for things in order to determine whether or not you feel it's right for you, rather than diving into a Canon 5D MkII and finding out they're incapable of understanding how to operate in manual mode.
I have the Canon Digital Rebel Xti/ D500 in Europe. I absolutely love it. It has a 100-12800 ISO range and a 15 MP CMOS sensor. You have live view, HD recording (crappy sound, but this is a SLR, not a camcorder so fuck this), but over all: beautiful colour registration and crisp images. The 18-55mm kit lens is nice, but not great. Controls like aperture, reachable and P, A and Tv (Time Value, shutter priority mode) all work perfectly and you also switch easily. ISO, focus points, shutter speed are adjusted very quick. Definately a good buy!
I might be getting myself a Canon 7D soon. It's got everything I could possibly need or want out of a camera. [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/canon_eos_5d_large.jpg[/img] It's damn sexy too.
Talk with Perfumly, then. He has one. Here's his gallery- [url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/kasper9384/[/url] I still think the first pictures he took with it were absolutely stunning. [url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/kasper9384/4154381434/in/photostream/[/url] the photo quality is nice too. :razz:
I have a nikon D200 and I love it
Icemaz recommended me this camera, what do you guys think of it? [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830124067[/url]
that particular listing is an open-box, meaning the product has been taken out, possibly for display purpose... in-store, it's the model people play with, online, more likely just to take a picture of it for listings I'm not sure about newegg, but some places list USED items as 'open box' so people are more likely to buy. As far as the camera itself goes, it looks pretty good. Here's a review I found on it; Looks like if you're taking lots of video and such, it's a good buy. [url]http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/03/30/review-casio-exilim-fc-100/[/url] also... [img]http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/tengrand.png[/img] :raise: [editline]1:11[/editline] You can save more money than your newegg one at this site- [url]http://www.jr.com/casio/pe/CAS_EX_hy_FC100BK/[/url] I'm not sure if there's a drawback to why their sales are so cheap. Look around carefully before purchasing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.