Best DSLR camera for film making and photography?

Q. I've decided to purchase my first dslr camera. I'm a amateur film maker so I need a camera that can handle that, with excellent video. But I also do a lot of photography, especially sports.
I'm not too concerned with costs. Basically, I want the best possible video and picture quality possible. With quality, I'm not really willing to sacrifice.
On a less important note, I have pretty small hands, so an especially large body might be a problem.

Answer
Film makers use 16 mm and 35 mm motion picture cameras and most of them rent them from a place like here

http://www.birnsandsawyer.com/_camera-rentals/35mm-cameras/

Some dSLR's have a video feature, but are NOT designed to be a primary video camera. For those you can rent them from Birns and Sawyer or buy something like those listed on this link

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelList?storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&catGroupId=34401&surfModel=AG-HPX370

The above cameras are designed to produce video projects and do an excellent job

ALL video, motion picture and digital still cameras have large camera bodies, but since all but a few shots needed to produce a film/video involve the camera being mounted on a tripod, this should NOT be a problem for you.

Here is a link to the type video camera used by one of my sports shooting colleagues.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadcastcameras/cat-dvcam/product-DSR400PL/

The lens he has attached to is is a Fujinon ENG Style zoom designed for 1080p

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/optical_devices/broadcast-hd-sd/hdtv-lenses/2-3-eng/za-select/za22x76-berd/

While simple $300 P&S cameras shoot both stills and video, neither are what you would want to use if your goal is excellent stills or excellent video.

What is a good entry-level dSLR camera for an enthusiastic beginner photographer?

sellingkar

I'm trying to decide whether a bridge-camera will be fine OR whether I should go for a lower range of DSLR..please let me know from your experience. Thx

Answer
Definitely go for a DSLR.

No matter how advanced a so-called "bridge camera" may be it is severely limited by its tiny sensor and permanently attached lens.

The sensor of a compact digicam may measure 7.6mm x 5.7mm while the DSLR sensor measures 23.6mm x 15.8mm. A tiny sensor simply performs poorly at higher ISO settings and in low-light, non-flash photography. Manufacturers have made this worse by stuffing more and more pixels into this tiny sensor. If you have 14.7mp in a compact digicam sensor each individual pixel is very tiny. Place 10.2mp in a DSLR sensor and the individual pixels are comparatively huge. Larger individual pixels gather more detail and perform better at higher ISOs and in low-light, non-flash situations.

The second major advantage of the DSLR is its interchangeable lenses. With a compact digicam you're stuck with the permanently attached lens. If you want to shoot in low-light w/o a flash with a DSLR just attach a 50mm f1.4 and you're good to go. If a compact digicam has an f2.8-4.0 lens you're limited in low light. Your only option is a high ISO to get a shutter speed fast enough to avoid subject motion.

Suppose you're in a situation where a 50mm f1.4 lens at ISO 400 gives you a shutter speed of 1/60 sec. If your compact digicam has an f2.0 lens your shutter speed drops to 1/30 sec. At f2.8 it becomes 1/15 sec. and at f4 1/8 sec. At ISO 800 the f1.4 lens gives you a shutter speed of 1/125 sec., f2.0 1/60 sec., f2.8 1/30 sec. and f4 1/15 sec. At ISO 1600 the f1.4 gives a shutter speed of 1/250 sec., the f2 1/125 sec., f2.8 1/60 sec. and f4 1/30 sec. As you can easily see, a fast f1.4 lens is all but mandatory for successful low-light, non-flash photography. (Yes, IS will help with camera movement but IS does nothing for subject movement. A fast shutter speed is needed to avoid subject movement.)

The DSLR also allows you to use a true macro lens or an ultra wide angle lens or a super telephoto. In other words, with interchangeable lenses you can choose a lens to suit a particular situation.

Although the Pavlovian response in here is almost always "Nikon!" "Canon!" do not ignore the Sony and Pentax DSLR line.

Both Sony and Pentax have their versions of Image Stabilization (IS) in the camera body. Any lens used thus becomes an IS lens. Nikon and Canon have their versions of IS in some of their lenses but not all. Plus you get to pay for the IS every time you buy one of their IS lenses.

The Sony A230 is 10.2mp and is $549.95 w/18-55mm lens at B&H.

The Pentax K2000 is 10.2mp and is $599.95 w/18-55mm lens and AF-200FG flash at B&H.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com

Since Sony uses the same lens mount as the Minolta Maxxum auto focus 35mm camera introduced in 1985, you can use every Maxxum AF lens made since then. Sony also has (at last count) 26 branded lenses in their catalog plus the Carl Zeiss "ZA" lenses. I doubt you'll ever lack for lenses. Plus, with in-camera IS, a 20 year old Maxxum AF lens becomes an IS lenses. Nikon and canon can't say that.

The Pentax DSLR cameras still use the K-mount forst introduced in 1975. Any K-mount lens can be used (with limitations) so, again, you won't lack for lenses. The Pentax in-camera IS offers the same benefit as the Sony in-camera IS. Just think - a 30 year old lens using technology that wasn't even a dream when that lens was made.

So go for a DSLR and you'll never be sorry.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

What is a good entry-level dSLR camera for an enthusiastic beginner photographer?

dslr camera za image

sellingkar

I'm trying to decide whether a bridge-camera will be fine OR whether I should go for a lower range of DSLR..please let me know from your experience. Thx

Answer
Definitely go for a DSLR.

No matter how advanced a so-called "bridge camera" may be it is severely limited by its tiny sensor and permanently attached lens.

The sensor of a compact digicam may measure 7.6mm x 5.7mm while the DSLR sensor measures 23.6mm x 15.8mm. A tiny sensor simply performs poorly at higher ISO settings and in low-light, non-flash photography. Manufacturers have made this worse by stuffing more and more pixels into this tiny sensor. If you have 14.7mp in a compact digicam sensor each individual pixel is very tiny. Place 10.2mp in a DSLR sensor and the individual pixels are comparatively huge. Larger individual pixels gather more detail and perform better at higher ISOs and in low-light, non-flash situations.

The second major advantage of the DSLR is its interchangeable lenses. With a compact digicam you're stuck with the permanently attached lens. If you want to shoot in low-light w/o a flash with a DSLR just attach a 50mm f1.4 and you're good to go. If a compact digicam has an f2.8-4.0 lens you're limited in low light. Your only option is a high ISO to get a shutter speed fast enough to avoid subject motion.

Suppose you're in a situation where a 50mm f1.4 lens at ISO 400 gives you a shutter speed of 1/60 sec. If your compact digicam has an f2.0 lens your shutter speed drops to 1/30 sec. At f2.8 it becomes 1/15 sec. and at f4 1/8 sec. At ISO 800 the f1.4 lens gives you a shutter speed of 1/125 sec., f2.0 1/60 sec., f2.8 1/30 sec. and f4 1/15 sec. At ISO 1600 the f1.4 gives a shutter speed of 1/250 sec., the f2 1/125 sec., f2.8 1/60 sec. and f4 1/30 sec. As you can easily see, a fast f1.4 lens is all but mandatory for successful low-light, non-flash photography. (Yes, IS will help with camera movement but IS does nothing for subject movement. A fast shutter speed is needed to avoid subject movement.)

The DSLR also allows you to use a true macro lens or an ultra wide angle lens or a super telephoto. In other words, with interchangeable lenses you can choose a lens to suit a particular situation.

Although the Pavlovian response in here is almost always "Nikon!" "Canon!" do not ignore the Sony and Pentax DSLR line.

Both Sony and Pentax have their versions of Image Stabilization (IS) in the camera body. Any lens used thus becomes an IS lens. Nikon and Canon have their versions of IS in some of their lenses but not all. Plus you get to pay for the IS every time you buy one of their IS lenses.

The Sony A230 is 10.2mp and is $549.95 w/18-55mm lens at B&H.

The Pentax K2000 is 10.2mp and is $599.95 w/18-55mm lens and AF-200FG flash at B&H.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com

Since Sony uses the same lens mount as the Minolta Maxxum auto focus 35mm camera introduced in 1985, you can use every Maxxum AF lens made since then. Sony also has (at last count) 26 branded lenses in their catalog plus the Carl Zeiss "ZA" lenses. I doubt you'll ever lack for lenses. Plus, with in-camera IS, a 20 year old Maxxum AF lens becomes an IS lenses. Nikon and canon can't say that.

The Pentax DSLR cameras still use the K-mount forst introduced in 1975. Any K-mount lens can be used (with limitations) so, again, you won't lack for lenses. The Pentax in-camera IS offers the same benefit as the Sony in-camera IS. Just think - a 30 year old lens using technology that wasn't even a dream when that lens was made.

So go for a DSLR and you'll never be sorry.

What makes a Canon DSLR better than a Sony DSLR!?

Tristan B

Don't know a lot about the subject but please be specific. Not just that Canon has been in the DSLR biz longer than Sony. Why do they take better shots and such.....

Answer
First, repeat this 100 times: "It isn't the camera its the photographer."

Cameras do NOT "... take better shots ...". As Ansel Adams said: "Pictures are not taken they are made." All cameras are just dumb boxes, whether its a home made pinhole camera or a Canon 1Ds Mark III. The camera is a tool, like a socket wrench or saw or hammer.

I have never owned a camera that made great pictures.

I have never owned a camera that made lousy pictures.

I have used a camera to make some great pictures and I have used a camera to make some lousy pictures. In either case the camera gets neither the credit nor the blame. Both are solely on me, the photographer.

A person knowledgeable about light, composition, exposure and skilled in their use will make good pictures with either camera.

A person who lacks that knowledge and skill will take the same lousy pictures with either camera that they took with a simple point & shoot.

Anyone who criticizes Carl Zeiss lenses because a lens with his name on it is used on a cell phone is completely ignorant. Zeiss needs to have a steady revenue stream in order to design and manufacture their professional quality lenses and keep them reasonably affordable. The sales revenue from lenses for cell phones supports that endeavor.

If I were in the market for a DSLR I'd choose a Sony. I like the idea of having the Image Stabilization (IS) in the camera body so any lens used will have that benefit.

No doubt someone will answer this with the claim that Canon has more lenses. Not true. A Sony DSLR can use every Minolta Maxxum AF lens made since 1985 plus the lenses made for the Konica-Minolta 5D & 7D DSLR cameras plus the Carl Zeiss "ZA" lenses plus the after-market offerings from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina.

So with the Sony DSLR you can buy a 24 year old 70-210mm f4 zoom and have an IS lens. Since Canon has its IS in certain lenses (as does Nikon) they can't make that claim.

The bottom line is that either camera in capable hands can be used to make excellent pictures. So handle both cameras and buy the one you think feels the best in your hands. Don't get all hung up on a brand.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Camera Help - Which One Is Better, Or Another Choice?

dslr camera za image

Q. I Have About £1000 Pounds To Spend.
This includes money for the tripod, etc.
I have been mainly focused on two camera's -
Canon EOS 40D, and the Canon EOS 450.
Which one, would you buy, and if possible, why?
But if neither of these are THAT great, could you tell me something else i could consider, of any make -
for my first ever DSLR (i'm making the big break! :D )
and ten points galore then.
MERCI!

Answer
There is no doubt that Canon and Nikon make fine cameras. However, I believe that when considering such a major purchase one should look at all the possibilities.

Although a relative newcomer to the DSLR field, Sony is building on solid technology bought from Konica-Minolta when that company exited the camera business. Since the introduction of the A100 and A700 in 2006 Sony has improved the technology and features to produce the A200, A300 and A350. All Sony cameras differ from Nikon and Canon in one major way - Sony has their version of Image Stabilization - Super Steady Shot - in the camera body. Canon and Nikon have their versions in their longer focal length lenses. Since the IS is in the lens you have to pay for it with every lens. With IS in the camera body, every lens used will have its benefit. Yes, there is evidence that IS in the lens is slightly more effective. However, if you'd like to see how in-camera IS affects pictures taken with a shorter focal length lens, go to http://www.shutterbug.com and type 'maxxum 5d' in the Search box. You'll pull up a test report of this Sony DSLR ancestor from the Feb. 2006 issue. Read it, look at the sample pictures, and decide for yourself.

The Sony A300 & A350 both feature Live View which actually works with the autofocus. Although some may imagine a person trying to use Live View to compose a picture instead of using the viewfinder (I seriously doubt anyone would even think about trying to hold a DSLR at arm's length like a digicam), that's not its main function. Its usefulness comes into play when you're in a crowd and have no choice but to hold the camera over your head to get a picture. Just flip the screen down, compose, check focus and shoot. Its also useful when using the camera at ground level - just flip the screen up.

You may hear that Nikon and Canon have a wider lens line than Sony. That's not completely true. The Sony DSLR cameras can use every Minolta Maxxum AF lens made since 1985. Sony also has a Carl Zeiss "ZA" line of lenses. Most all of the accessories for the late, lamented Maxxum 5D & 7D are compatible with the Sony.

While you're comparing cameras, features and benefits, take a look at the Pentax DSLR line.

Digital SLR camera, to buy or not to buy?

kahala

I am in the market for a digital SLR camera and trying to decide between the Cannon rebel XT or the Olympus E420

Answer
Either camera has its pluses and minuses. If they were the only two choices I'd vote for the Canon even though its an older model.

Depending on your budget, you might want to take a look at the Sony A300. Sony has their version of image stabilization in the camera body, unlike Canon which uses a lens-based system. With the A300 every lens used will have the benefit of stabilization. With Canon you pay for it with every lens. The A300 also features real-time Live View which actually works with the auto focus - its more than just a preview/review. Suppose you're in a crowd and have to hold the camera over your head to take a picture. Flip the screen down, compose, check focus and shoot. Or, if you're shooting at ground level, flip the screen up, etc.

Someone will likely tell you that Canon and Nikon have a larger lens selection. That's not entirely accurate. The A300 (as can any Sony DSLR) can use every legacy Minolta Maxxum AF lens made since 1985. I rather doubt you'll ever need a lens that isn't available. You also have access to the Carl Zeiss "ZA" lenses Sony offers.

Happy shopping!

Powered by Yahoo! Answers