Camera thread.
I am told this is the place to get camera advice So I thought I would pick the camera Guru brains here.
This is what I'm looking for,
High-resolution capture, 5k x 5k pixels
1080 P video with the option to 720p
Hi capture rate
I'm not really good with Color related to cameras but I would like it to capture is much color as possible so I assume that's iso?
Remote control
At least an optical zoom over 30 X
I've been looking at the Canon T3I and the Nikon D7000. Both have really good features but I'm undecided.
Recommendations?
This is what I'm looking for,
High-resolution capture, 5k x 5k pixels
1080 P video with the option to 720p
Hi capture rate
I'm not really good with Color related to cameras but I would like it to capture is much color as possible so I assume that's iso?
Remote control
At least an optical zoom over 30 X
I've been looking at the Canon T3I and the Nikon D7000. Both have really good features but I'm undecided.
Recommendations?
Replies
5k pixels is a lot, 5kx5k is about 25 megapixels. Except cameras do not shoot in 1:1 ratios, so you're looking at 6000x4000 which is 24mp and common on some high end DSLR cameras. To need that sort of resolution, you need to have some very specific purpose for it, like making extremely large prints. Most web sized images are less than 1000x*.
1080P is common on most cameras these days, even cell phones, so that isn't an issue.
High capture rate, a lot of recent DSLRs can capture 5+ FPS, some even up to 10+.
"capturing as much color as possible" is a really strange requirement. Cameras with better sensors tend to have better dynamic range(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range) which basically means it stores more information. If you shoot in raw(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format) you will generally be able to recover more information that you would typically store in a JPEG. This is useful if you've over or underexposed your photos, or for more advanced processing.
ISO is sensitivity to light. Generally when a camera has "good ISO performance" it means that noise at higher ISO settings is acceptable. The better high ISO performance a camera has the better images it will produce in low/limited lighting.
Most cameras can use a remote control of some sort, especially DSLRs.
"30x optical zoom" is something you will only ever see on "super zoom" consumer digital cameras. DSLRs use interchangeable lenses, so they do not have "X optical zoom" as your zoom is dependent on the lens you have attached to the camera.
The Canon T3i and Nikon D7000 are fine cameras but without knowing what you're trying to do its impossible to really give you any advice. Also a budget would be good to know.
^What he said.
When I saw k I was thinking video.
I guess i'm also asking, what would you use?
For a setup that can cover a really vast range of uses you have basically two choices.
1. Consumer "super zoom" camera, these will be much smaller, lighter, more expensive, but image quality will not be as high as a DSLR(but may be fine for your purposes)
2. A DSLR with a few lenses. You can get a general-purpose lens like a Tamron 18-270mm, but that my still not be enough. Most likely you'll want a wide/ultra wide zoom, a nice prime lens for low light, and a telephoto zoom for nature shots. Very generally I would suggest to get a lower end or used camera body and spend a good portion of your budget on lenses. Buying the newest/best DSLR won't really offer much over slightly older bodies but may cost a lot more. A different lens that covers a different range will let you take photos that you previously couldn't have.
But really before we get into that, getting the most out of any camera is going to require more knowledge on your part. If you're having issues with color/exposure that means you probably don't know how to handle your camera very well(and/or that it isn't great on auto mode, common with cheaper cameras). Before you go out and buy an expensive camera kit I would suggest reading up on photography in general. This would be a very good start: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-Photographs-Digital-Updated/dp/0817463003"]Understanding Exposure: How to Shoot Great Photographs with a Film or Digital Camera (Updated Edition): Bryan Peterson: 9780817463007: Amazon.com: Books[/ame] . A massive chunk of the equation when it comes to taking good photos is the person pressing the button. The more you know about photography the easier it will be for you to decide which sort of gear you need.
oh, and this is not hugely important, but if anything takes 3d captures for both stills and HD, that would be a bonus, but not a necessity.
Ok, if size/weight is not a major concern a DSLR is the logical choice.
Sony, Canon, Nikon and Pentax all make solid DSLR cameras. Sony and Pentax have in-body image stabilization which is a really nice plus. With Canon/Nikon you have to buy special IS lenses if you want image stabilization.
Canon/Nikon have larger lenses selection in general, though it likely will not make a difference as all 4 have capable lenses in all the important categories, and most share the same third-party lenses(which can be great for less money that 1st party lenses).
If you're considering current DSLRS made in the last 1-2 years, the differences in image qualty between them are going to be extremely small. Any recent DSLR is going to be a massive jump in IQ over whatever P&S you have. Generally what you will pay for is:
A. Ergonomics, having better external controls etc
B. Faster shooting rates, larger buffers(to allow for more continuous shots before getting slow).
C. Build quality, weather sealing, etc.
Canon for instance tends to make 3 cameras that all have exactly the same IQ(same sensor), like the T3i, 60D and 7D. The differences are mostly operational. The T3i has basic controls and "newbie" friendly modes. The 60D has advanced controls and less noob stuff, and the 7D has advanced controls and autofocus tracking for shooting sports and stuff like that. This is fairly typical of most DSLR camera lines.
Some of Pentax's mid-range DSLRS like the K-5 and K-30 have weather sealing, which is really cool if you want to shoot in all sorts of conditions. However, buying weather sealed lenses can get very expensive very fast.
Now, the biggest drawback that a DSLR will have compared to a "super zoom" is that to zoom in really far, it gets very large, heavy and expensive to buy lenses like that. A super zoom might give you zoom up to about ~6-700mm or so, and buying a lens like that for a DSLR will weigh about 3+ pounds and cost $1000 and up. So if this is a real big part of what you want to do you need to consider that seriously. Big telephoto lenses on DSLRs is serious business and not something you will easily carry with you. A tripod may be required for these types of lenses.
I use a Sony A580. The two biggest reasons I use it is because of the in-body IS, which means every lens is an IS lens, and the fast autofcous in live view.
Tamron 11-18mm ultra wide lens. I use this for architecture shots or interiors or anything that I need to get really, really wide with.
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 general purpose lens. This is a great general purpose zoom lens, it has a fast constant 2.8 aperture which means its good in low light. A good replacement for the basic kit lens most cameras come with.
Sigma 50mm 1.4, this is a "prime" lens which means it does not zoom. It has a really fast aperture which means its good for low light and can really blur out the backgrounds, which is good for portraits and general artsy stuff.
Sigma 90mm 2.8 prime macro lens, I use this for macro stuff, flowers, insects, etc. Tamron makes a good/cheap 90 macro as well.
Minolta 135mm prime telephoto lens. This is a really really small and compact telephoto lens. Its also a fast 2.8 lens so its good in relatively low light. Not flexible like a zoom lens though.
Minolta 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 telephoto lens. This is a really small, really basic telephoto zoom lens. I take it with me when I want to travel very light
Tamron 70-300mm USD. This is a really nice(but not expensive) telephoto zoom lens. Its a little bigger and heavier though, so I take it only when weight isn't a large concern. Good for general purpose telephoto stuff.
Tamron 200-500mm super telephoto lens. This is the big boy, its around 3 pounds and looks like a rocket launcher when zoomed all the way out. I only take it with me when weight is of no concern. You need a lot of light to use a lens like this properly. Good for birds, misc wildlife etc.
I'm not really sure if this will be any use to you, but its what I use and covers pretty much every type of photography.
EQ nailed it on the head.
But definitely keep what he said in mind, regarding acquiring knowledge on your part. You really need to understand the basic principles of photography. Otherwise, your shots (even with a high-end DSLR) will still look terrible.
Yes, there is the quality factor. But, the biggest factor here will be knowing how to push your camera to its limits.
I'm not saying that you don't know anything, quite the contrary! I am just warning you, I know lots of people who spent a lot of money on a camera they did not know how to use.
Do you shoot in auto, or manual?
It sounds like you are screwing yourself by getting a prime but they are honestly a lot better. Also it will force you to get better.
As far as video goes (this is more my area) all dslr's are going to suck. The problem with them is that the sensors go larger than 1080p. And then when you ask yourself how you are able to take 30p video but only 5 photos a second, it's because it line skips. It deletes data. Mashes it together. And creates what's called moire.
One you notice moire, your camera will be forever ruined for you.
Your welcome. hahaha
Anyway. Good luck. It's a very expensive hobby and then when it becomes more than a hobby, it gets even more expensive as I'm finding out.
Right, most cameras that do not have in-body is(Canon, Nikon) tend to come with kit-lenses that have IS. And there are generally a lot of available lenses even lower end that have IS as well, like the basic 50-200mm-ish kit tele zooms.
However, Nikon and Canon offer very very few IS prime lenses. With a Sony/Pentax system all of your lenses are stabilized with no exceptions.
Also when you get into the higher end lenses, you might pay $500 or $1000 more for a Canon L lens with IS vs the older non IS version. It can cost a lot in the long term.
Something specific about Canon being better than Nikon with video? Bit of a blanket statement there, this varies to a huge degree depending on body.
Many cameras these offer the same specs, and most sensors will perform about as well as Canon's in low light. The Sony sensors used in many Nikon, most Pentax and of course Sony cameras are really the cream of the crop these days. Like the 16mp sensor in the A580, K5 and a few Nikons(D7000) very good with low light and a bit better than canon's 18mp sensor(not that the it actually makes much of a difference in real use, the sort of difference in sensor performance in this class is trivial).
His budget is $1500, any specific reason you recommend the 5DMII? To get the same sort of telephoto reach on a full frame camera you're talking about even bigger and more expensive lenses, so not sure I would recommend to someone who does a lot of nature photography and wants a lot of reach.
Not only that but really in general, looking at things like "1080p" and expecting that to mean you'll be able to take awesome videos with a DSLR is a little misguided.
To take videos of the quality that will be worth being shown at 1080P from a DSLR is going to take a lot of skill and probably a lot of dedicated gear, like focus rigs, stability rigs, etc. Shooting video isn't easy work and for the novice a dedicated camcorder of some sort will probably provide better results.
I consider myself to be a fairly good photographer, however I suck ass at doing anything with video. A DSLR opens up a lot of cool artistic stuff that you can do in video vs a camcorder, but it makes it that much harder to actually use.
So when choosing a DSLR I wouldn't recommend getting too caught up in the video specs, there is a good chance you will very rarely use it unless you have some sort of specialized interest/training in film production.
I think any aspiring photography hobbyist would be honored to have you as their mentor.
Thanks! I'm really glad you get something useful out of my rantings. =D
Most of my stuff is just up on facebook, been meaning to put up more of a photography type folio site or something. PM me for FB info.
My wife puts a lot of my stuff up on her blog though, mostly travel/nature/food/silly hobby type stuff: http://meanderingsabound.wordpress.com/
Here I am.
http://stalbotphoto.tumblr.com/
http://www.facebook.com/stalbot207/photos_albums
Cool, some awesome action shots!