| Author | Message | ||
     Barker |
t2i w/ magic lantern FTW!!! | ||
| Court |
The camera has nearly nothing to do with the quality of the photo. You can read more HERE I shot over 150 images today. Some on an expensive camera with an expensive lens in RAW mode. Others on my backup (carried in my pocket) which uses the same Digic II that it shares with the EOS 5D. If you spent less than a couple thousand $$$ on your lens, worrying about RAW vs. JPEG is little more than a bar room argument. That, while not entirely accurate, is the gist of it. I shoot in BASIC JPEG on one SD card and in RAW on the another SD card at the same time. If someone tells you they can tell they difference, they are lying to you. The difference, as Dave mentioned, is what I can do later. If I catch a deer in the woods and, later, want to remove the shadows . . I have tons of options using Aperture, Lightroom, NX2 or Photoshop. The best camera is what you are comfy with. I carry a couple in the car with me but some of the best shots come from the one I have in my pocket. The Canon vs. Nikon argument belongs right up there with the Penzoil vs. Quaker State. It's a matter of preference. I use Nikon because NY (arguably the modeling capital of the world) is a "Nikon Town". It's neat, when your $2,500 lens does a face plant from a tripod, to have it rebuilt while you wait. Try that in Milwaukee. Not convinced . . . . look at RkcOO's work (Nikon) and Danger Dave (Canon) and see which one of them you think should have their awards revoked. There's a reason Jimmy Buffet stays in touch with Mike when he gets ready to go on tour.  I'm learning a lot of technical stuff, at a snail's pace, from Mike and I've learned a lot about composition and lighting from Dave Gess, the Yoda of light. It's fun stuff . . . . | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
What Barker is trying to say is that if you use certain Canon SLR's such as the 5DMark ll, or even the $600 Canon Rebel T2i, with Magic Lantern Firmware, which is shareware, you can greatly enhance it's video capability to the extent that you would need to spend about $10,000 to get a better video camera. Of course, if you are not a professional videographer, you might find it all just a bit confusing. Right, Barker? | ||
| Court |
By the way . . . cards, I am sure, wear out eventually . . but they've also gotten darn cheap. I got a new camera last week and bought a half dozen Lexar Professional SD cards . . . . I can get thousands of shots on one . . . and the speeds are through the roof | ||
| Danger_dave |
Brand loyalty - how quaint. Obviously If you have a large investment in lenses, then it's best to stay with one brand, I don't, so I don't really care what badge is on it. Current SLR is a Nikon - like it a lot. Before that was a Canon - liked it a lot. All I'm interested in is who currently has the best tool within my $. That can vary every time they upgrade their range. Barker's tip sure looks like a good one. | ||
| Barker |
True that Gentleman Jon. The free software turns a $500 DSLR into a $5000 beast of a digital cinema camera. Features that make me feel funny in special places, but for most people it would look like a hot mess of numbers, meters, and flashing lights. Remember kids just like with motorcycles: It's not the arrow that kills, it's the archer. Some things I have shot mostly on DSLRs: http://vimeo.com/mjbarker/demoreel I really dig these new Panny LUMIX mirror less cams with 4/3 lens. For me the T2i/T3i is the best bang for the buck if you want to do video and pix. Until something else comes out. Nikon/Canon/Panny/Sony/your mom/Erik Buell whoever makes it. Camera bodies are important, but glass is more important. I chose canon for now for many reasons, one is that I can use all of my old nikon glass with an adapter. I cant go the other way around. (Message edited by barker on December 21, 2011) | ||
| Barker |
Canon vs. Nikon A must see short for photogs. | ||
| M2statz |
I like this thread!! We are currently planning a trip for our 20th anniversary next fall to Scotland to renew our wedding vows and I am looking to up-grade past the Kodak photo share camera that we got several years ago. Getting past the brand loyalty, I am looking for a nice camera, fairly small, with the possibility of changable lenses. Can someone post more info about the mirrorless cameras please. Thanks. | ||
| Svh |
The Nikon J1 is pretty interesting to me. Going to wait and see how people like them for a few months before we buy our first dslr. Supposedly one of the fastest auto focuses available. Anybody here have any experience with this little bugger yet? | ||
| Court |
>>>Getting past the brand loyalty, Don't get hung up on the brand loyalty. It's almost impossible to buy a "bad" camera and the manufacturers have tricked the unsuspecting into using imaginary metrics like megapixels and resolution. But ANY (I'd recommend the G12 which is cheap and you will seldom see a pro without one as a backup in their bag) decent camera will do a great job. Learning how to take photos is more important. | ||
| 99buellx1 |
I'm on my second G series camera, a G12. It's fantastic! I had a G10, and sold it, regretted that within a couple weeks. It's a bit larger than a pocket p&s camera, but the ability to have physical controls that are familiar to me is great. Another great choice for a more pocket friendly size is the Canon S95, or the new S100. | ||
| Court |
The minute our Grandaughter was born I sent the G10 to the kids and, on Jon's advise, bought a G12. Amazing. | ||
| Barker |
***Disclaimer*** As a video pro all of my advise and commentary will be very biased to video uses of DSLR/Camera more than still images. So take all of my banter with a grain of salt. Its good thing we have some real shutter bugs here that can balance me out. For small/powerful/frugal: I'm really digging the Panny Lumix GF2/3 camera systems. Small mirror-less Better video codec than canon/nikon/sony touch screen 4/3 lens The Canon t2i goes for about $499 for body only. It has a bigger sensor and better lens selection. Since I have alot of $$$$ tied up in EOS mounts I'm really looking forward to a small mirror-less EOS camera from canon soon. (Message edited by barker on December 22, 2011) | ||
| Barker |
I just found this: If you looking for a nice big gun this sure is a great deal (if your into stills and video) 5D Mk2/16GB card/Bag/Red Giant software bundle for $2k. Body only. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Canon/Ntt/embl12 15ca5d/N/0/Q/BI/6315/KBID/7048 | ||
| Kruizen |
Just bought a point and shoot for my daughter from them(bh), great transaction, quick shipping etc. would buy from them again. | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>>***Disclaimer*** As a video pro << Yeah yeah - but have *you* got your name up in lights???huh huh. http://www.youtube.com/bigdavesplace | ||
| Barker |
Im only trying to keep up with the man, the myth, the legend,,,, the Dangerous David! | ||
| Danger_dave |
Legend in his own lunchbox. 'If there is anything bigger than my ego around here - I want it caught and shot immediately' - Zaphod Beetlebrox. | ||
| U4euh |
This discussion is akin to the "which tires to get" discussion. It really depends on what your using it for, conditions, and your need, and abilities. I can make beautiful portrait pictures with my point and shoot, but I don't use it the track expecting to get multi shot action close ups. At the same time I don't bring my Dslr rig to club on friday night in an effert to save some space on my person. With todays sensors and editing software ANY camera will do 80% of what the average consumer wants to do. Don't get caught up in the "it has this many megapixals" sell. If the salesman keeps referring to this camera has the most megapixals on the market, turn and run, don't walk away. There is a reason that Canon went from 12mp on the G10 to 10mp on the G12. Better sensor capabilities and processing. JPEG vs RAW- again it depends on what your doing with the pictures. Are you trying make a really impressive picture, or are you just shooting to provide memories of what happened. In the end there is one thing to remember, the best camera just happens to be the one you have at the moment, and knowing how to use it. | ||
| Pwnzor |
I just bought a Nikon D5100 for my better half. I know not much about these fancy things, but this is the camera she wanted. Any thoughts or suggestions about this particular unit? | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
Good "synopsis" of the D5100: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D5100/verd ict.shtml Best, Ferris | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
U4euh, I'm new to a lot of this stuff, but it's my understanding that RAW files may allow retrieval of "blown" highlights in the image file, and that JPEG files are "lossy" files, i.e. any post-processing you do degrades, at least slightly, the overall image quality, but RAW files are "lossless," i.e. post-cook the image file to your heart's content and it still retains 100% of it's original goodness. I don't yet know why this is so, but I'm eager to learn more. My new cam (on backorder - grrrr...) will shoot JPEG and RAW at the same time; should be a fun learning curve. Hope it's a great year for you and Tonya. FB | ||
| Drkside79 |
Honestly i don't take videos with my camera so i prefer Nikon. Part of it is due to brand loyalty. Some of it is due to the belief that Nikon makes better lenses and part because i like to hum Paul Simons Kodachrome. he says Nikon camera and Cannon doesn't fit as well in the song. | ||
| U4euh |
Jerry, you are absolutely correct. I just finished the semester up in which I took a digital photography class. The simplest way to demonstrate the difference is in the cropping process. I have a that was a project. I shoot with the Nikon D5000 in both jpeg and raw. The jpeg is roughly 4500 megs, the raw version is a little over 12000 megs. Im using CS5 photo editor, let's use your picture of the Harley sitting on the road with leaves in the 'photo' thread. If I crop out only your bike and blow that up to an 11x14 size photo the raw version carries way more information to "fill" in those dark or light areas allowing a clear picture. Whereas is jpeg version gets grainy, much like zooming in on a internet picture of low quality. What kind of cam. Did you order? I had a Canon but sold it only because I wanted a flippable viewing screen. The only option Canon had at the time was the newer line models, read as very pricey. But I have been more than satisfied with the Nikon. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
Jim, I've always lusted over Nikons, ever since I first took an interest in photography (about '65 or so). I'm presently shooting with only my second-ever digital cam, a Nikon S6100 point 'n shoot. It's decent for what it is, helped (but also hindered) by its whopping 16 MP sensor (helped 'cause there's lot of data to work with, hindered 'cause there can be lots of noise). Although I have a life-long passion for photography, I can't justify going "pro" on equipment yet, so I've been researching bridge cameras. There's a lot of good stuff out there, as you know, but I pulled the trigger on a new Panny Lumix FZ150. Based on my research, the Nikons bridges that had my attention (L120 and P500) just don't measure up image-wise. The FZ150 has gotten very, very positive reviews since its intro last August, so much so that availability is still a problem. I've got one on order through an American vendor - saved a lot of money by pre-ordering, and just couldn't get used to the idea of getting one NOW (albeit for more money) through an offshore vendor. Back in the day (early 70's) I had matching Nikkormats (ever heard of the brand? Nikon-made, kinda what Toyota is to Lexus), and I still own two very nice matching black-body Olympus OM-101s, with nice Oly-branded short and long power zooms. Good gear, but fumbling with film these days seems so last century. Thanks for the info on RAW vs JPEG. Happy shooting. FB http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_ DMC_FZ150/ (Message edited by jerry_haughton on January 03, 2012) | ||
| Danger_dave |
Yep - compression = lesser image quality - especially with 'noise' on night time pics - but unless it's really large format - like a poster, I don't bother with RAW. Even for paid gigs. A double page spread in a magazine works fine as a jpeg. | ||
| Dynasport |
Another camera to consider if you want point and shoot portability and good image quality with the capability to shoot raw if you want is the Canon S95. It has been replaced recently with the S100, but can still be found and sometimes at a big discount now that it is an out of date model. Or you could get the S100. I am partial to Canon's simply because that is what I have had for a long time and it is what I am comfortable with. I would love a 7D, but I am still shooting with an OLD 20D. I keep hoping it will break, but it won't. I used it last week taking some senior portraits and got results like this (these are straight out of the camera JPGs).    And about 350 more. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
Thanks for the heads-up, DD - that's good to know. Dynasport, I just read a quick review of the Canon S100 on cameralabs.com, and it gets very high marks, indeed. Really fast lens on the wide end for what it is. Not nearly enough zoom to suit me, though. Very nice cam, thanks for the suggestion. FB (Message edited by jerry_haughton on January 03, 2012) | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
PS:
Nice work! | ||
| Rkc00 |
Here is one I shot tonight with my Nikon D3, AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II, ISO 2500, f2.8, 1/200, (2) remote SB-900 flashes at 1/4 power set off with PocketWizard Multi Max Transceivers.  |
