Camera and Camcorder Advice.

I suggest whichever one won't wake Ron Paul as you film him sleeping.

If money is not a problem, why not get a prosumer HD camcorder instead? unless you want the smaller form factor.

ex:
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-HVR-V1U-P..._tdp_sv_edpp_i

I'm looking for a camera(not camcorder, although video might be a nice bonus) as well. Something in the $600-700 range, if anyone has any thoughts/advice.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

This one is smaller ...

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-HDR-FX7-H..._tdp_sv_edpp_i

Nikon D40x specs and features:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...amera_Kit.html

Nikon D80 specs and features:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...al_Camera.html

- D80 delivers instant response, and provides continuous shooting at a rapid 3 frames per second, making action photography a reality and the camera a must have for photography enthusiasts.
- 11-area AF System with Wide-area Center Segment and Auto-area AF Functions

Those are the only features that really catch my eye, and would push me in the D80 direction. The links are to a D40x with a kit lens and just the D80 body. The price is about a $200 difference.

What kind of photographs are you hoping to take?

You can have a look at these two:
Sony HDRFX7 MiniDV High-Definition Handycam Camcorder
and
Canon EOS 40D 10.1MP Digital SLR Camera w/ 28-135mm Lens .

Depending on what types of photos you'd like to take I'd suggest this:

If you want to shoot a lot of action/sports I would go with something like the Nikon D80 simply because of the instant response, and the continuous shooting at 3 fps. I've done a lot of work with Nikon's D1, D1H, D50 and D70 models. The D1 and D1H give you that instant response that the D80 would offer. I'm not saying you wouldn't get great action shots with the D40X because you can, it's just a little bit more difficult and can be a little frustrating. The 11-area AF System is what would really sell me on this camera body, but that feature shouldn't be a deal killer.
Since the D40X is an upgrade version of the D40 it offers you the same megapixels as the D80, but doesn't have those two D80 bells and whistles. If you're going more for a camera to just get nice vacation and maybe wildlife photos I'd go with the cheaper camera body and put some of that extra money towards a nice lens, something fast and durable with a zoom range you'd actually get some use out of. Those kit lenses are usually pretty slow and are more plastic than metal.

But this isn't to say you shouldn't check out Canon's line. They make really nice equipment. I just use Nikon and am more familiar with it.

Giving this a bump 'cause I've got the cash, and tech moves at a pretty brisk pace. Is there a better deal for my dollar at the moment? Or should I just go with the D40x or the D80?

I just bought a D80 about a month ago, and I'm in love with it. I had zero experience using an SLR (in fact, this is the first digital camera I've ever owned), but learning to use it has been a breeze.

I could be wrong, but I thought the D40 was only 6 megapixels - for me, that's just too small for a DSLR. Hell, my mom just bought a P&S that's at 10MP. The D80 is 10MP, which is enough for me right now.

The most amazing thing about the D80 (and all SLRs have this feature) is what is possible with RAW processing. I'm pretty sure I'm never taking another photo with jpegs ever again. I use photoshop to do the RAW processing, but I believe Nikon has a program that comes with the camera (never checked the disc that came with it because I have photoshop) that allows you to manipulate the RAW files, so I don't think you would have to drop more cash to use this part of the camera.

The only downside to RAW photos is the space that they take up. Each photo is around 8 - 10 MB. But to see what's possible with it, check out this photo I took of my friend Kara and compare it with the original that is posted below it. If you want, check out more of my newer shots at the link that's in my sig - just about everything I've uploaded lately has been from the D80.

Lastly, do some research as far as lenses are concerned. I did a little before my purchase, but wish I had done more. I got the Sigma 28-70mm & 70-300mm lenses, and both work perfectly fine. But I've seen some ads with the 18-200mm Nikon VR lens, and really wish I had just gotten that one instead. In fact, I may end up buying and selling the other two - I'm just too lazy to be carrying around a couple of lenses when one should do the trick....

Thanks for the info WayDen. Research will be done.
I don't know jack shit about RAW processing, but I'm going to look into it.

If you're going to buy SLR - make sure you actually try it first. Personally, the D200, which is an outstanding camera that plenty of lightweight professionals use, can be uncomfortable to hold. Most will produce very similar results - the most important thing is to try it, make sure it's comfortable - then buy a fucking fantastic lens for it. I'll second the love for the RAW format.

For those of you recommending HDR/HVR range Sony cameras to someone who wants a handycam - you're fools. Those ranges are prosumer, impractical for someone to take on holiday with them and are overpriced.

Cash is a deciding factor on what to buy - but ultimately again, it comes down to the lens - don't worry about megapixels on a camcorder, worry about low-light effectiveness and optical zoom not digital zoom first.

Bought myself 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor lens a few years ago for my Nikon D70 and it's fantastic if you like to do portraits, not only because of the DoF. It's one of the cheapest lenses there is, so it's a must buy if you just got a Nikon camera.

Couldn't agree more. I bought two lenses when I got mine, and after only a couple of months, I'm ready to sell one of them and buy a better one. Did a little research on the 18-200mm I mentioned earlier, but I don't think that's for me. It's supposedly a little soft at 200mm...

While I'm extremely happy with my 28-70mm lens (I actually had a friend complain because it caught too much detail on her face - she's 27 and said it made her look old), I wish I had done a little more research on the 70-300mm. I use it quite a bit on a boat (for wakeboarding photos), and I really wish I had gotten the VR version from Nikon. It's pretty damn difficult to take a sequence of photos from anything beyond 175mm and hope for them all to come out razor sharp...

I ended up getting a D60, and I like it a lot.

Anyone know of affordable quality lenses? In particular, me wants fish-eye!

Also, remotes. I'd like to do some stop-motion stuff with this camera. I've seen remotes on Amazon and such, but sometimes the models of Nikons that they work with aren't too clear. Does anyone know for sure if the D60 is compatible with a remote? I've seen eBay listings that say it is, but then in the more detailed inforomation, this model isn't mentioned.

Congrats on the new camera. What lens did you get with it?

Don't really know about fisheye lenses, but one of the more affordable lenses (little over $100) is the 50mm 1.8, and it's supposed to be really high quality as well (although I'm not sure if the autofocus works on the D60 - might want to look into that before you decide to buy). There's a pretty large group on Flickr dedicated to it here. I've heard really good things about it (especially in low light), and I'm probably going to pick it up this month or next - I'm just deciding if I want a flash before I buy it or not...

Keep in mind that there's no zoom on this lens - 50mm is the exact distance that you are from whatever you're shooting, so you'll be moving around to frame the shot correctly.

Not sure if this is for the D60, but I use this one with my D80. It's worked pretty well for me, although admittedly I only use it for long night exposure shots. If you buy the wireless remote, keep in mind that it only works if you point it at the front of the camera, not the back (made more for self-portraits than anything else).

What's your idea of affordable? The rule of thumb is that prosumers spend the same amount on a lens, at least, as they did on their base unit. Amateurs can get away with less, but you'll probably notice it if you're particularly enthusiastic.

I'd also focus on telephoto before wide-angle work. I appreciate that the effect might initially be more obvious - but the depth of field improvement with a good zoom lens is incredible.

That 50mm is a nice deal. At 1.8 the depth of field is going to be so shallow, and it's fast as shit for the price.

I'm looking forward to playing around with it, especially since it will take away a lot of the focus I place on the zoom with my other lenses. They also sell a 1.4 version, but it's an extra $150!

Also read an interesting 'interview' Flickr is doing with some members. They asked the guy "What’s one tip that you would share with someone who’s just picking up a camera?"

The bit at the end made me laugh, but what he says is true. I'm always checking that damn screen to see how it came out...

More to the point, spending that much money on HDV is retarded.

This is the way: http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-AG-H...1195050&sr=1-7

I'm shooting a feature on it right now.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-HV20-Def...1195153&sr=1-1

Shoots in 24p/HDV. Nice for the consumer wanting to shoot in semi-pro quality.

Reviving this thread for a quick question:
Do any chewers who have post-production experience know if footage from the very cheap Kodak Zi8 would be trackable in an app like Boujou or PFtrack? I wanna spend as little money as possible on an easy to use camera. The picture doesn't need to look particularly pretty. It just needs to have minimal motion blur to facilitate a clean track, so that I can do some 3D over it.
Thanks in advance.

Bumping this thread because I need some advice.

I just got some big bucks, and I'm seriously thinking about reigniting my hobby for B&W photography. However, I don't where to start when it comes to digital photography. It's been YEARS since I use to take pictures as a hobby. In particular, artsy fartsy B&W type stuff.

So my question: how do I go about getting a picture like this



in a digital format?

IRCC, that was taken with 3200 Speed B&W film, if that helps with any suggestions.

Here's a good little comparison that should get you started in your search, but there's a wide field of affordable, excellent cameras capable of doing what you're looking for these days. Should be a fun purchase (I assume a camera purchase is in the cards) no matter what you pick.

Since this has been bumped, why not?

Any recommendations for a good quality, but cheap, camera? Looking for something under $100 that's small, quick, and takes good shots. I'm sick of taking my D60 everywhere. I want this just for snapshots and photos of friends basically.

If you're just looking for that grainy, black & white type of image it's pretty much possible with any type of DSLR out there. Just overcrank the ISO, and program the camera to take black & white shots.

If you're looking for a particular recommendation, I can't recommend the Nikon D90 enough. I upgraded from a D80 to a D90 around March, and it takes some pretty damn nice shots at 3200 ISO. The majority of these shots were taken in various bars around town, and I'm pretty impressed by the minimal grain in the shot given the lack of ambient light that was available when I took them.

This photo was taken at 1/30 @ f1.8 (so it's not the sharpest in the world), but the bar was also really dark. But it doesn't come across that way here. I just dig this 'look' so much more than a typical night shot where the flash is blasted in people's faces, rendering the background completely black...


Also, it shoots at 4.5 frames per second, so something like this is possible (with a little help from photoshop).


But one of the best reasons to go with the Nikon is the CLS system that is integrated into the camera for lighting. You can control flash output from the camera's menu when the flash is NOT attached to the camera. It's amazing how much more professional a shot will look once the flash is off of the camera. Here's some of my shots using it, but if you really want to see some amazing stuff check out the strobist group on Flickr...

Here's a black & white portrait I took of a friend using the off camera flash.


You're going to drop $2000 easy on just the camera & a couple of flashes (and that's before you buy a lens!), but then again, you said you just got some big bucks - happy shooting!