Digital SLR

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

Who knows about Digital SLR cameras then?

I know there are so many factors involved.. but specifically.. if you wanted to use one to take stills to use as part of a DVD quality film, what are the important technical specifications?

With a 10 megapixel camera using RAW files obviously the resolution of the still image is not the limiting factor in this, I guess it is the digital photosensor and lens which matter most?

Anyone know about this stuff?

[Paddy]

i was lookin at the Nikon D40, pretty nice camera and not too dear either.

that didn't really answer any of your questions.

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

All i've really found out is that the proper full-frame sensor ones that actually give you something comparable to 35mm are still very expensive...

But when cameras around the price range of the Nikon you mention are producing a 3000 x 2000 resolution image, i wonder what is really important to create a decent 720×576 DVD frame image (other than skill and experience ;) )

[thepigjockey]

720×576

There's your answer. Even a compact digi camera would probably do. If you're looking for sufficient quality for video then you won't need hi-res/35mm film- equivalent resolution.

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

I suppose if it's storing it in RAW format rather than something lossy then even the basic digital SLR is going to more than cover the resolution of even the newer HDTV compatible disc formats (1920×1080)

But that's it, I know resolution isn't the issue.. I'm wondering what the next important thing is..

[love_tempo]

The lenses on many digital SLRs should be interchangeable with the equivalent film SLRs in the same manufacturers range possibly going back some time (this is true of Nikon's F mount anyway).

Lenses are important but good lenses aren't necessarily hugely expensive partly because of that (a few hundred pounds).

It's the quality of the CCD sensor, digital filters and the processing software that counts most. This is what determines how accurately it captures the colours and especially edges, the absence of unpleasent artefacts etc...

It's not that dissimilar to digital audio convertors in some ways including the fact that you can get servicable (and technically impressive) equipment quite cheap now and a law of diminishing returns applies as you spend more money.

Deciding what is good enough for an application is subjective. One important thing to bear in mind is frame throughput, I'd much prefer a camera that can take a lot of pictures in a very short period of time. (The Nikon D70s can grab a shit load of stills in no time)

The next most important thing after skill and subject matter possibly isn't the camera (if it's decent), it's the lighting.

Oh, and don't buy cameras in the u.k. You could buy a good camera in the U.S. and save enough to pay for the flight. They are much cheaper in america for some reason.

[thepigjockey]

If you need it just for 720×576 video I really wouldn't waste your money on an SLR, honestly...

[pille'ocheoni]

canon 5d

[thepigjockey]

If you really do want superduper high res (like the 5d) get a scanner and a good film SLR cheapocheapo. Sorted, for a 10th of the price.

signed
luddite

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

If you really do want superduper high res (like the 5d) get a scanner and a good film SLR cheapocheapo. Sorted, for a 10th of the price.

well how many times do we have to go over the fact that superduper high res isn't the issue? :)

"a good film SLR cheapocheapo" is a false economy though, you could easily spend the same of processing that film within months that would bring the price up to the same level anyway.

[antithesis]

If you really do want superduper high res (like the 5d) get a scanner and a good film SLR cheapocheapo. Sorted, for a 10th of the price.

signed
luddite

True, I know I couldn't justify the best part of 2 grand for a camera and lens unless I was making serious money back from the pictures it was producing. Film scanners are a good alternative though. Real pro film kit like Hasselblad or even Sinar can be picked up for buttons on eBay these days. Just means you have the cost of processing films in the future.

As far as digital SLRs are concerned, they'll all produce decent pictures if you know how to use them. Just depends how much money you want to spend. Can't go wrong with Nikon or Canon. It might be worth considering spending a little less on a camera body to have more to spend on good glass. The Hong Kong camera dealers on eBay can't be beat price-wise even if you factor in the possibility of having to VAT and such on top.

btw, you realise you need to crop to 768x576 for PAL? A still camera gives you square pixels, 720x576 is anamorphic PAL.

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

The lenses on many digital SLRs should be interchangeable with the equivalent film SLRs in the same manufacturers range possibly going back some time (this is true of Nikon's F mount anyway).

Lenses are important but good lenses aren't necessarily hugely expensive partly because of that (a few hundred pounds).

It's the quality of the CCD sensor, digital filters and the processing software that counts most. This is what determines how accurately it captures the colours and especially edges, the absence of unpleasent artefacts etc...

It's not that dissimilar to digital audio convertors in some ways including the fact that you can get servicable (and technically impressive) equipment quite cheap now and a law of diminishing returns applies as you spend more money.

Deciding what is good enough for an application is subjective. One important thing to bear in mind is frame throughput, I'd much prefer a camera that can take a lot of pictures in a very short period of time. (The Nikon D70s can grab a shit load of stills in no time)

The next most important thing after skill and subject matter possibly isn't the camera (if it's decent), it's the lighting.

Oh, and don't buy cameras in the u.k. You could buy a good camera in the U.S. and save enough to pay for the flight. They are much cheaper in america for some reason.

yep I guess finding out the relative quality of the different CCD sensors is the best place to start.

[love_tempo]

a second hand nikon d70s would probably be less than £300 and do the job well.
when you look at some examples produced by some decent mid-range ones you might see that the difference between them isn't massive, and you'll prefer some aspects of one and some of the other. It's like the difference between RME convertors and Apogee say. Apogee are 4 times the price but might only be a fraction better. If all you do is get paid to record you'll happily pay for apogee but otherwise it's an expensive luxury.

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

btw, you realise you need to crop to 768x576 for PAL? A still camera gives you square pixels, 720x576 is anamorphic PAL.

yeah good point, I was just picking figures out of my head there :)

I don't really want to mess about with film as I think I'd have much better results being able to take shitloads of pictures without having to worry about film.

[thepigjockey]

well how many times do we have to go over the fact that superduper high res isn't the issue? :)

Sorry, but you started it with all your fancy notions of SLR's, and everyone else is all 'SLR this, SLR that blahdeblar de SLR de dar' but I think you should get a digi compact for much cheaper. Did I mention that before?

"a good film SLR cheapocheapo" is a false economy though, you could easily spend the same of processing that film within months that would bring the price up to the same level anyway.

No, it's not a false economy. I take it you don't know how much a 5d costs :) (£2100ish with a shit lens that you'll need to replace immediately) AND it'll be obsolete by the time it's arrived through your postbox.

And re. costs, digital cameras' resolution is increasing and price decreasing all the time. I'm waiting until film and processing becomes stupidly expensive, then I'll get a digi SLR.

3d1t- I probably sound angry but I don't see the need to spend(waste?) so much if you only need it for stills.

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

Sorry, but you started it with all your fancy notions of SLR's, and everyone else is all 'SLR this, SLR that blahdeblar de SLR de dar' but I think you should get a digi compact for much cheaper. Did I mention that before?

Yes I have a decent enough canon digi compact already thanks but I've found that I want the control an SLR with a range of lenses would give me 8-()

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

No, it's not a false economy. I take it you don't know how much a 5d costs :) (£2100ish with a shit lens that you'll need to replace immediately) AND it'll be obsolete by the time it's arrived through your postbox.

When did i ever mention spending that kind of money? Or wanting an equivalent film camera? you seem to have made a lot of random assumptions about what it is I want :-p

[thepigjockey]

Well get a little Panasonic LX2 then.. It too will become obsolete as fast as an SLR but you won't be throwing so much money away.

[thepigjockey]

When did i ever mention spending that kind of money? Or wanting an equivalent film camera? you seem to have made a lot of random assumptions about what it is I want :-p

Sorry, got confused when you mentioned full frame cameras. Drives me mad with frustration that they're so expensive and all the other digi SLR 's have this tiny little CCD :( I'll shut up now..

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

Why will SLR become obselete?

Isn't the Panasonic LX2 basically the same as shonky Leica digital compact?

[antithesis]

dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com/) gets pretty in depth about digital SLRs. Pretty good starting point. The relative merits of one CCD sensor versus another is a pretty esoteric way to compare camera bodies IMHO. Weighing up resolution, frames per second, metering modes, battery life, ergonomics etc. would be the way I'd go.

After buying a second hand digital SLR from eBay myself (Fuji S2) I'd be pretty wary. Mine has never been right since I bought it, even after 170 quid's worth of repair. It's now producing some lovely psychedelic glitch-art.

[thepigjockey]

Why will SLR become obselete?

Isn't the Panasonic LX2 basically the same as shonky Leica digital compact?

I meant digi SLR. Look at the price/resolution now compared with a couple of years back. Madness. At least with film you're guaranteed a certain quality, with digi SLR bodies something better reolution-wise comes out every month.

[thepigjockey]

The site antithesis mentioned is good, also http://www.imaging-resource.com/ has some reviews and test shots, so you can judge for yourself which models take better photos. NB this site uses the US names (sometimes different from UK names)

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com/) gets pretty in depth about digital SLRs. Pretty good starting point. The relative merits of one CCD sensor versus another is a pretty esoteric way to compare camera bodies IMHO. Weighing up resolution, frames per second, metering modes, battery life, ergonomics etc. would be the way I'd go.

yeah that makes sense for consumer priced products of any type I guess.. as pointless as comparing A/D quality on cheap soundcards.

[thepigjockey]

And don't forget lenses, its worth investing in some primes rather than going with the supplied zoom, here's why: http://photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/

This site is very good btw, lots more info here: http://photo.net/equipment/digital/

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

And don't forget lenses, its worth investing in some primes rather than going with the supplied zoom, here's why: http://photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/


that's great, cheers.

[antithesis]

yeah that makes sense for consumer priced products of any type I guess.. as pointless as comparing A/D quality on cheap soundcards.

It's kinda different I think. Unlike soundcards, even the cheapest of digital SLRs will have a sensor of a quality where artifacts or aliasing just aren't an issue. The "noise floor" analogy will only really come into play when you're shooting in low light at with a high ISO rating set on your camera. Again, even the cheapest of digital SLR cameras will have less noise than film at the equivalent ISO rating.

A lot of pro snappers will have a cheap body as a backup, it's often the case where the sensor in the cheap body is exactly the same as the one in the more expensive one by the same manufacturer. The same shot produced by a Nikon D80 and D200 side by side would probably be pretty much indistinguishable.

The one feature that would swing it for me to stump up for a "pro-sumer" priced camera as opposed to a consumer model would be spot metering. A lot of the cheaper cameras don't do it and it's the best way of getting accurate exposures.