PDA

View Full Version : which camera to buy




G wizz
Jan 8, 2006, 09:11 AM
A few things I need help on. I am enjoying imovie and idvd but the quality of the finished dvd its not that good. If I purchase a higher pixel camera (3.2 at the moment) will this make the picture quality better when I play back on my TV. Slide show is fine but quality is lost when I use imovie and transitions.

What SLR camera would you recommend. I have looked at the nikon D50. Is this the best all rounder???? for 500.

Also a question on keynote software if this is the right place to ask. Is there anyway I can chose and fade in different music like that in imovie??. Want to do a presentation for our club but can only apply 1 tune which repeats itself if the presentation exceeds the length of the clip.



Chip NoVaMac
Jan 8, 2006, 09:43 AM
A question like this can start Holy Wars. I will say that the D50 is a great camera. But so are the Canon DRebel XT, the Konica-Minolta Maxxum 5D, the Pentax *ist DL, and the Olympus E-300 and E-500 cameras.

Each manufacturer offers something to entice the buyer. The CMOS sensors on the Canons are among the lowest noise level sensors. The Nikon now offers a VR 18-200 that by all accounts is sharp! (Just bought one, and time will tell on this.) The Konica-Minoltas offer built-n image stabilization. The Pentax offers compatibility for metering with most K-A mount lenses. The Olympus features a dust removal system on the CCD.

If you have no lenses, and are willing to live with the offerings from that manufacturer or third party manufacturer, then how that camera feels in your hands is key. I love how the lenses I have for my XT seems to place the center of gravity at the lens itself. I added the D50 to my gear simply because of two lenses; the 10.5 semi-fisheye and the 18-200VR.

Some will say the 6mp is too small. Not good enough for enlargements. But Nikon USA has been sending 24x36 inch prints made from the D50 that show there is still a good life in that size sensor.

Some will talk of noise at high ISO's. But that may not make a difference in the prints, it ends up looking like grain in film. Also there are noise reduction programs like NoiseNinja that reduce the noise.

Read reviews on places like DPR. But use it only as a guide. As an example there is one thing that ticks me off about my XT, and that is the accidental pushing of the self timer button. Frustrating, but not a killer.

Hope this helps getting you started in looking at a DSLR.

adk
Jan 8, 2006, 11:25 AM
I'm not sure a higher res camera will make photos look better on your TV. If you have a regular TV the resolution is only 640x480, and even if it's HD the picture is still only 1920x1080 (or close to that). I think a 3.2 mp shot has a higher resolution than both of these, so the answer is maybe.

beige matchbox
Jan 8, 2006, 01:42 PM
What make and model is you current camera?

Its entirely posable the resolution is there, the the general quality of the optics and sensor isn't upto scratch.


Also how are you running the slideshow on a TV? if you are connecting your computer to it, maybe it's a bad cable.



Need more info to help properly :)



As for the DSLR, i recommend the 350D, both me and my dad have one, you can get one with kit lens for around 500 if you look hard enough. If you used to average compact point and shoot cameras the kit lens will be perfectly good :D


**********

Just re-read your post, are you exporting the iMovie to a quicktime file? if so the loss of quality will be due to the movie compression, it will look especially bad during transitions :)

numediaman
Jan 9, 2006, 08:19 PM
You'll never regret buying the D50 -- I have it and I have zero complaints. All my lousy shots are 100% my fault (and there have been a tremendous amount of lousy shots!).

But I would agree that the Canon a very good camera because of the sensor and the fact it feels like an SLR in your hand (though I prefer the Nikon for "feel").

Don't let megapixels determine your choice. 2 megapixels will not make up for an unsharp lens or a bad sensor. In fact, because of price I ended deciding between the Lumix FZ30 and the D50 and decided to go with the Nikon.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 9, 2006, 08:27 PM
You'll never regret buying the D50 -- I have it and I have zero complaints. All my lousy shots are 100% my fault (and there have been a tremendous amount of lousy shots!).

But I would agree that the Canon a very good camera because of the sensor and the fact it feels like an SLR in your hand (though I prefer the Nikon for "feel").

Don't let megapixels determine your choice. 2 megapixels will not make up for an unsharp lens or a bad sensor. In fact, because of price I ended deciding between the Lumix FZ30 and the D50 and decided to go with the Nikon.

Very good words.

In fact I looked hard an long at the FZ30 as my travel camera. Yes, the 18-200VR set me well over the budget (as did the 10.5); but I know from working in the industry that larger sensors make sense for those of us that are "passionate" about what we take photos of.

For me a few months from now when I return from my Iceland trip with the D50 and 18-200VR and 10.5; will I be able to give a better view of Nikon verse Canon.

Abstract
Jan 10, 2006, 06:30 AM
For me a few months from now when I return from my Iceland trip with the D50 and 18-200VR and 10.5; will I be able to give a better view of Nikon verse Canon.

Can't wait!



*hears the gates of Hell creaking open*

ChrisA
Jan 12, 2006, 07:39 PM
A few things I need help on. I am enjoying imovie and idvd but the quality of the finished dvd its not that good. If I purchase a higher pixel camera (3.2 at the moment) will this make the picture quality better when I play back on my TV. Slide show is fine but quality is lost when I use imovie and transitions.

What SLR camera would you recommend. I have looked at the nikon D50. Is this the best all rounder???? for 500.
.

About the SLR, Think about the lens. I used to say "Lenes take pictures the camera just holds the film in place" With digital SLRs it's still almost true. The lens projects an image on the sensor. The end result is only as good as the image projected onto the sensor.

All of the curent DSLRs should be concidered "disposable cameras" that have a limited lifetime of five years at best. Your lens collection on the other hand will last through many camera upgrades. You will spend more on lenses than on the camera body in the end.

So when you buy into Nikon or Canon you are making a long term investment in a "system" where yu will be buying new camera bodies every three to five years and adding to a lens collection

I wil not make a specific reomendation other then to say "think long term and plan ahead." Buy into a system that has the options you will want year from now.

witness
Jan 15, 2006, 07:55 PM
After reading lots of reviews I decided on a Canon 350D, but after a few minutes holding one in my hand I quickly changed my mind. The grip is much too small for my hands. Also the standard lens is not great, so you will most likely need to buy an additional lens up front.

In the end I chose a Minolta 5D, it felt like the most sturdy in the price range, comes with a good lens and has built in image stabilisation.

Before you order, be sure to visit your local shop and try them all out.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 15, 2006, 08:56 PM
Before you order, be sure to visit your local shop and try them all out.

I hope that when you say order, that you are not suggesting wasting a brick and mortar stores time - with no intent of buying from them.

witness
Jan 15, 2006, 09:27 PM
I hope that when you say order, that you are not suggesting wasting a brick and mortar stores time - with no intent of buying from them.
I always prefer to buy from a local store, they usually offer a great service (especially aftercare). But sometimes the cost difference is just too big to ignore. My usual rule is that I will buy locally if there is less than about 10% or 25 difference (whichever is smaller).