threads
Page 2 of 2
Off-topic \  video camera or still camera

video camera or still camera

Off-topic General Discussions
views 831
replies 12
following 11
 
impulse   +1y
Originally posted by 92yota



Sony dominates all electronics. Thats where I would start.

Are you kidding me?
impulse   +1y
Originally posted by BabyYouWish



The real question is... How will you be using it?

If you just want something to take high quality shots, create decent sized prints and just enjoy, a D-SLR is a waste of money.

I see more and more people with expensive ass cameras shooting them on full-auto with no idea of the capability in their hands. I agree most D-SLR's are extremely smart machines and will provide you with a good shot on auto... but why spend $1,000 to do the same thing you would do with a $500 camera.

Not saying that you don't know what you're doing, but why waste the money on an SLR camera for your first one? Many people don't realize that after the camera, there are lenses and filters and many other things to buy. These are not $100 accessories, quality glass is anywhere from $300 and up. The 16-35L series lens that I want is around $1,300!

If this is not for professional use I would recommend to you the Canon PowerShot SX10 IS. It's $400 and a bad-ass camera! 10mp, 20x Optical zoom (much better than digital zoom), Digic 4 processor and image stabilization.

Sorry I don't know shit about digital video cameras.



Listen to this guy.

I've spent well over $4000 on my camera, lenses, equipment. DSLR's are not cheap... they are a big investment! I've got a Canon as720 or whatever it is.. its just a walk around camera, I can take great pics with that too, and it was only $250.

Taking good pics is not always about having the best camera on the block, its about the picture itself, composition, etc...

You could have the most expensive camera in the world and still take shitty ass pictures.

Good luck.
crochface   +1y
Originally posted by iLLairgasm



Originally posted by BabyYouWish



The real question is... How will you be using it?

If you just want something to take high quality shots, create decent sized prints and just enjoy, a D-SLR is a waste of money.

I see more and more people with expensive ass cameras shooting them on full-auto with no idea of the capability in their hands. I agree most D-SLR's are extremely smart machines and will provide you with a good shot on auto... but why spend $1,000 to do the same thing you would do with a $500 camera.

Not saying that you don't know what you're doing, but why waste the money on an SLR camera for your first one? Many people don't realize that after the camera, there are lenses and filters and many other things to buy. These are not $100 accessories, quality glass is anywhere from $300 and up. The 16-35L series lens that I want is around $1,300!

If this is not for professional use I would recommend to you the Canon PowerShot SX10 IS. It's $400 and a bad-ass camera! 10mp, 20x Optical zoom (much better than digital zoom), Digic 4 processor and image stabilization.

Sorry I don't know shit about digital video cameras.



Listen to this guy.

I've spent well over $4000 on my camera, lenses, equipment. DSLR's are not cheap... they are a big investment! I've got a Canon as720 or whatever it is.. its just a walk around camera, I can take great pics with that too, and it was only $250.

Taking good pics is not always about having the best camera on the block, its about the picture itself, composition, etc...

You could have the most expensive camera in the world and still take shitty ass pictures.

Good luck.

it is very trueremember the second surface dvd was filmed with a $100 panasonic cam and pics taken with a $200 digital camera its all about how you take the photo and film. iv seen people buy $1000 cameras and still manage to take crappy pictures.