[armypb4]

okay so i need some suggestions. i dont know which one to get. i want to take pictures also, so keep that in mind. i really dont know which way to go. someone just help me out. my price limit would be under 1k at the moment, but in the long run i dont mind spening more on lenses and such. thanks

[Pakistani]

if you want to take pictures too, this seems kind of obvious to me... not to be a troll but i mean... come on.

any entry level canon or nikon will serve you well. i've been a canon user for a while so obviously i tend to favor canon.
starting at the t2i you can record 1080p video for up to 12 minutes on a continues shot, or even 720p(which allows you to up the FPS and get some cool slow motion footage)

[Jalen]

Well....

Do you want to take a crap load of pictures and some video? Or take a crap load of video and some pictures?

If you want to primarily take pictures, get a DSLR. However, that's if you really don't intend on recording video that often. The autofocus for video on DSLRs (that I know of) is simply terrible (the entire video will just be the lens shifting in and out of focus along with the sound of the motor dominating the audio of whatever you record). Unless you dig having to constantly manually focus it, I'd stay away from video on DSLRs completely.

If you want to primarily take video, I've read outstanding reviews on all of Canon's Vixia line (and I'm sure they're all under $1k as well). They're made like a video camera should be, and also don't take half bad photos (quality-wise) as well.

[armypb4]

probably more pictures then videos. i was looking at the t2i but i have heard its slow

[Pakistani]

armypb4, on 25 September 2011 - 07:42 AM, said:

probably more pictures then videos. i was looking at the t2i but i have heard its slow

slow in what sense?

and for the record, DSLR's take great video.
all of social paintball's, PBFashion, and countless other PB "media" film with DSLRs.

[armypb4]

Pakistani, on 25 September 2011 - 10:06 AM, said:

armypb4, on 25 September 2011 - 07:42 AM, said:

probably more pictures then videos. i was looking at the t2i but i have heard its slow

slow in what sense?

and for the record, DSLR's take great video.
all of social paintball's, PBFashion, and countless other PB "media" film with DSLRs.

I've been looking at the T2i/T3i for a while now, but what keeps me from buying one is the low amount of frames you can capture in burst. They're just... slow, and I'd give up 3 megapixels and 1080p video to get 16 frames of continuous RAW for a similar price from a used 50D.

^this is from another thread in photography. the opinion o the t3i thread. sorry i suck at quoting from other threads

This post has been edited by armypb4: 25 September 2011 - 10:26 AM

[IwannaWAFFLE]

60D?

[armypb4]

right now im shooting more for a canon over a nikon because i have heard they are more durible and nikon lenses are more expensive

[IwannaWAFFLE]

If you want better video options, then canon is the way to go.. personally id suggest filming in 720p on most canon DSLRs, you get 60fps, which gives you clearer video(less blurring), and gives you the option for some nice slomo shots.)

I still want a 60D.... ffff my t1i

[Filmer_jake]

DSLR's (in the higher end: canon 5D or canon 7D) are considered as professional video equipment. But it all depends on what you want. If you want to point and shoot, and get audio in all one taking then a camcorder will do you fine. If you want REALLY good looking video, but not quite as easy as a point and shoot camcorder, with awful sounding audio (id recommend getting an external mic for a dslr) then get a DSLR


Pluses to a camcorder: Point and shoot. Better sounding audio. Wide variety of options (entry level to professional depending on $$). Shoot time (compared to 12 min for continuous shot on a dslr). Generally cheaper than a DSLR. Easy to use. Easy to hand hold

Pluses to a DSLR: VERY good looking video. Very cinematic feeling (so if you are looking into movie making I would go for a DSLR). Wide variety of lenses to choose from. In some models, the option to shoot 60fps (canon 7D). Very good low light capabilities (shooting at night).

Cons of a camcorder: Not as good of a quality of video. Bad with shooting at night (compared to a DSLR). Most cant take still pictures.

but the cons of a DSLR are: $$$$$$$ because of the camera body, all of the lenses you would use, external mic, and tons of different things to make video shooting on a dlsr easy. Hand holding a dlsr is hard. Not as easy to point and shoot (have to find the right lens, then focus it), record time is limited.

And I think that sums it up. Im going to be getting a 7D with a 18-135 kit lens and probably a 50mm fixed lens soon. But its because I'm gunna be a film major.

I hope that clears stuff up

[armypb4]

yea im leaning heavily torward the nikon 3100

[Pakistani]

why exactly? i feel that nikon = canon in most things except for 2 things: lens cost + video recording(especially in the sub-$1000 range).

[Nobben #44]

Pakistani, on 25 September 2011 - 10:59 PM, said:

why exactly? i feel that nikon = canon in most things except for 2 things: lens cost + video recording(especially in the sub-$1000 range).

ISO tolerance? Focus points?

BAZINGA!

But I must admit, if you are going to do a lot of slow motion, get a Canon.
But if you are doing pictures mostly, Nikon is the way to go

This post has been edited by Nobben #44: 26 September 2011 - 10:36 AM

[IwannaWAFFLE]

Nobben #44, on 26 September 2011 - 06:35 AM, said:

Pakistani, on 25 September 2011 - 10:59 PM, said:

why exactly? i feel that nikon = canon in most things except for 2 things: lens cost + video recording(especially in the sub-$1000 range).

ISO tolerance? Focus points?

Nikon has the higher ISO section, Canon has the lower section better..
Nikons are a bit better for lower light.


Also, if he wants video capabilities, the Canons have better video options..

Also feel is a good thing, i feel like i have some sort of bone disease in my hands when holing a nikon (smaller and more squiched body) canons are a bit larger and spread out nicer.
Personal preference..

[Nobben #44]

IwannaWAFFLE, on 26 September 2011 - 10:39 AM, said:

Nobben #44, on 26 September 2011 - 06:35 AM, said:

Pakistani, on 25 September 2011 - 10:59 PM, said:

why exactly? i feel that nikon = canon in most things except for 2 things: lens cost + video recording(especially in the sub-$1000 range).

ISO tolerance? Focus points?

Nikon has the higher ISO section, Canon has the lower section better..
Nikons are a bit better for lower light.


Also, if he wants video capabilities, the Canons have better video options..

Also feel is a good thing, i feel like i have some sort of bone disease in my hands when holing a nikon (smaller and more squiched body) canons are a bit larger and spread out nicer.
Personal preference..

Nikon cameras and Canon cameras feel very different, Nikon's arn't much smaller though, they just feel different.
But I like Nikon's ergonomics a lot better than Canon's, this is however, as said above, all preference.

My D7000 can run beautiful video, just as good as any Canon in picture quality terms.
But 60fps is really nice though, and Nikon's don't have that. Yet.

This post has been edited by Nobben #44: 26 September 2011 - 10:45 AM

[IwannaWAFFLE]

Nobben #44, on 26 September 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

IwannaWAFFLE, on 26 September 2011 - 10:39 AM, said:

Nobben #44, on 26 September 2011 - 06:35 AM, said:

Pakistani, on 25 September 2011 - 10:59 PM, said:

why exactly? i feel that nikon = canon in most things except for 2 things: lens cost + video recording(especially in the sub-$1000 range).

ISO tolerance? Focus points?

Nikon has the higher ISO section, Canon has the lower section better..
Nikons are a bit better for lower light.


Also, if he wants video capabilities, the Canons have better video options..

Also feel is a good thing, i feel like i have some sort of bone disease in my hands when holing a nikon (smaller and more squiched body) canons are a bit larger and spread out nicer.
Personal preference..

Nikon cameras and Canon cameras feel very different, Nikon's arn't much smaller though, they just feel different.
But I like Nikon's ergonomics a lot better than Canon's, this is however, as said above, all preference.

My D7000 can run beautiful video, just as good as any Canon in picture quality terms.
But 60fps is really nice though, and Nikon's don't have that. Yet.

well, the video is almost the same on all.. in controller conditions, it will all be the same. since its a DSLR, you have a nice depth of feild effect and that gives it the cinematic effect.. video is mostly the same through out most DLSRs (diufferent lenses and other thing similarly add more variables)
The 60fps is what makes the Canons shine in video..

[armypb4]

yea right now i am between the t3i and the d3100...
this is th t3i package i was looking at http://www.bestbuy.c...050010&st=canon t3i&lp=6&cp=1

This post has been edited by armypb4: 26 September 2011 - 02:19 PM

[IwannaWAFFLE]

thats a pretty decent package..
if they make that package with the t2i, i would get that instead.. unless you need that swivel screen.. pretty much the same camera..

[Filmer_jake]

Quote

well, the video is almost the same on all.. in controller conditions, it will all be the same. since its a DSLR, you have a nice depth of feild effect and that gives it the cinematic effect.. video is mostly the same through out most DLSRs (diufferent lenses and other thing similarly add more variables)
The 60fps is what makes the Canons shine in video..

Quality is slightly different on the higher end models. And if your looking into filming things professionally producers would want you to used the Canon 5D or 7D its 'the industry standard' right now for video on a DSLR.
I don't know a whole lot about actual picture taking though, but if your going professional that's something to think about

[IwannaWAFFLE]

Food for thought. House MD is filmed with a 5d mk2, and they use pretty much all the L series lenses..
just saying.