-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
Need a digital video camera
- Thread starter narco99
- Start date
Canon Powershot! Easy to use, great lense, great picture quality.
The G3 will push the edge of the price envelope but, it is a great camera with advanced features.
There are other good cameras besides Canon but, mine has served me so well I don't think I would be tempted to look elsewhere if I were in the market again.
Edited to add:
Yes, if you are looking for stills, these cameras are great. Image quality in this price range for a "movie" camera or camcorder is going to disappoint everyone you are apt to show the footage to whether stills or a movie if you get one of these "do-it-all" video cameras. Get a good camcorder or a good camera.
For stills, the Canon cameras are hard to beat.
For movies, I would get a better video quality unit and forget the still capability. With the current generation Analog-to-DVD burners for your old Analog movies, there is no reason why a good movie made today could not be converted to a DVD or stills later when the equipment to do it becomes cheaper.
What capabilities do you really need, and which ones do you just want? Myself, I wanted video footage but I needed good quality stills. For the price of a marginal video camera, I got a really good still camera. YMMV
The G3 will push the edge of the price envelope but, it is a great camera with advanced features.
There are other good cameras besides Canon but, mine has served me so well I don't think I would be tempted to look elsewhere if I were in the market again.
Edited to add:
Yes, if you are looking for stills, these cameras are great. Image quality in this price range for a "movie" camera or camcorder is going to disappoint everyone you are apt to show the footage to whether stills or a movie if you get one of these "do-it-all" video cameras. Get a good camcorder or a good camera.
For stills, the Canon cameras are hard to beat.
For movies, I would get a better video quality unit and forget the still capability. With the current generation Analog-to-DVD burners for your old Analog movies, there is no reason why a good movie made today could not be converted to a DVD or stills later when the equipment to do it becomes cheaper.
What capabilities do you really need, and which ones do you just want? Myself, I wanted video footage but I needed good quality stills. For the price of a marginal video camera, I got a really good still camera. YMMV
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Messages
- 3,834
Sid--aren't the Powershot and G3 still cams? Think he's looking for a video camera that also does stills.
narco--it's been awhile since I was researching cameras, but you might want to try http://camcorderinfo.com/ . That's where I did my research before buying. I ended up with a Sony DCV TRV70, but that's way over your price limit. The one thing I can say is that most vidcams suck at stills. Mine is at the high end with 2.1 megapixel images. It works great, but is still pretty mediocre in stills compared to some of the cheapest digital still cams out there. I do like the Sony line--I don't hear very good things about the economy Panasonic line, JVC is supposed to have some good buys too. But, check out that camcorder site--it's kinda like a BFC for camcorders.
edited to add--if you check out my site (click on my banner), a lot of my pix (knife and flashlight) were taken with my vidcam. I need to work on my lighting techniques yet, but they came out pretty good for vidcam still images. But as I mentioned before, mine is at the top end for stills from a vidcam.
Hey Guys, Thanks for the response. I have pretty much narrowed the field down to a Cannon or a Sony. I am looking for a motion picture camera with the still shot capabilities. From what I have read on-line the Cannon is good except in low light conditions and to get the same features in a Sony you have to step up the price.
I need to work on my lighting techniques? I think I need to take lessons from you!
I've taken a lot of BAD pictures trying to get the lighting and details right but, so far my pictures are only marginal on a good day and get worse from there
I've played with different backgrounds and lights but, so far I haven't really been happy with anything beyond the basics of the pictures. Flourescent lights are terrible. Halogen and Incadescents are better but, so far the search continues.....Tips, tricks, and technique suggestions are most welcome!
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Messages
- 3,834
I always direct people to this thread that came up awhile back in the gallery. It's a great discussion on backgrounds, lighting, bulbs, etc. by a lot of very good photographers (coop, Murray Carter, etc.). I haven't had a chance to follow through on any of the advice yet, but I'm still working on it.Originally posted by Sid Post
I need to work on my lighting techniques? I think I need to take lessons from you!
I've taken a lot of BAD pictures trying to get the lighting and details right but, so far my pictures are only marginal on a good day and get worse from there
Tips, tricks, and technique suggestions are most welcome!
You'd laugh if you saw my setup--it consists of the vidcam on a tripod that I borrow from work (probably costs around 20 bucks), and my usual backgrounds are usually a piece of 1' x 1' stone tile that I bought for $2 at home depot or a yard of black silk that I got from a material store. My lighting is a regular fluorescent desk lamp--one of those with the adjustable arm so you can bring it down close to the table. It's usually hovering about a foot from the object, most of the time directly over it, but I'm able to easily move it back and forth and side to side to adjust the lighting. I like the stone tile for the background because it's non-reflective. You already have to deal with the reflection coming off of the knife itself, so the added reflective properties of the background makes a more difficult shot.
I'm also thinking about getting this light box, but will have to wait until after Christmas. Hopefully that will be in addition to a Canon G3 or Olympus 5060.
Thanks for the compliments--but I definitely have a ways to go. Only the better shots are up on the site, there's a few hundred horrible shots that I deleted.
-----------------
narco--yeah, you are paying more for the Sony name, but I think it's supposed to have a better lens as well (don't know if that's true or not--probably all of them are made in Taiwan). Low light capabilities are probably that thing that's going to be that dividing factor. There are very few vidcams at the economy level that are "good" at low light conditions. But it's not like they won't work in low-light, they just won't be as good as some others in low-light (depending on how low the light is). I have an old Canon at work that is still a great camera that I'd choose over a lot of the current ones. Of course it cost $1500 about 3 or 4 years ago, but Canon knows their stuff.