Best filming camera to film movies?

Q. Hi! In 2015, some school mates and I are planning to shoot a remake of The Breakfast Club. It will be the 30 year anniversary and we are excited to start. Anyways, I am looking for a great filming camera for movies. I know it'll be pricey but I seem to get 0 help when I just google it. I also want to know how to make the footage have an 80s feel, quality wise. I will be using the camera that any of you suggest for a number of years and films to come, and I would also appreciate if you have any movie editing software? Thank you!

A. I am guessing you are looking to use some digital camera to film. If you are going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a professional movie camera, please ignore rest of my answer.

Most of us know that most compact cameras, or smart-phones like iPhones, are not good at video recording. If light is good, they do an okay job. When light is dull, they are almost unusable. Same is true for most consumer SLR cameras with kit lenses. So what do we do to take high quality High-Definition videos? Should we use an HD camcoder or a pocket camcorder like Sony Bloggie or UltraHD?

Most compact cameras don't do a good job in low light- for still images or for videos. If you zoom in, the shake becomes too obvious. Most DSLRs will do a little better as light level goes down but many of them will not auto focus during videos (because of the mirror which needs to be flipped for focusing). You can bypass this with a mirrorless camera which can auto focus, like Panasonic G or GF series but with Auto focus, you lose the control over which part of the frame, or on which person to focus on. If you have 3 persons in a frame, your Auto-Focus will not know which one you want to focus on. Why not? Silly, it is Auto-focus! It focuses by itself!! That is the reason you never see a professional movie or videos done with Autofocus.

Now read an article here which can give you nice tips:
http://photography-with-any-camera.blogspot.com/2013/03/video-recording-with-dslr-is-it-worth-it.html

Original Question

Professional camcorder 2013?

Q. Hi several years ago, HVR-Z1U was my main camera but since this one is too old and still need to use by film, I wanted to buy professional camcorder. I'm going to buy it in B&H but not sure which one is good choice. the price will be between $2000~3500. Can you show me the recent professional camcorder?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2|0

A. Film cameras us film. Once the film is exposed, , in a dark place, the film is removed from the camera and sent in a light-tight container for chemical processing. For editing, a splicer is used. Or, individual frames are scanned (one by on) and digitized for use in a computer editing system. Typically, film cameras do not record audio. Sound is recorded externally.

The Sony HVR-Z1 is a digital camcorder. It record high quality, low compression DV and HDV video to miniDV tape. It is a digital video camcorder. There is no film involved. The Z1 has a built-in mic and also XLR connectors for external mics. It has a 72mm diameter lens and a 3CCD imaging chip that is 1/3".

My definition of "professional camcorder":
Lens diameter 70mm or larger.
Imaging chip is 3CCD or 3CMOS, 1/3 inch or larger.
XLR audio inputs.
Your Z1 meets all these requirements.

In your price range, we have:
* Sony HDR-FX1000 (it is the prosumer sibling to the Z1; uses miniDV tape; has only a 3.5mm stereo audio-in connecter - add a BeachTek or juicedLink XLR adapter is needed).

* The Sony HVR-Z5 (replaced the Z1), PMW160, HXRNX5, all the NEX and NX series camcorders are outside your budget.

* The Canon XF300 series is outside your budget.

* The Panasonic AG-AC series camcorders that meet the above criteria are outside your budget.

* The JVC GY-HM600 might fit your budget.

I think you are better of sticking with the Z1 - unless it is broken.

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Sony digital camera( DSC-TX30/B)....this camera good or no? please tell........?

Q.

A. Here is a review
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-tx30
Within the category of immersible compact cameras, its image quality is probably among the best in the studio test, although that is not a category with spectacularly great image quality. In the real world comparison tests it seems to have fallen a bit below the competition.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2013-waterproof-roundup/14
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2013-waterproof-roundup/15
It is the lightest and most compact within that class. However, it is not a very easy camera to handle for actual diving.

With any compact camera you should use a wriststrap, and all the more so when handling these water resistant cameras in the water. with no floatation attached, they will sink.

For diving the Canon D20 has an advantage with the best ergonomics. Image quality is good for its class with least noise reduction smudging or highlight clipping. The Nikon AW110 is a very good overall performer for its class in image quality and has least chromatic aberration. The Olympus TG-2 gains an advantage in low light with its f2 lens. For video with real time sound, its sound gets terrible when immersed in water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBFwthdyXRQ
The Pentax WG-3 also has an f2 lens, but its images were rather dull in this test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jnxn_Ng-1U8
The Panasonic TS5 seems to produce some nice images, and it has the best video options, but its autofocus is sluggish.

A peculiar thing about the Nikon AW110 is that they package it with a neckstrap and advise against using a neckstrap in the water for safety reasons. An aftermarket wriststrap should be purchased for it.

Original Question

Best filming camera to film movies?

Q. Hi! In 2015, some school mates and I are planning to shoot a remake of The Breakfast Club. It will be the 30 year anniversary and we are excited to start. Anyways, I am looking for a great filming camera for movies. I know it'll be pricey but I seem to get 0 help when I just google it. I also want to know how to make the footage have an 80s feel, quality wise. I will be using the camera that any of you suggest for a number of years and films to come, and I would also appreciate if you have any movie editing software? Thank you!

A. I am guessing you are looking to use some digital camera to film. If you are going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a professional movie camera, please ignore rest of my answer.

Most of us know that most compact cameras, or smart-phones like iPhones, are not good at video recording. If light is good, they do an okay job. When light is dull, they are almost unusable. Same is true for most consumer SLR cameras with kit lenses. So what do we do to take high quality High-Definition videos? Should we use an HD camcoder or a pocket camcorder like Sony Bloggie or UltraHD?

Most compact cameras don't do a good job in low light- for still images or for videos. If you zoom in, the shake becomes too obvious. Most DSLRs will do a little better as light level goes down but many of them will not auto focus during videos (because of the mirror which needs to be flipped for focusing). You can bypass this with a mirrorless camera which can auto focus, like Panasonic G or GF series but with Auto focus, you lose the control over which part of the frame, or on which person to focus on. If you have 3 persons in a frame, your Auto-Focus will not know which one you want to focus on. Why not? Silly, it is Auto-focus! It focuses by itself!! That is the reason you never see a professional movie or videos done with Autofocus.

Now read an article here which can give you nice tips:
http://photography-with-any-camera.blogspot.com/2013/03/video-recording-with-dslr-is-it-worth-it.html

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

What's the best camera?

Q. Looking to spend $250 or under for a good digital camera. Mostly for taking pictures and video of my new daughter. I don't want a manual flash that I have to pop out everytime I take a picture. What camera do you LOVE, where did you get it and what did it cost?

A. If you are going to use on-camera flash (which is not the most pleasing-looking image), you should not reject those models that require you to push the button to pop it up. It is generally a desirable feature to do that. Increasing the distance between the flash and the lens decreases the chances of red eye.
For best results at your budget, you should get a premium compact--one with a sensor bigger than the 1/2.3" sensors of the cheapos. It would be good to get one with a hotshoe to mount an external flash for doing bounce flash. I know, currently you are not interested in that, but you might grow into it. Maybe not. I don't think there is one with a hotshoe currently in your budget, but prices can wax and wane.

BH Photo currently carries the Nikon P330 for $200 while they last. It is discontinued to be replaced by the Nikon P340.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/936161-REG/nikon_coolpix_p330_digital_camera.html
It has a wide aperture at its wide angle setting, although it stops down a lot as you zoom in. It will have better image quality than the cheapos.
Amazon has the discontinued S110 marked down to $249.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Camera-3-Inch/dp/B009B0MYSQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Camera-3-Inch/dp/B009B0MYLS/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
It is reputed to have a faster response than the Nikon, but it lacks as much video resolution. (Canon improves that in the new S120.)
While they last, Adorama has the discontinued Pentax MX-1 for $200.
http://www.adorama.com/IPXMX1SL.html
This camera has a slightly more limited zoom range than the P330 or S110. It does offer a wider aperture at telephoto than the others, and it has a tilting LCD screen. It is reputed to be sluggish at writing files and being ready for the next shot.
Some other possibilities are the Panasonic LX7, and the discontinued Canon G15 (being replaced by the Canon G16). The G15 would be a very, very good choice. Prices have fluctuated. Today I don't see them within your budget at BH Photo, Adorama, or Amazon. Prices may drop again. I think they probably will for the LX7, which I think is still in production. They might drop again for the G15, but they might just sell out at $349.

Here are some reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6489685206/enthusiast-compact-camera-2013-roundup
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9935181366/high-end-pocketable-compacts-2013-roundup

Original Question

Should I buy a Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7?

Q. I've been saving up for six months, and I really love the camera. Do you think it's worth the money?

A. Don't let anyone spoil the party. If you really love this camera, go ahead and buy it. Panasonic makes wonderful and capable cameras. If you buy some other camera, you will regret it later because your love is here with GX7 ;)
However if I were you I would put the money in some Pentax camera like K30, k50, k5 etc. They have bigger sensor, better image quality and better overall value for money. If you are looking for a smaller form factor, you can buy Pentax K01 for around $450-500 which normally comes with a 40mm XS lens which itself is one of the best kit lenses out there in any consumer grade SLR/Mirrorless camera kits.
Would highly recommend you to read this:
http://photography-with-any-camera.blogspot.com/2013/05/best-digital-slr-for-beginners.html

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Digital Camera for wildlife photography help?

Q. I am planing a couple trips in the next year. First trip is to go up to Alaska or Canada and I want to try and get some nice Polar Bear and Musk Oxen shots. Then I am going to be going out to Yellowstone to try and photograph wolves and finally I will be taking a trip to Australia and New Zealand and am hoping to get some great landscape and animal shots. But now I have to figure out what is going to be the best camera for me to get. I have a budget of around $3500.

Right now I am looking at the Nikon D 7100, Nikon D 7000, Cannon EOS 7 D, and Sony Alpha SLT-A77.

I am also then figureing on getting either a 300mm or 400mm lens then buying a 2X teleconverter. I'm trying to do all this for $3500 or less I know its going to be tough. Obviously I can not afford the real nice lenses in the 300mm zoom so how much is this going to affect my quality if I get a little bit cheaper lens? My goal is I want to have nice enough pictures to where I could blow them up and hang them up around my house with out the image getting grainy or fuzzy. I'm looking at blowing them up to 24 x 36 and maybe bigger for landscape shots.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thank you so much for your time.

A. You might get to see these animals, but don't get your hopes up too high. The Nikon D7100 with 18-105mm could be a good choice of camera for most of your shots. A super duper great telephoto to get the kind of shots you are dreaming of will blow your budget. For less ambitious but pretty good shots you could get the Nikon 70-300mm AF-S VR (the good 70-300, not the cheapo). Forget about a 2X teleconverter. The 70-300mm lacks a tripod collar, and it will be front heavy. You will want to bring a tripod. You need to think about what day pack you will carry it in, as the tripod must fit. There are some decent travel tripods. However, the light duty ballhead on some of these may be barely adequate with the 70-300mm. You need to assemble something with a good medium duty 3 way pan head, like maybe the Manfrotto 804RC2 or the Induro PHT2. BTW, if you want to point a panhead higher than about 30 degrees, the trick is to put the quick release plate on backwards.
Which brings us to, when do you expect to do this?
Winter, aurora watching?
You will need serious clothes.
http://www.martingrumet.com/yellowknife01-30-2013-02-2000.jpg
Carry your camera in a padded case with several handwarmer packs. Have an extra charged battery in your pocket. Two layers of glove liners with handwarmer packs inside can probably give you adequate dexterity without freezing your fingers.
Also have a clean, dry cotton handkerchief in the bag to wipe off condensation.
Getting focused in the dark could be a problem. You might be able to lock on autofocus on a distant street light, and switch to manual. Or you could spend more money on an older style AF-D prime lens like a 20mm or 24mm, and be able to dial to infinity in the dark.
For aurora shots set white balance to daylight. Practice with your equipment at home before you go on your trip. Maybe ISO is 800. More gets noisy. Exposure time maybe 20 seconds. More shows star trails. Also the aurora is dynamic, and more exposure makes it look blob like.
http://www.martingrumet.com/yellowknife02-05-2013-01-2000.jpg
http://www.martingrumet.com/yellowknife02-05-2013-02-2000.jpg
About midnight to 2am is often best activity, although not always.

Original Question

What's the best camera?

Q. Looking to spend $250 or under for a good digital camera. Mostly for taking pictures and video of my new daughter. I don't want a manual flash that I have to pop out everytime I take a picture. What camera do you LOVE, where did you get it and what did it cost?

A. If you are going to use on-camera flash (which is not the most pleasing-looking image), you should not reject those models that require you to push the button to pop it up. It is generally a desirable feature to do that. Increasing the distance between the flash and the lens decreases the chances of red eye.
For best results at your budget, you should get a premium compact--one with a sensor bigger than the 1/2.3" sensors of the cheapos. It would be good to get one with a hotshoe to mount an external flash for doing bounce flash. I know, currently you are not interested in that, but you might grow into it. Maybe not. I don't think there is one with a hotshoe currently in your budget, but prices can wax and wane.

BH Photo currently carries the Nikon P330 for $200 while they last. It is discontinued to be replaced by the Nikon P340.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/936161-REG/nikon_coolpix_p330_digital_camera.html
It has a wide aperture at its wide angle setting, although it stops down a lot as you zoom in. It will have better image quality than the cheapos.
Amazon has the discontinued S110 marked down to $249.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Camera-3-Inch/dp/B009B0MYSQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Camera-3-Inch/dp/B009B0MYLS/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
It is reputed to have a faster response than the Nikon, but it lacks as much video resolution. (Canon improves that in the new S120.)
While they last, Adorama has the discontinued Pentax MX-1 for $200.
http://www.adorama.com/IPXMX1SL.html
This camera has a slightly more limited zoom range than the P330 or S110. It does offer a wider aperture at telephoto than the others, and it has a tilting LCD screen. It is reputed to be sluggish at writing files and being ready for the next shot.
Some other possibilities are the Panasonic LX7, and the discontinued Canon G15 (being replaced by the Canon G16). The G15 would be a very, very good choice. Prices have fluctuated. Today I don't see them within your budget at BH Photo, Adorama, or Amazon. Prices may drop again. I think they probably will for the LX7, which I think is still in production. They might drop again for the G15, but they might just sell out at $349.

Here are some reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6489685206/enthusiast-compact-camera-2013-roundup
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9935181366/high-end-pocketable-compacts-2013-roundup

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Sony digital camera( DSC-TX30/B)....this camera good or no? please tell........?

Q.

A. Here is a review
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-tx30
Within the category of immersible compact cameras, its image quality is probably among the best in the studio test, although that is not a category with spectacularly great image quality. In the real world comparison tests it seems to have fallen a bit below the competition.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2013-waterproof-roundup/14
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2013-waterproof-roundup/15
It is the lightest and most compact within that class. However, it is not a very easy camera to handle for actual diving.

With any compact camera you should use a wriststrap, and all the more so when handling these water resistant cameras in the water. with no floatation attached, they will sink.

For diving the Canon D20 has an advantage with the best ergonomics. Image quality is good for its class with least noise reduction smudging or highlight clipping. The Nikon AW110 is a very good overall performer for its class in image quality and has least chromatic aberration. The Olympus TG-2 gains an advantage in low light with its f2 lens. For video with real time sound, its sound gets terrible when immersed in water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBFwthdyXRQ
The Pentax WG-3 also has an f2 lens, but its images were rather dull in this test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jnxn_Ng-1U8
The Panasonic TS5 seems to produce some nice images, and it has the best video options, but its autofocus is sluggish.

A peculiar thing about the Nikon AW110 is that they package it with a neckstrap and advise against using a neckstrap in the water for safety reasons. An aftermarket wriststrap should be purchased for it.

Original Question

Best filming camera to film movies?

Q. Hi! In 2015, some school mates and I are planning to shoot a remake of The Breakfast Club. It will be the 30 year anniversary and we are excited to start. Anyways, I am looking for a great filming camera for movies. I know it'll be pricey but I seem to get 0 help when I just google it. I also want to know how to make the footage have an 80s feel, quality wise. I will be using the camera that any of you suggest for a number of years and films to come, and I would also appreciate if you have any movie editing software? Thank you!

A. I am guessing you are looking to use some digital camera to film. If you are going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a professional movie camera, please ignore rest of my answer.

Most of us know that most compact cameras, or smart-phones like iPhones, are not good at video recording. If light is good, they do an okay job. When light is dull, they are almost unusable. Same is true for most consumer SLR cameras with kit lenses. So what do we do to take high quality High-Definition videos? Should we use an HD camcoder or a pocket camcorder like Sony Bloggie or UltraHD?

Most compact cameras don't do a good job in low light- for still images or for videos. If you zoom in, the shake becomes too obvious. Most DSLRs will do a little better as light level goes down but many of them will not auto focus during videos (because of the mirror which needs to be flipped for focusing). You can bypass this with a mirrorless camera which can auto focus, like Panasonic G or GF series but with Auto focus, you lose the control over which part of the frame, or on which person to focus on. If you have 3 persons in a frame, your Auto-Focus will not know which one you want to focus on. Why not? Silly, it is Auto-focus! It focuses by itself!! That is the reason you never see a professional movie or videos done with Autofocus.

Now read an article here which can give you nice tips:
http://photography-with-any-camera.blogspot.com/2013/03/video-recording-with-dslr-is-it-worth-it.html

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

What kind of camera should I buy?

Q. I wouldn't like to spend over $800
I need a camera that's good quality..better than your average digital camera and that can both take photos and record video (that's not as important but it would be nice)
I would like to be able to use it for motion photos, landscape, night life etc.
Basically the most important thing is picture quality :)
Any ideas. Thanks!

A. Having used several DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, I like Pentax K-01 as a great camera- one of the best image quality out then in below $1000 cameras. Pentax used to sell for around $900 but their gamble with the style backfired so they are clearing them out. They currently sell for around $400 with a nice 40mm 2.8 lens.

Read full details here:
http://photography-with-any-camera.blogspot.com/2013/06/which-is-great-dslr-buy-these-days.html

Original Question

Best filming camera to film movies?

Q. Hi! In 2015, some school mates and I are planning to shoot a remake of The Breakfast Club. It will be the 30 year anniversary and we are excited to start. Anyways, I am looking for a great filming camera for movies. I know it'll be pricey but I seem to get 0 help when I just google it. I also want to know how to make the footage have an 80s feel, quality wise. I will be using the camera that any of you suggest for a number of years and films to come, and I would also appreciate if you have any movie editing software? Thank you!

A. I am guessing you are looking to use some digital camera to film. If you are going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a professional movie camera, please ignore rest of my answer.

Most of us know that most compact cameras, or smart-phones like iPhones, are not good at video recording. If light is good, they do an okay job. When light is dull, they are almost unusable. Same is true for most consumer SLR cameras with kit lenses. So what do we do to take high quality High-Definition videos? Should we use an HD camcoder or a pocket camcorder like Sony Bloggie or UltraHD?

Most compact cameras don't do a good job in low light- for still images or for videos. If you zoom in, the shake becomes too obvious. Most DSLRs will do a little better as light level goes down but many of them will not auto focus during videos (because of the mirror which needs to be flipped for focusing). You can bypass this with a mirrorless camera which can auto focus, like Panasonic G or GF series but with Auto focus, you lose the control over which part of the frame, or on which person to focus on. If you have 3 persons in a frame, your Auto-Focus will not know which one you want to focus on. Why not? Silly, it is Auto-focus! It focuses by itself!! That is the reason you never see a professional movie or videos done with Autofocus.

Now read an article here which can give you nice tips:
http://photography-with-any-camera.blogspot.com/2013/03/video-recording-with-dslr-is-it-worth-it.html

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Sony digital camera( DSC-TX30/B)....this camera good or no? please tell........?

Q.

A. Here is a review
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-tx30
Within the category of immersible compact cameras, its image quality is probably among the best in the studio test, although that is not a category with spectacularly great image quality. In the real world comparison tests it seems to have fallen a bit below the competition.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2013-waterproof-roundup/14
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2013-waterproof-roundup/15
It is the lightest and most compact within that class. However, it is not a very easy camera to handle for actual diving.

With any compact camera you should use a wriststrap, and all the more so when handling these water resistant cameras in the water. with no floatation attached, they will sink.

For diving the Canon D20 has an advantage with the best ergonomics. Image quality is good for its class with least noise reduction smudging or highlight clipping. The Nikon AW110 is a very good overall performer for its class in image quality and has least chromatic aberration. The Olympus TG-2 gains an advantage in low light with its f2 lens. For video with real time sound, its sound gets terrible when immersed in water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBFwthdyXRQ
The Pentax WG-3 also has an f2 lens, but its images were rather dull in this test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jnxn_Ng-1U8
The Panasonic TS5 seems to produce some nice images, and it has the best video options, but its autofocus is sluggish.

A peculiar thing about the Nikon AW110 is that they package it with a neckstrap and advise against using a neckstrap in the water for safety reasons. An aftermarket wriststrap should be purchased for it.

Original Question

Canon Eos 600D (Rebel T3i) vs Sony Alpha SLT-A58?

Q. I am a newbie in photography...This is going to be my first DSLR camera
I have these two choices-
Sony Alpha SLT-A58 and Canon EOS 600D (Rebel T3i)

I really dont know much about cameras so id like your opinion with pros and cons.

Also-
Assume there are two lenses
18-55mm and 50mm

What is the difference?
If we buy the 18-55 we can adjust it to 50mm which would give the same effect as 50mm so why buy another 50mm lense?
(I really dont know about lenses too so i might have said something stupid above ..Please clarify it for me)
Nick,
So Canon Eos600D vs Sony Alpha SLT-A58
Which would u choose and why?

A. Both are great cameras. Either one will make happy. They both have more features than most of us would need in day in day out photography.If you are able to get-over Canon syndrome, I would recommend buying A58 as it has better image quality, AF in video and overall better video recording abilities and is lighter and thinner. Sony normally gives better features such as in camera HDR, fast auto focus, panoramas.

With regard to lenses, one very important number is F. 50mm lenses are prime lenses and they are usually much faster, sharper than 18-55mm kit lenses. Also, they can be used in low lights and for great portraits compared to 18-55mm lenses. Being fixed at 50mm focus length, you can not zoom but at wide aperture they give excellent background blur which wills stand out. Sony has 50mm F1.8 lense for around $180 or you can buy a used one for around $100. I would strongly recommend you to buy that lens too. If you want to buy only one lens, I would tell you to buy a fast 50mm lens if you are shooting mostly indoor and mostly people or pets.
Here is a photo I took on Pentax k-01 with a 45 year old 50mm lens. My friend had a camera 3 times more expensive but it struggled to shoot in this light.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12298420@N05/8446183616/

As other answerer has mentioned, Pentax makes great cameras. K30 and K01 have great image quality and are sold at very attractive value prices.

Read this article to get over which camera is better dilemma:
http://photography-with-any-camera.blogspot.com/2013/05/best-digital-slr-for-beginners.html

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Sony digital camera( DSC-TX30/B)....this camera good or no? please tell........?

Q.

A. Here is a review
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-tx30
Within the category of immersible compact cameras, its image quality is probably among the best in the studio test, although that is not a category with spectacularly great image quality. In the real world comparison tests it seems to have fallen a bit below the competition.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2013-waterproof-roundup/14
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2013-waterproof-roundup/15
It is the lightest and most compact within that class. However, it is not a very easy camera to handle for actual diving.

With any compact camera you should use a wriststrap, and all the more so when handling these water resistant cameras in the water. with no floatation attached, they will sink.

For diving the Canon D20 has an advantage with the best ergonomics. Image quality is good for its class with least noise reduction smudging or highlight clipping. The Nikon AW110 is a very good overall performer for its class in image quality and has least chromatic aberration. The Olympus TG-2 gains an advantage in low light with its f2 lens. For video with real time sound, its sound gets terrible when immersed in water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBFwthdyXRQ
The Pentax WG-3 also has an f2 lens, but its images were rather dull in this test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jnxn_Ng-1U8
The Panasonic TS5 seems to produce some nice images, and it has the best video options, but its autofocus is sluggish.

A peculiar thing about the Nikon AW110 is that they package it with a neckstrap and advise against using a neckstrap in the water for safety reasons. An aftermarket wriststrap should be purchased for it.

Original Question

Canon Eos 600D (Rebel T3i) vs Sony Alpha SLT-A58?

Q. I am a newbie in photography...This is going to be my first DSLR camera
I have these two choices-
Sony Alpha SLT-A58 and Canon EOS 600D (Rebel T3i)

I really dont know much about cameras so id like your opinion with pros and cons.

Also-
Assume there are two lenses
18-55mm and 50mm

What is the difference?
If we buy the 18-55 we can adjust it to 50mm which would give the same effect as 50mm so why buy another 50mm lense?
(I really dont know about lenses too so i might have said something stupid above ..Please clarify it for me)
Nick,
So Canon Eos600D vs Sony Alpha SLT-A58
Which would u choose and why?

A. Both are great cameras. Either one will make happy. They both have more features than most of us would need in day in day out photography.If you are able to get-over Canon syndrome, I would recommend buying A58 as it has better image quality, AF in video and overall better video recording abilities and is lighter and thinner. Sony normally gives better features such as in camera HDR, fast auto focus, panoramas.

With regard to lenses, one very important number is F. 50mm lenses are prime lenses and they are usually much faster, sharper than 18-55mm kit lenses. Also, they can be used in low lights and for great portraits compared to 18-55mm lenses. Being fixed at 50mm focus length, you can not zoom but at wide aperture they give excellent background blur which wills stand out. Sony has 50mm F1.8 lense for around $180 or you can buy a used one for around $100. I would strongly recommend you to buy that lens too. If you want to buy only one lens, I would tell you to buy a fast 50mm lens if you are shooting mostly indoor and mostly people or pets.
Here is a photo I took on Pentax k-01 with a 45 year old 50mm lens. My friend had a camera 3 times more expensive but it struggled to shoot in this light.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12298420@N05/8446183616/

As other answerer has mentioned, Pentax makes great cameras. K30 and K01 have great image quality and are sold at very attractive value prices.

Read this article to get over which camera is better dilemma:
http://photography-with-any-camera.blogspot.com/2013/05/best-digital-slr-for-beginners.html

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Best Digital Camera in 2013?

Q. I'm looking for a digital camera with the following:

* Awesome, detailed shots for both amateur and professional photography use
* Fast, extreme action modes with instant, non-blurry shots (no delay unless optional)
* Full 1080p Quality Video with Excellent Sound and no buzzing/noises
* Great Image Stabilization
* Lovely Zoom with little to no shaking and annoying sounds
* Ability to record beautifully in both low light and very bright settings
* Easiness to learn, maintain, and adjust to
* Durable and lasts for maybe 20 years

A lifetime warranty for a camera product would be nice, but I doubt it exists. I've looked at the newest Canon Rebel (zoom/sound issues), Nikon D7100 (seems too stiff in certain settings), some Panasonic models, etc. I am on a budget and want to record high quality music videos and shorts, and take fancy pictures with the camera I am seeking. I want to spend no more than maybe $650 on my ideal product. What are your suggestions and knowledge of expertise?

A. I have a dream that someday anyone who decides to take up photography as a hobby will first know and understand this: "It isn't the camera its the photographer."

A person with zero knowledge of light, composition and exposure will be unable to use any camera in any mode other than Program or Auto, allowing the camera to determine ISO, aperture and shutter speed. Even then, zero knowledge of just composition will usually produce mere snapshots.

In 42 years I have never owned a camera that made really good pictures.

In 42 years I have never owned a camera that made really bad pictures.

However, in those 42 years I have used a camera to make some really good pictures and some really bad pictures. The camera is just a tool and gets neither credit nor blame for my results good or bad. That's all on me.

Buy the least expensive DSLR you can find. Read & study the Owner's Manual. Then enroll in photography classes. Take notes. Practice. Make changes to aperture or shutter speed or ISO only when you understand why you're making them and what the results will be.

A 20 year old digital camera will be as useless as a 20 year old computer is today.

In many states a "lifetime" warranty is considered 7 years. Some high-end lenses (translate as a lens costing a few thousand dollars) have a 5 year warranty. Most DSLR bodies have a 1 year warranty.

Original Question

5,000 files in one folder Keeps freezing Windows?

Q. I have taken photos over a period of 6 years.. and ive put them all in one folder..

I have 1.12 GB (1,206,584,242 bytes) of total data in one folder with four sub folders but it has over 90% of the pictures in the root folder of E:\photos\Digital Camera\ <--- theres at least 5,000 files there.

Now when I go into the folder to view files... explorer.exe takes 99% of system resource and never loads anymore... I want to be able to save my files. .but I Dont know what to do.. am I going to have to Delete the folder permanently and loose everything? I have tried folder options with "Do not cache thumbnails" Both on and off.. and nither works.. I have even disabled "Auto search NEtwork Drives and folders"

This is Windows XP SP3 Professional.


Please any help would be appreciated,
Thanks in advance.
im sorry when I said "I have even disabled "Auto Search networks and folders" I meant to actually say - "Automatically search for network folders and printers. " I heard disabling that helps with search times in the folders of explorer.exe to speed things up..
Thanks guys all your feedback was very helpful, Special thanks to TJ and , Ramblin' Man, Also Ramblin' Man I did have one video that was being thumbnailed and it was a corrupted file too. I deleted it. Ive already started archving and the indexing speeds is increasing very well. Thnx to all ur help.

A. In XP (either FAT32 or NTFS formats for where your pictures are stored) there's an inherent catch that affects most all operating systems - I'll try to explain...

Imagine if you will your photos were in a book (ie: scrapbook) and that at the start of the book there's a table of contents which indicates not only how MANY pages there are (in your case, each photo is a page in this index) but also the date(s) regarding the page, the size of the content and so forth.

The catch here is that the more files you dump into a single directory, the longer it takes for these "table of content" pages to be created.

The old "rule of thumb" is 512 files per directory. Once this line is crossed, you're going to reserve and use more and more system resources to gather the TOC (table of contents) and the more resources that get spent doing this, the less resources there are to DO this job.

Note: Windows 7/8 still have this flaw -- it's not anything YOU have done, yourself.

You noted there's roughly six years worth of images in this one location. Here's what I would recommend...

1. Create a new folder on the SAME drive called something like "Sorted Photos"
2. Within this new folder, create additional folders specific to the YEAR in which the images were taken (ie: 2013, 2012, etc.)
3. This will be painfully slow at first, but open your drive (My Computer > Storage Drive) and do an ADVANCED SEARCH (Press CTRL + F for "Find" and on the left menu of the Find dialog select FILES AND FOLDERS and under advanced features, choose a date range of say, 01-01-2012 through 12-31-2012 and then run the search) Once all the images for that year have been searched for, press <ALT> + <E> and the letter "A" (ALT+E opens the main menu under EDIT, then "A" selects "Select All") and then press <CTRL>+<X> to CUT these images. Go into your new folder under that year and press <CTRL>+<V> to paste them into the new location.
4. Once you've done this for a year or two worth of images, the indexing and search speeds will increase dramatically. Repeat as necessary for all images in the old folder.

Now... once you have them sorted by YEAR, it wouldn't be a bad idea to repeat this process by MONTH which will very likely help index and organize your photos even more so.

The way we do this here is even more elaborate - we take photos and other content and embed them into databases which allows me to add captions/notes, compress the images so that they do not take up nearly a fraction of the drive space and thus I can burn them onto CD or DVD with ease AND still maintain the original image quality. This takes a bit of effort and my software is in-house written and likely further than you want to go at this point, but there are truly endless possibilities how to organize your media while making it painless for both you as well as your machine.

* If you're not revisiting your older images very often, I'd also strongly recommend archiving them. The way we do this here (which maintains protection) is by first creating a zip like archive (RAR format - see link below) which compresses BMP, JPEG and other image formats wonderfully, and then take the images AND the RAR file and burn them onto CD or DVD - two sets are created in case one gets damaged. Once accomplished, they can then be physically removed from the computer and your images are safe... and they're not hurting your computer's efficiency.

** If your machine doesn't want to work WITH you regarding getting these images cleaned up and reorganized, drop me an email and I can design a quick application to do so for you which will basically achieve what was listed above with the least amount of effort (assuming the date-stamps on the files are remotely accurate) - if so, drop me an email here at CentralWare [at] yahoo.com

Good luck and hope this helps!

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Getting all of my film speed with Rodinal?

Q. I've been playing around with different films and developers and combinations for the past couple of months. I want to branch out from HC-110 and see what else is out there, and what else I like.

I've read a lot about Rodinal not delivering full film speed, and I pretty sure that's what I'm encountering here. It seems like whenever I soup in Rodinal at the standard times given on the Massive Dev Chart (a good place to start, at least), the negatives come out around 2-3 stops dark. I don't care so much for test rolls, but I shot a portrait session with medium format PanF+, developed in Rodinal, and lost at least 4 or 5 frames that could have been great. They were just too thin to recover.

Anyone have any advice here? I just want my exposures to come out the way they would if I was using HC-110. I'm not underexposing in camera, it's definitely something to do with the developer. I'm using 1:50 so far, and souping as documented on my little blog I use to keep track of my experiments:

http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/05/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-panf.html
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/04/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-delta-100.html
I'm sorry, let me clarify: The negatives are thin. The images themselves (after being scanned or printed) are dark. Meaning, underexposed. I didn't state that very well.

Thanks for the info though, I'll run some more tests.

A. Like more density on the negatives you work with do you?

A photographer in Alaska used black and white film which he exposed to have a minimum of emulsion left on the film back after developing.

If it was my roll of film, I'd have had a heart attack and died on the spot! And if I had survived that I would have had my light meters. handheld and built into cameras, looked at plus the shutter speeds and lens apertures and then the film developers!

But back to all seriousness, this fella, lets call him Bill, also modified his print processing procedure, buying and using a digital enlarger timer and with closing the enlarger lens down, printed some of the most grain free images with great tonal scale! Both pics taken out of doors and pics taken indoors in low light conditions

Most lab rats would close their enlarger lenses down a stop or two and use seconds to expose proof sheets and prints.
This fella closed the lens down a few stops more and used tenths and hundredths of seconds as exposure times!

Plus had many more pic taking opportunities than the rest of us using Kodak Tri-X films or Illford's similar b&w product, pushing films to a paltry asa 800, 1200 or 1600 and exposing films for shadow detail.

This I beleive is where Rodinal and other developers used for developing b&w films rated to higher asa's got their so called bad reputations. The photographers could not or did not know how to modify their print processing procedure to take advantage of ther film developers ability to make such delicate looking negatives and the higher quality grain free images that resulted.

Original Question

5,000 files in one folder Keeps freezing Windows?

Q. I have taken photos over a period of 6 years.. and ive put them all in one folder..

I have 1.12 GB (1,206,584,242 bytes) of total data in one folder with four sub folders but it has over 90% of the pictures in the root folder of E:\photos\Digital Camera\ <--- theres at least 5,000 files there.

Now when I go into the folder to view files... explorer.exe takes 99% of system resource and never loads anymore... I want to be able to save my files. .but I Dont know what to do.. am I going to have to Delete the folder permanently and loose everything? I have tried folder options with "Do not cache thumbnails" Both on and off.. and nither works.. I have even disabled "Auto search NEtwork Drives and folders"

This is Windows XP SP3 Professional.


Please any help would be appreciated,
Thanks in advance.
im sorry when I said "I have even disabled "Auto Search networks and folders" I meant to actually say - "Automatically search for network folders and printers. " I heard disabling that helps with search times in the folders of explorer.exe to speed things up..
Thanks guys all your feedback was very helpful, Special thanks to TJ and , Ramblin' Man, Also Ramblin' Man I did have one video that was being thumbnailed and it was a corrupted file too. I deleted it. Ive already started archving and the indexing speeds is increasing very well. Thnx to all ur help.

A. In XP (either FAT32 or NTFS formats for where your pictures are stored) there's an inherent catch that affects most all operating systems - I'll try to explain...

Imagine if you will your photos were in a book (ie: scrapbook) and that at the start of the book there's a table of contents which indicates not only how MANY pages there are (in your case, each photo is a page in this index) but also the date(s) regarding the page, the size of the content and so forth.

The catch here is that the more files you dump into a single directory, the longer it takes for these "table of content" pages to be created.

The old "rule of thumb" is 512 files per directory. Once this line is crossed, you're going to reserve and use more and more system resources to gather the TOC (table of contents) and the more resources that get spent doing this, the less resources there are to DO this job.

Note: Windows 7/8 still have this flaw -- it's not anything YOU have done, yourself.

You noted there's roughly six years worth of images in this one location. Here's what I would recommend...

1. Create a new folder on the SAME drive called something like "Sorted Photos"
2. Within this new folder, create additional folders specific to the YEAR in which the images were taken (ie: 2013, 2012, etc.)
3. This will be painfully slow at first, but open your drive (My Computer > Storage Drive) and do an ADVANCED SEARCH (Press CTRL + F for "Find" and on the left menu of the Find dialog select FILES AND FOLDERS and under advanced features, choose a date range of say, 01-01-2012 through 12-31-2012 and then run the search) Once all the images for that year have been searched for, press <ALT> + <E> and the letter "A" (ALT+E opens the main menu under EDIT, then "A" selects "Select All") and then press <CTRL>+<X> to CUT these images. Go into your new folder under that year and press <CTRL>+<V> to paste them into the new location.
4. Once you've done this for a year or two worth of images, the indexing and search speeds will increase dramatically. Repeat as necessary for all images in the old folder.

Now... once you have them sorted by YEAR, it wouldn't be a bad idea to repeat this process by MONTH which will very likely help index and organize your photos even more so.

The way we do this here is even more elaborate - we take photos and other content and embed them into databases which allows me to add captions/notes, compress the images so that they do not take up nearly a fraction of the drive space and thus I can burn them onto CD or DVD with ease AND still maintain the original image quality. This takes a bit of effort and my software is in-house written and likely further than you want to go at this point, but there are truly endless possibilities how to organize your media while making it painless for both you as well as your machine.

* If you're not revisiting your older images very often, I'd also strongly recommend archiving them. The way we do this here (which maintains protection) is by first creating a zip like archive (RAR format - see link below) which compresses BMP, JPEG and other image formats wonderfully, and then take the images AND the RAR file and burn them onto CD or DVD - two sets are created in case one gets damaged. Once accomplished, they can then be physically removed from the computer and your images are safe... and they're not hurting your computer's efficiency.

** If your machine doesn't want to work WITH you regarding getting these images cleaned up and reorganized, drop me an email and I can design a quick application to do so for you which will basically achieve what was listed above with the least amount of effort (assuming the date-stamps on the files are remotely accurate) - if so, drop me an email here at CentralWare [at] yahoo.com

Good luck and hope this helps!

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

5,000 files in one folder Keeps freezing Windows?

Q. I have taken photos over a period of 6 years.. and ive put them all in one folder..

I have 1.12 GB (1,206,584,242 bytes) of total data in one folder with four sub folders but it has over 90% of the pictures in the root folder of E:\photos\Digital Camera\ <--- theres at least 5,000 files there.

Now when I go into the folder to view files... explorer.exe takes 99% of system resource and never loads anymore... I want to be able to save my files. .but I Dont know what to do.. am I going to have to Delete the folder permanently and loose everything? I have tried folder options with "Do not cache thumbnails" Both on and off.. and nither works.. I have even disabled "Auto search NEtwork Drives and folders"

This is Windows XP SP3 Professional.


Please any help would be appreciated,
Thanks in advance.
im sorry when I said "I have even disabled "Auto Search networks and folders" I meant to actually say - "Automatically search for network folders and printers. " I heard disabling that helps with search times in the folders of explorer.exe to speed things up..
Thanks guys all your feedback was very helpful, Special thanks to TJ and , Ramblin' Man, Also Ramblin' Man I did have one video that was being thumbnailed and it was a corrupted file too. I deleted it. Ive already started archving and the indexing speeds is increasing very well. Thnx to all ur help.

A. In XP (either FAT32 or NTFS formats for where your pictures are stored) there's an inherent catch that affects most all operating systems - I'll try to explain...

Imagine if you will your photos were in a book (ie: scrapbook) and that at the start of the book there's a table of contents which indicates not only how MANY pages there are (in your case, each photo is a page in this index) but also the date(s) regarding the page, the size of the content and so forth.

The catch here is that the more files you dump into a single directory, the longer it takes for these "table of content" pages to be created.

The old "rule of thumb" is 512 files per directory. Once this line is crossed, you're going to reserve and use more and more system resources to gather the TOC (table of contents) and the more resources that get spent doing this, the less resources there are to DO this job.

Note: Windows 7/8 still have this flaw -- it's not anything YOU have done, yourself.

You noted there's roughly six years worth of images in this one location. Here's what I would recommend...

1. Create a new folder on the SAME drive called something like "Sorted Photos"
2. Within this new folder, create additional folders specific to the YEAR in which the images were taken (ie: 2013, 2012, etc.)
3. This will be painfully slow at first, but open your drive (My Computer > Storage Drive) and do an ADVANCED SEARCH (Press CTRL + F for "Find" and on the left menu of the Find dialog select FILES AND FOLDERS and under advanced features, choose a date range of say, 01-01-2012 through 12-31-2012 and then run the search) Once all the images for that year have been searched for, press <ALT> + <E> and the letter "A" (ALT+E opens the main menu under EDIT, then "A" selects "Select All") and then press <CTRL>+<X> to CUT these images. Go into your new folder under that year and press <CTRL>+<V> to paste them into the new location.
4. Once you've done this for a year or two worth of images, the indexing and search speeds will increase dramatically. Repeat as necessary for all images in the old folder.

Now... once you have them sorted by YEAR, it wouldn't be a bad idea to repeat this process by MONTH which will very likely help index and organize your photos even more so.

The way we do this here is even more elaborate - we take photos and other content and embed them into databases which allows me to add captions/notes, compress the images so that they do not take up nearly a fraction of the drive space and thus I can burn them onto CD or DVD with ease AND still maintain the original image quality. This takes a bit of effort and my software is in-house written and likely further than you want to go at this point, but there are truly endless possibilities how to organize your media while making it painless for both you as well as your machine.

* If you're not revisiting your older images very often, I'd also strongly recommend archiving them. The way we do this here (which maintains protection) is by first creating a zip like archive (RAR format - see link below) which compresses BMP, JPEG and other image formats wonderfully, and then take the images AND the RAR file and burn them onto CD or DVD - two sets are created in case one gets damaged. Once accomplished, they can then be physically removed from the computer and your images are safe... and they're not hurting your computer's efficiency.

** If your machine doesn't want to work WITH you regarding getting these images cleaned up and reorganized, drop me an email and I can design a quick application to do so for you which will basically achieve what was listed above with the least amount of effort (assuming the date-stamps on the files are remotely accurate) - if so, drop me an email here at CentralWare [at] yahoo.com

Good luck and hope this helps!

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

5,000 files in one folder Keeps freezing Windows?

Q. I have taken photos over a period of 6 years.. and ive put them all in one folder..

I have 1.12 GB (1,206,584,242 bytes) of total data in one folder with four sub folders but it has over 90% of the pictures in the root folder of E:\photos\Digital Camera\ <--- theres at least 5,000 files there.

Now when I go into the folder to view files... explorer.exe takes 99% of system resource and never loads anymore... I want to be able to save my files. .but I Dont know what to do.. am I going to have to Delete the folder permanently and loose everything? I have tried folder options with "Do not cache thumbnails" Both on and off.. and nither works.. I have even disabled "Auto search NEtwork Drives and folders"

This is Windows XP SP3 Professional.


Please any help would be appreciated,
Thanks in advance.
im sorry when I said "I have even disabled "Auto Search networks and folders" I meant to actually say - "Automatically search for network folders and printers. " I heard disabling that helps with search times in the folders of explorer.exe to speed things up..
Thanks guys all your feedback was very helpful, Special thanks to TJ and , Ramblin' Man, Also Ramblin' Man I did have one video that was being thumbnailed and it was a corrupted file too. I deleted it. Ive already started archving and the indexing speeds is increasing very well. Thnx to all ur help.

A. In XP (either FAT32 or NTFS formats for where your pictures are stored) there's an inherent catch that affects most all operating systems - I'll try to explain...

Imagine if you will your photos were in a book (ie: scrapbook) and that at the start of the book there's a table of contents which indicates not only how MANY pages there are (in your case, each photo is a page in this index) but also the date(s) regarding the page, the size of the content and so forth.

The catch here is that the more files you dump into a single directory, the longer it takes for these "table of content" pages to be created.

The old "rule of thumb" is 512 files per directory. Once this line is crossed, you're going to reserve and use more and more system resources to gather the TOC (table of contents) and the more resources that get spent doing this, the less resources there are to DO this job.

Note: Windows 7/8 still have this flaw -- it's not anything YOU have done, yourself.

You noted there's roughly six years worth of images in this one location. Here's what I would recommend...

1. Create a new folder on the SAME drive called something like "Sorted Photos"
2. Within this new folder, create additional folders specific to the YEAR in which the images were taken (ie: 2013, 2012, etc.)
3. This will be painfully slow at first, but open your drive (My Computer > Storage Drive) and do an ADVANCED SEARCH (Press CTRL + F for "Find" and on the left menu of the Find dialog select FILES AND FOLDERS and under advanced features, choose a date range of say, 01-01-2012 through 12-31-2012 and then run the search) Once all the images for that year have been searched for, press <ALT> + <E> and the letter "A" (ALT+E opens the main menu under EDIT, then "A" selects "Select All") and then press <CTRL>+<X> to CUT these images. Go into your new folder under that year and press <CTRL>+<V> to paste them into the new location.
4. Once you've done this for a year or two worth of images, the indexing and search speeds will increase dramatically. Repeat as necessary for all images in the old folder.

Now... once you have them sorted by YEAR, it wouldn't be a bad idea to repeat this process by MONTH which will very likely help index and organize your photos even more so.

The way we do this here is even more elaborate - we take photos and other content and embed them into databases which allows me to add captions/notes, compress the images so that they do not take up nearly a fraction of the drive space and thus I can burn them onto CD or DVD with ease AND still maintain the original image quality. This takes a bit of effort and my software is in-house written and likely further than you want to go at this point, but there are truly endless possibilities how to organize your media while making it painless for both you as well as your machine.

* If you're not revisiting your older images very often, I'd also strongly recommend archiving them. The way we do this here (which maintains protection) is by first creating a zip like archive (RAR format - see link below) which compresses BMP, JPEG and other image formats wonderfully, and then take the images AND the RAR file and burn them onto CD or DVD - two sets are created in case one gets damaged. Once accomplished, they can then be physically removed from the computer and your images are safe... and they're not hurting your computer's efficiency.

** If your machine doesn't want to work WITH you regarding getting these images cleaned up and reorganized, drop me an email and I can design a quick application to do so for you which will basically achieve what was listed above with the least amount of effort (assuming the date-stamps on the files are remotely accurate) - if so, drop me an email here at CentralWare [at] yahoo.com

Good luck and hope this helps!

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers