- I want a digital camera, help me out?
Im looking to get a quality digital camera for both photography and videos. I’m based not too far from a lot of South Wales biking spots at the moment so I want to take advantage and do some biking photography as well as nature etc. Trouble is I really enjoy video editing too and fancy making a few biking videos, and for the video to match my contour footage I need 1080p at 30fpa which rules out most cameras.
The two contenders currently are a Panasonic lumix fz200 bridge camera which is the full package but would it be too limiting in the future as I will only be buying one decent camera in these years and it’s non upgradable. The other option is a canon 550d body as I have two lens I could use and then upgrade lenses from there when I know what I need.
What do you photographers think? I’m leaning towards the canon because I can progress further with it in future years and I imagine it’ll take a nicer shot when I learn to use itPosted 4 years ago
What’s your budget?
There are loads of cameras that do 1080p at 30fps. My Nikon p300 compact does and that’s a couple of years old now. Sound on it isn’t great, and the focus during video isn’t great though so wouldn’t probably recommend it for what you want to do.
Have you looked at cameras like the Nikon 1 and other cameras of its ilk (most other ones have bigger sensors than the Nikon1). Things like the Panasonic range or the Sony NEX range.Posted 4 years agoraymeridiansMember
Don’t get dragged into the manufacturer religous wars. The Nikon/Sony/Canon are all close enough, and not worth jumping system for. Both the Nikon and Canon are excellent cameras.
If you do get into photography, both Nikon and Canon have excellent lens ranges, I’d argue Canon’s is better, or at least with fewer compatibility issues. None of the other systems has anything like the lens line up, but if they have everything you’ll want that isn’t an issue.
Opinions on the EOS-M are varied. But it is very cheap these days and has excellent image quality.
Try a bridge camera in a realistic setting first. You might find the speed of focus and shutter to be too slow for action work. The EOS-M has a particularly bad reputation in this area.Posted 4 years agocoolhandlukeSubscriber
My advice would be to get a high quality compact camera, SLR’s usually stay in people’s camera bags in the house unless the owners are proper photographers unless there’s a family gatherings etc.
I used to make a bit or money on the side doing commercial and wedding photography, until the family arrived and the lovely Nikon D300 never went out. The GF1 went to lots of places though. I’ve had a GF2 and still have a GF3 (nice but stil prefer the GF1 for some reason.
Best of all though is my Sony RX100. It gets taken out the most these days. £400 ish, pocketable in a coat, unobtrusive, excellent image quality. Aperture ring at the front can be used to adjust a range of functions and makes handling nice and quick (aperture, shutter, exposure comp, ISO, HDR etc) this isn’t a point and shoot compact.Posted 4 years ago
Rosss – Member
I’m not really a fan of compact system cameras, I’m looking for something with a load of settings I can play with really which is why I like the idea of a DSLR.
Every CSC camera that I have seen has at least as many settings/controls as an SLR, plus they often have more creative settings which may or may not be of use to you.
Your Nikon S8000 gives you nothing like the creative options of most CSC cameras.
The only thing that an SLR might give you over a CSC camera in temrs of settings control is better access to the controls themselves – i.e. buttons on the body, rather than menu-driven adjustments.
Have you looked at cameras like the Nikon P7700 or the Canon G15. I know that these are highly regarded for photography, but I am not sure whether they are as capable in terms of videography.Posted 4 years agojohnellisonMember
Most photographers will tell you Nikon is the way to go. Every videographer and photographer at my wedding used Nikon, swore by them.
Being a Nikon whore, I’d agree with you as far as still photography goes, but not video.
I don’t know if it’s still the case, but up until about 18 months ago, most Nikon DSLRs with video capture couldn’t do more than 5 minute bursts at a time. Something to do with the way the bus handled the bit-rate into the card IIRC but it seriously hampers flexibility.Posted 4 years ago
^^^ I thought it was 20mins per section of video with Nikon; at least it was for the first ones that had video capability. I am sure I read it was down to the heat build-up within the electronics.
But yeah, from the reviews I have seen the Canon SLR cameras seem to be the ones to go for if you want to do a lot of video; over the Nikon equivalents.Posted 4 years agoMarkLGMember
I’m currently looking at the Panasonic Gx1 for a carry around camera. Just sold a Canon 7D, which was an awesome piece of kit, but just to big and heavy to throw in my lack when I was out for a ride or walk. As a result it rarely got used.Posted 4 years ago
Whichever direction you go in is going to result in some sort of compromise. If you want to get into biking photography then you need something with a fast tracking AF system, which means a decent SLR. Are you going to want to carry that sort of camera kit around with you on a ride though?
The decent system cameras are smaller and lighter, but you’ll give up some AF performance.
The Panasonic GH2 and GH3 are worth looking at for their video performance.
The best place to start is to go through the reviews on the DPReview website.MrSmithMember
Most photographers will tell you Nikon is the way to go.
really? i know a lot of photographers (design/advertising) i would say its 70/30 canon/nikon and if its those who do a lot of video then its more like 90/10 in favour of canon and a fair few hacked GH3 panasonics too
none are wedding photographers though, i have no idea what they use.Posted 4 years agoCapt. KronosSubscriber
Most digital cameras could only do a 5 minute burst of video, it was a restriction based on import duty (if they shot longer they became classed as video cameras and attracted a higher rate of duty).
All brands are pretty much spot on these days – I switched from full frame Canons to the big Nikons as they offered me better performance for what I needed. However it is a big sodding thing to lug about so I recently picked up an OM-D E-M5 for a lighterweight option on the bike and other times I didn’t want to carry a vast amount of gear. It is absolutely marvelous, gives me all the control of a traditional SLR and yet I can carry it and a few lenses with ease. Also with the lenses being nice and compact I can carry up to a 600mm equivalent in a wee pouch up into the hills without bother 😉Posted 4 years agofootflapsSubscriber
If you do get into photography, both Nikon and Canon have excellent lens ranges, I’d argue Canon’s is better, or at least with fewer compatibility issues.
I’d say it was the other way around. Canon have slightly higher specced bodies, but Nikon has the edge on glass. As for compatibility, Nikon hasn’t changed their mount for decades so everything still fits (unlike Canon). Auto-focus etc won’t work back decades, but that’s the same with all makes..
Most digital cameras could only do a 5 minute burst of video
IIRC it’s file size on Nikon, once it hit’s 4Gb it has to start a new file. Not that I ever use it. Works out at 40mins-50mins I think.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘I want a digital camera, help me out?’ is closed to new replies.