Showing posts with label canon digital camera 3300 price. Show all posts
Showing posts with label canon digital camera 3300 price. Show all posts

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Whats the difference between handheld camcorders and those massive film cameras?




Jack


I mean I would have thought the large heavy film cameras would have been much more expensive and yes, some of them are 1000's of £. But look at this http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Panasonic-NV-M50-VHS-Pro-Movie-Camera-0-7-Lux-Wide-Lens-Digital-Zoom-X-28-/190753412856?pt=UK_Movie_Cameras&hash=item2c69ca16f8

And then you've got things like this - http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5627622.htm?CMPID=GS001&_$ja=tsid:11527%7Ccc:%7Cprd:5627622%7Ccat:technology+%2F+cameras+and+camcorders+%2F+camcorders+%2F

Whats the difference, which should I buy for proffesional film making small handheld or heavy?



Answer
If you showed up for a paid shoot with either, I'd send you packing and sue for misrepresentation UNLESS you were very clear you were using either an effective antique or a consumer's toy.

The first is a VHS machine. In spite of it's large size, this was a consumer camcorder when it was made. Barely suitable for good old tube, standard def TV's, this analog camera has a single 320K sensor and equates to about 330 x 480 (Ntsc) or about 1/6 of 1mp. Among other issues, production of the tapes has ended, some time ago now.

The Current Sony HD cam is just as far from being a pro camera as the panasonic was in its day. The Sony gets somewhere between 4 and 8 gigs of data. The better CONSUMER hd cameras get 11 gigs and are available in this price range...problem is even at 11 gigs/hour you are less than 1/2 the data rate (resolution) of the BOTTOM end of what would be considered a pro camera, such as the $3300 Canon XF100 (Again, this is the bottom of the pro-line HD cameras).

Now, between the 2, the HD camera will be much more usable and have a better editing work-flow. Again, be very clear with potential clients that you are using consumer gear.

Pro cameras can pass $100,000 easily. Lenses for pro-cameras can pass $50,000 easily. And data-rates from these cameras can be more than 1 gig/min.

Is it better to use a digital camera or camcorder for movie making?




.!


I've become obsessed with video editing lately but the cameras at school are garbage and make it difficult to edit so I've been searching around for a good camera. I noticed that Andrew Kramer from videocopilot.net talked about using a cannon 5d and so did the guy from FilmRiot so i was wondering if anybody knew which would be better for movie making;

a good digital camera like the cannon 60d, or a decent camcorder like the Panasonic HDC-SD60K

thanks



Answer
The Panasonic is a mid-entry level camcorder. The best consumer HD camcorders record at 11 gigs/hour. Going deep into the owners manual I finally found the best this little guy will do is 8gb/hour

The Canon and several DSLRs down into the $1000 kit range record video at 20 gb/hour. Getting pretty close to Triple the data rate of the Panasonic. DSLRs have other disadvantages though. As they are primarily a camera, they have to use their batteries to hold open a shutter screen and hold up the reflex mirror. Along with shortened battery life, this adds to the heat. The big heat factor though, comes from powering an 18mp CCD sensor to do about 2mp worth of work.

Other limits include file size and poor audio, both of which can be accommodated.

But I don't understand why you are comparing the 5D which will set you back $3000 with a good lens, to a $400 consumer crapcorder?

If my intent was video, and the consideration was the 5D or a Comparable priced VIDEO camera, I'd go for the $3300 XF100 (which includes a very VERSATILE lens).

THIS (XF100) is the cheapest HD camcorder I would even consider buying to replace my GL-2 cameras.

Why am I still using MiniDv tape?? Simple: It records at 13 gigs/hour and has a better compression method. I can up-convert from DV to HD and have better image quality than even the best, consumer camcorders under $2000.

Against the DSLRs there may be an edge on the side of HD until you run into fast action, sports, rapid panning, etc. The inter-frame compression of DV (MiniDv tape) is ideal for movement and action, where the HD format relies on reference frames and interpreted frames. In other words, some frames rely on their neighbors for data.

So the good news, DSLR can be good quality and you don't need a $3000 5D M2 to get it. You get the exact same video from a t2i or any DSLR of any brand's that calculates 20 gigs/hr (4 gigs for 12 min). Just be aware of their other limitations.

Or look for an e-bay or other deal on a used MiniDv based camera like the GL or XL series. OR get the Canon ZR960 brand new for $250.00, probably the only remaining entry level MiniDv camcorder available now. It will exceed the quality of the Panasonic and other cheap cameras, it will exceed any consumer oriented HD camera for any price.

Don't want to deal with tapes, computer to slow for firewire? I've been looking at card based video drives for my GL, but my work load needs to increase to justify the extra $1000.

And, just to add a little more confusion, look at HDV format cameras (Also MiniDv tape based) starting around $1000 (consumer camcorder types).




Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Monday, March 24, 2014

Semi-pro Digital SLR - Canon or Nikon..?




Muse


Which camera manufacturer do you prefer and why do you like them better?
Thanks for all your posts - here are additional details... I guess I am leaning towards Canon. However, I only have a Canon PowerShot S2IS. I have used a Canon Rebel SLR in the past. I would say my photo skills range from basic to intermediate depending upon the category of discussion.

I have developed a talent for subject composition and am working on my technique. Want to take my hobbie/skill to the next level...

People have requested to hire me, so I would like to have the appropriate equipment to get the job done and start my own business: Fashion, Product, Portrait, HeadShots, Nature.... I like the Image Stabilization of the Canon, but Nikon has some pluses too...I am wondering which will give me better overall pics in these above mentioned categories.

Money is always an obstacle, and I am trying to get by for around $3,000-$3,500 total equipment to start... (don't laugh!).

I was even contemplating using my powershot as my back-up camera...

Thanks!!!



Answer
First of all, the canon does not have image stabilzation. The Lenses do, and Nikon also has VR lenses

The very minimum you can get buy with is a canon 40D. The Nikon d300
is also a good bet.

I would say, for your price range,

get the nikon d300, an 18-200mm VR lens and an SB 900 flash

My projected cost for this would be

1500 for the camera 600 for the lens and 500 for the flash.

The camera is pretty high end, and can certainly be used for weddings and portraits...and everything else. The SB 900 is the top of the line flash and the 18-200mm
lens has gotten some decent ratings...and also will give you an excellent wide angle to pretty decent zoom (200mm on the d300 will be equivalent to 300mm

so that brings us to 1500+600+500= 2600. Now, for the remainder,
I would suggest getting a secondary flash..the sb 600, which should be about $200.= 2800. Finally i would suggest getting the 60mm f2.8
MACRO lens which will enable you to focus at 1:1 for close up product shots and on the d300, the 60mm range will give a perfect range for nice portraits as well, and its a FAST lens at f2.8...that's probably an extra 500 bucks...bringing us to 3300.

Try going down to your local camera store and suggest that you got this suggestion as a start up, and see what they tell you. I think that you will find that my prices are pretty accurate. The reason I suggested getting the secondary flash is due to the fact that Nikon has an excellent wireless flash system. Using two flashes will give you more control over your lighting..


I regularly talk to camera store guys. One told me he was shooting weddings and so forth with a canon 40D which is a great camera, and like I said, the very minimum you can get buy with. Its a bit cheaper than a Nikon d300, but another camera guy I talk to, and not just a salesperson but a true EXPERT and camera fanatic LOVES his Nikon d300...says there isn't anything he has found that it won't do, and he does a lot of fast action photos in low light.

I'm surprised other people didn't recommend flashes...for what you want to do, I really think you need the two flashes...
....you certainly need at least ONE top of the line flash...which is the SB900 from Nikon. Canon also has wireless flash systems as well.....

Sure you can get the L lenses and the 70-200mm f2.8 lenses and so forth, but not withing your budget. I'm trying to get you a pretty good startup here withing your budget.

One of the first answers listed lenses that would cost about $4000 minimum.

Please suggest me a good Digital camera to buy?




mkjijull


Hi,

I am planning to buy a digital cam.
my budget is around 200$. 9000 INR.
Preferred make - Cannon & Nikon.

I have chosen three models

Canon IXUS 220 HS Point & Shoot(12.1 Megapixel,Optical Zoom: 4x, CMOS Image Sensor,with 2.7 inch LCD, 10665 INR)
Canon IXUS 115 HS Point & Shoot(12.1 Megapixel,Optical Zoom: 4x, CMOS Image Sensor,with 3.0 inch LCD, 9210 INR)
Canon A 3300 Point & Shoot(16 Megapixel,Optical Zoom: 5x, CCD Image Sensor,with 3.0 inch LCD, 8725 INR)
becoz all these models comes under my budget.

The third model which i have mentioned has most of the options but its still less in price, Why?

Also suggest me any good models which are cheap and best.

All i need is when i shoot a image or video and transfer to PC it should be in good quality. I dont mind the image quality in 3.0 inch LCD in the camera.



Answer
Why is Canon A330 less expensive?
- Shoots lower definition video (720 vs 1081)
- Does not have HDMI
- Slower maximum shutter speed
- Slower continuous drive (.8 fps vs. 3.4 fps)
- Lower ISO range (1600 vs. 3200)
- larger
Here are the 3 specs side by side
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_ixus220hs&products=canon_ixus115hs&products=canon_a3300is

The IXUS 220 wins this shootout with the IXUS 115
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-IXUS-115HS-vs-Canon-IXUS-220HS

The IXUS 220 easily wins the shootout with the Canon A3300
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-A3300-IS-vs-Canon-IXUS-220HS

Competitors and reasons are given.




Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Monday, February 17, 2014

Photo Quality. Help me out.?




<\'~Inspir


So I'm looking into a new camera. A couple of possibilities I've seen so far are the Canon EOS 7D, Canon EOS 60D, and Nikon D3100.

I'm looking to be able to print fairly large. Not necessarily poster size, but at least a very clear 11"X14". From what I've been reading, you don't necessarily need 15 megapixels to print this size, but to print it at a lower DPI. Can someone please explain that whole thing to me?

What are the other technical specs that go into making a crystal clear, beautiful photo?

I am by no means a professional, however I do take family portraits and things like that for my friends and neighbors, and want to give them really good photos. Currently I have a canon with 8 mp, and 11x14 is almost pushing the limit on clarity. Is it a setting I have messed up or do I need a better camera?

The majority of my photography is human portraits, animal portraits, and some nature/landscape here and there. Along with the hobby photography (friends and camping trips and whatnot).



Answer
you mention 14x11", and at 300 ppi/ dpi, that is 4400 x 3300 pixels
http://www.hugge.netg.se/java/MegaPixels.html
that is in the range if a 14 mp image,

you have a Canon at 8mp , 3344 x 2508 pixels , approx 11x 8 inch size at 300ppi/dpi

----------
Canon EOS 7D, Effective pixels: Approx. 18.0 megapixels $1,699.00
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_7d

Canon EOS 60D, Approx. 18.0 Megapixels: 5200 x 3462 pixels, $1,099.00
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_60d
---------

Nikon D3100. 14.2 million pixels $699.95
http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25472/D3100.html

Canon EOS Rebel T1i EF-S Effective pixels: Approx. 15.10 megapixels $799.99
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_rebel_t1i_ef_s_18_55mm_is_kit

price wise, you may be better with Nikon D3100
because the average mp is 12 for other brands,
you may look at necessity of need for 14x11, and compromise or compare,
_________

Pentax K-7 14.6 megapixels $1,099.95
http://www.pentaximaging.com/slr/K-7/

Kodak EASYSHARE Z981 Digital Effective pixels 14 MP $329.95
http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/pd/Z981_Digital_Camera/productID.169236500

Olympus> E-System Digital SLR ~ 12mp
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_slr.asp

Fujifilm S Series 12mp
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/s/

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2K 12mp
http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Cameras-Camcorders/Digital-Cameras/Lumix-Digital-Interchangeable-Lens-Cameras.list.75048_11002_7000000000000005702
..

Need Advice : BEST HD CAMCORDER WITH EXCELLENT HQ?




Nick


I want a camcorder, what do you suggest?
EXCELLENT HD
EXCELLENT HQ
EXCELLENT AUDIO
But big enough to hold in hand.....:D



Answer
Hi Nick,

When looking at camcorders, make sure you look at their maximum data rate (best quality recording). Within a given price range, this will be key to quality. Here is what you will find.

Lower priced HD camcorders will record as low as 5-6 gigs/ hour of video. Under $2000, the best you will find is 11 gigs/hour.

Now, look closely at the few remaining MiniDv tape (still digital) camcorders. MiniDv records at 13 gigs/hour.

To fully appreciate this, do the math! MiniDv has 15% MORE data for a frame size that is 1/6 the size of HD.

Fact is, HD is a marketing term and is a step backward in quality. The lower data rate for a bigger picture are accomplished with huge compression rates. HD relies on reference frames, as few as 2 a second. The remaining 28 frames record only a specific threshold of difference, and are interpreted from the reference frames for most of their image. MiniDv is uncompressed in the brightness channel (important for how we see the image) and has a very low compression in color. Most important, compression is done within each frame. No frame relies on its neighbors for data.

The combination of high data and better compression means that in practice, MiniDv video can be up-converted in editing and have a better picture quality than native HD!

You also mentioned audio. MiniDv excels at audio and records at better than CD quality.

The only functional difference is your MiniDv camera will need a firewire cable (usually extra) and your computer will need a firewire port (expansion PCI cards are about $20.00).

Unfortunately, HD dominates the market. Canon is still producing the ZR960 for $250 and this is a bargain camera. At the $1000 mark, there is the HDV format (Also MiniDv tape but a 1440 x 1080 frame).

Since you did not mention a price range, I'll add that the least expensive camera that is card based HD and meets all your specs is the $3300 Canon XF100

And because most people are falling for the marketing and ease of card cameras, outstanding cameras like the Canon GL-1, GL-2, and XL series are going for under $1000 in the used market. Down the road, if you want card storage, any of these can be connected to an external digital recorder (about $1000).




Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Monday, December 2, 2013

Need Advice : BEST HD CAMCORDER WITH EXCELLENT HQ?

canon digital camera 3300 price on Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn ...
canon digital camera 3300 price image



Nick


I want a camcorder, what do you suggest?
EXCELLENT HD
EXCELLENT HQ
EXCELLENT AUDIO
But big enough to hold in hand.....:D



Answer
Hi Nick,

When looking at camcorders, make sure you look at their maximum data rate (best quality recording). Within a given price range, this will be key to quality. Here is what you will find.

Lower priced HD camcorders will record as low as 5-6 gigs/ hour of video. Under $2000, the best you will find is 11 gigs/hour.

Now, look closely at the few remaining MiniDv tape (still digital) camcorders. MiniDv records at 13 gigs/hour.

To fully appreciate this, do the math! MiniDv has 15% MORE data for a frame size that is 1/6 the size of HD.

Fact is, HD is a marketing term and is a step backward in quality. The lower data rate for a bigger picture are accomplished with huge compression rates. HD relies on reference frames, as few as 2 a second. The remaining 28 frames record only a specific threshold of difference, and are interpreted from the reference frames for most of their image. MiniDv is uncompressed in the brightness channel (important for how we see the image) and has a very low compression in color. Most important, compression is done within each frame. No frame relies on its neighbors for data.

The combination of high data and better compression means that in practice, MiniDv video can be up-converted in editing and have a better picture quality than native HD!

You also mentioned audio. MiniDv excels at audio and records at better than CD quality.

The only functional difference is your MiniDv camera will need a firewire cable (usually extra) and your computer will need a firewire port (expansion PCI cards are about $20.00).

Unfortunately, HD dominates the market. Canon is still producing the ZR960 for $250 and this is a bargain camera. At the $1000 mark, there is the HDV format (Also MiniDv tape but a 1440 x 1080 frame).

Since you did not mention a price range, I'll add that the least expensive camera that is card based HD and meets all your specs is the $3300 Canon XF100

And because most people are falling for the marketing and ease of card cameras, outstanding cameras like the Canon GL-1, GL-2, and XL series are going for under $1000 in the used market. Down the road, if you want card storage, any of these can be connected to an external digital recorder (about $1000).

Whats the difference between handheld camcorders and those massive film cameras?




Jack


I mean I would have thought the large heavy film cameras would have been much more expensive and yes, some of them are 1000's of £. But look at this http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Panasonic-NV-M50-VHS-Pro-Movie-Camera-0-7-Lux-Wide-Lens-Digital-Zoom-X-28-/190753412856?pt=UK_Movie_Cameras&hash=item2c69ca16f8

And then you've got things like this - http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5627622.htm?CMPID=GS001&_$ja=tsid:11527%7Ccc:%7Cprd:5627622%7Ccat:technology+%2F+cameras+and+camcorders+%2F+camcorders+%2F

Whats the difference, which should I buy for proffesional film making small handheld or heavy?



Answer
If you showed up for a paid shoot with either, I'd send you packing and sue for misrepresentation UNLESS you were very clear you were using either an effective antique or a consumer's toy.

The first is a VHS machine. In spite of it's large size, this was a consumer camcorder when it was made. Barely suitable for good old tube, standard def TV's, this analog camera has a single 320K sensor and equates to about 330 x 480 (Ntsc) or about 1/6 of 1mp. Among other issues, production of the tapes has ended, some time ago now.

The Current Sony HD cam is just as far from being a pro camera as the panasonic was in its day. The Sony gets somewhere between 4 and 8 gigs of data. The better CONSUMER hd cameras get 11 gigs and are available in this price range...problem is even at 11 gigs/hour you are less than 1/2 the data rate (resolution) of the BOTTOM end of what would be considered a pro camera, such as the $3300 Canon XF100 (Again, this is the bottom of the pro-line HD cameras).

Now, between the 2, the HD camera will be much more usable and have a better editing work-flow. Again, be very clear with potential clients that you are using consumer gear.

Pro cameras can pass $100,000 easily. Lenses for pro-cameras can pass $50,000 easily. And data-rates from these cameras can be more than 1 gig/min.




Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Is it better to use a digital camera or camcorder for movie making?

canon digital camera 3300 price on Canon Powershot 3300
canon digital camera 3300 price image



.!


I've become obsessed with video editing lately but the cameras at school are garbage and make it difficult to edit so I've been searching around for a good camera. I noticed that Andrew Kramer from videocopilot.net talked about using a cannon 5d and so did the guy from FilmRiot so i was wondering if anybody knew which would be better for movie making;

a good digital camera like the cannon 60d, or a decent camcorder like the Panasonic HDC-SD60K

thanks



Answer
The Panasonic is a mid-entry level camcorder. The best consumer HD camcorders record at 11 gigs/hour. Going deep into the owners manual I finally found the best this little guy will do is 8gb/hour

The Canon and several DSLRs down into the $1000 kit range record video at 20 gb/hour. Getting pretty close to Triple the data rate of the Panasonic. DSLRs have other disadvantages though. As they are primarily a camera, they have to use their batteries to hold open a shutter screen and hold up the reflex mirror. Along with shortened battery life, this adds to the heat. The big heat factor though, comes from powering an 18mp CCD sensor to do about 2mp worth of work.

Other limits include file size and poor audio, both of which can be accommodated.

But I don't understand why you are comparing the 5D which will set you back $3000 with a good lens, to a $400 consumer crapcorder?

If my intent was video, and the consideration was the 5D or a Comparable priced VIDEO camera, I'd go for the $3300 XF100 (which includes a very VERSATILE lens).

THIS (XF100) is the cheapest HD camcorder I would even consider buying to replace my GL-2 cameras.

Why am I still using MiniDv tape?? Simple: It records at 13 gigs/hour and has a better compression method. I can up-convert from DV to HD and have better image quality than even the best, consumer camcorders under $2000.

Against the DSLRs there may be an edge on the side of HD until you run into fast action, sports, rapid panning, etc. The inter-frame compression of DV (MiniDv tape) is ideal for movement and action, where the HD format relies on reference frames and interpreted frames. In other words, some frames rely on their neighbors for data.

So the good news, DSLR can be good quality and you don't need a $3000 5D M2 to get it. You get the exact same video from a t2i or any DSLR of any brand's that calculates 20 gigs/hr (4 gigs for 12 min). Just be aware of their other limitations.

Or look for an e-bay or other deal on a used MiniDv based camera like the GL or XL series. OR get the Canon ZR960 brand new for $250.00, probably the only remaining entry level MiniDv camcorder available now. It will exceed the quality of the Panasonic and other cheap cameras, it will exceed any consumer oriented HD camera for any price.

Don't want to deal with tapes, computer to slow for firewire? I've been looking at card based video drives for my GL, but my work load needs to increase to justify the extra $1000.

And, just to add a little more confusion, look at HDV format cameras (Also MiniDv tape based) starting around $1000 (consumer camcorder types).

compare sony w570 camera with canon A 3300 digi camera?




Ganesh Sai


and sony T99 & wx7 to canon's A2200 digital camera. with price and including service points also.please give your opinion


Answer
Could not find an WX7 (WX5 or WX9)

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=sony_dscw570&products=canon_a3300is&products=sony_dsct99&products=canon_a2200

Now that you have this site, you can compare all you like




Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Monday, September 16, 2013

Semi-pro Digital SLR - Canon or Nikon..?

canon digital camera 3300 price on ... hd videomay digital cam price in canon powershot a price of canon
canon digital camera 3300 price image



Muse


Which camera manufacturer do you prefer and why do you like them better?
Thanks for all your posts - here are additional details... I guess I am leaning towards Canon. However, I only have a Canon PowerShot S2IS. I have used a Canon Rebel SLR in the past. I would say my photo skills range from basic to intermediate depending upon the category of discussion.

I have developed a talent for subject composition and am working on my technique. Want to take my hobbie/skill to the next level...

People have requested to hire me, so I would like to have the appropriate equipment to get the job done and start my own business: Fashion, Product, Portrait, HeadShots, Nature.... I like the Image Stabilization of the Canon, but Nikon has some pluses too...I am wondering which will give me better overall pics in these above mentioned categories.

Money is always an obstacle, and I am trying to get by for around $3,000-$3,500 total equipment to start... (don't laugh!).

I was even contemplating using my powershot as my back-up camera...

Thanks!!!



Answer
First of all, the canon does not have image stabilzation. The Lenses do, and Nikon also has VR lenses

The very minimum you can get buy with is a canon 40D. The Nikon d300
is also a good bet.

I would say, for your price range,

get the nikon d300, an 18-200mm VR lens and an SB 900 flash

My projected cost for this would be

1500 for the camera 600 for the lens and 500 for the flash.

The camera is pretty high end, and can certainly be used for weddings and portraits...and everything else. The SB 900 is the top of the line flash and the 18-200mm
lens has gotten some decent ratings...and also will give you an excellent wide angle to pretty decent zoom (200mm on the d300 will be equivalent to 300mm

so that brings us to 1500+600+500= 2600. Now, for the remainder,
I would suggest getting a secondary flash..the sb 600, which should be about $200.= 2800. Finally i would suggest getting the 60mm f2.8
MACRO lens which will enable you to focus at 1:1 for close up product shots and on the d300, the 60mm range will give a perfect range for nice portraits as well, and its a FAST lens at f2.8...that's probably an extra 500 bucks...bringing us to 3300.

Try going down to your local camera store and suggest that you got this suggestion as a start up, and see what they tell you. I think that you will find that my prices are pretty accurate. The reason I suggested getting the secondary flash is due to the fact that Nikon has an excellent wireless flash system. Using two flashes will give you more control over your lighting..


I regularly talk to camera store guys. One told me he was shooting weddings and so forth with a canon 40D which is a great camera, and like I said, the very minimum you can get buy with. Its a bit cheaper than a Nikon d300, but another camera guy I talk to, and not just a salesperson but a true EXPERT and camera fanatic LOVES his Nikon d300...says there isn't anything he has found that it won't do, and he does a lot of fast action photos in low light.

I'm surprised other people didn't recommend flashes...for what you want to do, I really think you need the two flashes...
....you certainly need at least ONE top of the line flash...which is the SB900 from Nikon. Canon also has wireless flash systems as well.....

Sure you can get the L lenses and the 70-200mm f2.8 lenses and so forth, but not withing your budget. I'm trying to get you a pretty good startup here withing your budget.

One of the first answers listed lenses that would cost about $4000 minimum.

Need Advice : BEST HD CAMCORDER WITH EXCELLENT HQ?




Nick


I want a camcorder, what do you suggest?
EXCELLENT HD
EXCELLENT HQ
EXCELLENT AUDIO
But big enough to hold in hand.....:D



Answer
Hi Nick,

When looking at camcorders, make sure you look at their maximum data rate (best quality recording). Within a given price range, this will be key to quality. Here is what you will find.

Lower priced HD camcorders will record as low as 5-6 gigs/ hour of video. Under $2000, the best you will find is 11 gigs/hour.

Now, look closely at the few remaining MiniDv tape (still digital) camcorders. MiniDv records at 13 gigs/hour.

To fully appreciate this, do the math! MiniDv has 15% MORE data for a frame size that is 1/6 the size of HD.

Fact is, HD is a marketing term and is a step backward in quality. The lower data rate for a bigger picture are accomplished with huge compression rates. HD relies on reference frames, as few as 2 a second. The remaining 28 frames record only a specific threshold of difference, and are interpreted from the reference frames for most of their image. MiniDv is uncompressed in the brightness channel (important for how we see the image) and has a very low compression in color. Most important, compression is done within each frame. No frame relies on its neighbors for data.

The combination of high data and better compression means that in practice, MiniDv video can be up-converted in editing and have a better picture quality than native HD!

You also mentioned audio. MiniDv excels at audio and records at better than CD quality.

The only functional difference is your MiniDv camera will need a firewire cable (usually extra) and your computer will need a firewire port (expansion PCI cards are about $20.00).

Unfortunately, HD dominates the market. Canon is still producing the ZR960 for $250 and this is a bargain camera. At the $1000 mark, there is the HDV format (Also MiniDv tape but a 1440 x 1080 frame).

Since you did not mention a price range, I'll add that the least expensive camera that is card based HD and meets all your specs is the $3300 Canon XF100

And because most people are falling for the marketing and ease of card cameras, outstanding cameras like the Canon GL-1, GL-2, and XL series are going for under $1000 in the used market. Down the road, if you want card storage, any of these can be connected to an external digital recorder (about $1000).




Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Friday, August 2, 2013

I need a camcorder for recording vlogs/webshows?

canon digital camera 3300 price on Canon A3300 IS digital camera
canon digital camera 3300 price image



AdviceporF


I have kind of a fanbase on a website or two, and really want to start a vlog, and my mom wants one(a vlog, that is) for business purposes. I want things to look FAIRLY professional, and not look or sound like my footage is being recorded with a phone. I've seen several on youtube that have really poor sound quality, and I know that also has to do with what's going on in the background, but some just seem to have this general buzz/din every time they record, or pick up EVERY NOISE, like when the camera is moved and it makes a sort of popping sound. I need a camera that can handle a fair amount of movement. I've got a price range of about $200, but I'm willing to make allowances as long as what you're mentioning is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY -- I am in NO WAY trying to shoot a movie or music video.

Thanks alot, and please include a link for the equipment in question if you can :D



Answer
Use a MinDV tape camcorder. To get the video Quality a 4300 MiniDV tape camcorder has, to get a HD camcorder with better Video Quality, you would have to spend in excess of $3300.

Getting a HD camcorder is taking a step backward in Video Quality. HD camcorders Interpolate the video, which means of every 25 frames of video, 4 or 5 frames are taken by the lens assembly, the other frames in between these are filled in by the camcorder inner circuitry, thus giving you not true video. HD camcorders interpolate the video, which means of every 25 frames of video, 4 or 5 frames are taken by the lens assembly; the other frames in between these are filled in by the camcorder inner circuitry, thus giving you not true video. It looks like this -one frame from the lens assembly, 7or 8 from the electronic circuitry, one frame from the lens assembly, 7or 8 from the electronic circuitry, one frame from the lens assembly, 7or 8 from the electronic circuitry, one frame from the lens assembly, 7or 8 from the electronic circuitry, from front to back of the video. Near impossible to edit, even when you have the Multi processor computer with the big Graphics and sound cards that is required to edit, view, watch and work with the files a HD camcorder produces.

http://simplevideoediting.com/learn/partâ¦

http://simplevideoediting.com/learn/partâ¦

Consumer level HD camcorders have 4 problems. 1) Blurry, fuzzy, out of focus areas closely around people in videos taken by consumer level HD camcorders. 2) Any movement, even a wave or lifting an arm, while in front of a recording consumer level HD camcorder, results in screen ghosts and artifacts being left on the video track, following the movement. Makes for bad video, sports videos are unwatchable. 3) These Consumer level HD camcorders all have a habit of the transferred to computer files are something you need to convert, thus losing your HD quality, to work with your editing software. 4) Mandatory maximum record times - 1 hour, 30 minutes, 8 minutes, 3 minutes â four different times advertised as maximum record time for some consumer level HD camcorders. No event I have ever been to is that short. Either take multiple camcorders or pack up with out getting the end of the event on video.

MiniDV is currently the most popular format for consumer digital camcorders. MiniDV camcorders are typically more affordable than their HDD and DVD counterparts. Each MiniDV tape will typically hold an hour of footage at normal recording speed and quality. MiniDV tapes are available for purchase at not only electronic and camera stores, but also at drugs stores and grocery stores, making them easy to find while your on vacation. There are literally hundreds of MiniDV camcorders available; both in standard and high-definition. And add the fact that to get a HD camcorder that could produce better video quality footage, one would have to spend in excess of $3500 for that camcorder that could produce higher quality video.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/pâ¦




Powered by Yahoo! Answers