| Photography Forum: Digital Photography Q&A Forum: |
 |
Q. which digital camera?
Asked by angela darder
(K=0) on 2/6/2003
|
Hi, i just wrapped up my first year as a pro portrait photographer. Thanks to you guys and my Bronica, my work has been great, profits, well another story. Anyway, I'm branching off into weddings this season, and I think I want to add a digital camera. Any comments on which digi's to avoid, which are reccommended, etc. I'd like to buy something that will produce professional stuff, but in the mid- price ranges. Thanks! Angela
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zarazka Zarazkovich
(K=1510) - Comment Date 2/7/2003
|
I used Nikon D100 indoor couple of times and it is pretty neat (I don't own one). Some people will argue Fuji S2 is better (I never got a chance to play with it). I own Minolta Dimage 7i and although it is not a pro digital camera, unless you are going to do prints larger than 12x18 and / or interchangable lense, it is a solid camera. The 28-200 lense it comes with is clear and sharp on the ranges between 35-200. It is a good dig. camera for indoors - this I can say for sure after using many times in different light conditions for purposes ranging from portrait to still life. You may also research into digital back for medum format camera, but so far those are very expensive and impractical. I rented one back in october just for fun, and think that it should wait for another couple of years to catch up.
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=14949) - Comment Date 2/7/2003
|
As a devoted Nikon shooter I recomend the Canon EOS 1D. Nikon is playing runner up in this game although they still make the best film cameras :-).
|
|
|
|
Uncle Frank
(K=1642) - Comment Date 2/7/2003
|
Hi, Angela. Unfortunately, the current crop of top end prosumer digicams (Sony 717, Canon G3, Nikon 5700, etc.) probably won't cut it for pro wedding work. They've got enough resolution, but their autofocus systems are slow, and don't work well in low light/contrast situations, despite auto-focus assist lamps in some of them. That means you'd be looking at a dslr, which can be very pricey unless you already have some good glass. The lower (as in affordable) end of that range would serve you well, so look at the Canon D60, Fuji S2, and Nikon D100, all 6MP offerings. Note that upgrades to all are due in the short term. You can get good info on them at www.dpreview.com, including forums tied to the slr offerings of each brand.
|
|
|
|
Chad Naujoks
(K=1242) - Comment Date 2/8/2003
|
I shoot with the D100, but for wedding work, I have only used the D100 for Candid shots. Never for portraits, since most of the portraits have to be able to be blown up for wall portraits.
The 717 is fairly decent, the S2 the battery life I have read is not up to par, the Minolta 7i (7hi) are very nice cameras, these all can be used for 8x10's and 11x14's etc, I wouldn't go too far past 15" with them (or at least wouldn't rely on them doing so.
Just make sure you have what you need for the job. Read the reviews, play with each one so that you know how they feel, and know how to use the camera (stick with what you are comfortable with)
Chad
|
|
|
|
David Lake
(K=3310) - Comment Date 2/17/2003
|
I use the Kodak DCS-760 we use it for all of our school work an also our wedding work. We have taken the files to as large as 20x24. We do add a little unsharp mask on all of our larger images. Kodak has a new camera that produces a 42 meg file that we hope to get.
|
|
|
|
Chad Naujoks
(K=1242) - Comment Date 2/18/2003
|
The New Kodak is the 14n. Hopefully be out next month or two.
|
|
|
|
R. S.
(K=78) - Comment Date 2/27/2003
|
if mid-price segment is about 800 bucks i would say look at the infos and data about the 5050 (www.olympus.com).
Quite a good allroundcamera with interesting features, i think, haven't tested it yet, though.
The real things are $ 2.000 and above.
|
|
|
|
Ed Babcock
(K=651) - Comment Date 5/2/2003
|
If you are not in a hurry, I'd wait (like me) for the new digi chip, the X3, to make it way down to more consumer level cameras. This chip is presently being made by "Foveon" (spelling) is able to create RGB in one pixel, not three. This is supposed to move the digital field a Quantum leap forward as you can imagine how it will impact resolution.
Read about it at: www.foveon.com
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
![Photograph By Nelson Moore [Kes] -](http://thumbs.imageopolis.com/images/6/0/0/5/6005/1537290-tn.jpg "Photograph By Nelson Moore [Kes] -")
