| |
|
Originally Posted by rambo1o1
(Post 2637900)
I am in two minds , whether to go for a DSLR like the Sony SLT A-33/35 or similar or just stick with a decent handycam like the Sony cx130E and make do with my P&S for low light still pics. I wanted to know Whether a DSLR can give the same low light performance of a camcorder, with non blurry videos? I am not interested in the great zooming powers of a camcorder. I know that most people choose a DSLR primarily for still photos and a camcorder for videos but i dont want to carry both! budget is around 30k rs/500$. can get from the US also if needed. Appreciate if any one can clear my doubts. |
|
Originally Posted by rambo1o1
(Post 2638128)
But is the still photography of the A33/35 equal to the Nikon d3100 or canon 550d with stock kit?? I have checked reviews on cameralabs and they dont find the still image quality bad.Its on par with the above mentioned competitors even though it falls in the EVIL category,though they dont mention much about night time performance.I wanted to know if the low light image quality is hampered due to Translucent Mirror Technology? Thanks. |
|
Originally Posted by Ricci
(Post 2638145)
Yes, it is slightly worse in low light as I said compared to pure DSLRs of similar vintage, but the images I did see were quite good , though not the same scene comparison out in the open/real world. The partial reflection does reduce the light available to the sensor but the sensor tech is newer, so it isn't that much of a drawback.You can see the equivalent studio scene at high ISO, it's not that far off from the Canon/Nikon equivalents but I'd say a variety of different scenes is needed to be really sure. For purely stills, I'd still prefer a DSLR, but for those with significant video capture requirement, this fits the bill a little better as video recording is quite a bit better than DSLRs. Sony SLT-A35 Review: 11. Compared to (Higher ISO): Digital Photography Review |
|
Originally Posted by clevermax
(Post 2638199)
A different topic, Today I had Canon 1100D and A35 with me, so tried to test the AWB of Canon and Sony, to see if they differ too much in normal lighting conditions. Recently I had used a D5000 and it had a messed up AWB in daylight, pictures were having a slight green tint - so this experience triggered me to test this out with Canon also. Here are two pictures taken with both using the same settings, and I can't figure out any difference in their tones... 1/5s, ISO200, f/5.6, manul mode, AWB. Both pictures are 25% of their 14MP and 16MP originals. Canon 1100D: Attachment 867516 Sony SLT-A35: Attachment 867517 |
|
Originally Posted by aburagohain
(Post 2638294)
Clever, I can see some difference in the reds, the Canon looks bright red and the Sony going slightly towards burgundy if my sense of colors and names are not mixed up :) Now you only can tell what is the actual tone of red on the cloth please. |
|
Originally Posted by gendarmee
(Post 2637237)
@Aroy thanks for the prompt reply. Picked it up from palika bazaar, found the af-s version. |
|
Originally Posted by aburagohain
(Post 2638294)
Clever, I can see some difference in the reds, the Canon looks bright red and the Sony going slightly towards burgundy if my sense of colors and names are not mixed up Now you only can tell what is the actual tone of red on the cloth please. |
|
Originally Posted by HellwratH
(Post 2638358)
I agree with Abu. But what's interesting is the fact that there's more detail in the shadow part in the one by Sony A35. |
|
Originally Posted by R2D2
(Post 2636874)
I am sure of the filter being a part of the optical formula but not so clear about the exact role it plays in the system. The point I was trying to make is that filters don't really screw up image quality provided as you use good quality multicoated filters. Cheers! |
|
Originally Posted by Torqueguru
(Post 2637425)
It is the only DSLR that gives out an uncompressed full HD HDMI output, which can be recorded using an external recorder, say like the Atmos Ninja. This is going to be a game changer for small production houses and independent film makers/cinematographers and Directors of photography, who uptill now swore by the 5D Mark2 and the 7D. They are great for what they offer, but high amounts of rolling shutter and crappy .h264 compression sometimes got in the way in certain conditions of shooting. The D4 changes all that with uncompressed output and a multitude of features like controlling the camera through an ipad, facial focus tracking in video mode, reduced rolling shutter etc. |
|
Originally Posted by ajay_satpute
(Post 2617968)
Thanks Jaguar. Got the Sanyo Enelopp 4 batteries + Charger for 1100/-. This store is one of the best in Pune for cameras as the owner is extremely knowledgeable person himself. When I asked him which are the best batteries, he says "I only stock Sanyo Eneloop". :) |
|
Originally Posted by Aroy
(Post 2638711)
Whether you shoot movies with DSLR or still with Camcorder, they are still compromises, unless you go for the professional grade DSLR like the upcoming Nikon D4, or movie cameras like RED. Your best bet is to get a dedicated camcorder for video, and keep the P&S for stills, till you need better resolution and dynamic range of DSLR. If you are shooting primarily for pleasure and rarely print more than postcard size, a P&S is more than sufficient. (OK you can get super wides and super telephotos for DSLR, but then it is a different ball game all together) |
|
Originally Posted by gd1418 New addition - if all goes well then tomorrow I get the following: Nikon-300 mm-f/4D. |
|
Originally Posted by rtandon
(Post 2642808)
and that puts you back by? |
|
Originally Posted by wildsdi5530
(Post 2638422)
How much did the 50 prime cost? |
| All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 13:29. | |