[clevermax]

Originally Posted by rambo1o1

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

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

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

I'd recommend a full fledged camcoder if your video shooting needs are of importance. in low-mid range interchangeale lens still cameras, SLT will be a better choice than SLR due to its fast AF during video shooting.

I have posted couple of sample HD videos off my A35 some pages back - you can check them out.

Image quality of A35 is not bad because it has a Translucent mirror. In fact, it gives very good image quality till ISO 800. Surprisingly, A35's raw images have less noise than A77's. I find Canon's NR processing to be better than Sony's, in lower end cams - images turn out slightly softer but there are no artifacts. In Sony, slightly more aggressive NR, and that results in some artifacts, noticeable in 100% size. LCD panel at the back - there's no comparison. 1100D's crappy Vs. Sony's wider higher resolution tru black one that is...

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:


Sony SLT-A35:

[aburagohain]

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.

[HellwratH]

Originally Posted by clevermax

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

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.

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.

[wildsdi5530]

Originally Posted by gendarmee

@Aroy thanks for the prompt reply. Picked it up from palika bazaar, found the af-s version.

How much did the 50 prime cost?

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by aburagohain

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.

Yes, true.. but barely noticeable in my monitor. The actual reds I can see there directly are more close to the reds seen in A35's picture.

Originally Posted by HellwratH

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.

In reviews they say that with this new 16mp sensor, the camera captures more dynamic range. It was evident in another sample shot I did, unfortunately deleted those images.


Couple of more shots, this time different settings, same subject. This is to show the better noise reduction in Canon at the expense of sharpness

Canon 1100D, ISO400, f/5, 1/125, 34mm, AWB
No idea why the picture turned out really warm

100% crop, smooth & softer image


Sony A35, ISO 800, f/6.3, 1/125, 55mm, AWB

100% crop, sharper but notice the artifacts

Shooting raw and applying NR using a well known noise reduction plug in in PS will produce really good results.

[Aroy]

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)

[aburagohain]

Thanks for clarifying the color Clever, even I was feeling the bedsheet red color would most probably be burgundy (?) and not the bright red going by common designs and prints we see so often at the merchants'

Dynamic range seems to be better as HW pointed out.

[pillainp]

My kit so far:

Main Actors:
1) Canon EOS 60D (bought as kit with 18-55 IS II)
2) Canon EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
3) Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS II (Thinking about a Tamron 70-300 VC or the Canon 70-300 IS/L [funds permitting], although the 55-250 is nearly unbeatable for the price)
4) Canon Speedlite 430EX II (powered by Sanyo Eneloop XX 2500 mAh AA cells, which are doing a beautiful job)
5) Black Rapid RS-5
6) Tamrac 5564 Explorer 400 Camera Bag
7) Slik F-740 Tripod (To be replaced by Manfrotto 190XPROB/055XPROB + 498RC2/4)
8) Meike MK-60D Battery grip with 2x Opteka 240mAh battery packs.

Extras:
1) Canon SX20 IS
2) Sunpak PZ42X
3) Tamrac 3345 Camera Bag

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by R2D2

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!

Good filters don`t impact IQ, Bad filters highly impact IQ, All filters impact Focus scale, In few cases even good filters act as the straw that breaks camels back.

Originally Posted by Torqueguru

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.

I am awaiting to try HyperDeck Shuttle with D4 when it ships. Will be good to have something portable to replace F3.

Also cinedeck has announced it will be fully compatible with D4, both Raid5 storage of couple of SSD`s and Full control for D4.

Good times coming, no more messing around with Ex1/Ex3

[ajay_satpute]

Originally Posted by ajay_satpute

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".

Ok. Agreed. Sanyo Enelope are really really really long lasting. When we set out for our 3 day trip(last week of Dec'11), I had charged the 4 batteries throughout the night before. And they are still running. I mean I used the batteries during all the 3 days of the trip (took 452 pics) and yesterday I took out the camera to shoot the moon and damn, the battery is still running fine.

Thanks to all who suggested Sanyo Enelope.

[rambo1o1]

Originally Posted by Aroy

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)

Will get a canon vixia hf m40 from the US. it seem to be way better in low light capabilities, compared to the Sony hdr cx160! but has a 10x zoom only. i will get a proper DSLR later for good stills, for now i will make do with my P&S.

[gd1418]

New addition - if all goes well then tomorrow I get the following:

Nikon-300 mm-f/4D-AF-S



Nikon-TC-14E-II-AF-S-Teleconverter



I've heard a strong rumour that TC-14E III has been launched. A search yielded nothing. My supplier says he is trying to get one for me. Let us see. Tomorrow is another day.

[rtandon]

Originally Posted by gd1418

New addition - if all goes well then tomorrow I get the following:

Nikon-300 mm-f/4D.

and that puts you back by?
Edit: hope you don't mind answering that.

[gd1418]

And that (both items included) puts me back by 76K but puts me forward to 600 mm at f/5.6

Originally Posted by rtandon

and that puts you back by?

[gendarmee]

Originally Posted by wildsdi5530

How much did the 50 prime cost?

It cost 12K. I didn't try to bargain b/c i needed it asap.
Though, the TTL view looks better with the film SLR. I find it much more usable indoors with the F100. Surprisingly, the AF works too.