# Prices on Digital Camera for Video and Photography?



## SnowfaLL (Feb 20, 2009)

I have always been fascinated with Photography, specifically landscape photography, it was always something I loved yet never took the time to explore, and also the cost of a high quality camera is concerning, but I want to do abit of research now, since school will be out in afew months and I will have afew years to work off my loans before going back to school, so nows the time.

I also have a love for film, on a basic level. I did take some media production classes, and made some short films on a basic camcorder like 6 years ago in that class, I totally forget what type of cam it was, but it was pretty basic I am assuming, due to it being a school cam and we had like 5 of them (in highschool around 2004, so who knows.) 

I am wondering, is it possible to have the best of both worlds, and have something that can do high quality photography, such as landscaping images, while also doing decent video? Good enough that with proper lighting/etc you can have something presentable on a low-budget level (such as recording bands, etc)

How much of a budget would I need to delve into both worlds, as an amateur/non-professional and more-so for personal interest (Although more than someone with a $200 digital camera just taking pics to upload on facebook or such, I actually want to do some framing of images and high quality shots)

Would also prefer using digital/USB rather than actual film, in both cases.


----------



## DarkKnight369 (Feb 23, 2009)

The Canon 5D MKII can do HD video....

Canon EOS 5D Mark II Digital SLR Camera

But you are looking at a high price tag....

Canon | EOS 5D Mark II Digital Camera (Camera Body) | 2764B003

That is without a lens too. Add another $500-$2K just for one decent lens depending on what you want.

Some High End Nikon SLRs can do HD video in addiotion to great pictures as well.


SLR's are not the best application for Video. Its partially because the way the camera works. If you are not aware, SLR stands for Sing lens reflex(reflux?). Basically, you see through the viewfinder because a mirror is reflecting an image. When you go to take a picture, the mirror retracts up to expose the lens. Something along those lines. SLRs don't work like point and shoots. Not all of them have a "live view" where you can see what you are framing through the screen. Some that do don't allow you to focus while in "Live view" mode. So while you may get one that does video, it will not replace having an independent video camera.

My suggestion would be to look at an entry level to mid SLR, like the Canon XSi or 50D. Get that with its default lens in conjunction with the EF-S 10-22mm lens, which is the wide zoom perfect for landscape. You will drop around $2-$2500 on that. Maybe less if you opt for the XSi, and maybe with an extra lens. Once you have that, then look at a video camera. Semi-pro stuff is expensive, so unless you want to drop a couple grand on a video camera, you are limited to the typical consumer stuff. Some of them are quite nice though. You can get a standard wide screen camera for under $400 and a nice HD camera for under $1K.

Getting both independently is probably still cheaper than the 5D MKII.


----------



## Randy (Feb 23, 2009)

Question... you can use film lenses with DSLRs, right?


----------



## SnowfaLL (Feb 23, 2009)

Ive been doing some research and I dunno.. it sucks. I was hoping technology woulda been cheaper now! 

I might buy an entry level DSLR.. like one of the $300-400 Canon's.. then buy a seperate video device.. maybe just a webcam, cause my main priority right at this moment is youtube videos of my guitaring (as lame as it is, it helps with marketing).. so probably that.. But I know I'll always want something better.

If only I didnt have guitars as a hobby, dropping $2k on one wouldnt be too bad.. but when I think that I could get a kick ass custom for the price instead of a DSLR/cam, its where I have issues.


----------



## DarkKnight369 (Feb 24, 2009)

Randy said:


> Question... you can use film lenses with DSLRs, right?



In the case of Canon I believe they do. I believe their film lenses were also EF mounted. Not 100% positive though.



> Ive been doing some research and I dunno.. it sucks. I was hoping technology woulda been cheaper now!
> 
> I might buy an entry level DSLR.. like one of the $300-400 Canon's.. then buy a seperate video device.. maybe just a webcam, cause my main priority right at this moment is youtube videos of my guitaring (as lame as it is, it helps with marketing).. so probably that.. But I know I'll always want something better.
> 
> If only I didnt have guitars as a hobby, dropping $2k on one wouldnt be too bad.. but when I think that I could get a kick ass custom for the price instead of a DSLR/cam, its where I have issues.



I record all my youtube vids with the built in web cam and built in mic of my MacBook Pro.

Honeslty, if you are going to get a DSLR, I would opt for he XSi. The XS, and XTi aren't bad, but the XSi has more room to grow with. They have some good package deals where you get the kit lens and a descent zoom lens for a resonable price. What will kill you no matter what is the wide angle lens for landscape photography. I like to shoot landscape as well, and I have been wanting that lens but holding off because its $700.


----------



## Randy (Feb 24, 2009)

If I were to go Nikon D series... what model(s) should I be looking at? I never understood their system numerical system, because some higher numbers are better then the lower, but some are... or something...?


----------



## DarkKnight369 (Feb 24, 2009)

No idea to tell you the truth. I have always been a Canon man.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Feb 28, 2009)

Randy said:


> If I were to go Nikon D series... what model(s) should I be looking at? I never understood their system numerical system, because some higher numbers are better then the lower, but some are... or something...?



The Nikon D90 is held in quite high regard.


----------



## tian (Feb 28, 2009)

^ +1 

I've always shoot Canon and probably always will because of their superior lens selection, but I've only heard good things about the D90.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Mar 2, 2009)

tian said:


> ^ +1
> 
> I've always shoot Canon and probably always will because of their superior lens selection, but I've only heard good things about the D90.



Same, a 400D is a better choice IMO.


----------



## hufschmid (May 12, 2009)

For all of my photography work and also all the pictures on my website, i'm using my mobile phone....

Samsung SGH G800, nothing fancy, 5mega pixels, perfect iso, and regular digital camera options.... 

Incredible quality, very impressive, enough to have a professional photographer ask to you which Nikon you have been using to take a snap 

It happened twice to me 







http://www.samsung.com/ch-fr/products/mobilephones/mobilephones/bsgh_g800.asp


----------



## daemon barbeque (May 19, 2009)

Forget about the d90. The video pictures moves slower than teh camera.
Get a Sony HX-1. It's a very interesting camera with a very new landsape/panorama feature.
And it makes decent HD videos.


----------

