knicksfan77 — 2008-12-19T15:10:55-05:00 — #1
What professional digital camera would you recommend for someone wanting to print professional images? Also, what lenses, lighting are most necessary?
bluearrow — 2010-06-02T04:45:10-04:00 — #2
Canon 50D is a great Semi Professional camera. My friend have one and I'm thinking about buying a 50D. Since I love wild life photography I ll need telephoto lens. at least a 800mm one.
But If you are new or don;t want to spend too much you can go for a Canon G11 or Canon SX20 IS. with G11 you can use lenses but SX20 has a fixed 28-560 Lens. Both cameras are less heavy than those big DSLR camera and cheaper too.
Photography can be really expensive hobby !
spartinman — 2010-05-27T16:08:48-04:00 — #3
Nikon and Canon are still leading the industry. I would say for beginners who do not have a lot of money to spend get a Nikon D40, D3000. If you want more to play with then start with a Canon EOS T2i or XSi. These are good entry level cameras. If you want even more then go with a Canon 50D or Nikon D5000. Do you want HD video?? what type of images are you going to take? all of this matters!
webdesigngold — 2008-12-20T08:25:57-05:00 — #4
Maybe you need to tell us more about your budget, size of your prints..
I'm a fan of Nikon and would recommend D300 or the cheaper D80. But I've also heard good things about Canon Eos 50D which has 15 megapixels.
Here's a resource that may be of help.
sperlock — 2008-12-22T11:24:11-05:00 — #5
For lenses, it will also depend on what you want to take pictures of as well as your budget.
jonbey — 2008-12-22T11:34:01-05:00 — #6
Lenses should be fixed focal length (i.e. not zoom) as you get better qaulity for your money. Then any higher range DSLR would be OK. Generally the more the better. I use a Canon 20D which is still doing me fine after several years. Reliable camera. Get the latest photo mag, and read up on the reviews. Lenses vary a lot, I use a Sigma 1.4 30mm (effective focal length just short of 50mm with a 1.6 conversion factor in the DSLR). Good all round lens.
will_dr — 2008-12-24T08:08:10-05:00 — #7
Where are your images going to be used? How large will they be used? What's your budget?
You mentioned lighting... Will you be studio based or are you referring to flashguns perhaps?
What will be your subject matter? Having us suggest wide-angle lenses when you're wanting to shoot sport from hundreds of metres away isn't going to help you at all!
More info, please!
system — 2009-01-15T21:32:13-05:00 — #8
Try Canon EOS 50D. I love it!
and5rey — 2009-01-16T05:14:45-05:00 — #9
I heard Lumix Panasonic are good ones. My brother has one. However, as for me I'm fine with my Sony Ericsson D750i 2.0 megapixel camera.
antirem — 2009-01-16T13:16:30-05:00 — #10
I really like my rebel xti.. if your going to spend money on a camera make sure you have 300ish to spend on a lens as well or else there is not much point.
I like it because when I upgrade to a newer body Ill have all my old lenses.
technik_frauen — 2009-01-17T01:38:52-05:00 — #11
For starter and bang for the buck. I recommend Nikon D40.:)
mantti — 2009-01-17T02:45:40-05:00 — #12
One more vote for Canon EOS series. What lenses you need depends on what kind of objects do you shoot. Flowers? Athletes? Birds? They all need different lenses for the best result.
newguru — 2009-02-09T10:36:53-05:00 — #13
Professionals - won't use digital one
will_dr — 2009-02-09T13:27:52-05:00 — #14
That post made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Are you suggesting that professional photographers won't use digital cameras? Complete sentences, please, so we can put your opinion in its intended context.
naijaecash — 2009-05-01T19:13:59-04:00 — #15
Rebel is what I consider as starting point. Then I'll invest in lenses that I can still use even when I upgrade the body.
webmaster5 — 2009-05-01T20:52:18-04:00 — #16
I personally like Canon also, and have very good experience with it.
Although like many people above mentioned a lot depends on your budget and usage
(How you plan on using it, and under what conditions).
shaun — 2009-05-04T20:22:56-04:00 — #17
You're going to get as many answers as there are people in this forum. Here's mine...
In photography, lighting matters much more than your camera. An el cheapo compact camera like a Powershot or Coolpix, can, with proper lighting (and maybe a tripod), give you results indistinguishable from a quote-unquote "professional" camera.
Some of those compact cameras offer resolutions as high as 8 or 10 megapixels... large enough for quality prints.
The reason for going for an SLR is to have full control over your depth of field and access to the wider array of lenses, filters, strobes, etc. But all of those things will begin to cost you more and more money, so it's usually best to purchase at your level and work your way up as you need (or want) to.
In compact cameras, I like Canon's Powershot, because it offers a full manual mode. This means that I can put the camera on my tripod and use natural light, no matter how dark, to get properly exposed photographs (by using longer shutter-speeds). OR, I can use desk-lamps and whatever else is around to compose my shot.
In SLR's, I use a Nikon D80. This is an entry level, "amateur" camera, though as I said, your camera matters much less than your lighting. With proper lighting I've been getting great results so far, and as I learn more about white-balance and composition, my photographs have been getting better and better. All that without the zillion dollar, high-end cam.
shaun — 2009-05-04T20:31:15-04:00 — #18
A "compact camera" by the way, is one of those all-in-one, point-and-shooter type cameras. The lens and flash are built-in to the body, and usually there's an LCD screen at the back where you look to compose your shot.
Here's a good example of what a compact camera looks like.
An "SLR" or "Single Lens Reflex" is one of those fancy-dangle, larger cameras. The lenses are separate to the camera body and sold separately. This will cost you more money of course, but allow you to purchase only lenses you need and lenses that fit your budget. You can also attach external flashes or studio-strobes to SLR's, plus the whole, wide array of accessories like remote controls and power-packs, etc.
Here's a good example of an SLR.
shaun — 2009-05-04T20:46:10-04:00 — #19
Realistically, the only times these days when film cameras may beat digital cameras will be for gigantic prints, like building-size. With those enormous sizes, nothing beats a film transparency... so far !
4" x 5" format cams or modern Twin Lens Reflex, for example.
But digital cameras are catching up fast, and soon enough film will be replaced, just as CD's replaced VHS cassettes.
Did you know there's a 160 megapixel cam out there ?
enyasmith — 2009-05-05T01:27:45-04:00 — #20
I am satisfied with my camera - canon digital camera
next page →