Any pro's out there using prosumer digital cxameras?

[Mike Coates]

The reason I ask, is that I love digital photography, but I am a poor college student. A digital SLR is out of my price range right now. However, I could afford a 4 or 5 mp point and shoot camera (such as the 717, or the very intriguing panasonic fz10). I am currently shooting for a car magazine as well as doing a lot of TFP with models. I think that in the long run, going digital could save me a lot of money in terms of film and developing. Plus I think it would be a great learning tool, as you can see your results instantly. As far as shooting for the magazine goes; a few friends of mine and I started it up, so I will not have to worry about clearing my camera choice with anyone. As long as I continue to take quality pictures, I can use whatever I want. The magazine is mostly cars and models, so my subjects will be fairly stationary, and if they do move too fast, I have a good film SLR I can use. I am sorry this post is so long. I just wanted to give you some background, so you will know the cameras intended use. Basically I just want to know if there are any pros using these types of cameras and what their results are. Thanks to anyone who responds.

Thanks
Mike

 

[Jim Comeau]

im a poor college student too... well not totally, but i bought a 10D cuz i shoot like crazy and the cost of film and processing was getting way out of hand, i suggest getting a digital rebel or maybe an old d30 or something and decent lens... it will pay for itself over time, and im talking a few months, not years

Jim..
fellow college student

The reason I ask, is that I love digital photography, but I am a
poor college student. A digital SLR is out of my price range right
now. However, I could afford a 4 or 5 mp point and shoot camera
(such as the 717, or the very intriguing panasonic fz10). I am
currently shooting for a car magazine as well as doing a lot of TFP
with models. I think that in the long run, going digital could save
me a lot of money in terms of film and developing. Plus I think it
would be a great learning tool, as you can see your results
instantly. As far as shooting for the magazine goes; a few friends
of mine and I started it up, so I will not have to worry about
clearing my camera choice with anyone. As long as I continue to
take quality pictures, I can use whatever I want. The magazine is
mostly cars and models, so my subjects will be fairly stationary,
and if they do move too fast, I have a good film SLR I can use. I
am sorry this post is so long. I just wanted to give you some
background, so you will know the cameras intended use. Basically I
just want to know if there are any pros using these types of
cameras and what their results are. Thanks to anyone who responds.

Thanks
Mike

--
i wonder what da Vinci would have done with a camera

 

[Chris Gannon]

Of course you can use a good digicam. In fact, if you get one with an electronic viewfinder, this can be better than a DSLR as you can get instant playback in the viewfinder without having to lower the camera and check the LCD screen.

As your work is with a magazine you founded, who cares what you use.

Main disadvantage of digicam is usually much more noise if you go to higher asa levels, slower response (sometimes), and poorer focussing in low light.

Big advantage of DSLR is that it makes you look like a "pro"

FWIW I mostly use a Nikon 5700- small, light, and very versatile- however am at an age when I really don't like carrying round a bigger heavier camera and that box of lenses which you take just because you have them!

The new rebel might be just the thing- but all pros like to have black cameras!
--
Chris
http://www.oxfordphotography.co.uk

 

[uk102]

Hi,

What? You can afford a PC,DLSR,Printer, Media card .... = $5000'ish. Compared to $400 for a good camera & $10 per 36 shots inc. prints.

I have to say I total agree with you, NOT! To attempt to say that DSLR are cheaper than Film is simply not true. I agree there websites and mags attempting to fool otherwise. I guess there maybe a few high volume Pro that can do so, but 90% are paying extra to be Digital.

A basic film Pro kit only Top Canon/Nikon lens is ~$5000 compared to $10,000 digital. The film camera holds it money well about 70% after about 3 yrs easy. The DSLR & Computer after about 3 yrs would be $5000, while the film kit would be around $3500.

In short your running cost are around $500 per year + developing for film and $1666 for Digital + printing. Thats 166x36 = 6000 prints and thats before you take into account digitals printing costs.

Print on a laser would be cheaper than a lab developing film (a good pro lab). The Digital camera requires some time printing & post production. So you invest your time rather than a labs. You decide which is better or cheaper.

The reason I went digital is that Digital allows me to do post production for a reasable cost, that something film can't do. I simply don't want to send stuff to lab.

The other reason you might also go digital is that all your work is for digital based viewing, Scanning film looses some in the process and it's costly for decent scans.

I also think the results upto 10x8 are much better from digital (6mp camera). After that things start going down hill. The question be how often do you print above 10x8?

My standard print size with digital is 10x8. I only print small as an exception, not a rule.

I sure there loads who will try & shot my view down in flames, but you work it out for your self!
Alex

Jim..
fellow college student

The reason I ask, is that I love digital photography, but I am a
poor college student. A digital SLR is out of my price range right
now. However, I could afford a 4 or 5 mp point and shoot camera
(such as the 717, or the very intriguing panasonic fz10). I am
currently shooting for a car magazine as well as doing a lot of TFP
with models. I think that in the long run, going digital could save
me a lot of money in terms of film and developing. Plus I think it
would be a great learning tool, as you can see your results
instantly. As far as shooting for the magazine goes; a few friends
of mine and I started it up, so I will not have to worry about
clearing my camera choice with anyone. As long as I continue to
take quality pictures, I can use whatever I want. The magazine is
mostly cars and models, so my subjects will be fairly stationary,
and if they do move too fast, I have a good film SLR I can use. I
am sorry this post is so long. I just wanted to give you some
background, so you will know the cameras intended use. Basically I
just want to know if there are any pros using these types of
cameras and what their results are. Thanks to anyone who responds.

Thanks
Mike

--
i wonder what da Vinci would have done with a camera

 

[Barrie Davis]

Basically I
just want to know if there are any pros using these types of
cameras and what their results are. Thanks to anyone who responds.

Thanks
Mike

--
Hi Mike,

Yup. I am a pro and I have been using Minolta Dimage 7 for 18 months.

5 MP and a 28-200 zoom that is very sharp. In that time ALL work has been done with the D7 bar one job.

I have been shooting pictures professionally for (ahem) 40 years, and know all film formats intimately, including the larger sizes of sheet film which no-one uses anymore.

For the kind of work I do the tiny Dimage 7 has been able to replace all the other gear, and frankly I was amazed that it could. It was only ever meant to be a 'toe in the digital water', and a tool for learning the new techniques, but it has turned out to be so much more than that.

The reason I can get away with such a modest, relatively cheap, camera?

1) Most of my pictures go for repro at about magazine page size or smaller, and 5 MP is JUST adequate at the larger end of that range.

2) Most of my pictures are studio or location set-ups with lighting, and the slight shutter lag is not much of a problem. (I use an el-cheapo LCD TV as a monitor to show the client the shots. Faster and simpler than a laptop. Correct lead comes with camera.)

I wouldn't recommend the D7 for rapid action shooting like sports. Can be done, but it's hard. The new A1 is supposed to be much better for action, and has an effective anti-shake device built in.

I have stopped apologising for the silver colour and small size of my tiny photo-device. If it was "Barbie Pink" I'd still take it to the job! It's the pictures that matter, and the D7 is the most flexible and competent camera I have ever owned. Almost everything is built in. Flash, macro, pixel perfect framing, live histogram, tilting veiwfinder, takes screw in filters, shoots RAW. It even makes movies, but I have never used that.

Yes, I expect to upgrade to a more 'professional' camera, probably a Nikon compatible, because that's a system I'm experienced with. But I shall still keep the little D7 as back-up, and for those things it does better.

Final point: For decades the Hasselblad was considered the mark of a professional. Before that it was the Rollieflex. BOTH were specifically designed as easy-use cameras for amatuers......

Regards,
Baz

 

[David M.]

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the 10D IS a consumer camera.

Jim..
fellow college student

The reason I ask, is that I love digital photography, but I am a
poor college student. A digital SLR is out of my price range right
now. However, I could afford a 4 or 5 mp point and shoot camera
(such as the 717, or the very intriguing panasonic fz10). I am
currently shooting for a car magazine as well as doing a lot of TFP
with models. I think that in the long run, going digital could save
me a lot of money in terms of film and developing. Plus I think it
would be a great learning tool, as you can see your results
instantly. As far as shooting for the magazine goes; a few friends
of mine and I started it up, so I will not have to worry about
clearing my camera choice with anyone. As long as I continue to
take quality pictures, I can use whatever I want. The magazine is
mostly cars and models, so my subjects will be fairly stationary,
and if they do move too fast, I have a good film SLR I can use. I
am sorry this post is so long. I just wanted to give you some
background, so you will know the cameras intended use. Basically I
just want to know if there are any pros using these types of
cameras and what their results are. Thanks to anyone who responds.

Thanks
Mike

--
i wonder what da Vinci would have done with a camera

--
'Functionless art is simply tolerated vandalism.' --Peter Steele

 

[lew pj]

dimage 7 is fine for action and excellent value for money. its what you do with it...

http://www.pbase.com/image/14842643

--
Lewis w

 

[uk102]

Hi,
And of course used by many Pro too!
Alex

Jim..
fellow college student

The reason I ask, is that I love digital photography, but I am a
poor college student. A digital SLR is out of my price range right
now. However, I could afford a 4 or 5 mp point and shoot camera
(such as the 717, or the very intriguing panasonic fz10). I am
currently shooting for a car magazine as well as doing a lot of TFP
with models. I think that in the long run, going digital could save
me a lot of money in terms of film and developing. Plus I think it
would be a great learning tool, as you can see your results
instantly. As far as shooting for the magazine goes; a few friends
of mine and I started it up, so I will not have to worry about
clearing my camera choice with anyone. As long as I continue to
take quality pictures, I can use whatever I want. The magazine is
mostly cars and models, so my subjects will be fairly stationary,
and if they do move too fast, I have a good film SLR I can use. I
am sorry this post is so long. I just wanted to give you some
background, so you will know the cameras intended use. Basically I
just want to know if there are any pros using these types of
cameras and what their results are. Thanks to anyone who responds.

Thanks
Mike

--
i wonder what da Vinci would have done with a camera

--
'Functionless art is simply tolerated vandalism.' --Peter Steele

 

[Icypeak]

I do landscape, nature, and wildlife photography (not my full time job). Switched from 35mm film to a Minolta D7 when it first came out ($1400 for the original at the time), and had good success with it. For images printed at larger size, I made multi-shot panoramas or mosaics to improve the resolution. I've since moved on to the Canon 10D, and may get a 1Ds at some point, but still get many great comments about images made from the Dimage 7 at art shows, and have sold one of them for a billboard shot as well! A few of them have been in magazines as well. For the price of the new A1, I'd consider it, but also the Canon 300D (digital Rebel).

Basically I
just want to know if there are any pros using these types of
cameras and what their results are. Thanks to anyone who responds.

Thanks
Mike

--
Hi Mike,

Yup. I am a pro and I have been using Minolta Dimage 7 for 18 months.
5 MP and a 28-200 zoom that is very sharp. In that time ALL work
has been done with the D7 bar one job.

I have been shooting pictures professionally for (ahem) 40 years,
and know all film formats intimately, including the larger sizes of
sheet film which no-one uses anymore.

For the kind of work I do the tiny Dimage 7 has been able to
replace all the other gear, and frankly I was amazed that it could.
It was only ever meant to be a 'toe in the digital water', and a
tool for learning the new techniques, but it has turned out to be
so much more than that.

The reason I can get away with such a modest, relatively cheap,
camera?

1) Most of my pictures go for repro at about magazine page size or
smaller, and 5 MP is JUST adequate at the larger end of that range.

2) Most of my pictures are studio or location set-ups with
lighting, and the slight shutter lag is not much of a problem. (I
use an el-cheapo LCD TV as a monitor to show the client the shots.
Faster and simpler than a laptop. Correct lead comes with camera.)

I wouldn't recommend the D7 for rapid action shooting like sports.
Can be done, but it's hard. The new A1 is supposed to be much
better for action, and has an effective anti-shake device built in.

I have stopped apologising for the silver colour and small size of
my tiny photo-device. If it was "Barbie Pink" I'd still take it to
the job! It's the pictures that matter, and the D7 is the most
flexible and competent camera I have ever owned. Almost everything
is built in. Flash, macro, pixel perfect framing, live histogram,
tilting veiwfinder, takes screw in filters, shoots RAW. It even
makes movies, but I have never used that.

Yes, I expect to upgrade to a more 'professional' camera, probably
a Nikon compatible, because that's a system I'm experienced with.
But I shall still keep the little D7 as back-up, and for those
things it does better.

Final point: For decades the Hasselblad was considered the mark of
a professional. Before that it was the Rollieflex. BOTH were
specifically designed as easy-use cameras for amatuers......

Regards,
Baz

--
David



http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/home?userid= {F351C88E-FEF7-4892-9F30-9FD2DDD1593C}&tio=0tio=0&st=he&GUID={0AB0EAE9-1AF7-41AE-966B-588570432D96}&sent=stored

 

[Daniel Bell]

Main disadvantage of digicam is usually much more noise if you go
to higher asa levels, slower response (sometimes), and poorer
focussing in low light.

The fact that there is more noise is often by result of the sensor being smaller. I also find that most prosumer digicam lenses are not as sharp or free from optical flaws (chromatic abberation, rectilinear distortion) as top-grade SLR lenses. Prosumer cameras tend to have longer shutter lags and less ergonomically-sound manual controls. There ARE some very good all-in-one cameras/lenses out there, you'll just have to try them for yourself and see if the lenses are good enough for you and whether or not the controls meet your requirements.

Big advantage of DSLR is that it makes you look like a "pro"

The big advantage of a DSLR is that it has interchangeable lenses. I don't care in the least what I look like when I'm shooting. Believe me, if I could stop hauling a bag full of heavy glass around with me, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Appearence MAY matter to some clients or potential clients (who expect to see SLRs for the same reason that prospective employers expect you to show up for an interview in a suit: because they have preconcieved ideas about what's "professional"). For what the original poster is interested in, I doubt if appearance matters a whole lot.

however am at an age when I really don't like carrying round a
bigger heavier camera and that box of lenses which you take just
because you have them!

Frankly, the condition of my back is such that I leave home the lenses that I rarely use. Even so, my bag usually leaves the house with the body, extra batteries and memory and three or four lenses in it (generally two fast primes and two slower zooms).

For what you're doing, it sounds like a reasonably high-end prosumer camera could be sufficient. However, I wouldn't rule out used DSLRs. Some of them are excellent values for the money and you could get a very cheap but very good 50mm lens for such a camera, which would be sufficient to get started. If you're serious about photography, that might be a better investment than an all-in-one camera that you might quickly outgrow.

 

[padeye99656]

Barrie, I think you may be in the minority using a D7 professionally. I make a few bucks with mine but I'm nowhere near quitting my day job.

Don't get me wrong, it's a decent camera and does a lot of things well but IMO the atrocious autofocus and huge wait to write a raw file make it a poor choice. I do some portraiture with mine and I've learned to distrust manual focus due to the low resolution EVF and having to wait 25+ seconds between shots makes it very tedious to shoot portraits. I'm moving to a DSLR by year's end.

If I was considering a high end consumer camera today I'd take a long look at the Dimage A1 and Sony F828. The A1 seems to have addressed the major shortcomings of the A1 and the F828 looks like it was designed specifically to compete with the D7's specifications. No way would I pay $1,000 for either camera. I paid less than $800 for my D7 and thiink that's more reasonable. I expect there will be some hot price wars leading up to Christmas in part due to the Digirebel.

 

[David M.]

Yes, it is used by some "pros". That does'nt make it a professional model camera.

Jim..
fellow college student

The reason I ask, is that I love digital photography, but I am a
poor college student. A digital SLR is out of my price range right
now. However, I could afford a 4 or 5 mp point and shoot camera
(such as the 717, or the very intriguing panasonic fz10). I am
currently shooting for a car magazine as well as doing a lot of TFP
with models. I think that in the long run, going digital could save
me a lot of money in terms of film and developing. Plus I think it
would be a great learning tool, as you can see your results
instantly. As far as shooting for the magazine goes; a few friends
of mine and I started it up, so I will not have to worry about
clearing my camera choice with anyone. As long as I continue to
take quality pictures, I can use whatever I want. The magazine is
mostly cars and models, so my subjects will be fairly stationary,
and if they do move too fast, I have a good film SLR I can use. I
am sorry this post is so long. I just wanted to give you some
background, so you will know the cameras intended use. Basically I
just want to know if there are any pros using these types of
cameras and what their results are. Thanks to anyone who responds.

Thanks
Mike

--
i wonder what da Vinci would have done with a camera

--
'Functionless art is simply tolerated vandalism.' --Peter Steele

--
'Functionless art is simply tolerated vandalism.' --Peter Steele

 

[padeye99656]

Yes, it is used by some "pros". That does'nt make it a
professional model camera.

No, only how it is used makes it a professional camera. The best camera in the world won't turn a hack into a pro and a skilled pro can take good pictures with just about any camera.

 

[Obscura]

I used a Nikon Coolpix 5700 for a few shoots... It made me enough money to buy a Sigma SD9.

 

[Mike Coates]

First off, I would like to thank everyone who responded. I like the idea of possibly purchasing a used digital SLR, however, the only one that seems to be in my price range is the Canon D30. This seems to be a good camera and I would consider buying one for the right price. But the only thing that worries me is that it is only 3mp. Will this be enough pixels to publish a full page picture in a magazine. We need 300dpi at the intended picture size. And according to my calculations there is not enough resolution to print an 8.5 by 11, from 3mp. Any opinions on this camera and whether it has enough resolution for my purposes, would be greatly appreciated.

One more thing to UK:
My math is not the best, but-
12rolls film + processing= approx $100 x approx 6 shoots/year=$600

I will also be shooting an aditional 4 to 10 rolls per month for test shoots and model and car shoots. So average 7 rolls/month=approx $60/month x 12 months= $720/year + $600 (from major car events)= $1320/year.
After developing all these images will be digitized anyways.

If I shoot digitally I can completely cut out the cost of film and developing. That leaves the only expense at CD purchasing. So subtract the $1320/year from the cost of a case of CD's, $10, and you get a savings of $1310/year. Seems like a lot to me.

Now I know the camera and memory and accessories will have an initial cost. However, saving money was only part of the reason for going digital. I was planning on going digital one day anyways. So I am still saving $1310/year.

Thanks
Mike

 

[Icypeak]

The D30 is plenty good for magazine resolution. Don't be fooled by the MP, as a larger sensor 3MP will out-perform a samll-sensor 5MP (and possible an 8MP) any day, with greater dynamic range, and less noise.

First off, I would like to thank everyone who responded. I like the
idea of possibly purchasing a used digital SLR, however, the only
one that seems to be in my price range is the Canon D30. This seems
to be a good camera and I would consider buying one for the right
price. But the only thing that worries me is that it is only 3mp.
Will this be enough pixels to publish a full page picture in a
magazine. We need 300dpi at the intended picture size. And
according to my calculations there is not enough resolution to
print an 8.5 by 11, from 3mp. Any opinions on this camera and
whether it has enough resolution for my purposes, would be greatly
appreciated.

One more thing to UK:
My math is not the best, but-
12rolls film + processing= approx $100 x approx 6 shoots/year=$600
I will also be shooting an aditional 4 to 10 rolls per month for
test shoots and model and car shoots. So average 7
rolls/month=approx $60/month x 12 months= $720/year + $600 (from
major car events)= $1320/year.
After developing all these images will be digitized anyways.

If I shoot digitally I can completely cut out the cost of film and
developing. That leaves the only expense at CD purchasing. So
subtract the $1320/year from the cost of a case of CD's, $10, and
you get a savings of $1310/year. Seems like a lot to me.
Now I know the camera and memory and accessories will have an
initial cost. However, saving money was only part of the reason for
going digital. I was planning on going digital one day anyways. So
I am still saving $1310/year.

Thanks
Mike

--
David



http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/home?userid= {F351C88E-FEF7-4892-9F30-9FD2DDD1593C}&tio=0tio=0&st=he&GUID={0AB0EAE9-1AF7-41AE-966B-588570432D96}&sent=stored

 

[Daniel Bell]

First off, I would like to thank everyone who responded. I like the
idea of possibly purchasing a used digital SLR, however, the only
one that seems to be in my price range is the Canon D30. This seems
to be a good camera and I would consider buying one for the right
price. But the only thing that worries me is that it is only 3mp.

For a similar amount of money, you can also pick up a Fuji S1 if you prefer Nikon-mount lenses. That camera is either 6mp or 3mp depending on who you talk to (long story...). My personal opinion is that the quality of 6mp captures from that camera is superior to what you get if you shoot at 3mp and interpolate up (using Photoshop or whatever tool you prefer), but I'm really not interested in having a flame war on that subject .

I am NOT advocating any particular system; I'm just pointing out what can be had for a similar amount of money.

 

[Doug Brown]

Last week with the E10 in the studio with Spain's master flamenco dancer, Domingo Ortega ...



... and at the World Road Cycling Championship in Hamilton ....





The E10 has it's limitations with a slow buffer, slow frame rate, not the most instantaneous focusing, yet amongst the world's press at the World Cycling Championship it seemed every second photographer I talked to had owned one at some point and most still thought very highly of the camera. (One guy with a D1 swore up and down the Olympus was miles ahead of his Nikon in terms of colour balancing) Also, many had used it well beyond it's prosumer 'limitations'.

Very solid metal body, good apochromatic lens, and very nice colour rendition, full range of manual settings, sync terminal.
On Ebay they are going for under $600 some days.

Regards,

Doug B
Torontowide.com

 

[Barrie Davis]

Barrie, I think you may be in the minority using a D7
professionally. I make a few bucks with mine but I'm nowhere near
quitting my day job.

Don't get me wrong, it's a decent camera and does a lot of things
well but IMO the atrocious autofocus and huge wait to write a raw
file make it a poor choice. I do some portraiture with mine and
I've learned to distrust manual focus due to the low resolution EVF
and having to wait 25+ seconds between shots makes it very tedious
to shoot portraits. I'm moving to a DSLR by year's end.

Hi padeye,

I'm not saying the D7 has no shortcomings. But the faults are not important for my work.

Yeah, the Tiff and RAW write speed is painfully slow, but I don't bother with Tiff or RAW for people pix. I'm not a portraitist (thank God!) and for the web or mugshots "Fine" is, er, just 'Fine'! Certainly I'm ready to shoot again as soon as the studio flash has recycled, so quicker wouldn't be that much better.

The D7 has "slow" autofocus? Hmmm maybe, although I haven't had any serious innacuracies, as have been discussed on these fora. But the D7 is my first ever camera with any kind of an AF facility, so I can't really compare it with anything else. For most of my studio shooting I focus manually anyhow. The square button Mag feature goes a long way to making manual easier, too.

When I do use Tiff and Raw the wait is tiresome, but nothing like as long a delay as turning the slide on 5x4". What with all the business of replacing the sheath, turning the slide, cocking the shutter, adjusting the aperture, pulling the sheath, waiting for the camera to settle, and THEN shooting.

It all depends on what you call "slow", and what you are used to. Rollfilm in a 5x4 is even slower than darkslides; rollfilm/5x4 was what I was using most before the D7 came into my life.

In short, I have been impressed by what the camera CAN do, and how well it can do it, rather than whinging on about how much it isn't a high performance beastie like an F5.

I go back a long way. The first professional camera I was supplied with, and required to get 'repro quality' colour pictures from, was a mahogany Whole Plate camera with a brass lens, and NO shutter at all. We used to expose the same way the Victorians did, by taking the lens cap off and counting. I did pictures of people hanging wallpaper like that!

Perhaps, therefore, I have a different slant on what makes a 'good' camera!

Regards,
Baz

 

[Barrie Davis]

not "Quite"