digital camera's - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: siliconmix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2012, 10:48:21 am
content: i've been thinking, with the amount of digital cameras out there world wide there would be more photo's of ufo's , ghosts other phenomena.here in wales we have had reports of big cats roaming around.there's been photo's of unusual kill techniques as opposed to the normal dogs and foxes.i'm not saying a big cat could,t live here in damp wales but you'd there'd be a photo or two.even from a not so good mobile camera.

author: entereev
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2012, 01:20:46 pm
content: digicams suck in dark environments, they really do.

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2012, 03:42:55 pm
content: Quote from: entereev on March 20, 2012, 01:20:46 pmIf you are talking about a 200$ segment camera , yes , it's intentionally done so .But even placing 800$ on a D3100 can net you so much , ( it's basically really all you need ) , it has a really clear definition in it's pictures .No noise , no chromatic abberation , really , don't be a tight arse and spend just 200$ on a camera , well , for a videocam the Xacti that DJ is using is the best quality for any videocam price region ! Well , except for those multi-thousand dollar cams .

author: harnon
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2012, 05:24:46 pm
content: I think the problem is taking photos of UFO's, secret big cats etc requires you to use a digital camera AND photoshop. That kind of cuts the number of eligible people down a bit.Quote from: Dave.S on March 20, 2012, 03:42:55 pmMy 8y.o. (I think) digital SLR craps itself as soon as it gets out of bright sunlight. Colourful noise and all sorts of aberrations at any kind of ISO setting. My Mrs has a newer camera, the same brand but a lower model, and the low light shooting is about 1,000,000 times better.

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2012, 05:32:33 pm
content: Quote from: harnon on March 20, 2012, 05:24:46 pmIt's just like older digital storage teks vs the owon sds7102 .It's the same , technology has shifted very quickly but people think digital scopes are bad and no good but only good at storing waveforms , WRONG ! They have been looking at the older scopes .

author: Vredstein
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2012, 05:34:47 pm
content: I had some awesome alien pics, but I accidentally erased them during the anal probe. Guess you could sayI lost my focus.Thank you folks. I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waitress.

author: elliott
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2012, 09:58:56 pm
content: Quote from: Dave.S on March 20, 2012, 03:42:55 pmThe Nikon D3100 is way ahead of any point and shoot, but the Pentax K-x is even better in low light, it is less heavy handed at software noise reduction, so it retains more detail in the image, which is the most important part. It is also smaller, lighter, cheaper and has in body stabilization so you don't need expensive VR lenses for low light shooting at slow shutter speeds. The K-x is discontinued, but there are a lot of old stock, refurbished and lightly used ones out on the market for around $400 with a lens, shop around a little and you might score one with a 2 lens kit, the 18-55mm along with either the 50-200mm or the 55-300mm.I've had a Pentax K100D for years that I bought refurbished, it is an old 6mp body, it has never let me down in the 30,000 or so clicks it has on it. Even it is pretty good at 800ISO, 1600ISO is doable for a 4x6 print. Every single lens I attach is stabilized, doesn't matter if it is the fully auto 18-55mm or one of my many old manual lenses like the screw mount Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 from the 1960s.Actually, since the OP is in Wales, where wet weather is expected for most of the year, maybe a step up to a weather sealed K-5 would be in order. More expensive, but even better in low light and has a weather sealed magnesium body.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2012, 10:28:50 pm
content: Quote from: entereev on March 20, 2012, 01:20:46 pmDigital cameras have surpassed the low light performance of any other type of cameras (eg. chemical film) years ago. Just compare Ilford Delta 3200 film with the ISO 3200 performance of any largish-size sensor digital camera (eg. dSLR, EVIL) made in the past few years. It's not even close. Plus the color rendition of the digital camera is much better. It was probably something like ten years ago when Sports Illustrated printed its first digital cover picture. Nowadays they probably would refuse film pictures due to insufficient quality and too much grain.Quote from: harnon on March 20, 2012, 05:24:46 pmDon't blame the tool for your lack of skills. The 2004 generation of digicams (eg. Canon 300D, Nikon D70) had decent performance at ISO 400, and usable ISO 800 if you took care and exposed properly. With reasonably fast glass, say f/2.8, ISO 400, you should be able to get shutter speeds of around 1/30s of a second in brightly lit interior environments, and very high shutter speeds (say 1/1000s) in overcast daylight. Not great low light performance by any means, but a far cry from unusable outside of bright sunlight.

author: david77
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2012, 10:43:54 pm
content: Oh, have they discontinued the K-x already? I had my eye on that for a while but honestly I'm still satisfied with the K-m that I've used for a couple of years now. Really can't complain about the low light capabilities. Admittedly it gets a bit noisy from ISO800 upwards but at 1600 it's still perfectly acceptable for small prints of 10x15cm.In dark situations where I have time to focus manually I tend to use my 1:1.4 50mm lens that I got with a used ME a few years ago. I seldom find the need to go over ISO400 with that.As elliot says the picture stabiliser built into the body is a great feature of these Pentax SLR's and there are lots of cheap and good lenses available if you can live without auto mode.One thing that made me decide to buy the K-m was that it takes simple AA batteries, none of that special Li-Ion battery nonesense. With Eneloops it works pretty well.

author: elliott
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2012, 10:51:55 pm
content: Quote from: david77 on March 21, 2012, 10:43:54 pmNot only that, the successor, the K-r is discontinued. Right now the only currently produced APS-C DSLR from Pentax is the K-5, the K-01 is an APS-C mirrorless with the same sensor as the K-5.Doesn't really matter, if you buy a new one, they will still support it, they just aren't making any more.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2012, 10:55:20 pm
content: Quote from: siliconmix on March 20, 2012, 10:48:21 amAvailability of digi-cams has less to do with such sightings than does proximity of liquor stores to trailer parks!

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 12:10:13 am
content: Quote from: siliconmix on March 20, 2012, 10:48:21 amNow that any joe on the street can photooshop a UFO or alien nobody takes them seriously. That reduces the incentive to create them.More importantly the aliens cloaking devices are more effective against digital sensors than chemical film.

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 01:48:44 am
content: Quote from: elliott on March 21, 2012, 09:58:56 pmI love Pentax too ... but sadly Nikon holds a special place for me , i use it with a 18-200mm f3.5-f6.3 lens and anyway , low light photography with the D3100 is already leaps and bounds ahead of the older nikons .But yeah , it doesn't have body stabilization at which you might as well go for the D7000 , now that's a few foots away from most consumers DSLR's ( Not talking about the full frames of course )Quote from: david77 on March 21, 2012, 10:43:54 pmSomething my dad and i like about Pentax is that uses classic double A batteries .the DC-DC converters on the Pentax are better thought out , rather then the normal cameras where they all are 7.4V and the like ,I find myself going to ISO3200 and still finding it okay , ISO6400 was no problem either . It can shoot all the way to 12800 .Brilliant DSLR , and i mean good quality i really mean it , i like my pictures really perfect . Perfectionist ? I guess .

author: bearman
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 02:50:22 am
content: It is amazing how much better digital cameras are over film. Here is a shot I took at a local train station after 11:20 PM at night in total darkness with just surrounding lights in the adjoining parking lots for light. This was taken at 400 ISO and exposed for 6 seconds at f4.2 with my Nikon D80. From a tripod of course. No appreciable noise, colors look great and it almost could pass for a daylight shot if you removed the slightly burned in lights and darkish sky.B

author: sonicj
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 04:37:21 am
content: is that the stock 18-135mm lens? i always felt my d80 did OK in low light if mounted or resting on a fixed surface.1st photo: shutter 1.5, f3.5, iso 400. the blur might be condensation on the lens.2nd photo: ZOMG! a UFO!shutter 1.6, f3.5, iso 400im pretty sure the bump in the airplane track is from the shutter button.-sj

author: sonicj
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 04:39:35 am
content: Quote from: sonicj on March 22, 2012, 04:37:21 amdoh! or the strobe....

author: siliconmix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 09:45:58 am
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on March 22, 2012, 12:10:13 amha ha .yes exactly.its ruined a whole lot of fun.not so long back if you owned say a hotel or a pub you could drum up loads of buisness if there was a ghost story attached to it.you could fill a hotel with ghost hunters easy.

author: Kilroy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 01:41:09 pm
content: As far as the quality of digital camera shots go, I have more frustration trying to get nice images without blowing out the highs...even after meticulous white balancing and such. Since most photography consists of daytime shots, this is more of an issue than low light performance for me.That, and the general quality of the glass...which seems pretty mediocre till you get into the stratospherically pricey stuff. The glass on some of my Father's old Contax and Nikon lenses had stunningly superb optics.But yeah, aliens...I've worked with plenty.

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 03:23:35 pm
content: Quote from: Kilroy on March 22, 2012, 01:41:09 pmHere are some of my night and day shots :

author: JonnyBoats
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 05:09:08 pm
content: Quote from: siliconmix on March 20, 2012, 10:48:21 amI think everyone is barking up the wrong tree. You don't want a camera from Japan or Asia, you want one from Scotland. Now the Scotts really know what kind of camera gets the best shots in those damp environments like you have in Wales.In particular the brand that might do the best job for you is the NessieCam.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 05:18:27 pm
content: Quotethis is entitled... "5 minutes of cosmos"iso800, f8, 5 minutes (which is 300 seconds)no polarizer no filter or photochop tricks no nothing, just the lens and slight brightness enhancement in PP (guess 300secs still not enough?)note: iso800@f8 approx eqv to iso400@f4darkness? go figure... any ufo sighting? no, ufo dont exist(quite crappy image though, how can? you cant see a thing!)ps: i believe there's nothing comes close to film when it comes to long exposure without burning something(refer to second picture for the reality of nonscaled cropped version of otherwise people might say... UFO. the "hotted" pixels! not the UFO)

author: harnon
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 07:21:19 pm
content: Quote from: alm on March 21, 2012, 10:28:50 pmThanks for the nice comments almNoise performance varies greatly between brands and models - I've done side by side comparisons with my camera (K10D) and my wife's camera (K-x) and anything above ISO400 you get considerable speckled colour noise on the K10D, particularly in the grey areas as noted in thereview. The camera is perfect for what I originally got it for, which was skiing as it's rugged and waterproof with good bright light performance. (Although sometimes an el-cheapo point and shoot is just fine!).I was lucky enough on my honeymoon to get a go of some serious cameras... I'm a big fan of the EOD 5D although its a bit out of my price range. Our honeymoon was spent circumnavigating Spitsbergen, and there were some amazing professional photographers on board. I managed to break my zoom lens about ten minutes before we saw this (taken by one of the proper photographers):http://brentmccombs.tumblr.com/post/9135928588/polar-bear-image-taken-in-svalbard-norway-last

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 07:39:21 pm
content: Any guy who read the manual of the DSLR knows this :The wider the aperture , the lower the DOF .So having good noise performance at high ISO's in a near pitch black area is something to behold rather then having not so good noise performance at higher ISO's and you liking the camera .That's why i like my D3100 , the first day was impressive ,The first photo we took was my communal garden at night with the streetlights failed , it was so dark we could not see anything , but when i viewed the photo on my computer , i was shocked man ! It exposed the totally dark areas and there was a fair bit of noise , not too much , only viewable if i zoomed in way too far .( Settings : ISO1600 f/8 , 1/6 )

author: siliconmix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 08:02:24 pm
content: Quote from: JonnyBoats on March 22, 2012, 05:09:08 pmnice one.yes no need for anti static mats here

author: Randall W. Lott
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 08:09:19 pm
content: Quote from: harnon on March 20, 2012, 05:24:46 pm

author: elliott
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 08:40:55 pm
content: Quote from: harnon on March 22, 2012, 07:21:19 pmThe K10D was a CCD sensor, actually the same Sony sensor used in some Nikons from the time too, a CCD is hard to beat in good light, but do get noisy at high ISO. I still like the rendering of a good CCD over CMOS when in good light.The CMOS sensors everyone uses now are amazing in low light, like the one the K-x has. I've seen clean shots out of a K-x at 6400 ISO, above that you get into "expanded ISO" on the K-x, which means it is pushed in software.I think the megapixel race is over in DSLRs and everyone is going for highest ISO now, in a few years we'll be shooting low noise 51200 ISO on entry level bodies.

author: harnon
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 09:36:51 pm
content: Here you go - a very quick comparison made without moving from my deskActually, thinking about the original topic, wouldn't the camera with more noise be better for filming yetis?

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 10:32:32 pm
content: Quote from: elliott on March 22, 2012, 08:40:55 pmCCD sensors are not good in low-light at higher ISO's , the D3000 was a literally "failed" product because nearly i believe nobody bought it .But , manufacturers aren't racing for ISO . Sony is racing the megapixel race and that is just ridiculous .Sure the D3100 has 3200ISO max , but it can be pushed to 12800 which isn't really software at all3200 on the D3100 still no discernible specks but that K10D at 1600 is just awful , really .But i really love that the D7000 has like 25,600 ISO when pushed .And the full framers ? Just pure photography porn .The D4 is epic !http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d4/index.htmISO 204800 when pushed ! Look at those sensors ...D800 ? I cried a little when i saw it .It's a full frame 36.3 megger D4 , BEAUTY ! or the D800E that doesn't have the anti-aliasing filter .

author: harnon
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2012, 11:09:13 pm
content: Quote from: Dave.S on March 22, 2012, 10:32:32 pmYup... it is about 5 years older than the D3100. Let me see, 5 digital camera years = 1000 human yearsQuote from: Dave.S on March 22, 2012, 10:32:32 pm+1

author: ivan747
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 03:09:28 am
content: Sorry for not bringing anything useful to the table, but my family is getting a camera in October for a vacation trip during winter. I am going to use the occasion to learn photography like you guys are doing. I already know the basics but we don't really have a real camera, just a point and shoot from 7 years ago.I want to get a Canon T3 (not T3i). Do you think this camera is capable letting me learn enough skills to be an amateur?

author: elliott
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 03:16:26 am
content: Quote from: ivan747 on March 23, 2012, 03:09:28 amAny camera that allows manual controls will help, so the T3 would be fine, pretty much any DSLR will work. It is all up to you to keep the dial off of Auto as much as possible.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 03:46:57 am
content: Quote from: elliott on March 23, 2012, 03:16:26 amRenowned photographer Ken Rockwell would seem to disagreee .....Quote from: Ken Rockwellhttp://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/howto.htm

author: elliott
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 04:04:38 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on March 23, 2012, 03:46:57 amThere are many in the photography world who disagree with him too, on many of his opinions.On auto you are leaving it up to the camera to give the shot you want, what if you are shooting sports and it wants to use a 1/60s shutter? What if you want to isolate your subject from the background and it wants to use f8? I'm not saying you need to be in full manual at all times, aperture and shutter priority modes are really useful for getting the shot you want, not the shot the camera thinks you want.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 04:31:34 am
content: Quote from: elliott on March 23, 2012, 04:04:38 amI am sure. Though mostly those complaints would be from disaffected knobs who are more hung up on equipment than results.Quote from: Ken RockwellQuoteYour prior statementQuotewould give give the impression you were. Manual controls DO serve a purpose, but just as you'd tell a learner driver to leave the stick in "D" for drive, the best advice for amateurs is to stay predominantly in "Auto". As amateur skills improve experimenting with manual modes can deliver results in some circumstances.

author: elliott
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 04:49:02 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on March 23, 2012, 04:31:34 amYes, results are what matter, but if you aren't getting the results you want, you need to know why. If you have no understanding of the exposure triangle, then you won't know what to change if they don't come out like you want.Quote from: Uncle Vernon on March 23, 2012, 04:31:34 amNotice that I said auto, meaning fully automatic, where the camera sets aperture, shutter speed and ISO all on its own. There is a point between fully automatic and fully manual, like aperture priority that will let you control your DOF while letting the camera make the decision on the shutter speed to get the correct exposure.Also, here is a very good quote from his site:Quote

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 06:37:02 am
content: Quote from: elliott on March 23, 2012, 04:49:02 amA perfect exposure triangle will not ensure an excellent photograph. There are lots more to consider than camera settings, most of which the camera can determine better than the amateur photographer.QuoteAnd ......?QuoteYes that's auto, or automatic if you prefer.QuoteSure there is, how does that equate to"off auto as much as possible"? It doesn't! There are numerous reasons for manually selecting camera parameters for those with experience but equally there are numerous opportunities for the beginner to manually screw up a shot. Elsewhere in this thread there are several mentions of how far digital cameras have evolved, more than ever you can rely on the camera to look after itself.I'm not suggesting everything auto is perfect in every circumstance which is would be just as daft as suggesting auto never be used. Manual adjustments have there place but they are not the be all and end all of good photographs,

author: siliconmix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 07:03:56 am
content: it doesn't matter what camera you have.composition is the most important thing to learn

author: elliott
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 07:05:58 am
content: You are right that there is more to it than just exposure, there is focus and composition too, but a perfectly composed and focused shot that is blurry because the camera decided it wanted 1/20s shutter isn't a good shot, same with one where the camera picked f2.8 and you needed f8 or more to get everything in focus. If you don't understand the relationships between the different elements of exposure, you'll just be stuck with a bad shot. Remember that DOF, which is controlled by aperture, is a major part of composition and focus.Quote from: Uncle Vernon on March 23, 2012, 06:37:02 amWhen you can show me a camera that knows what it is taking a picture of and can read the mind of the person taking the photo, I'll agree that it should be left in auto.Setting the camera to auto just leaves you in a position to blame the camera when it doesn't pick the right settings. When you set them, you are the only one to blame, but eventually you'll learn what you did wrong. The camera will never learn, if it picked the wrong settings in one situation, it will be wrong the next time too.It is like learning electronics, fail and fail often, eventually you'll learn what you did wrong and how to correct it next time. You learn more when something doesn't work than when it does.

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 07:11:05 am
content: Quote from: ivan747 on March 23, 2012, 03:09:28 amD3100 .The T3 was considered before buying my D3100 and the T3 is just awful , the innards sound hollow and it has a huge amount of noise , it's 50$ less but you will have to part with more features .One important thing is that the D3100 has Full HD 24fps video capture but it doesn't have a mic input , BUT ! The mic sounds rather good

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 07:12:11 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on March 23, 2012, 03:46:57 amIt's just like using a digital scope , you use auto , you don't learn anything .And auto mode only changes two things : Exposure and Shutter Speed .This is what happens when it's in Auto :While in manual and perfectly exposed but shutter settings not too good .

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 07:33:58 am
content: Quote from: elliott on March 23, 2012, 07:05:58 amThe former of which the camera will do better than you in MOST circumstances, the latter something a greater priority for a good or budding photographer.QuoteA poorly framed an ill composed shot using correct shutter and manual focus is equally uninspiringQuoteIf you don't understand the relationship you'll hardly be better of screwing with a whole bunch of unexplained settings.QuoteHow exactly is remembering that going to help someone unaware of the relationships of different settings?QuoteThat isn't the camera's job. And again I bring you back to how will a beginner be better of adjusting setting the do not have a clear understanding of?QuoteNo it doesn't the camera is just a tool it's the photographer that is to blame in every circumstance.QuoteThe photographer is always responsibleQuoteHow? No one is going to learn anything much when they are faced with numerous interrelated settings they have little knowledge about.QuoteThe next time you face identical circumstances it will yes. But photography entails an endless variety of circumstances. The camera will get it wrong far less than the photographer will. Sure use manual settings in those circumstances but to not take advantage auto and adjust only when circumstances demand is just dumb.QuoteI guess you suggest that multimeter auto ranging should be routinely turned off too.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 07:42:53 am
content: Quote from: Dave.S on March 23, 2012, 07:12:11 amYeah the tree doesn't even appear in the first shot... That Auto setting must be evil eh.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 07:51:07 am
content: Quote from: Dave.S on March 23, 2012, 07:11:05 amIt's all personal preference, but I'd agree in suggest the D-3100 as a better choice. The video is a dumb as gimmick but it's the best bang for bucks camera in the price bracket. Nice and compact even with the longer Nikkor lens so your more likely to actually carry it and have it when you need it. The D-3100 is a great start point.

author: elliott
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 07:59:59 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on March 23, 2012, 07:33:58 amIf you don't play with the settings, you'll never understand. You can read all about it, but until you play with the camera and see the results, you'll never really get it. I'm not saying as soon as the camera comes out of the box it should be put in M and the knob ripped off, I'm saying that the further you get from the auto mode, the more you'll learn.Also, auto ranging of a meter and auto exposure can't even be compared. Even though there are times it should be turned off, it won't make a huge difference if the meter gets it wrong, since there is no difference between 0.999Kohms and 999 ohms. There is a difference between 1/250s @f2.8 and 1/30s @f8, even though the camera will tell you they are both perfect exposure for a 11EV scene at 100ISO.

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2012, 08:22:01 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on March 23, 2012, 07:42:53 amMe took a reference photos so i don't have the same photo shot for auto and manual .

author: ivan747
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2012, 02:32:26 am
content: Quote from: elliott on March 23, 2012, 04:04:38 amSpot on, shutter and aperture priority allow the camera to set the appropriate exposure for most of the cases while giving you some flexibility.

author: ivan747
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2012, 02:41:04 am
content: Quote from: Dave.S on March 23, 2012, 07:11:05 amI hope the price drops by October, because the exchange rate will probably change for bad. Both cameras are very expensive for the original budget of $300, but at that price point, you are just looking for expensive point and shoots. Nikon is not very used around here, I haven't seen a professional photographer using one in a while.

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2012, 05:57:15 am
content: There , but really , professionals actually use Nikon more .

author: elliott
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2012, 06:40:06 am
content: Quote from: Dave.S on March 24, 2012, 05:57:15 amProfessionals aren't using a D3100 though, they are using full frame bodies that cost thousands with lenses that cost thousands, so what they are using isn't really relevant for an amateur unless you have the disposable income to spend $10,000 on a starter kit.

author: sonicj
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2012, 07:35:23 am
content: a $100 point & shoot armed withCHDKcan be very satisfying for a nerd on a budget.-sj

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2012, 07:38:38 am
content: Quote from: elliott on March 24, 2012, 06:40:06 amThat's my point . I know they use D3s , D3x , D4 , D800 and the like .

author: bearman
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2012, 07:40:53 am
content: As was mentioned earlier. Canons sound hollow inside. I agree. I believe prosumer and lesser Nikons are actually built better that prosumer and lesser Canons. Canon went to plastics for structureral parts long before Nikon. They today are just not built as well. Too much plastic throughout. IMO.