Re: When choosing a camera.......
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:29 pm
The world's definitive resource on love dolls and erotic dolls for adults since 2001.
https://dollforum.com/forum/
I've checked out the canon 7D, and if I were going to get a camera, currently that's probably the one, specifically for the video aspect of it. Although to turn it into a "pro" camera, can easily rack you up another $6k to $8k buying rails, external microphones, lenses, viewfinders, etc. Far surpassing the $1500 or so of the camera body. However, that's still about 1/10th the cost of pro video cameras that it's being compared to.robinyadushi wrote: If you want to take video, the Canon EOS 7D takes video takes videos that rivals that of professionally used cameras that cost 20 times as much. In fact some professional film segments have been filmed with that camera. One of my very close friends is a professional videographer and he jokes that this little camera could "destroy" the professional camcorder sales if people knew its secrets.
U nudd tii di nyvj.
In lens terms my 500mm is a cheapy but it still cost more than my cameraFirefly2008 wrote:I have a friend that has lenses that cost more than my doll
robinyadushi wrote:For video, the potential negative to the 7D camera is that if you would like to do lots of editing, you really still are better off going with a camcorder that uses mini DVs. But most people go with HD video these days and don't bother.
Yii nas U'n ibkt nrbrguyubh tiyt fikk
soragesum wrote:
Hmmm, not sure about that. With pure digital, you can copy the files on your HD and drag them staight onto a timeline (assuming your editing software supports your cameras codec). With minidv.. You have to take the extra painful step of capturing the video.
Bir kujr u gsbrb'y dsuf ygr dsnr ygubh sbiyy tiyt "g" vrgitr!
Vickylover wrote:Hi Everyone.
In lens terms my 500mm is a cheapy but it still cost more than my cameraFirefly2008 wrote:I have a friend that has lenses that cost more than my doll
Books will be a great help, you need to understand what you are doing; but nothing beats clicking the shutter and seeing the results for yourself and remember unlike film cameras all you are doing with a DSLR is using up the battery and that can be recharged
Vickylover.
mg4 wrote:I found that taken a pic with available light looks better than useing the flash.
I have a olympus stylus 1000 10 megapixal
cheers mg4
I can't comment on the micro 4/3 format; I've never tried it. But the comment about being locked in is what I was trying to say in my first post. If you start with a leading brand you can always get different lens for your camera. You can start with the cheaper lens and buy an expensive one later on. You can also buy a better camera at a later date and all your old lens will still fit your new camera.Byteus wrote:Just when you thought this was going to be easy... here's something else to ponder. The basics of SLR technology hasn't changed much in 60 years.. until 2008 that is with the release of micro 4/3 format. One of the big draw backs to DSLR's is the size and weight of the cameras and some lenses. The micro 4/3 format solves this by removing the need for mirrors and also allows for smaller lenses. Another nice advantage is if you have standard DSLR 4/3 lenses you can get adapters for several brands to use them with the m43 format cameras. Since you're starting out though that's not a concern for you. Thing is though once you pick a camera you're locking into buying lenses compatible with that camera brand/type.
If you're looking for High image quality for portraits, ease of use, light weight and lense changeability, the m43 format camera is worth a look. Take a look at the Olympus ep-1 & 2 or Panasonic G1 or G2 which is soon to be released.
I will not say that those are not good camera's but they are certainly not better than APSC format cameras which are most DSLR's.The basics of SLR technology hasn't changed much in 60 years.. until 2008 that is with the release of micro 4/3 format.