From: Borg on
Looking for a semi decent camera. Have around �350ish to spend.

Would also like it to take a decent video.

So would a video camera that takes good pictures be a better description.

Anyway any recommendations please.


Thanks
From: Borg on
Paul Corfield wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 22:57:29 +0100, Borg <saerimner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Looking for a semi decent camera. Have around �350ish to spend.
>>
>> Would also like it to take a decent video.
>>
>> So would a video camera that takes good pictures be a better description.
>>
>> Anyway any recommendations please.
>
> It would be good if you could say what sorts of pictures - still and
> video - you want to take. That helps people more expert than I determine
> what sort of camera might meet your needs. Also are you looking to
> just take photos for fun or do you wish to develop your photographic /
> video skills over time?
>


I do want to take it further yes. Been very interested in if for a while
and decided my want is enough to validate spending the money now.

Style wise I have no idea, I'm finding out on local courses to see what
I can gleam from there as well.

I do like the dramatic countryside shots, I live near some wild and
beautiful places. Also have a like of individuals and ppl , the craggy
faces of old women, type thing. ppl at work.

Video wise it would be people moving and talking. No real 'fast' action
like bike racing or stuff.

Maybe I'm still to vague with direction to know what to get yet.
From: petrolcan on
In article <XZmdnZIcDtbXut_RnZ2dnUVZ8nydnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk>, Borg says....
>
> Looking for a semi decent camera. Have around £350ish to spend.
>
> Would also like it to take a decent video.
>
> So would a video camera that takes good pictures be a better description.

What about a HD camcorder? I believe they can takes stills too.

> Anyway any recommendations please.

A DSLR doesn't come in on budget, even second hand.
From: Colin Irvine on
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:56:20 +0100, petrolcan squeezed out the
following:

>In article <XZmdnZIcDtbXut_RnZ2dnUVZ8nydnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk>, Borg says...
>>
>> Looking for a semi decent camera. Have around �350ish to spend.
>>
>> Would also like it to take a decent video.
>>
>> So would a video camera that takes good pictures be a better description.
>
>What about a HD camcorder? I believe they can takes stills too.

They can. IIRC Pat has her Sony set up to put video on the hard drive
and stills on the SD card.

--
Colin Irvine
ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5
http://www.colinandpat.co.uk
From: Ace on
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 22:57:29 +0100, Borg <saerimner(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>Looking for a semi decent camera. Have around �350ish to spend.
>
>Would also like it to take a decent video.
>
>So would a video camera that takes good pictures be a better description.
>
>Anyway any recommendations please.

Unless you're going to be suckered in by all the DSLRisti, you'er
probably best getting a compact. Many of these nowadays will also take
full HD video - I bought a Lumix a year ago for J, mainly on its
waterproof and shockproof features, as well as full 12Mpixel and HD
video capacity.

Does just what it says on the tin. If I were getting a more general
purpose one I'd go for a better lens setup - ours only does 3X manual
zoom, as it needs to stay flush with the housing for design reasons,
so any zoom more than that is using up pixels, IYSWIM[1]. Then again,
there's plenty to spare, and in some modes I have it on a lower
resolution anyway.

Loads of modes, which all seem to do what they saym ,including
underwater, snowsports, night-light, etc. etc. plus full manual
capabilities, even if still continuing to use some of the clever stuff
like image stabilisation, 'intelligent' sensing (it identifies what it
thinks are the main features and shows you which segments it's
metering and focussing on).

Really does make photography simple, and I'm sure in the right hands
will produce stunning pics. I don't really bother trying to be
over-artistic these days - some of my pics are quite nicely composed,
some less so, but IDrGAF.


[1] And yes, giving a different visual effect from a true telephoto
lens.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Anything new?
Next: Flickr: Why?