Jump to content


Photo

Digital Still Camera


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Miguel Bunster

Miguel Bunster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 08 July 2005 - 01:55 PM

HI,
I am looking for digital still cameras and want any ideas or experience.
The camera I want is a digital srl, is for a couple of things. Location scouting, still photography etc but mainly for pre-viz on set and on pre production. At the same time I want to use it with 3cP and Kodak preview software. At the time I as looking at Canon Digital Rebel XT so any comments would be great. Thanks.
Miguel
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 July 2005 - 01:59 PM

At the time I as looking at Canon Digital Rebel XT so any comments would be great. Thanks.
Miguel

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


At that price range, most people chose either that or the Nikon D70.
  • 0

#3 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 08 July 2005 - 02:07 PM

At that price range, most people chose either that or the Nikon D70.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Hi,

I have had a D70 for 4 months and can recomend it.

Cheers,

Stephen Williams DP

www.stephenw.com
  • 0

#4 Mark Allen

Mark Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 July 2005 - 04:37 PM

I have the first Canon Digital Rebel and I like it. I have played with the Nikon though for about 20 minutes and thought that I would probably have been just as happy or maybe slightly happier with that one - but it wasn't available when I needed it - so I'm still very happy with the Cannon.

Try both at a store and go with whichever you like more - but I have a feeling it will come down to one of thos - and probably you'll end up with a Nikon.

remember you can see comparisons at www.dpreview.com
  • 0

#5 Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2005 - 04:49 PM

From working in a camera shop for little over a year, I reccomend Nikon over Canon. The Nikon D70 is a brilliant camera.
  • 0

#6 Nate Yolles

Nate Yolles
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 08 July 2005 - 05:37 PM

While avoiding a Nikon v. Canon debate, I'd simply like to say that I love my Canon 20D.
  • 0

#7 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 08 July 2005 - 05:43 PM

If you're shooting your movie on film, wouldn't it make more sense to use a 35mm stills camera for a better idea of what your final product will look like? Sometimes you can even shoot your stills with the same stock you're running in camera. . .

~Karl
  • 0

#8 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 08 July 2005 - 05:54 PM

From working in a camera shop for little over a year, I reccomend Nikon over Canon. The Nikon D70 is a brilliant camera.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



:D

working in a shop is a reason NOT to listen to someone

Usually it's the customers that educate salesmen when it comes to photo equipment and labs.


lol

just kidding (in your case since I don't know anything about you, but that is indeed almost a rule), I'm sure you were one smart camera salesperson
  • 0

#9 Jake Kerber

Jake Kerber
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 08 July 2005 - 05:59 PM

In an ideal world, sure. However, to be able to send color corrected still images to the lab from the day's work as a guideline for accurate digital dailies, one cannot easily use 35mm still film that has to be processed, scanned, etc.

-Jake Kerber
  • 0

#10 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 08 July 2005 - 06:03 PM

If you're shooting your movie on film, wouldn't it make more sense to use a 35mm stills camera for a better idea of what your final product will look like?  Sometimes you can even shoot your stills with the same stock you're running in camera. . .

~Karl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


by the time you get your scans you might as well take a look at dailies.

Unless you are going to take pictures, then rush to a lab, return in half an hour, run home, scan the negatives and take a look, then rush back to work to shoot the scene.

It would perhapse make more sense if you brought a laptop and a film scanner, and sent an errand boy to develop your film and return in 30 minutes.

But still, you'd have to expose the entire roll for just the first setup before you start shooting.

It is supose to be a previsualisation method, and you have to wait for dailies too.
That would be funny, waiting for previsualisation dailies, then again waiting for actual footage dailies.


Many medium format photographers use polaroid (or digital back) for previsualisation of film photography. It would be funny if someone brought a MF camera, then used polaroid as a previsualisation of what your actual previsualisation is going to look like.
Easier to just start the camera, you can't miss it that much with negative anyway

Digital cameras is the only logical choice for prvisualisation
  • 0

#11 Robert Edge

Robert Edge
  • Sustaining Members
  • 401 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 July 2005 - 06:05 PM

I'm also uninterested in the Nikon v. Canon debate. I'd just like to make a comment about software and about the new D70s.

Yesterday, I used a programme called Nikon Capture with a D70. This software does two things. It edits RAW files and it makes it possible to use a laptop to control exposure and shutter firing. When used to control the camera, the digital file by-passes the memory card and goes straight to the laptop's hard drive. Each shot is immediately available for viewing within the editor part of the programme. This means that you can see the shot on a large screen and fine tune the exposure with the mouse for the next shot. Meanwhile, the camera is sitting on a tripod whatever distance away that your USB cable runs. If you are shooting in a situation where you can use a laptop and tripod, this software saves a good deal of time. The software is available on a 30 day trial (it comes with the D70 on a disk) and costs US$99 to purchase. Given my own needs, I am completely sold.

For all I know, Canon has equivalent software.

I also had a chance to compare the D70 and the new D70s. The former is selling for about US$150 less. Personally, I don't think that the changes in the D70s are worth the extra money.

Edited by R. Edge, 08 July 2005 - 06:11 PM.

  • 0

#12 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 08 July 2005 - 06:07 PM

Processing, scanning, and basic color correcting of a few 36 exp rolls of 35mm will certainly not take the same amount of time to finish as several thousand feet of MP film, so I still say it is the best way to go. You're getting an image that will look much more similar to the finished product with better latitude and finer details and better skin tones.

~Karl
  • 0

#13 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 08 July 2005 - 06:18 PM

I think the difference is not so big to justify a hour or two waiting before starting the shoot.

And still negative film will have a look of its own, different from MP film, so it would be as different from the actual footage as a good DSLR image would.
  • 0

#14 Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2005 - 07:25 PM

:D

working in a shop is a reason NOT to listen to someone

Usually it's the customers that educate salesmen when it comes to photo equipment and labs.
lol

just kidding (in your case since I don't know anything about you, but that is indeed almost a rule), I'm sure you were one smart camera salesperson

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Behind the counter it's the other way round, we get sick of people telling us things that we *know* aren't true, but, we gotta sit back, afterall, "the customer is always right"....

Ok, I'll be honest, from the opinion of an ex-camera sales person, there's hardly any bloody difference. Nikon and Canon, who cares, they both do a good job. I've always been a fan of Nikon because I picked up a Nikon D70 and a Canon 300D once and the 300D felt asthough it would shatter so easily if you dropped it. But, when you start getting into the professional range of Canons SLR's, i.e. 20D, then they are built properly from 100% plastic, not recycled yoghurt pots. (I always wondered why the Canon 300D tasted a little like strawberry yoghurt, the special editions tasted like toffee!)

I've just gone with Nikon. Even all my colleagues choose Nikon over Canon. Although... from my experience I honestly couldn't see much difference. Nikon had slightly better build quality but that's about it.

Anyway I'm not working for them anymore so I am a customer ;)

Edited by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith, 08 July 2005 - 07:28 PM.

  • 0

#15 Kris Carrillo

Kris Carrillo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 July 2005 - 07:57 PM

I have a Canon 10D that I've used extensively for previz and location scouting. For me, it's nice to be able to show the director what I have in mind for composition, as well as helping to show less photographically-saavy directors how I want to expose the shot versus how it looks to his/her eye. I can snap a still and show the director right there what composition I think would work. I can also go home and mess with the image in photoshop and email or print it out to show the director what I have in mind for the look of that particular scene.

Once of the features I love about my 10D is the white balance settings and the selectable color temperature. I can adjust the Kelvin temperature anywhere from 2800-10,000 degrees and see how it will affect my image. I've used this feature a couple times when scouting locations with fluorescents. I was able to show the director what it would look like if we corrected for the fluorescent light, or if we just let it go green.

I went with Canon because I was more familiar with their selection of glass, but like others have said, I don't think you can really go wrong with either Nikon or Canon.
  • 0

#16 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 08 July 2005 - 07:58 PM

Well, I'll give you a few examples of what I mean:

1.

-excuse me, do you usually have any Kodak supra film in this store?
-What? Supra? You mean Fuji Superia?
-No I mean Kodak supra.
-There is no such thing

(yea right)
....

2.

-Hi, I'd like to leave this for processing (slide film)
-Ok, then
*writes on the envelop*: C-41...
-umm, it's E-6, not C-41, that's negative
-Oh, yea, sorry about that

(I almost got it cross processed)

...



etc.
  • 0

#17 Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2005 - 08:30 PM

Well, I'll give you a few examples of what I mean:

1.

-excuse me, do you usually have any Kodak supra film in this store?
-What? Supra? You mean Fuji Superia?
-No I mean Kodak supra.
-There is no such thing

(yea right)
....

2.

-Hi, I'd like to leave this for processing (slide film)
-Ok, then
*writes on the envelop*: C-41...
-umm, it's E-6, not C-41, that's negative
-Oh, yea, sorry about that

(I almost got it cross processed)

...
etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeh.. in Jessops maybe... but I worked in Chas Norman Cameras which is a highly regarded photo shop. Anyone hired there takes an interest in photography as it is. (But now that I'm not working there anymore it's ok for me to say they are tight-assed b**t**ds who couldn't give a damn about the customers of their staff, all they want is as much money as they can get their hands on, and I'm talking people who earn £50,000++++ a year)

I can't I'm not guilty of mistakes like that though, I've sent black and white film away for a C-41 process by accident... Good job kodak realised it was black and white film and sent it straight back otherwise I'd be right up s**t creek. Thing is when you're dealing with hundreds of films per day every day, the chances are you've got to mess up sometime.

I had some funny experiences though... A customer came back with his photo's telling me they were all desaturated (I could tell they weren't and they were actually fine) So.. I sent them back to the lab, they came back... faces glowing red like the back of a jet engine... :lol: Funnily enough he said they were ok.... (nutter..)

As for Kodak... well.. it wouldn't suprise me if they had monkeys doing all the processing down at the lab, but.. hell they have got a hard enough job as it is.
  • 0

#18 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 08 July 2005 - 09:26 PM

well perhapse the mans family does have red faces, did you meat them? :P
  • 0

#19 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 July 2005 - 03:18 AM

Processing, scanning, and basic color correcting of a few 36 exp rolls of 35mm will certainly not take the same amount of time to finish as several thousand feet of MP film, so I still say it is the best way to go.  You're getting an image that will look much more similar to the finished product with better latitude and finer details and better skin tones.

~Karl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


You want to be able to send the color-corrected digital photo with the unprocessed film to the lab so that the colorist doing the dailies transfer THE NEXT DAY can see a still photo. You can't turn around still film photos, get them processed, scanned, color-corrected, and sent to the colorist in time by the next afternoon, not if you are still working on the same movie the next day. Especially not on location.

If one could do all of this with a 35mm still camera, which have been around for decades, then why only now that we have digital still cameras has this become a practice for sending timed stills to colorists as a guide? Obviously the turnaround time for processing and scanning 35mm stills was a factor.

You send your footage to the lab before the cut-off point and it will be processed overnight and be at the telecine bay by the next day. Even if you could get 35mm stills also processed and scanned overnight, you'd be color-correcting the next day when you would normally be on set working.

It should tell you something that even KODAK has based their Look Management System around a digital still camera for previewing the image. If they could have done it with a 35mm still camera, they would have.
  • 0

#20 peter bartle

peter bartle
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 09 July 2005 - 04:07 AM

from a technical & repair POV, all the above mentioned cameras (Nikon D70, Canon Rebel XT/350D, 20D 10D etc) are all fine cameras. Canon DSLR products are generally nicer to repair & usually their service & parts back-up is excellent. The way Canon have engineered their bodies & lenses is great.

Myself I use to be a Nikon user but changed my equipment to Canon 12 months ago (at the same time going digital but still getting a film body also) Happy with Canon, although here are some pros & cons on both:

Canon Pros:
Great service & back-up
Well engineered from a repairers POV
Heaps of IS (image stabilised) lenses- Great for slow shutter speeds, makes a huge difference
Fast AF
More bang for buck
More digital bodies available
Full frame sensors in top models (1Ds etc)
Pro bodies & lenses well sealed, almost waterproof
CPS (Canon Pro Service) is excellent

Canon Cons:
200mm f1.8 no longer available, one of the best & most versatile telephoto lenses ever made
Speedlites harder to use, metering flash can be tricky
Auto metering not as good IMO
Old Canon FD lenses cant be used effectively

Nikon Pros:
3D Matrix metering
Excellent flashes available
Better auto flash metering
200mm f2 available brand new
Old manual lenses can be used, no change in mount
Glass possibly slightly better although this is debatable
35mm film bodies are excellent F100, F5 & F6 are brilliant SLR's

Nikon Cons:
Quality of service is sometimes poor, rarely is comparable to Canon
No full frame sensor
Less bang for buck generally
Less models of digital SLR's available

my opinion is if you're doing sports, news etc I think Canon is the wiser choice. the majority of sports & news press seem to use Canon. On the other hand if you do mostly camera mounted flash photos, portraits, need an excellent metering system then Nikon might be the better choice.

Either way, they'll both produce greats photos if you use them right. Shop around & pick up the bodies & actually try them out first before buying anything...
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Opal

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Technodolly

Opal

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc