Cameras

[3-d lobster]

But, my reason for getting a compact is not because I just want a point and click. I want it primarily for it's size. I suppose my question is more why don't compacts offer RAW as standard? Is there a reason? Mechanical, power drain, cost, market research, RAW on the tiny sensor is pointless?

Or is it compacts are simple cameras and RAW is not a simple function?

[mobias]

 It'll be down to the market the camera is aimed at. Most people who want a point and shoot won't want or even understand what a RAW file is. JPEG's are much easier (and smaller) to handle for the average user.

RAW files are desirable because they contain the most amount of photographic information in them. You can adjust them in post production without loosing any of that information. Also the quality of JPEG's can vary wildly from camera to camera. You're at the reliance of the cameras computer ability to convert the information well. Its one of the reasons high end cameras are as expensive as they are. This is worth a read http://photonaturalist.net/raw-vs-jpeg-who-wins/
I would also have to mention lenses here. RAW files, JPEG's and sensor quality are all at the mercy of the lens quality. I'm not big on the point and shoot compact market but if you want to go down this road find out what camera has the best lens quality.

If I had £200 to spend on a camera to take up the hobby then this is what I'd be buying http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sony-alpha-NEX3KB-14-2-MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Black-Kit-w-18-55mm-Lens-/261133296027?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item3cccc1e19b

A very high quality interchangeable lens compact camera but with most of the abilities of a DSLR already built in. With cheap adapters you can pretty much put any lens known to man on it. All for 200 quid

This is worth a read http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyNex5Nex3

[Colin Sanction]

I got a Canon 1100d for Christmas and I'm shopping for a memory card.

I want the card to handle 1-2 pictures per second for 300-400 shots for a timelapse project. Looking on Amazon, there seems to be a vast array of cards. 32Gb for around £20 seems like a good deal to me. I'm assuming Class 10 is the way to go.

Is there a "real" difference between 30Mb/Sec, 45mb/Sec? Is there any chance of buffering?

Any help appreciated

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

As far as I know (which may not be very far at all, as far as I know) the speed at which you can take sequential pictures is down to the camera itself rather than the memory card. I switched from a class 4 to a class 10 card recently, and I've not noticed any change in the speed.

[Jim_MacLaine]

This might be useful.

http://www.phototechnique.com/kit/camera-memory-cards-explained/

Memory card speeds

Aside from their physical differences, perhaps the most confusing aspect of different memory cards is their speed. Some cards quote speeds in megabytes per second (MBPS), while others simply use the 'x' suffix (such as 150x speed, for example). To add to the confusion, some only list a 'class' of card. So how can they be compared? Well, 1x is equivalent to 150kbps, a system which stems from from the classification of CD-ROMs. Therefore, a 10x speed is (roughly) equivalent to 1.5MBPS, a 100x speed is equivalent to 15MBPS and so on.

The Class system, meanwhile, which is used on SD media formats, is fairly easy to understand as the quoted figure directly relates to the minimum transfer speed of the card. So, a Class 2 card offers a minimum transfer rate of 2MBPS, a Class 4 cards offers 4MBPS and so on. This does depend partly on how fragmented the card is; a formatted card will be able to have data written to it much more efficiently than one with a number of images already stored on it.

[Colin Sanction]

Jim, Claude - cheers for the info

Flicking through the instruction manual, it takes SD, SDHC and SDXC cards.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B007PYBOZ4 - this will be OK won't it?

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

That's the one I've got. It should be fine.

[Harry Badger]

So I bought a nearly-new Canon 550d with no lenses yesterday for £300. I've bought it primarily for video , though obviously I'd like to be able to take some shit-hot photos as and when required.

The reason I bought this was that friends who know about this suggested I used the money saved buying second hand to get decent lenses? What lenses are best for video work? I assume I'm going to be doing everything from short films to boring interview type stuff. Any ideas?

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

I've found the auto focus on my canon 650d to be really pretty useless for video, so you can probably ignore lenses with silent motors. That could just be me being crap at shooting though. Image stabilisation is pretty important, even if you're using a tripod.

One nice thing about Canons is that you can also use Nikon lenses with the aid of an adapter. Obviously you'll primarily want to get canon lenses (or ones designed for it), but it's worth remembering if you happen to find any Nikon ones going cheap. I found an old Nikon lens at my folks' house and, 7 quid later, it's now my main lens.

[mcbpete]

Yeah, ignore the autofocus for DSLR cameras - go fully manual and bung on Magic Lantern firmware which overlays focus peaking outlines so you'll know when it's in focus.

My recommendation for video (plus as a general lens for stills) would be to use a good prime lens (one that doesn't have a zoom), if you're just getting started you really can't go wrong with a nifty-fifty (50mm lens - eg Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 ). It's a big step up in picture quality from the stock lens, is less than a 100 quid and teaches you quite a lot (not having a zoom makes you think more about the way you compose your shots)

[Harry Badger]

Oh yes, I was definitely going to ignore autofocus, it screams amateur (which of course I am). My plan was to teach myself to operate the whole thing manually as if nothing else it would be a good education in the science of photography/videography, of which I am shamefully ignorant. The f1.8 has been mentioned by others, I guess I'll be getting that one first. Thanks for the Nikon adapter tip too.

Cheers!

[Acceptable]

Yeah, ignore the autofocus for DSLR cameras - go fully manual and bung on Magic Lantern firmware which overlays focus peaking outlines so you'll know when it's in focus.

Well I had no idea this existed, it's turned my camera into some sort of HD film behemoth. Thanks!

[mobias]

Oh yes, I was definitely going to ignore autofocus, it screams amateur (which of course I am).

Using autofocus only screamed amateur in the days before APC format DSLR's, and even then it didn't really. With the tiny viewfinders you get with most non full frame cameras autofocus is pretty much a necessity these days. Perfect sharpness is sometimes impossible without it, particularly in low light.

Too late now but if you were wanting a camera to use as much for video as shooting stills then I would have recommended an SLT camera as they have silent autofocus ability during video recording as well as the ability to see though the viewfinder during recording.   

[mcbpete]

Yeah I should've added a caveat to my statement - Ignore autofocus for DSLR cameras when shooting video, when using it for stills the autofocus definitely is king. In fact what I normally do (when filming on a tripod) is switch it to camera mode, set the focus of the subject using autofocus - switch the lens to manual focus to lock it and then record things in video mode.

[Harry Badger]

I think that's what a lot of people do as whenever I'm editing something shot on a DSLR (which is pretty much everything I edit) the footage always comes with a load of stills which I assume are from setting the focus up in stills mode.