Best semi-pro camera for studio shooting

[EchoingWhisper]

You're failing to read.

Yes I did. Hehe

No you didn't.

I should have made it clearer. I mean "Yes I did (fail to read). Hehe".

 

[EchoingWhisper]

More MP give you a larger image that's easier to work on in post. It's an extreme example, but try doing a complicated edit on a photo that's 24 MP vs. the same photo that's 1024 on the long side.

That is a simply ridiculous example V-I. That comparison is akin to saying, "an elephant outweighs a house fly." Yeah, no chit Sherlock. 24 MP versus 1024 pixels??? WTF????

As Blair Wright pointed out, and as I pointed out, megapixels are overrated by many people. Thom Hogan has now tested four different Nikon D3x bodies; The D3x has more MP than Canon's top body, and is the highest-resolution d-slr on the market. But I challenge anybidy who says, "more megapixels is better" to go to the review, and scroll about 3/4 of the way down and look at the side-by-side comparisons of 12 MP versus 24.7 Megapixels when the D3 images are up-sampled to match the size of the D3x images...

It's really simple: 12 MP on FF is about all "most" professional-grade lenses can resolve. And, when using a truly superlative lens, like the 200mm f/2 VR Nikkor, the D3's 12 MP images can be up-sampled to produce images that look ALMOST THE SAME as D3x images...

If a guy wants more megapixels for critical retouching and spotting of images, which I have done, it's easy enough to up-rezz the image in software and get a nice, big file to work with.

Cool stuff. The lens technologies need some catch up. According to Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks, for 35mm, 25MP is maximum for f/11, 50MP is maximum for f/8, and so on - given that you have the perfect lens. It is not what the camera can resolve, but what the lens can provide.

 

[joealcantar]

Well if it was strictly studio shooting one could get away with a decent used Fuji S5. That camera is known for it's skin tones right out of the the camera.
-
Shoot well, Joe

 

[Derrel]

Cool stuff. The lens technologies need some catch up. According to Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks, for 35mm, 25MP is maximum for f/11, 50MP is maximum for f/8, and so on - given that you have the perfect lens. It is not what the camera can resolve, but what the lens can provide.

Turn that around and you see that MOST lenses, the majority of lenses made by Canon and Nikon and others, are not able to utilize more picel density than about 12 to 13 million pixels on a 24x36mm array. Lenses like Nikon's 200mm f/2 VR, which is the absolute best lens I own, are the type of rare exceptionally well-corrected, high-resolution lenses, that can actually make use of the 24 MP D3x; that specific lens however, is so well-corrected that a 12 megapixel capture from a D3s can be up-sampled to match the size of a D3x 24.7 megapixel capture, and the resulting image file is almost indistinguishable,even when looking at small, blown-up segments of the files,side by side...

As far as that web site with the theoretical diffraction limited computations: in the real world, with a 12.3 MP D2x sensor, which is an APS-C size sensor, I can see the SHARPEST images at f/4.5 to f/4.8. Smaller apertures begin to show the effects of diffraction.

As far as 24 megapixels and the Sony A77...stop by the dPreview review and see how poorly that camera resolves at anything much above base ISO...the 24 megapixels are basically wasted...

Once again--Canon is CUTTING its maximum MP count DOWN, to 18 MP, in its upcoming 1DX pro body...their lenses can't utilize 21MP anyhow, so no big loss. Currently, 95% of lenses in actual circulation are not good enough to make a 21 to 24 MP sensor actually better than fewer MP. ANd that's not considering how absolutely DEAD-ON PERFECT focusing must be in order to utilize 21 to 24 MP...miss the focus point by a little, and your "24 megapixel" camera outputs 6 megapixels worth of information--and I mean that 100 percent seriously. I'm not kidding.

 

[Derrel]

Reading fail.

Your original attempt to contribute to this discussion is a massive failure. You are indeed guilty of a reading fail. You are obviously not here to make any sense or to add ANYTHING of value to the discussion except a ridiculous comparison between a 24 megapixel capture, and a 1,024x pixel sized reduced file.

You have added no valid points, no valid links, and have provided only your mindless, smart-ass comments. Repeatedly.

 

[BlairWright]

So, to answer your initial question (we got a bit off track here)..

In studio having a full frame sensor is helpful but not required. If you need to get into this with $2k in your pocket I would look for a used Nikon D300S, they are selling for just under a grand now, then pick up a used 85 1.4D for about a grand. 85mm may be a little tight on DX so the other lens I would consider (staying within budget mind you) would be the 50mm 1.4G, they are around $500.00 new which would leave you some cash for a tripod or some hot lights.

I'm a Nikon guy so you get my honest Nikon based answer.. Canon people will have a different perspective but for that money you will be looking at a DX body and a good fast prime.

 

[Village Idiot]

Reading fail.

Your original attempt to contribute to this discussion is a massive failure. You are indeed guilty of a reading fail. You are obviously not here to make any sense or to add ANYTHING of value to the discussion except a ridiculous comparison between a 24 megapixel capture, and a 1,024x pixel sized reduced file.

You have added no valid points, no valid links, and have provided only your mindless, smart-ass comments. Repeatedly.

If you would have read the post instead of making up whatever it is you made up in your mind so that you could write yet another rant, you would have seen the words "EXTREME EXAMPLE". You know, hyberbole? Oh wait, you don't. You just know RANT RANT RANT RANT!!!

 

[TCRphoto]

I appreciate everyone's input. Yes, I'm not a megapixel counter, that's not really the issue. If I found a 14mp camera with a better DXO/IQ score than a 200 megapixel hasselblad, I would go with the former. I do have to note that the 1DX is getting a reduction in MP for reasons that have a lot less to do with IQ and a lot more to do with speed and video capabilities. It's a totally different camera.

 

[gsgary]

Google Sony A55 for studio use, i set a studio up at our camera club and did a demonstration then let them have a go an A55 user could not see anything through his veiw finder, we messed with it for half an hour, but i'm not sure they have fixed the problem with the A77

 

[Derrel]

"EXTREME EXAMPLE"

So extreme that it's POINTLESS. An "example" so contrived that it bears NO relation to reality. Like most of your posts. A useless post, designed to draw attention to yourself, our little Village Idiot.

Now, go back to the work you're supposed to be doing at your civil servant's job Idiot. You're wasting more taxpayer dollars than probably anybody else on this board.

Moving on to the post of a member who actually is contributing--the Sony A55's dim,dark viewfinder under dim studio modeling light conditions....that flaw was described here a few weeks ago, and it sounds absolutely like a deal-breaker; if the A77's viewfinder suffers from the same issue, it would be a very,very poor choice for studio shooting. TO me, the ISO range a camera has, at the LOW end, is more of a help than the megapixel count...but then, I am used to shooting with 2,400 watt-second power packs, so to me, the issue is often one of too much light, and not enough. I prefer a camera that can drop to ISO 100 over one that has a 200 ISO base.

 

[TCRphoto]

"EXTREME EXAMPLE"

So extreme that it's POINTLESS. An "example" so contrived that it bears NO relation to reality. Like most of your posts. A useless post, designed to draw attention to yourself, our little Village Idiot.

Now, go back to the work you're supposed to be doing at your civil servant's job Idiot. You're wasting more taxpayer dollars than probably anybody else on this board.

Moving on to the post of a member who actually is contributing--the Sony A55's dim,dark viewfinder under dim studio modeling light conditions....that flaw was described here a few weeks ago, and it sounds absolutely like a deal-breaker; if the A77's viewfinder suffers from the same issue, it would be a very,very poor choice for studio shooting. TO me, the ISO range a camera has, at the LOW end, is more of a help than the megapixel count...but then, I am used to shooting with 2,400 watt-second power packs, so to me, the issue is often one of too much light, and not enough. I prefer a camera that can drop to ISO 100 over one that has a 200 ISO base.

Yeah the a77 is OLED so it's quite a bit brighter. That said, it does suffer from noise at even moderate ISOs in comparison to a FF camera. I guess I was just curious to know if anyone had any real world experience with the differences. And yes, I shoot 2400 w/s power packs too, which is why I sorta liked the ISO 50 available on the Sony. But I guess I could use a ND filter on the 5D.

 

[Village Idiot]

"EXTREME EXAMPLE"

So extreme that it's POINTLESS. An "example" so contrived that it bears NO relation to reality. Like most of your posts. A useless post, designed to draw attention to yourself, our little Village Idiot.

Now, go back to the work you're supposed to be doing at your civil servant's job Idiot. You're wasting more taxpayer dollars than probably anybody else on this board.

Moving on to the post of a member who actually is contributing--the Sony A55's dim,dark viewfinder under dim studio modeling light conditions....that flaw was described here a few weeks ago, and it sounds absolutely like a deal-breaker; if the A77's viewfinder suffers from the same issue, it would be a very,very poor choice for studio shooting. TO me, the ISO range a camera has, at the LOW end, is more of a help than the megapixel count...but then, I am used to shooting with 2,400 watt-second power packs, so to me, the issue is often one of too much light, and not enough. I prefer a camera that can drop to ISO 100 over one that has a 200 ISO base.

And there you go with the rants and insults again.

Hyperbole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[penfolderoldo]

The OP asked if the 5D mark II is due an upgrade anytime soon. It's probably the body in Canon's line up that's most due for one, seeing as how the 1Ds line and 1D line are now being merged in the new 1Dx. At just over 3 years old it's starting to suffer from lack of an upgrade, but for me is still a great performer. I suspect (as much as anyone can without knowing exactly what's going on in Canon's mind) that it'll be next year now before it's 'successor' - if there is one - get's announced. It would do everything you want it to do in the studio, and then some.

 

[gsgary]

"EXTREME EXAMPLE"

So extreme that it's POINTLESS. An "example" so contrived that it bears NO relation to reality. Like most of your posts. A useless post, designed to draw attention to yourself, our little Village Idiot.

Now, go back to the work you're supposed to be doing at your civil servant's job Idiot. You're wasting more taxpayer dollars than probably anybody else on this board.

Moving on to the post of a member who actually is contributing--the Sony A55's dim,dark viewfinder under dim studio modeling light conditions....that flaw was described here a few weeks ago, and it sounds absolutely like a deal-breaker; if the A77's viewfinder suffers from the same issue, it would be a very,very poor choice for studio shooting. TO me, the ISO range a camera has, at the LOW end, is more of a help than the megapixel count...but then, I am used to shooting with 2,400 watt-second power packs, so to me, the issue is often one of too much light, and not enough. I prefer a camera that can drop to ISO 100 over one that has a 200 ISO base.

Yeah the a77 is OLED so it's quite a bit brighter. That said, it does suffer from noise at even moderate ISOs in comparison to a FF camera. I guess I was just curious to know if anyone had any real world experience with the differences. And yes, I shoot 2400 w/s power packs too, which is why I sorta liked the ISO 50 available on the Sony. But I guess I could use a ND filter on the 5D.

5D will shoot at iso50

 

[gsgary]

The OP asked if the 5D mark II is due an upgrade anytime soon. It's probably the body in Canon's line up that's most due for one, seeing as how the 1Ds line and 1D line are now being merged in the new 1Dx. At just over 3 years old it's starting to suffer from lack of an upgrade, but for me is still a great performer. I suspect (as much as anyone can without knowing exactly what's going on in Canon's mind) that it'll be next year now before it's 'successor' - if there is one - get's announced. It would do everything you want it to do in the studio, and then some.

Rumours are it will be MF and 100mp