I used to be into 35 mm photography and have not done much in a few years, I am now contemplating investing in a new digital slr, just wondering, do most of the photos in mags, ect, get taken with a pro level digi slr, or are they just still frames from a video, just wondering what the pros are doing now in the photography field.

 

Basically wondering if its worth investing in a camera for stills, or if just a quality video cam will serve both puposes, this is just for hobby, but i want quality work.

 

does anyone know how to take still frames from video?

 

i have used video editing software and either exporting to file or doing a screen shot. exporting to file tends to give better picture but not all software allows it.

 

get the rebel XT, the price just droped a lot, and its a great camera, I would also suggest getting a 50mm prime lens, its the cheapest lens that I have in my collection and is also my fav. and I wouldn't be able to do with out it.

 

Yeah im in a toss up between the rebel and a nikon, my 35 mm is a nikon and i have a couple of lenses, which i believe will work with the digi as well. whats the price on the rebel xt, oh and how many frames per second does it shoot. I love sequence photos, I will be using it as much for snowboarding as bikes, and sequence shots are important to me. thanks for the info.

 

video still wont cut it.

my girl just got the rebel thingy and that works killer!

gotta be high res for the mags!

 

video stills are always bad. not enough resolution. ok for avatar, but not for mags

 

canon 350d (rebel xt) shoots in fine at 8.3 meg with the raw setting getting up to 12.3 meg i think...mag quality...3 shot bursts in like 1 second i think...

the 10d is good if your on a budget (6.3 meg) and the 20d is right there with the 350d...

wanna go nuts get a markII...fine is something rediculous like 12.3 with raw up in the twenties...

and i am pretty sure your nikon lenses will fit the digi slr nikons, i don't think the manufacturers changed the lense sizes for this very reason...a ton of photographers would have revolted if they had to trash all of their lenses to get new ones...

 

that's a damn informative post.

 

...i like cameras...

 

thanks for the replies guys, very helpful. Im gonna go with a nikon so i do not have to invest in lenses I already have. Nomav6, I have a 50mm prime lense that i used with my 35mm cam, with a film camera a 50 mm is supposed to be as close to what you see with youre eye, but i heard with digis, they shoot at like 1.6 mag, so having a 50 mm is like having a 80 mm on a film camera, so im thinking of getting a 35mm lens, so it will shoot frames close to what a film cam would with a 50 mm. Am i right for thinking this, or should I stick with the 50, obviously i will try it myself but you seem to have some experience so just wondering what you think. Once again thanks for the info!

 

i thought 35 was the human eyes optical view or whatever.

 

Could be, im not sure, but i always used 50mm for a standard, because that is what the journalist were using before the zoom became so popular, and thats what ive read, I think that once an image is captured and printed, 50 mm is the closest match to human eye, on film anyway. The bit about the digi 50mm capturing images resembling an 80mm on 35mm film is something that i read, but i have no idea as to its accuracy. Southtown? Any ideas?

 

digi all the way, but film still takes the cake for cool photos for the wall, something about true film grain.....