Hi-Res Digital Camera

I am looking for a hi-res digital still camera....don't want/need video.....just digital stills at high resolution for blowing up images to larger sizes without pixelation.....something like 24" X 36" prints. I want a hi-res full-frame digital camera at the lowest cost....camera body with something like an fxx-135 lens. Any info/suggestions for this would be much appreciated....

I found this Canon EOS 50D DSLR w/ 18-135mm IS Lens for about $1000.00....seems pretty good....but it's not full-frame. The full-frame cameras take a big jump in price.....starting at about $2,500 - $3,000 and up for just the camera body without a lens.....

http://www.huntsphotoandvideo.com/det...urer=Canon

steve, cant help you with the full-frame, unless maybe you can find a bargain on an auction site like ebay or personals. it's basically a get what you pay for situation and the full-frames are going to be more expensive.

you could also look at digital camera backs if you have medium to large format film cameras. i'd love to have one for my old Canon F-1 but they just dont make camera backs for 35mm that i've found. but that camera had good glass and i hate that it's just collecting dust now.

you also dont necessarily have to have a full-frame to get the kind of quality you're after, but you're going to have to look around and do some research and you might still end up paying more than a full-frame sensor. you can buy used hasselblads and put digital backs on them, but some of those backs go for more than i make in a year

i have a friend over on retouchpro that uses a nikon d3 and he gets the most incredible macro shots i've seen in a long while. but, that one's something like $4500 and he's a professional photographer.

you could also try some of the camera review sites and see what they're saying.


also, for anyone wondering what the heck we're talking about, try this site: http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1x.htm

more AF points is best, something else to consider and whether they are sensitive horizontal as well as vertical, to be able to manually select the points I find is really handy for creative photography

CMOS is the sensor in the camera. The old style sensor was smaller and not as dense. CMOS is bigger and uses less power (which equals less noise in the shot). The cooler the chip the less noise you'll see in the shot. I've seen camera mods where people took their cameras apart to cool the Chips externally for space photography.

I digress.

The difference between High range cameras and mid range cameras like the D90 aren't much. A nikon d300 and a nikon d90 use essentially the same cmos chip. The onboard graphics engine is different which is where all the extra features and some speed in shooting come in.

Also the frame type makes up the difference in actual resolution. the D300 is fullframe, so you get the whole chip. The d90 is a smaller crop factor so you get a cropped frame, which cuts off some of the image at the edge of the sensor. This can be desirable under certain conditions where you can "widen" the apparent angle of a lens by using a cropped lens type on a full frame body. the Nikon 10.5mm wide angle lens actually shoots greater than 180 degrees field of view if you mount it on a d300 and saw off the hood with a hacksaw.

I guess what I'm trying to say. You can get full frame performance from a good mid range cropped sensor camera, depending on the lenses you use and the quality of the graphics engine on the camera.

Graphics engine equals:

focus points
frames per second or continuous shooting speed
Dynamic range controls (ie being able to sense that an image has high contrast and changing the tone curve for the sensor to shoot a better dynamic range)
lots of other cool stuff.

Highend fullframe cameras have the full "unlocked" graphics engine as well as the onboard speed and memory to use it, full frame exposure, and a few bells and whistles that actually are "mechanically" different from Midrange cropped frame cameras. Otherwise the cameras use the same chips (most of the time) with the midrange cameras using cheaper components to make them a tad slower and cheaper. The actual onboard engine (the stuff that gets fixed with firmware updates) is sometimes dumbed down or has features disabled even though the camera could technically use them.

I find www.dpreview.com does a good job of explaining the differences between models of cameras and competitors in their reviews. I wouldn't call the unbiased toward certain brands but there's not a lot of that going around anyway.

Good luck with the purchase.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: What model camera are you using???

mines got a bit of age to it now, 40d canon and it's not full frame and it's only 10.1 megapixel but the cmos is good, lens good and I've been happy with the results. Nikon and Canon cameras are pretty close in quality.

This site is pretty good with reviews cameralab

Thanks Colin, Craig, and Carl....very useful info...

....and thanks Vladamir....I'll keep my eye out for the MK3....I'm not buying until next September right before I need it.....so that might work out...

I'm picking this bad boy up in a couple weeks...the 24.6 megapixel, full frame Sony Apha A900 ($2700 body), Carl Zeiss 24-70mm f2.8 Zoom Lens ($1800), and new Sony HVL-F58AM flash unit ($500) to start... Although has some limitations that do not affect what I want to do, it seems to be the best bang-for-the buck for what I do want to do...with its closest image quality competitor being he Canon EOS 1D X that costs about 7k for the body... The Sony A900 is cheaper due to having no video and live view LCD...

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stor...onalImage1"

That is good looking camera, however I wont go that far to compare it with Canon 1Dx, it's closer to 5D mk2. But fall short in some cases and win in other.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS..._DSLR-A900
This is very short overview. Personal expirance from using 5D and Sony both.
Sony is a lot more noisy in higher ISO. Maximum ISO less then canon. Autofocus with native canon L lenses very fast and accurate. Sony was playing a lot and have softer look. Canon have better body build, I drop my cameras few times in concerts, work like nothing happen, just few scratches. I don't dare drop sony, fill very fragile Canon also have 14bit color vs Sony 12bit, you can see the different in color accuracy.
here is more comparissing:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/rev...mkii.shtml

Sony have big pluses, Canon have pluses, depend on your area of use.
5Dmk2 is older camera, 5D mk3 is due out very soon, I would recommend wait and then compare.
Don't take me wrong Sony is great camera and it very sexy looking. I have a lot of fun with it.

I am using for professional event photography ( concerts ) and landscapes.

Thanks for the feedback...

Found the Canon 1D sensor to be comparative to the Sony A900... The Canon 5D Mark II is a C-sized... Thought this review did a good job covering it...then go to the "results" tab for comparison to Canon and Nikon...

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Son...lens.shtml

If I had the money, I would go for the Canon 1D...that is for sure...much better control optoins and selection of lenses...

My only unanswered question is how weatherproof is the sony??? I know the canon and Nikon models art good...

I must be reading things wrong then...or it was mistated in the reviews that I read...

Edit: You are right...

Just read that the new Cannon 5D Mark III is going to be 32 MP...that's quite a jump!!!

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Canon-...2814.shtml

Thanks... Reason being that I'm planning to shoot from my kayak alot...

I just talked to a guy that has both the Cannon and the Sony...and he swears by the sony...actually said that he is in love with it...because of the "feel" of the camera, location of controls, and screen navagation... He works for Hunt's Camera here in Massachusetts...and says that the Cannon 5D Mark III is going to announce release within a few days...and that Sony is going to also announce new enhanced release of the A900... Guess there is quite a little digital camera war going on in this range...

Also found out a little known fact that Sony makes all the sensors for Nikon...interesting...

I need that resolution and detail for enlarged fine art works... I have a pocket cybershot for everything else...