<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Professional Digital Camera?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://a2megapixel.com/professional-digital-photography/professional-digital-camera/57/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://a2megapixel.com/professional-digital-photography/professional-digital-camera/57/</link>
	<description>All Your Digital Photography Information in One Location!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:25:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Powered By Yahoo Answers</title>
		<link>http://a2megapixel.com/professional-digital-photography/professional-digital-camera/57/comment-page-1/#comment-134</link>
		<dc:creator>Powered By Yahoo Answers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:47:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://a2megapixel.com/professional-digital-photography/professional-digital-camera/57/#comment-134</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.yahoo.com&quot;&gt;Powered By Yahoo Answers&lt;/a&gt;


Any digital ranging from about 6 mp up would be sufficient.  The plain eye is not going to tell the difference and insofar as you are concerned, the only limitations would be in how far you can enlarge it.  

You can enlarge a picture in RAW if you know how and not lose much resolution at all.  I would suggest that you get some materials on how to do just that and try that if you need to enlarge into bigger pictures.  

Don&#039;t think at all that Canon and Nikon are the only brands.  I have 6 Nikons and 4 Canons if you compare the end product with cameras with a lesser price tag, you can&#039;t tell much difference.

However, since your experience is in film, I would even suggest that you stay there.  You can get very high quality film cameras now, even medium format, for ridiculously low prices and the quality is much much better.  People tout the &quot;fact&quot; that digital is less expensive, but a little spreadsheeting will disprove that very quickly.  If you amortise the high cost of digital cameras over your usage per the lifetime of the camera (which will not be that long because they are always being upgraded), add in the price of the printer and amortise that, add in the price of the ink and paper, (if you are printing them yourself), and take into consideration the end product, film is far less expensive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://answers.yahoo.com">Powered By Yahoo Answers</a></p>
<p>Any digital ranging from about 6 mp up would be sufficient.  The plain eye is not going to tell the difference and insofar as you are concerned, the only limitations would be in how far you can enlarge it.  </p>
<p>You can enlarge a picture in RAW if you know how and not lose much resolution at all.  I would suggest that you get some materials on how to do just that and try that if you need to enlarge into bigger pictures.  </p>
<p>Don&#8217;t think at all that Canon and Nikon are the only brands.  I have 6 Nikons and 4 Canons if you compare the end product with cameras with a lesser price tag, you can&#8217;t tell much difference.</p>
<p>However, since your experience is in film, I would even suggest that you stay there.  You can get very high quality film cameras now, even medium format, for ridiculously low prices and the quality is much much better.  People tout the &#8220;fact&#8221; that digital is less expensive, but a little spreadsheeting will disprove that very quickly.  If you amortise the high cost of digital cameras over your usage per the lifetime of the camera (which will not be that long because they are always being upgraded), add in the price of the printer and amortise that, add in the price of the ink and paper, (if you are printing them yourself), and take into consideration the end product, film is far less expensive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Powered By Yahoo Answers</title>
		<link>http://a2megapixel.com/professional-digital-photography/professional-digital-camera/57/comment-page-1/#comment-133</link>
		<dc:creator>Powered By Yahoo Answers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:46:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://a2megapixel.com/professional-digital-photography/professional-digital-camera/57/#comment-133</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.yahoo.com&quot;&gt;Powered By Yahoo Answers&lt;/a&gt;


I don&#039;t know much about the Nikon line - they are clearly good cameras and excellent lens.  

I do know that if you a Canon film SLR from the last ten years or so, you may be ahead of the game if you have a good lens, because it will work with the Canon Dslr line.  The XSi is much better than what was considered top-of-the-line professional Dslr just 4-5 years ago.  The D40 is a heck of a camera (the XSi was introduced after the D40 and has some of its features), even a used D30 is a solid choice.  

Any new Dslr you buy will have more than enough pixels for what you are indicating.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://answers.yahoo.com">Powered By Yahoo Answers</a></p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know much about the Nikon line &#8211; they are clearly good cameras and excellent lens.  </p>
<p>I do know that if you a Canon film SLR from the last ten years or so, you may be ahead of the game if you have a good lens, because it will work with the Canon Dslr line.  The XSi is much better than what was considered top-of-the-line professional Dslr just 4-5 years ago.  The D40 is a heck of a camera (the XSi was introduced after the D40 and has some of its features), even a used D30 is a solid choice.  </p>
<p>Any new Dslr you buy will have more than enough pixels for what you are indicating.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Powered By Yahoo Answers</title>
		<link>http://a2megapixel.com/professional-digital-photography/professional-digital-camera/57/comment-page-1/#comment-132</link>
		<dc:creator>Powered By Yahoo Answers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:19:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://a2megapixel.com/professional-digital-photography/professional-digital-camera/57/#comment-132</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.yahoo.com&quot;&gt;Powered By Yahoo Answers&lt;/a&gt;


You will no doubt get a lot of replays recommending Nikon and Cannon models but their true professional models are in the $4000 - $5000 dollar range and use sensors that are the size of full frame 35mm size and use lenses for that format.  They also make &#039;crop&#039; sensor models that use their own lenses that do not have a great reputation, those cameras will be in the $600.00 - $1500.00 range and may not have all the professional controls you are looking for.  Another choice are Olympus DSLR models that cost from $500 - $1500 as well but come with more features for a serious photographer and much better lenses for the money, even their inexpensive &#039;kit&#039; lenses have great reputations.  You might consider waiting to get to school and asking a photography teacher what they recomend.  At any rate check out this site for more information than you will ever need about digital camera.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://answers.yahoo.com">Powered By Yahoo Answers</a></p>
<p>You will no doubt get a lot of replays recommending Nikon and Cannon models but their true professional models are in the $4000 &#8211; $5000 dollar range and use sensors that are the size of full frame 35mm size and use lenses for that format.  They also make &#8216;crop&#8217; sensor models that use their own lenses that do not have a great reputation, those cameras will be in the $600.00 &#8211; $1500.00 range and may not have all the professional controls you are looking for.  Another choice are Olympus DSLR models that cost from $500 &#8211; $1500 as well but come with more features for a serious photographer and much better lenses for the money, even their inexpensive &#8216;kit&#8217; lenses have great reputations.  You might consider waiting to get to school and asking a photography teacher what they recomend.  At any rate check out this site for more information than you will ever need about digital camera.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Powered By Yahoo Answers</title>
		<link>http://a2megapixel.com/professional-digital-photography/professional-digital-camera/57/comment-page-1/#comment-131</link>
		<dc:creator>Powered By Yahoo Answers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:39:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://a2megapixel.com/professional-digital-photography/professional-digital-camera/57/#comment-131</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.yahoo.com&quot;&gt;Powered By Yahoo Answers&lt;/a&gt;


A Canon 40D or even XSi would do you well enough. Or, if you&#039;re Nikon, D40, D80, etc., all have more than enough resolution. Personally, I would say the minimum you&#039;re looking for is 8MP with good glass (lenses) to go with those 8MP. To be honest, I think the image quality of good 6MP cameras is good enough, but a lot of agencies seem to have an 8MP minimum. Also, to find 6MP dSLRs, you&#039;d be looking at older technology, so there&#039;s really no need to go that far back when you can get something new that&#039;s in the 8-12MP range. Even a used 30D or even 20D should be fine for your needs.

hfrankman: crop sensor cameras don&#039;t have a good reputation? That&#039;s not true at all. The top-of-the-line Canon sports body, the Mark III, is a 1.3 crop sensor. Until Nikon&#039;s D3, all of Nikon&#039;s digital bodies, professional and not, were 1.5 crops. The D300, D2X, Mark II, 40D, etc. all have fine reputations. Even if you&#039;re just talking about glass, both Nikon and Canon have a pretty good reputation in their digital series lenses (and you don&#039;t need to use the crop lenses on these cameras. I don&#039;t.) And while the $4000-$5000 cameras are the &quot;professional&quot; cameras, plenty of professionals use lighter bodies like the D300 or 40D on assignment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://answers.yahoo.com">Powered By Yahoo Answers</a></p>
<p>A Canon 40D or even XSi would do you well enough. Or, if you&#8217;re Nikon, D40, D80, etc., all have more than enough resolution. Personally, I would say the minimum you&#8217;re looking for is 8MP with good glass (lenses) to go with those 8MP. To be honest, I think the image quality of good 6MP cameras is good enough, but a lot of agencies seem to have an 8MP minimum. Also, to find 6MP dSLRs, you&#8217;d be looking at older technology, so there&#8217;s really no need to go that far back when you can get something new that&#8217;s in the 8-12MP range. Even a used 30D or even 20D should be fine for your needs.</p>
<p>hfrankman: crop sensor cameras don&#8217;t have a good reputation? That&#8217;s not true at all. The top-of-the-line Canon sports body, the Mark III, is a 1.3 crop sensor. Until Nikon&#8217;s D3, all of Nikon&#8217;s digital bodies, professional and not, were 1.5 crops. The D300, D2X, Mark II, 40D, etc. all have fine reputations. Even if you&#8217;re just talking about glass, both Nikon and Canon have a pretty good reputation in their digital series lenses (and you don&#8217;t need to use the crop lenses on these cameras. I don&#8217;t.) And while the $4000-$5000 cameras are the &#8220;professional&#8221; cameras, plenty of professionals use lighter bodies like the D300 or 40D on assignment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Powered By Yahoo Answers</title>
		<link>http://a2megapixel.com/professional-digital-photography/professional-digital-camera/57/comment-page-1/#comment-130</link>
		<dc:creator>Powered By Yahoo Answers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:44:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://a2megapixel.com/professional-digital-photography/professional-digital-camera/57/#comment-130</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.yahoo.com&quot;&gt;Powered By Yahoo Answers&lt;/a&gt;


Most professionals shoot either Canon or Nikon cameras, but the professional models cost several thousand dollars. Pick an entry-level DSLR from either company to start with. They will take the same lenses as the pro cameras, so you can buy lenses that you will be able to use when you move up. 

A mere 6 megapixels will be adequate for most applications. The exceptions are a few magazines specializing in pictorial content that have special requirements.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://answers.yahoo.com">Powered By Yahoo Answers</a></p>
<p>Most professionals shoot either Canon or Nikon cameras, but the professional models cost several thousand dollars. Pick an entry-level DSLR from either company to start with. They will take the same lenses as the pro cameras, so you can buy lenses that you will be able to use when you move up. </p>
<p>A mere 6 megapixels will be adequate for most applications. The exceptions are a few magazines specializing in pictorial content that have special requirements.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
