Which Digital SLR Should You Buy?

For those who are ready to make the budgetary leap from $100+ point-and-shoots to $1000+ digital SLRs, one of your first considerations is which brand and model to go with. That's a subjective decision, but New Orleans Times-Picayune photojournalist Andrew Boyd, who's been shooting professionally for three decades, took a shot at sorting out some points to think about.

On his Discerning Photographer blog, he recommends picking and sticking to one manufacturer:

Buying a camera is the beginning of a long-term commitment. You’ll most likely end up buying additional lenses, strobes, and other accessories for this camera, all by the same manufacturer. Eventually you’ll need another, better camera as well. You’ll want your lenses to fit on the new body. And on and on ... so choose carefully, and plan on staying committed to the choice you make.

OK, so which DSLR brand does he recommend? Canon or Nikon.

Dollar for dollar, day after day, year after year, these are the two camera manufacturers who have consistently led the technological charge and delivered high quality, innovative yet very sturdy, dependable products for the advanced amateur and professional photographer. There are other excellent cameras on the market, and you can buy into another system if you choose. But I will tell you unequivocally that Canon and Nikon are the two safest bets you can make.

Which is better? Well, for that you'll have to read his blog, where he makes some side-by-side comparisons of specific models -- including the (under $1000) Nikon D5000 vs. Canon T1i, and the (over $1000) Nikon D90 vs. Canon 50D.

A lot depends on your specific needs and preferences, and ultimately you should go to a shop and try them out for yourself, but Boyd gives you some important criteria to think about. Plus, as it's often been pointed out, quality photojournalism (and videojournalism) has more to do with what's behind your eyes than what you're holding in front of them.

(Image copyright 2009, Andrew Boyd)

Death of the DSLR Camera?

Does the popularity (and high quality) of digital point-and-shoots spell doom for digital SLR cameras?

Gearlog, "a gadget guide by geeks, for geeks," thinks so.

As small auto-everything 35mm point-and-shoot cameras began to be able to create SLR-like images, SLR sales dwindled. We're on the precipice of the same thing happening in the digital world. Consumer DSLRs are going down.

How popular are DSLR cameras? According to the Camera & Imaging Products Association, DSLRs accounted for 8 percent of camera shipments in August. That may not sound like much, but considering that most DSLRs cost $500 to $1000, compared with point-and shoots that often cost $100 to $300, this is impressive.

Consumer-level DSLRs won't go away; they didn't in the film days, and they won't now. But they'll become marginalized as more and more people turn toward more convenient alternatives.

Gearlog's report provides fascinating historical context regarding the technological advances in cameras over the past half century.

Moving Movie Posters, Living Mag Covers, Frame Grabs, and the Big Red One

The Red One digital cinema camera, which costs as much as a car, enables you to grab crisp high-resolution still frames from video, blurring the distinction between moments and motion. Its 24-frames-per-second 9.4-megapixel capability eclipses even the fastest motor drives.

Alexx Henry created a series of living movie posters with one, and documented the process (below).

"I really believe this is the future and I’m super thrilled to be a part of the revolution. If you haven’t seen this yet, it’s very cool if it’s done right. What begins as a still image suddenly comes alive when the characters move, perform an action, and then resolve back to the poster frame. If you thought the portraits and newspapers from Harry Potter were the future, then look no further."

... and here are the results of that shoot:

“Teacher’s Pet”

“Diplomacy!”

“Students Have No Class”

***
Though the Red One is (at least for now) too big, not to mention too expensive, for in-the-field videojournalists, Canon, Nikon and Panasonic have all developed hybrid cameras that enable you to shoot both high-quality stills and video. A camcorder's ability to produce high-res frame grabs are an important consideration, since it cuts in half the amount of equipment you need to shlep to bring back video and stills from an assignment. But it carries with it ethical, aesthetic and philosophical considerations.

Henri Cartier-Bresson's "decisive moment" is no longer frozen in time, but now one of a series of points on a timeline. This may sound inconsequential, but in fact relates directly to the contrasting considerations of a video and a still shooter. At the most basic level, when you're shooting video, you're not trying to find just the right image, but rather the right sequence of movements, events, interactions. You want to follow your subject from point A, through B, to C. If you get lucky, one of those thousands of frames will distill the essence of your story -- but not necessarily!

We probably know better than most how infrequently even the best videos contain even a single still image that embodies the whole, since for every video story we post on KobreGuide, we actively search for one image that best represents it. And yet how elusive those single images are!

For "Turtle Man," to use but one small example, we wanted so badly to show you a still that encompassed both the subject's big toothless grin AND a closeup of a snapping turtle he's caught. The videographer did a terrific job by showing both -- but, except for long shots, never in the same frame! Ditto for other video stories we've showcased about dual subjects -- teachers and students, doctors and patients, and so on. A still photographer would have captured both in the same frame, but a videographer is more likely to pan or cut from one to the other, and is not looking for that one quintessential, balanced, harmonious microsecond.

For a single subject, however, there are instances when frame grabs do have an advantage.

That photo portrait of actress Megan Fox on the cover of this month's Esquire isn't a photo at all, but rather a video frame -- courtesy of shooter Greg Williams and a technique he's dubbed "Motos" (moving photos), again using that magical Red One.

According to the magazine:

"It allowed her to act," Williams says. "She could run scenes without being reminded by the sound of a shutter every four seconds that I was taking a picture. As in still photography, a lot of it is capturing unexpected moments. This takes that one step further." He then went back and pulled out the best images, which you can see in Esquire's June issue. Plus, there's a fantastic by-product: Even though we made the film to get the stills, we were left with ten bewitching minutes of footage of a beautiful woman. We edited it down to a mini movie, which is now available right here.

(Caveat: Be forewarned, this is not strictly videojournalism, but rather "loosely scripted footage with Fox — getting out of bed, rolling around on a pool chair, eating BBQ." You get the idea.)

On a more serious note, Harvard's Nieman Labs incisively analyzes the "frame-grabbing" trend, and offers these helpful considerations (with underlying explanations):

+ Frame grabbing works better on a camcorder with a “progressive” shooting option.

+ Frame grabbing works better at higher shutter speeds than would be used for shooting video.

+ Frame grabbing might require a video light rather than a strobe in low light

***
We've come a long way technologically since David Leeson (who recently left the Dallas Morning News) returned from Hurricane Katrina extolling the virtues of frame grabs from a HDV camera, but his subsequent observations were prescient:

Today, we still call them frame grabs. Tomorrow we will call them what they really are – photographs. The end result is that we do not have to sacrifice our legacy of still photojournalism simply because the medium has changed. We can move forward to a new era of storytelling where the demands of rich content in a digital age do not subjugate the decisive moments of life to obtain the "extended moments" waiting for us in motion and sound.