# Best semi-pro camera for studio shooting



## TCRphoto (Nov 3, 2011)

Hi everyone.

I have been doing a lot of research lately on the best camera to suit my needs.  I'm looking at D-SLR/SLTs and having trouble
deciding, so I decide that perhaps I could get some input from you folks.

I shoot 90% indoors/in studio with strobes. And the other 10% of the time I shoot outside in mostly bright lighting, so low light performance is 
a very low priority for me.  FPS speed is less of a concern as well.  I also do prefer a camera with greater resolution because I do occasionally
make larger poster-sized prints.  However, image quality is my highest priority.  

My price range is generally in the 2000 dollar range with portrait lens.  I can stretch a little for the right combo.

I have narrowed it down to the Sony a77 and the Nikon D7000 (I currently shoot Nikon but don't have a huge assortment of lenses so switching
systems is not much of a hassle).

I already have the decent 18-55mm VR lens so I figured if I did purchase the D7000, I'd get that and a wide angle zoom, like the 10-24mm nikkor.  
The Sony a77 outfit comes with what looks to be an excellent 16-50mm constant 2.8 zoom lens.  

I guess part of the problem is that Nikon and Canon are sort of between generations right now.  The d800 looks like it's going to be out of my 
price range, so I'm not sure I want to wait for that.  Image quality is my highest priority, followed by resolution.  Should I perhaps wait
for the next generation of APS-C cameras from Nikon and Canon?  Or is the Sony a77 a good buy?  Or is the d7000 better?

Any input you guys have for a studio photographer would be appreciated.  Thanks.


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 3, 2011)

Save a bit more and find a used 5D MKII. It's 21MP and would make a great studio camera. You could find a used Nikon D700, but you'll be lacking in MP and you're not going to need faster AF and high ISO performance in that type of environment.

I mainly do portrait work with mine and most of my work is on location.


----------



## CCericola (Nov 3, 2011)

I agree with Village. A used 5D MKII sound like it will fit your style of shooting. If an upgrade is not essential now then keep saving for the next generation.


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 3, 2011)

I would tend to agree.  A 5D (or better, a 5D mk II) would seem to suit your needs very well.


----------



## TCRphoto (Nov 3, 2011)

Thanks Will.  Is the Mk2 going to be replaced soon?  I'm not as up to date on Canon and their generation cycles as I am Nikon and Sony.

Edit: And also a good starter lens that won't get embarrassed at that resolution.


----------



## BlairWright (Nov 3, 2011)

Neither of those are Semi pro cameras, they are consumer cameras.. Semi pro would be the Canon 5D MKII or the Nikon D700.

But, both of the cameras you mentioned are very nice but I would stay away from Sony and stick with Nikon or Canon (check out the Canon T3 and 60D if you're not as Nikon fan)

Lastly, Megapixels don't matter. Case in point.. the Latest Canon pro camera is 18 MP, even less than the 5D MKII. Concentrate on getting the best lenses you can afford and don't worry too much about the body, they are disposable but glass isn't.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 3, 2011)

My vote is for a full-frame sensor, for easier use of the "good lenses", at indoor distances, and for avoidance of the "bad focal lengths" in order to do full-length shots at indoor ranges. For my money, NO APS-C sized camera can be among "the best" for studio work. None.

So, for your limited budget,I can't think of an actual camera, since unfortunately these days a budget of $2,000 with a lens is pretty much a pipedream. In terms of "best" at that price, I'd have to go with a used Canon 5D or Nikon D700, from a distressed buyer on the last day of the month,with a rent due notice looming over his head...

Megapixels do not matter much. In terms of ACTUAL MP count, at the 24x36mm sensor size and pixel pitch of the Canon 5D or Nikon D700, you will not get more resolution from a 24MP camera because the existing 35mm system lenses are not up to any more pixels crammed onto the sensor at any aperture smaller than about f/4.5. Using the Nikon D3x at 24MP for example, testers need to rely upon lenses like the $5,800 Nikon 200mm f/2 VR in order to have a LENS that is ACTUALLY CAPABLE OF RESOLVING enough detail to differentiate between 12-megapixel D3s image that have been up-rezzed, and actual 24MP captures. Regular, normal pro-series Nikkor lenses are quite good, BUT as we've found out with the new Sony A77, actually getting SUPERIOR results with 24MP isn't so easy. Canon has already figured this out and is cutting its top-level flagship back, to only 18MP, and providing users with Medium and Small-RAW  capture sizes.


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 4, 2011)

BlairWright said:


> Neither of those are Semi pro cameras, they are consumer cameras.. Semi pro would be the Canon 5D MKII or the Nikon D700.
> 
> But, both of the cameras you mentioned are very nice but I would stay away from Sony and stick with Nikon or Canon (check out the Canon T3 and 60D if you're not as Nikon fan)
> 
> Lastly, Megapixels don't matter. Case in point.. the Latest Canon pro camera is 18 MP, even less than the 5D MKII. Concentrate on getting the best lenses you can afford and don't worry too much about the body, they are disposable but glass isn't.



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.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 4, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> BlairWright said:
> 
> 
> > Neither of those are Semi pro cameras, they are consumer cameras.. Semi pro would be the Canon 5D MKII or the Nikon D700.
> ...



You're exaggerating the difference. 1024 pixels on the long side is less than 1 megapixels.


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 4, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > BlairWright said:
> ...



You're failing to read.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 4, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



Yes I did. Hehe


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 4, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



No you didn't.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 4, 2011)

Do not get the Sony A55 is crap in the studio, get an A850 or A900, but i would get a Canon5Dmk2


----------



## Derrel (Nov 4, 2011)

Village Idiot said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 4, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Reading fail.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 4, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



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


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 4, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 4, 2011)

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 (Nov 4, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 4, 2011)

Village Idiot said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 5, 2011)

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 (Nov 7, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 7, 2011)

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 (Nov 7, 2011)

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 (Nov 7, 2011)

Village Idiot said:
			
		

> "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 (Nov 7, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 7, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And there you go with the rants and insults again. 

Hyperbole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## penfolderoldo (Nov 7, 2011)

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 (Nov 7, 2011)

TCRphoto said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...




5D will shoot at iso50


----------



## gsgary (Nov 7, 2011)

penfolderoldo said:


> 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


----------



## penfolderoldo (Nov 7, 2011)

gsgary said:


> Rumours are it will be MF and 100mp



Haha yep, i've no doubt, i'd heard top speed of half a frame a second too!  perhaps I shoulda made it clear I was referring to the mark II doing anything required in the studio and not the potential mark III


----------



## gsgary (Nov 7, 2011)

penfolderoldo said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Rumours are it will be MF and 100mp
> ...




I'm the sort that will not buy the new model but get the old model for a bargain, one of my cameras is the 5Dmk1 but when the new one comes out i will buy a MK2 for a bargain. I should have been Scottish


----------

