DSLR conundrum: Canon 6D or Nikon D600 or ???

[Steven L. Gotz]

I want the best, least compressed, 1080p HD video available from a DSLR camera at the under $3000 price point (including one lens).

How do I get it? Is Canon the best way to get HD video, or the Nikon even better?

Or is the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Mirrorless worth waiting for?

I am so confused. There are too many choices and I am tired of reading camera specs when what I really want to know is which one produces the highest quality HD video? I can't seem to find that comparison. Are they all storing at about the same compressed rate, or is the advertising about 72Mb/s and/or I-Frame only what I should be looking at?

Is it important to have a high number of focus points like the Nikon? It sounds like it to my untrained brain.

Comparing the three leads me to the Nikon except for the videography notes on the Canon make it seem like I can store less compressed video. But even totally uncompressed video is useless if the focus isn't perfect. Right?

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos6d&products=nikon_d600&produ...

I want really, really nice video. Otherwise it isn't worth buying any of these.  I can stick with HDV for a while longer if I must.

Perhaps if I spell out what I want to do with it you might be able to provide better answers. I want to shoot pictures in a hurry at Disney World, in Hawaii, in Mexico and all the other places we go on vacation. I want to take video in those same places. Generally with a tripod or a Monopod, but sometimes not. I want to focus automatically, and quickly. But I want to be able to easily set up a rack focus when I feel like it.  I want to eventually buy a lens that will allow me to shoot extreme closeups of snails, and bugs and icky crawly things in motion as well as at the full frame size of a still. And I eventually want the biggest baddest telephoto lens I can get past my wife. I am going to want to do some greenscreen work and product shots in a lightbox.

I want a flash if I am not giving up higher quality, I don't think I need a built in GPS but it couldn't hurt. Wireless? Really? OK, I guess that could be handy. HDMI output is nice. I might be inclined to shoot 720p now and then if it means twice the frames to use for slow motion in post. A headphone jack is not always necessary but it could be important now and then. I would give it up for higher quality video if I really had to. Good in low light would be nice too.

Mono or not, I would like a decent microphone built in. My old Canon ZR-10 has a much better internal mic than my much more expensive Sony HDR-FX1. Carrying external mics on vacation isn't always something I want to do.

Am I missing a brand that makes more sense for me? 

I learned a lot from the last thread I opened about DSLR cameras in general and have researched the different lenses enough to know what kind of trouble I am walking into. But all is for nothing if I can't shoot some truly stunning video given the right lighting and subject.

[Mitchell_Lopez]

Steven,

Once again, you are going in the direction I am leaning.  (I followed you with the Sony FX-1)

This time I am looking for the same thing you are in a DSLR.  For me the motivation is compactness and versatility of also doing photos.  (I will still use both camcorder and DSLR,  and at time carry both)

I’m with you on the microphone thing.  I do tripod/monpod/wireless microphones with the command of “let’s do that again, I didn’t like that take”, with the usual  groan.  I’m also very good at “run and gun” with getting those spontaneous/"lucky to be there at that moment"/ once in a life time video shots.  I'm not shy where I "run" or getting in a little trouble (mostly just gettng kicked out of an area), but I got the shot I want.  A smaller video recorder would make life easier.

At times it is impractical to set up sound and shot and I am just lucky to get what I get.

Please continue your research with sharing.  Due to being too “busy", my research time is a low priority thus making my purchase on the far horizon.  I probably should just “jump into the water without putting my toe in first”, but that is not me.

Take your time on the research, you are doing us a service.

[Jim_Simon · Accepted solution]

I want the best, least compressed, 1080p HD video available from a DSLR camera at the under $3000 price point (including one lens).

Hands down, no question, the Panasonic GH2 using the Cluster v7 'Apocalypse Now - DREWnet' 12/15 GOP Soft hack.  Bitrates go up to 90 Mb/s and artifacts are non-existent even with the most difficult to encode material.

If you can hold off, then yes the GH3 would be worth waiting for.  If you can't wait, the GH2 will serve you very well.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gh2+vs&oq=gh2+vs&gs_l=youtube.3..0l10.1325.2932.0.3457....

[Steven L. Gotz]

Now that is the kind of answer I can work with. Someone who I know has lots of experience with Premiere Pro who also has experience with a particular camera and is very happy with it.

It looks like the GH3 doesn't need a hack, which I like the sound of. It may be that I would be happy with the 24p 72Mbps ALL-I mode in the GH3.

I can wait for the GH3. I just kind of wanted to have it during the first week of December, but I really don't "need" it until Christmas. I would rather get the latest and greatest to get the additional features that I can see myself using. Like controlling the camera from a SmartPhone. Like transferring photos over the wireless. Like the native 24p at 72Mb/s.

"artifacts are non-existent" sounds really good to me. I was pleased with the link to the comparison videos. It really helped. A lot. Thanks for that. The comparison to the RED is really kind of funny.

OK, I think I am convinced. I am going to mark Jim's answer as correct if he can help with the next question. 

So, Mitchell, what do you think? Is the GH3 the way to go? If so, the next question is which lens to start out with?

What do you say Jim? What is the starting point for a lens collection for a videographer who wants to take a few stills? Which lens is good for video and for stills, and is reasonably quiet, and has a wide range? I need to keep the price of the body and the lens and any adapters or tools to the under $3000 price range I gave my wife. At least to begin with. If I decide to jump into this, it will be head first and that means I have a lot of tutorials to watch and a lot of reading to do. But I would like to hear an opinion on a starting point for a lens.

My guesses as to a starting point run from the rather expensive Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 Lumix G Vario Zoom Lens down to the 14-140 shown here. I believe that Jim indicated in my other thread on DSLR cameras in general, that he would go with the slower 14-140 to start. I don't know if I need a faster lens yet. I might. It might be hard to say until I get annoyed at the slower lens, I suppose. I don't take all that much video indoors, but now and then it could come in handy.

The advantage of a less expensive "every day" lens like the 14-140 is that I could then also get a Macro lens like the 45mm shown here and stay with the budget.  The Minimum focus distance of 0.5' sounds like a blast. It also means I am going to need an odd looking contraption to hold the camera off the ground to shoot stills and videos of the creepy crawly stuff.

Although, from what I just read, it seems like I might end up leaving the Macro lens on for everyday use instead of the 14-140. I was surprised to read that the Macro lens was also good for other things. If the Macro lens is my every day lens, then I guess I would need a different telephoto than the 14-140. Something like this with a 100 to 300mm range. Or am I wrong? Is it too hard to use a Prime for someone used to a video camera like the Sony HDR-FX1?

[Jim_Simon]

The comparison to the RED is really kind of funny.

That's what sold me when researching.

As for lenses, it depends.  If you have enough light, then no question the best all-around "go to" lens is the 14-140.  It's got a good range, a very fast and quiet auto-focus, and excellent optical image stabilization (the best I've ever seen in any lens so far).  You can easily get the body, this lens, a some filters, SD cards, and extra batteries for less than $2000.

(And yes, going to a prime will frustrate the hell out of a shooter accustomed to having a zoom lens.  Hell, not having servo zoom is likely to be frustration enough.  Loosing zoom entirely will drive you maaaad, MAAAAAAD, I say!)

[Anthony_Abegglen]

Hi Steven have you had a look at the neww Sony A99 http://store.sony.com/p/Sony-Alpha-a99-Full-Frame-DSLR-Camera/en/p/SLTA99V

just a thought

[Mitchell_Lopez]

I had never considered a Panasonic.  Now the GH3 will be on my short list of contestants.

I was impressed on it's panning ability.  (Even though I avoid pans like the plague, sometimes they cannot be avoided)

Lenses are still up in the air.  I will need two minimum.  I haven't decided on length.  I'm still in the early stages of deciding, and will not make the plunge until after they are out, and opinions come out.

[Steven L. Gotz]

Anthony,

The A99 is a bit more expensive. While it has some nice features, I really want to come in under $3K for everything. And I think I need a built-in flash.

Mitchell,

I think the 14-140 is the way to go if a Macro lens is not one of your "must have's".  My problem is what do I get besides the Macro lens? Do I jump past the 14-140 to the 100-300? I think a lot more tutorials are on my to-do list before I figure that out.

[Mitchell_Lopez]

The 14-140 sounds like the way to go.  The difficult decision is what beyong that.  I like a long lens for photography.  But that same long lens will have to work with video.

I get the feeling you will chose long before I do.  I look forward for your reviews.

[Jim_Simon]

Don't forget the GH series has an ETC mode (Extended TeleConvert) wherein only the middle 1920 x 1080 pixels on the 18 MP sensor are used to create the image.  This has a crop factor that significantly increases your perceived focal length, without actually magnifying the image and creating digital artifacts.

So your 14-140 then becomes a 36 - 364 at the push of a button!

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/panasonic_gh2_11_mode_revealed.shtml

[Steven L. Gotz]

That's VERY interesting.

I am still stuck with the decision of which lens to go with if I use the Macro lens for most most things and only put on a telephoto when I need one.

On the other hand, if I get the 14-140  then I probably only use the Macro lens when I need it for certain things.

<insert audible sigh of slight frustration here>

If I use the Macro lens then I can use the digital zoom (ETC). But can I get used to a Prime or is Jim correct in that it will drive me batty.

I suppose the solution  would be get all three. The Macro, the 14-140 and the 100-300 but it takes me above the price range I wanted to stay in. $1837 for three lenses, $1299 for the camera body, another $200 or so for accessories to include a few extra memory cards, and all of a sudeen we are talking $3336 before taxes and shipping.

I am not saying I can't go over the limit, I will just have to do some fancy talking and spiffy footwork to get this past the controller of the budget due to my lack of foresight.

As I said, I have some studying to do. I would like to have the camera before Christmas for practice in advance of an upcoming trip to Hawaii.

[Jim_Simon]

My question is, why do you need a Macro?  The 14-140 covers that 45mm spot.

[Steven L. Gotz]

"why do you need a Macro?"

I want to take pictures of tiny little creepy crawly things like bugs and spiders and snails. Why? I never grew up? The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys? I don't know. Sounds like fun. Remember, this is a hobby. Fun. Entertainment. Self indulgence.

Therefore one issue is the minimum focus distance. With the Macro lens it is 6 inches and on the 14-140 it is over 19.5 inches. Another issue is the f/2.8 vs f/4.0 - so better in low light, right? It is pretty pricey though.

With the 14-42 the minimum focus distance is a bit less than 8 inches, not too bad at all, yet would still give me a nice zoom lens at the low end of the scale. And it is nice and small, light, and quiet. I could match that up with a 45-175 and be pretty well covered. It is also relatively small and light.

I am a little concerned that I will all of a sudden need it indoors, however unlikely that seems to me at the moment. I really don't want to decide after all of this that I need a lens that costs more than the camera - say something like the 35-100mm f/2.8 just to get a lens that is better in low light. I can't remember the last time I got my camera light out of the camera bag, even though it is always charged and ready to go.

Believe me, this is all new to me. I have no hands-on experience with a DSLR. I am probably going to have to go waste some poor camera shop owner's time showing me lenses just to buy them from B&H unless the local guy can match the price - keeping shipping and taxes in mind, balancing that with local service. I would rather just go to New York and visit B&H (I really, really love that store and would LOVE to go back to buy this camera, but that isn't possible anymore).

[Jim_Simon]

With the Macro lens it is 6 inches and on the 14-140 it is over 19.5 inches. Another issue is the f/2.8 vs f/4.0 - so better in low light, right?

Got it.  (And yes.)

I could match that up with a 45-175

I bought that and returned it.  I can't recommend it.  The autofocus is slow, and seems to hunt around a lot.  Plus there's no mechanical zoom.  You set the zoom speed in the menu, and that applies to both the zoom rocker and the barrel.  You can't manually control the zoom speed with the barrel.

I really don't want to decide after all of this that I need a lens that costs more than the camera - say something like the 35-100mm f/2.8 just to get a lens that is better in low light.

It may happen.  For indoor work, that and the 12-35 are at the top of the "must have" list.  (Unless you don't mind inordinately high ISOs.)

Here's a real world example.  I shot a ceremony recently, in a fairly well lit church, with normal windows (not stained) running down both sides.  I still had to use ISO 3200 to compensate for the 5.8 aperture on the 14-140 zoomed in.  At the reception, which was much more dimly lit, I was at ISO 1600 using the 20mm 1.7 lens.

I really do wish Panny would make a 14-140 constant T2.0 parfocal at a reasonable price.  That'd be the "one lens to rule them all".

[Steven L. Gotz]

I bought that and returned it.  I can't recommend it.  The autofocus is slow, and seems to hunt around a lot.  Plus there's no mechanical zoom.  You set the zoom speed in the menu, and that applies to both the zoom rocker and the barrel.  You can't manually control the zoom speed with the barrel.

That is terribly disappointing. I thought I had it figured out. It never really occured to me that I would specifically want to zoom by turning the barrel, having never had that option, but my mental picture of zooming with a DSLR includes manual zoom. I have never had a decent still camera so all I really know is what I have seen people do, and turning the barrel zooms the lens. Right? That is what I considered "normal operating procedure". Why the heck would they build a lens without that? Must be some strange internal configuration that I don't want to get too deep into just yet.

Rats.

I could easily go with the 14-140 and the Macro lens to start. I just thought going with the 45-175 was a great way to get up past the 140 mark.  I just noticed a 45-200 that is inexpensive and gets good reviews on the B&H site. Better reviews than the 45-175 that you returned. But is the stepping motor the problem? Should I avoid it and stay completely manual?

I have to say Jim, you have been very helpful. You are really allowing me to focus in (pun intended) on the final decision with a lot more information. I appreciate it.

I am so glad I don't have to shoot weddings. Actually, I am glad I don't have to do anything at all. Being a hobbyist is certainly  a lot easier on the back. I have seen you guys at work. That kind of work is not for me. I prefer a tripod, lots of light in outdoor settings and no brides to complain afterward.

Yes, I like the fact that the Macro lens is f/2.8 so that if I do have to shoot a little indoors, I can. It gives me my bugs and my portraits. It is just that second lens that is causing me problems.

-- Steven

[Jim_Simon]

turning the barrel zooms the lens. Right? That is what I considered "normal operating procedure". Why the heck would they build a lens without that?

It's not that they built a lens without it, it's that the zoom barrel is fly-by-wire.  It's electronic, not mechanical like most lenses.  So the zoom speed you set in the menu also affects the barrel.

I just noticed a 45-200 that is inexpensive and gets good reviews on the B&H site.

I shoot a school play tonight.  The 140 didn't quite get me close enough.  When I got home, I went searching.  That is the exact lens I added to my Equipment Wish List.  The other I added is a 4/3 Olympus 70-300.  It requires a 4/3 to m4/3 adapter, but that'll give me 300mm for $500 total.

However, I'd consider both of those as third lenses.  After the Macro, I expect you'll definitely want something that goes down to 20mm or less.   (Unless you always plan to be a good 30 feet or more away from your subject matter.)

[able123]

I want to take pictures of tiny little creepy crawly things like bugs and spiders and snails

http://www.pixiq.com/article/extension-tubes-for-macro-redundant-or-still-useful-

[able123]

http://www.arri.com/camera/tutorials/what_is_a_diopter.html

[Steven L. Gotz]

OK, those were very interesting links. Completely new concept for me. Thanks for that. It could be a major factor in my decision making process.

That indicates that I might be able to use my 14-140 with relatively inexpensive extension tubes rather than get a Macro lens. However, I was planning on using the Macro lens for lower light situations because of the f/2.8 being better than the f/4.0-5.8 of the 14-140. I read where you can't use the extension tubes with the 45mm Macro lens. I wish I had saved that bookmark because now I can't find it again.

This is darn complicated isn't it? You would think someone would write some software that asked you a bunch of questions and then offered suggestions about lenses tailored to you specific requirements.

Since the price of the extension tubes is quite low in comparison to a lens, if I can use them with a less expensive (and lighter) lens, that opens up the price range for lens #2, or maybe lenses #2 and #3.

Let's just say that with a Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 Aspheric G- Series Lens (an extremely highly reviewed lens at 5 stars on B&H) I could get pretty darn close to my subject in relatively low light and use extension tubes to get even closer.  Yet it could be a decent lens for indoor shooting in general. The total price still comes in lower than the Macro lens and is better in low light. I like that thought. And it is much smaller and lighter.

I then go with the 14-140 which sounds like one of Jim Simon's workhorses. (4 stars)

That still leaves the longer telephoto lens. I think the Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 Aspheric G- Series Lens (4.5 stars)

That takes the price of the camera ($1,299.00) and the three lenses with the extension tubes ($1,674.00) to a total of just under $3K. My budget. However, by the time I add a new bag - maybe, since I have one for the video camera that might do the trick) and some filters (I need something to help shoot sunrises and sunsets, and deal with extremely sunny situations), some memory cards and an extra battery, I am probably up over $3,500.  Just about what I paid for the Sony HDR-FX1 when it was first released.

I think I might just have to visit that camera store pretty soon. Rumor has it that there is a really good one in Berkeley I might find useful. I need to go to Berkeley on Monday anyway, so that is probably a good time to give it a try. If I could see pictures taken with the different lenses, on a GH2, I could probably make my decision even before the GH3 comes out without a problem.

I really appreciate all this help guys. I sure hope that other people are reading this and learning as much as I am. I look forward to posting some video from a new camera before Christmas. Maybe some ten second shots posted in their original, untouched format. Even at 72Mb/s I can afford to post a few ten second shots at various bit rates. Although I might run out of bandwidth if I don't post them someplace like DropBox.

[able123]

with macro stuff your DOF is gonna be way shallow, so you'll wanna stop down a lot probably. So a 'fast' lens is NOT what you want for macro probably...just think of the fast lens for your low light normal photography and decide on that lens for normal use. For macro use you won't want it wide open probably.

http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/14009/is-it-normal-to-get-really-crazy-shallow-dof-with-a-m...

the more you stop down, the more DOF you get. wide open macro one spider eye will be in focus and the rest of spider will be out of focus.

the above link re: min focus and then move camera to get your shot is good advice. diopter will change that min focus if you want.

for most of your macro stuff you can probably get prime lenses cheaper, manual ( like zeiss ) for your camera.. and use extension tube and diopter as needed.

They are fast lenses, and manual focus etc...no VR etc..so cheaper...

The indoor fast zooms will be expensive but maybe you get one of those and the rest are primes ( manual focus etc ).

check the link re: DOF for macro

also, typically, most lenses are best stopped down around 2 stops from wide open. In terms of best quality image and out of focus pixelation ...2 stops down is about average for most lenses. Only the really really super expensive fast lenses are okay wide open and they are cine lenses, usually only manual..will try to find some links..

below are cine lenses, not auto focus, vr or auto anything

manual focus , fast primes...good choice , use with diopter and ext tube if necessary

http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/cine_lenses.html

fast zooms very expensive where wide open is as good as all f stops ( t stop is same as f stop but is a more true ( accurate) measurment )

http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/carl-zeiss-camera-lenses/cine_lenses/master_lenses/master_zoom...

price for above lens

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?42362-For-Sale-ARRI-Zeiss-Master-Zoom-16-5-110mm

you dont wanna go there

even more insane...optimo lenses at this link are very good...but way expensive..

http://westcoastcinevideo.com/West_Coast_Cine_Video/Zoom_Lenses.html

so stick with one zoom (auto etc )  thats auto and fast and maybe prime or 2 for your macro stuff with ext tubes and diopters...

[Jim_Simon]

Here's a piece of advice that may put your mind at ease somewhat, Steven.  Whatever lenses you end up with at the start, is only the beginning.  You will always want more lenses for more scenarios.  There is no one magic lens that will do for everything you want to shoot, so don't even try and squeeze that in to your initial budget.  (And it really will be an initial budget.)  This is simply the nature of the DSLR beast.

[able123]

plus...keep in mind..the expensive cine lenses are rented by production companies. they dont buy them, too expensive. some still photographers and dslr video people will do the same, rent stuff for special occassions.

when renting you typically DO need to cover cost of lens ( credit card etc ) plus the rental, in case you drop the lens into the east river or something... the rental co will charge you for the lens plus rental instead of waiting for your insurance to cover the cost..that is between you and your ins company, not the rental co.

anyway, you now have tons of options and the bugs will love your attention.

[Steven L. Gotz]

... and the bugs will love your attention.

That made me smile. Thanks.

As I said before, I really appreciate this assistance. I have watched hours of tutorials and have many hours more to go, just to get to the starting line. I do understand about the desire for new lenses, I just figure that one inexpensive one now and then, and one rather expensive but not crazy expensive one once per year, should be something my budget can deal with. Unless I get another book contract or tutorial contract and then the sky is the limit.

for most of your macro stuff you can probably get prime lenses cheaper, manual ( like zeiss ) for your camera.. and use extension tube and diopter as needed.

That is what I have seen, yes. The 20mm lens I thought I might use for Macro work is relatively inexpensive Prime at $355.70. I am almost ready to start thinking I am actually understanding a lot of this - in theory only, of course. It was my impression that the Maximum of f/1.7 and the Minimum of f/16 gave me the range I require.  Or is f/16 not high enough?

I haven't taken the ISO tutorials yet. I have a feeling that is entirely new ballgame also. I feel like shooting with these cameras is like juggling three balls in the air. Something I can do quite well, by the way. It comes in handy with lots of nieces and nephews to entertain. We have f/, mm and ISO. Three balls in the air all at once.

This is going to be a real challenge. It could take a while before I get anywhere close to getting good at this, let alone master it to the extent I have a need to. I will never really master all of it. It just isn't going to happen as far as I can tell. Too much to learn and it keeps changing.

Fortunately, I have a decent enough credit rating, I think, to rent lenses if I need them for special occasions. Not the $58K lens perhaps, but maybe. But I doubt that will come up very often. I would rather pay a videographer as the wedding present than video a relatives wedding.  And my friends can afford their own wedding videos or elope for all I care.

I just want to goof off. Really. Well, actually I would love to sell some clips to Video Blocks. That would be cool. They want to buy them in groups of 100 or more, so it could take a while to come up with that many. I figure out of the two or three hundred clips I might shoot in Hawaii or Mexico on vacation, maybe 25 would be good enough to suit me, so maybe 20 would suit them. Although, I might get lucky. It happens now and then. Sometimes the sun comes out and shines on just the right place at just the right time.

so stick with one zoom (auto etc )  thats auto and fast and maybe prime or 2 for your macro stuff with ext tubes and diopters....

Right. I figure one Prime for close up work and some low light situations, a zoom from 14 to 140, and another from 100 to 300.  I see now that I made a typo in my post when I  wrote

That still leaves the longer telephoto lens. I think the Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 Aspheric G- Series Lens (4.5 stars)

What I meanto write, before I made a copy/paste error was Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F/4.0-5.6 OIS Lens - I got the link right up above, but the text wrong.

Oh well, back to the tutorials. And then on Monday I head to a real camera shop to see some of the things in person that I have been reading about online.

By the way, I am going offline in the morning until early Monday morning. Family obligations mean very little PC time, if any.

[able123]

the 3 balls in air can be simplified by keeping the following in mind....

Pick your F stop according to what you want your DOF to do...the smaller the aperture ( higher number F stop ) , the more DOF.

Some lenses are best at 2 stops down from wide open if DOF is not an issue to use another F stop.

The shutter speed, F stop and ISO are all directly associated with each other, in a way " equivalent" to each other.

For example, if you close your lens one stop, you increase shutter speed time once. ( ie. if you go from F 2 @ 125/s shutter to F 4.5, you simply change shutter to 60/s ).  This is true for the whole range of F stops and shutter speeds. For example, if you open lens 3 stops, you increase shutter speed 3 times.

The ISO is the same deal. If you want to keep your shutter speed the same when going from F2 @ 125/s ....to F 4.5 you can increase the ISO once...say from ISO 200 TO ISO 400.  With ISO's halfing or doubling is equal to a full stop or a 1 increment change in shutter speed.

So basically, the F stops, ISO's and shutter speeds all deal with halfing or doubling the light and exposure.

The things to consider are

F stop = depth of field and maybe 'clarity' of lens and out of focus background pixelation

Shutter speed = blur of subject in motion or NOT.

ISO = all chips have a range for the 'best' ISO with least amount of noise...try to stay in that range, but in pinch favor the F stop and shutter speed and go for broke with the ISO. You may be able to fix some noise issues in editor etc.

good luck

[able123]

The above stuff is your meat and potatoes of film and digital photography...

So mostly concentrate on that I think for now...

But in fairness to the digital world there are some other issues that should be noted...just for fun.

Mostly this is the obvious stuff ( how fast the shutter releases after pressing shutter release, so you dont miss an action shot ), how many FPS body can shoot stills, effective ISO range with no or low noise, formats video is saved to, etc etc..

But there is also 2 things that sort of bug me out ( in deference to your bugs Steve I hope they don't take offense me using this term ) and I've been sorta researching this myself as I plan to buy a camera in April...

This is the moire pattern problem and false color problem with digital , and also clarity of image focus at really high F stops.

In my case I'm looking at the Nikon D800 and there are 2 models. The normal body has a filter to help eliminate the moire and false colors, while the model D800 E has this filter removed. The E model is slightly more expensive for some bizarre reason. Without the filter images are more sharp, but the potential for moire and false colors is huge. If the moire happens or false colors there are ways to maybe get rid of it with software etc. So I'm having to decide which way to go with that choice.

The other thing about high F stop loss of focus issue...is explained pretty well in the Nikon D800 owners manual and I think I can live with that....

There's other stuff, re: mirror and mirror "up" use to eliminate shake etc but this pretty much covers most of my concerns... with outputs to save ( hdmi or sd outputs ) just more stuff to think about for on set monitors etc.