Can this A58K take video footage just like a camcorder? Is the autofocus seamless and accurate like camcorders? How long can it take videos for?
631889
My son and I have "played" around with the video recording mode a couple times- I am no expert nor the best person to critique it, however I have had several camcorders and they seem better at video recording than this camera- but for a camera it did alright. I think it takes 29 minutes of video- that's off the top of my head. The camera specs should say. It is a great camera and probably the best entry level slr[t].
363343
Thanks. You are absolutely correct. I tried a high speed card (the exact one you recommed) and the video works great (no more dropped frames) even for very long videos. I used this camera to film a science project where students build and crushed balsa wood towers. It took as much as 10 minutes to pile on the weights before the towers broke, so the videos ended up being very long (at 420 fps, 10min of filming results in 140min of finished video). All this to capture about 1 second of slow motion crushing. Worth every penny.
493570
Indeed! The Canon XA25 and XA20 both have focus-tracking. In the auto mode, the camera selects/scans a face in the viewing area. The focus locks in and locks on, following that subject while in view. If you prefer it to track a different subject or object, just tap the viewscreen and the focus shifts and tracks with that object/subject. Ingenious! And so critical for event videography. You can, of course, disengage and go full manual. Except for a controlled, studio shoot, who would?
1452222
The A77 and the A3000 both record the same 1080 24p video. You might also consider the A58, the A77 is weather resistant. the extra pixel count is in the still photographs, not the video . Biggest difference in A77 and A3000 is in build quality, things it can do, the focus system, and size. Stop by a camera store, if you can, and get a feel for the camera. If you only need video buy a dedicated video camera.
616749
i have recorded numerous 5 and 10 minute videos with a bunch of stills.i cannot guarantee it, but i am extremely peased with this cameras performance.i use it on a daily basis, in all kinds of extreme conditions..Pipeline Workthe battery last ! and i would rate it a 5 on a 5 scale ;~PB
304125
Yes, it takes reasonable video for an inexpensive camera. The video function is minimal as this is not a 'video camera' per se.
969625
Tell the truth I haven't tried as when I shoot video the battery runs down soooooooooooo fast it is worthless. I would buy this camera if you are going to shoot videos. Mine will not hold the charge long enough to shoot videos unless you keep changing batteries. I am disspointed in the camera and have returned it twice to fix and still has not been solved. When it does work the video is clear as well as th pictures though.
291182
I don't expect this to be a very difficult camera to use. There's always the auto mode to fall back on. The key point to take note of is really how good and fast the autofocus is. You'll want to wait for reviews to appear before making your decision. I've the X100 and the autofocus performance there wasn't up to my expectation - it wasn't as fast and accurate as I like.
950091
I took daylight shots from a car on a superhighway through the Alps going over 80 mph and the shots were amazingly sharp. I love my A620! If you want the feature of shooting moving objects, you should use a camcorder. But if you want to "freeze" moving objects you must be able to set the camera to a fast shutter speed, which in turn means you need good lighting or a good flash. By now, there are newer and cheaper models than the A620, so look around.
553154
OK, let me preface my answer by noting that I rarely use my cameras for video. I have just tried a test video and it looks like it does autofocus with the 18-55 mm lens that comes with it. How it does with other EF lenses, I don't know, but since AF is built into the adapter, I would assume the same.
2152303
yes with just a little focusing ... video is a tad fuzzy but pics are great.. just make sure you have a good screen
1874389
Hi Yadid: I can't speak about other dSLRs, but I have to say that I really enjoy the tilting screen on the A300/A350. I didn't expect to use it very often, but I have found myself using it as a waist level viewfinder quite often. The fact that Sony's design, which uses a secondary sensor, allows you to focus while in the live-view mode puts it head and shoulders above the competition in my opinion. Most of the competing live-view technologies have to autofocus after the mirror flips up, so the Sony system is quicker to use. I never owned the A2, but I owned the Dimage 5 and 7 predecessors, which used many of the same components, including the lens. Either the A300 or A350 will offer quicker performance and better low-light capabilities. Image quality will depend on lens choice. The Minolta GT lens on the A2 was an excellent performer, so you will need to carefully evaluate which lenses you choose. Some people slam Sony for not offering as much in the way of lenses, but what they do offer is generally very good. In addition, you can choose from almost all the Minolta AF lenses. Some of these are mediocre, but Minolta also offered some truly excellent optics, as you know from your A2. Try http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta or http://www.dyxum.com for some in depth information on A-mount lenses available from Sony and Minolta. As far as a higher-end camera, you didn't say what you were hoping to do with your images. The A700 is a suburb instrument, and it offers many features not available on the A300 or A350. It costs quite a bit more however. Unless you need some of the things the A700 offers, (faster continuous shooting, higher-resolution LCD, PC Sync port, tethered-shooting, etc.) you might be better off buying the A300 or A350 and spending more on high quality lenses. Good luck, I hope this is helpful. --Tom Bonner
1847491
The optical image stabilization used for still images is very good. The sensor is an older version of current sensors (this is a $250 body) so it has some noise. The digital stabilization for video is about what one would expect. On a tripod, the camera gives excellent video. Hand-held, it isn't as good as a dedicated video camera (as one would expect). It's a good camera for the price IMO. A nice, impartial review can be found at dpreview dot com. I added an excellent Richard Franiec handgrip to the too-smooth body. (Google him if you're interested).
1508753
15 minute of continously recording before it stops × 8.A total of 2 hrs memory but its HD quality and wide angle is great.The inter changeable lenses are also very good.I don't know if that answered your question Sir.
2159833
I don't expect this to be a very difficult camera to use. There's always the auto mode to fall back on.The key point to take note of is really how good and fast the autofocus is. You'll want to wait for reviews to appear before making your decision. I've the X100 and the autofocus performance there wasn't up to my expectation - it wasn't as fast and accurate as I like.
197752
It's a great camcorder though. It has more features than any other pocket camcorder. See my review on Amazon for details. http://www.amazon.com/review/R1EVMDDEHU0WG0/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN;=B003ZYEKJ0&linkCode;=&nodeID;=&tag;=#wasThisHelpful
1791317
If you go to cnet, they have a more detailed comparison between the two. I'll try a link here... http://www.cnet.com.au/camcorders/0,239035877,339272971,00.htm