Bit these were shot with my Sony HD video camera. It does some things extremely well. Other things, like landscapes... not so good. Flesh can be really challenging because HD has such incredible detail you see every flaw.

Most modern cameras can shoot both video and stills and many, like mine, can do both simultaniously. The overall technology is identical with the notable exception of the shutter, which on a still camera will most often be a diaphraghm(leaf) type, while on a video camera will be a rolling type (which can make for some really strange and cool effects).

As mentioned, the camera does have Zeiss optics with an ok telemacro... (with optical stabalization, not digital which can be nasty) so it is pretty decent considering it is consumer level. I also just discovered that one of my favorite recent films (Crank) was partially shot on a nearly identical type camera made by Canon. And that was a big screen feature.

So, the long and the short of it is, much like music, equipment is only part of the equation. I have being doing photography for 35 years. Built my first dark room when I was 13. So, really, I can do this with just about any camera.

Steve - No, I lock my ISO to 100. I am old school. I use lighting instead (in this case nearly direct 2pm sunlight). That way the aperture can be cranked open, and a softer DOF focus with a nice bokeh achieved.

Perhaps on higher end equipment ISO will not be so problematic, but so far (in the sub 2000 dollar range) I have found that as the ISO goes up, so does the noise, and its not good noise. With the old real film ISO, the image would be much more grainy at high ISO, but it was pleasant to view. Digital noise is not.

I am pretty convinced that what camera manufactures call ISO, we musicians would simply call gain. And that is a sure fire way to add noise.

The video camera I am saving to buy (Sony NEX VG900) has a full frame (35mm) Examor sensor that I hope will reduce that issue considerably, and of course having an interchangeable lens system on a 35mm sensor means it will properly focus real 35mm camera lenses (cine or still).

Thanks for the kind words guys.

foxwolfen

 

Steve - No, I lock my ISO to 100. I am old school. I use lighting instead (in this case nearly direct 2pm sunlight). That way the aperture can be cranked open, and a softer DOF focus with a nice bokeh achieved.

 

Same here with the 100 ISO mate. Good light gives you so many options, but even if it's too bright to achieve wide apertures, I've got into the habit of carrying a couple of ND filters just in case.

 
Perhaps on higher end equipment ISO will not be so problematic, but so far (in the sub 2000 dollar range) I have found that as the ISO goes up, so does the noise, and its not good noise. With the old real film ISO, the image would be much more grainy at high ISO, but it was pleasant to view. Digital noise is not.

I am pretty convinced that what camera manufactures call ISO, we musicians would simply call gain. And that is a sure fire way to add noise.
 

I couldn't agree more Shad, and incidentally, I'm (sadly) old enough to have learnt photography when film speeds were measured in "ASA"! But unless you're after a certain effect, or it's just plain unavoidable, I was always advised to load up with slow film.
 
I find that one of the unfortunate results of the move from film to digital cameras is that we no longer have the choice of choosing different film stock. I shot almost exclusively on colour slide film (as well as black and white print film) and to me, part of the enjoyment was choosing which particular film to load up with dependent on what you were going to shoot. For out and out quality, you simply couldn't beat Kodachrome 25 and 64, but I'd reserve those for landscape and architectural shots where setting up on a sturdy tripod was obligatory. I also liked Ektachrome 100 for general use - it always seemed a little warmer than Kodachrome, although I eventually switched from Ektachrome to Fujichrome Velvia fot its excellent saturation. The other film I liked (mainly for portraits and group shots) was Agfachrome 100, which to me anyway, always seemed to render skin tones accurately.
 
I get the analogy you make with digital noise. However, to combat it, even at lower ISO settings, I've started shooting everything in RAW as this seems to give you the biggest latitude for "fixing things in the mix". I'm also currently using the Beta of Adobe's upcoming (and quite excellent) Lightroom 5 (get it HERE if you're interested).
 
I've tried a few free RAW editors, as well as the version of Camera RAW in my Photoshop Elements 11, and the DPP software that came with my Canon, and I can honestly say that in my opinion, Lightroom is just about the best of all of them for manipulating RAW images (it can open and process other formats but it's when handling RAW that it really shines).
 
Specifically with regard to digital noise, it has a really intuitive 'Detail' editor that allows you to balance sharpening and noise reduction:
 

The video camera I am saving to buy (Sony NEX VG900) has a full frame (35mm) Examor sensor that I hope will reduce that issue considerably, and of course having an interchangeable lens system on a 35mm sensor means it will properly focus real 35mm camera lenses (cine or still). 

Cool! My next purchase is definitely going to be a full-frame Canon. I'm soooooooo tempted now to pull the trigger on the stunning new EOS 6D
 
 

Thanks for the kind words guys.

 
It's love discussing photography and sharing images Shad, and it's always nice to see some photos from someone who obviously has an 'eye' for it.
 
 

Filters are essential. I have a full set of Cokin that I originally purchased for my Pentax 35mm film camera some 25 years ago. Great thing about that system is it will never be obsolete!