MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Best DSLR Camera?
Author
Rating
Options

Fatso

Any recommendations on best digital SLR camera to capture physique changes?
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Fatso wrote:
Any recommendations on best digital SLR camera to capture physique changes?


---Scott----
If it's for changes to yourself I'd suggest a camera that has Photoshop or Aftereffects built in, ha ha .
Open User Options Menu

Bill MacLean

This looks really cool. https://shapescale.com/...w.google.com%2F

If accurate it is awesome. There is a similar product called the naked scale

From a durability standpoint, I would be concerned about that mechanical arm that moves around on the shape scale. The Naked has all of its sensors in a standalone mirror, and the scale is just a little turntable that rotates the subject in front of the scanners That might be a more durable design, I don't know.
Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

Just got my hands on a bridge camera FZ1000 and it is very capable.

That or the sony a6000...

Photographer friends are impressed by it's quality and functionality and more than enough for simple portrait shots.

Good luck with the search
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

==Scott==
Seriously though there are many factors to consider. How much can you afford? How much experience have you had with cameras? Do you know an f stop from a shutter speed? Top end cameras can cost $4000 and up just for the body not to mention some very expensive lenses. If you are looking for a DSLR that will easily figure out the exposure automatically and function basically like a point and shoot then those can be had in the $700 range.Most real photographers never use auto and program everything manually.Are you up for that? Canon and Nikon are the best. I would settle for nothing else but I used to be a newspaper photographer so I'd want the best and toughest camera out there.A Canon Rebel is a cheap starter DSLR that would probably do well.
Open User Options Menu

Ray200

Any camera--within reason--will suffice. All that is required is continuity, ie, note down the distance from the camera, the focal length, exposure settings, shoot in the same lighting conditions (or as near as you can). As a measure of progress there's no need to get too technical.

Best,
Ray
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

---Scott--
The camera is insignificant if you can keep the lighting and everything as consistent as possible if the desire to have a good before and after sequence . Most of the time even the best before and after shots leave a lot to be desired . The before shot the guy is relaxed , looking bored etc etc, in the after the fellow is flexing hard , lighting has improved and a big smile on his face. The before and after shots on the left of this web site are about as good as I've seen and yet the lighting and pose still vary a little. It's very difficult to keep all the variables consistent when months elapsed between shots no matter how hard one tries or how good the photographer is.
Open User Options Menu

Bill MacLean

Consistency of the before and after shot is the main reason I believe those scanning skills could be so appealing. Keep the scale set in the exact same place with the same light, stand on it in the same pose and you should get really consistent scans

I have never seen one of these scales in action, but it seems ideal for before and after shot and well superior to a camera.
Open User Options Menu

backtrack

It doesn't matter what camera you have - if there's no one else available to take the photo it will usually be poor.
Open User Options Menu
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy