Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

DSLR Camera

bep207 said:
those example pictures you are referencing have been worked on in some sort of photo editing program, be it photoshop or something like that.
theoretically any photo can come out like this after some post-processing.

its what comes out of the camera RAW that is important.
which is where NIkon comes in.
D80 without a doubt.

Unless you have extremely tiny hands and have an affinity for toy-like electronics steer clear from Canon unless you have the money to buy their higher models.

You cannot get a better deal than the D80.
Click to expand...

Interesting position - why do you say that? Have you read my needs above? So a synopsis - good OPTICAL zoom? What about price? Flickr doesn't state any range. How about shooting in low light, night time? What about time between taking multiple shots? What about for someone new to DSLRs? It's good to hear people who feel strongly about a camera and can shed light on other cameras that people don't talk about, such as Canon and small buttons etc. (thought that may not be a problem for me). Hope you or someone else can talk to me about the D80.



If you end up going with a point 'n' shoot, one thing to be careful of is the advertised zoom factor. There's optical zoom, and digital zoom.

Optical is "real" zoom, where the physical optics are adjusted to achieve the zoom.

Digital zoom is simple "blowing up" the digital image to make it appear closer. It results in a much grainer picture.

Most P&S cameras use a combination of this. The will be advertised with something like "30X Effective Zoom!" That's likely a 3X Optical and 10X Digital. Bottom line, the higher optical zoom number, the better. I never used the digital portion on my old Canon A40 at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware that digital zoom is evil! But it's always good to point out, hence the reason I mentioned the need for lenses. But do stand-alone lenses do digital as well or optical only? Disabling digital would be helpful, heh.
 
I am also a fan of the Canon Digital Rebel XT. The Canon line of lenses is superb, and the ergonomics of the camera fit my hand just fine.

I would encourage you to go to a camera store with a good stock of bodies from different manufacturers and see what you like. Look at the lenses - these, not your camera body, will determine how your shots turn out.

Make sure, above all else, that you don't let some salesman talk you into something ridiculous, like the Canon 5D. I am sure that for your purposes, you won't need anything past 8 megapixels (Rebel XT, Nikon D70, Canon 20D).

Good luck with your search!
 
Sure, the Canon lineup of L lenses are unreal, but they are also unreal in price, usually around $1,400-1,500, and that's not even including the camera or anything else, just the lens.

Bottom line, you are not going to get the kind of results you want with a P&S camera. It's just not going to happen. Shooting performers on a stage, low light, outside = need a big time, pricey, f/2.8 aperture or smaller lens. You might be able to get decent results if you are right near or under the stage with a flash using a P&S, but besides that, you won't get ANY photos that look even close to professional, instead more like a mom shooting her kids at the school play.
 
If you like truly sharp pics, there is another DSLR that is going to beat any Canon or Nikon. Fits in with the Mac user type, too. (small market share, better pics, etc)

Sigma SD14.

The Sigmas have given the sharpest, most realistic pics since they first came out several years ago. They are almost 3D in nature, just like film. And the SD14 is finally a better camera on general features like the AF. I love the simplicity of the controls, like Nikon. If I could afford it right now, I'd upgrade my SD10 to the 14.
 
if you want sports photos... hands down canon 70-200mm f/4 L glass is the bomb! if you have the money, shell out for the IS version. but for low lighting you have to get something less than f/4.
 
JAT said:
Sigma SD14.
Click to expand...
Come on now JAT, of course the Sigma SD14 is decent, but the OP said he'd have trouble spending over $500 for his setup, the SD14 BODY alone is $1,600! In my book, a D200 with a killer lens can go much further for the money than the SD14. Get a D200 AND the 18-200VR lens and you still come out under the price of just the SD14 body.

Anyways, bottom line is that it's still way out of his price range. But if you were going to spend that kind of dough ($1,500-1,600ish for a body + lens), I'd probably start with the D200 + 18-200VR.
 
I think the advice given right now is getting a bit messy, and some of it seems unusable for Evan. :eek:

I'm sorry, but you're hoping to take outdoor photos at night without a flash, there's no way to do this. People can talk about the 50 mm f/1.8 all they want, or the 70-200 mm f/2.8, but you're going to need to spend like $5000 on lenses if you want to achieve results in your situation.

You'll save $4700 by buying a flash and a diffuser. :p The flash and diffuser will probably cost you a few hundred dollars. The diffuser makes sure that the people you take photos of don't look like a spotlight was shone at them when the photo was taken (ie: they're very bright, and everything behind them is dark). It'll give it a more natural look than your point & shoot flash.

I'd get the Nikon D40 because it's so great in low light, and because it is definitely a beginners camera that also happens to be very capable.

If you're going to use flash to shoot people from fairly close range, the kit lens will honestly do fine. It doesn't let in a lot of light when you zoom in completely (the "aperture" is smaller at 55 mm), but since you're using a flash, it'll be fine.

Money needs to be spent to get a lens that can photograph people from far away. A point and shoot with a huge zoom won't do it because it still won't let in enough light. The 18-135 mm, 18-200 mm, and even the 70-200 mm f/4 are also too slow. The 70-200 mm f/2.8 lenses may even be too slow. Since you don't plan on spending much money, no zoom will do the job from far away. I shoot events, and if the stage lighting you get is the same as what I have experienced, you're going to need a Nikon 105 mm f/2 DC. The other choice is the Nikon 200 mm f/2, which costs you thousands upon thousands of dollars. Get a used 105 mm f/2 DC lens. It's not a cheap lens, but it's the best lens for what you'll do. You can't zoom at all using that lens, though. However, zoom lenses will be very slow for you.

So get:

Nikon D40 + 18-55 mm kit lens = $679
- Nikon SB600 flash = $259
- Stofen Omnibounce = $30
- used Nikon 105 mm DC lens OR used Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8 = no idea. If you're lucky, you can get one used. Try Nikon Cafe or some other Nikon site with a used gear marketplace.


Prices are from http://www.thecamerastore.com/ProductsList.aspx
 
Abstract said:
- used Nikon 105 mm DC lens OR used Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8 = no idea. You'll be lucky to get
Click to expand...
I agree with pretty much everything Abstract said. However, the 105 mm DC will run you about $800, or the 80-200mm will run you about $850.

Point being, the entire setup w/lens, flash, diffuser, and zoom lens will run you at least $1,700 minimum for what you want to do. You really should think if it's something you want to invest in, considering you said you didn't want to spend over $500 total.
 
Here is what you need:
Canon 30D (1500) or 1DmkII ($3500)
50mm 1.8 $80
85 1.8 $350
135 2.0 $950
70-200 2.8 ($1200) or the IS version ($1700)
580EX flash ($400)
and of course extra batteries and CF cards for another $300 or so

Yup, not cheap. Night event photography requires some good gear to be donw well and done right. Realizing you can't affor this kind of gear a few options and thoughts.

You want to buy a camera with good high ISO performance. This may rule out Nikon. The Canon 1600 and even 3200 speeds will let you keep shooting when the light gets low. The photos will still look good and noise removal software will make them look great. Nikon just cannot compare to Canon at these high ISO's. While the Rebel may feel like a toy, it can be used very effectively in low light. The more ergonomic Nikon may feel better, but thats all it will do better when the lights go down. I've seen many Nikon shooters pack up and leave night games when the sun goes down and the Canon guys keep on shooting. Right now the difference in lenses is not much between Nikon and Canon. The difference in bodies is night and day (no pun intended). Nikon just can't compete with Canon's high ISO and is STILL only selling cropped camera bodies. Their R&D is moving at a snail's pace. Not where I'd want to invest my money. Guess what I use?

If budget really is a concern, then look at Fuji's FZ series. Good high ISO, little shutter lag, and good price. Not much zoom, but hey...thats what your feet are for.

Another consideration...if you have a SLR and you don't have a contract or agreement with the venue and performers you can find yourself being asked to leave. You are not allowed to photograph performers for commercial purposes without their consent. Not sure what kind of business and how its arranged, but you mention selling prints and magazines.
 
Abstract said:
I'm sorry, but you're hoping to take outdoor photos at night without a flash, there's no way to do this. People can talk about the 50 mm f/1.8 all they want, or the 70-200 mm f/2.8, but you're going to need to spend like $5000 on lenses if you want to achieve results in your situation.

You'll save $4700 by buying a flash and a diffuser. :p The flash and diffuser will probably cost you a few hundred dollars. The diffuser makes sure that the people you take photos of don't look like a spotlight was shone at them when the photo was taken (ie: they're very bright, and everything behind them is dark). It'll give it a more natural look than your point & shoot flash.
Click to expand...

If they are shooting events with any light then a 1.8 50mm or 85mm will be more useful than a flash and produce better results. Live performances often don't allow flash. Not to mention flash makes them look...well...like a flash hit them. I don't care what diffuser is used, flash as a source of light changes photos of stage acts. Also, if there is any action the flash will produce very dark unnatural looking backgrounds. Dragging the shutter will help this, but then you'd get some blur in the subject from the slow shutter.

Now, 'grip and grin' kind of photos will benefit from a flash. These allow you to get additional light and keep your background looking natural. Ditch the diffuser. They are largely a gimmick. The also flood the subject with light and eliminate all shadows. Yuck. Bounced flash (even off a person with a white shirt) is far better and works just as well. The black background has nothing do do with a diffuser, its from the shutter speed being too fast at the exposure to capture any ambient light.
 
CTYankee said:
If they are shooting events with any light then a 1.8 50mm or 85mm will be more useful than a flash and produce better results. Live performances often don't allow flash. Not to mention flash makes them look...well...like a flash hit them. I don't care what diffuser is used, flash as a source of light changes photos of stage acts.

....Ditch the diffuser. They are largely a gimmick. The also flood the subject with light and eliminate all shadows. Yuck. Bounced flash (even off a person with a white shirt) is far better and works just as well.
Click to expand...

Well I was suggesting that he use his kit lens and use a flash when photographing people in the crowd. He's not just photographing the act on stage.

I suggested the diffuser because one of the best options, which is to point your flash up and let the light bounce off the ceiling, won't be possible outdoors.

For far away photos, I suggested the 105 mm f2 DC because I've seen them used, and maybe it won't be impossible for him to purchase. It'll still be over his budget, though.

And the Nikon D40 performs excellent at ISO 1600, around the same as the 350D or 400D.
 
Abstract said:
I suggested the diffuser because one of the best options, which is to point your flash up and let the light bounce off the ceiling, won't be possible outdoors.
Click to expand...

I usually bounce from the side indoors or out. Just find a person with a light colored shirt, tell them to stand still off camera, point the flast at him/her and voila. Flash and a decent lighint patern on the face as opposed to flat and shadowless. If thats really not an option an old sock is about as effective and a heck of a lot cheaper. Try it..looks less silly too. (best when its not on tight so it can act a bit like a softbox and diffuse light in different directions.

D40 seems to be getting Nikon on the right track, but ISO 3200 look really ugly. Not bad for $500 or whatever it goes for. I still like the Canon b/c they are just moving that much faster. Nikon is just now getting to where Canon was 2 years ago with low end camera's high ISO performance.

Any way you slice it...this guy is either in way over his head or wallet. Either spend the money or use a good P&S as best you can. You can get great images from a good P&S (again...the Fuji) and then a good understanding of Photoshop. Thats where that 'glossy' look as you called it is done. Take that same image you took with your sony, apply USM at 200, 0.4, 0 and your images will really pop.
 
iso at 1600 actually performs better on the 350d canon. the CMOS system that canon has created is way better at high iso's than the nikons. read any review. thats why i chose the rebel!
 
Evan said:
So what do you suggest? Walking around with a light or something? When you say "good" photographer you're talking about knowing what ISO or something to use? I am liking what I see from the Rebel, this picture is really nice. So is this one. Would what I described above in terms of requirements for lenses be adequate for sports? (i.e. needing a good zoom) or is there another lens I would need specifically?
Click to expand...


::sigh::

It seems like he's got it stuck in his head that he needs a dSLR and there ain't nothin' we can say to make him see otherwise...
 
I know it isnt a dSLR, but i have a Fuji S5600, I got it because I'm getting more interested in photography, and with 10x optical zoom, a really fast response time for taking pictures, and all of the ISO/exposure time settings etc available to it, it does a really good job for me so far.
I've mainly used it for shooting snowboarding shots, and its near perfect. However, a quicker sequence mode would make it perfect.
My heart was set on a dSLR, but as this only cost me £130 I couldn't really justify buying a full-on system as I'm only just getting started really.
 
Veritas&Equitas said:
Then it also seems that he'll be spending quite a bit of money ~$1,500ish for a decent setup for what he wants to do :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sounds like he could be another "hmmm, people pay money for photos...I can buy a camera cheap and get paid". Not knowing that to get decent images worth selling requires plenty of skill or plenty of money to buy good equipement. To get GREAT images that sell you need both. Not to mention the business side that makes sure you don't get sued for your efforts.
 
Bloody hell you people are great! this isn't even a photography forum. Thanks a whole lot for bearing with me here.

I won't be buying the camera immediately, so I suppose it might go down in price if I buy in a few months or next year or something. Also, I came here to learn what I would have to pay, no sense in saying I have $500 to buy a car when cars are usually a little more than that. Buying a good camera with lenses is seemingly a good investment for what I want to do. P&Ss are not going to give me the zoom needed (I've been to a concert, tried it, no good). Also, for performers, I don't think I would NEED a flash, stages are well lit, and while I will get in to the press area, I guess zoom is the major thing. I've tried to find images of events in nightclubs or concerts on flickr using the D40, D80 ,no such luck. Let's say I have to pay $2000 for a body, lens es, extra batteries and memory, I could live with that, I guess. $2000 seems reasonable enough for all of that I suppose, (I have to multiply by 10 when you count shipping and money conversion, plus I'm 18 so you can understand why I don't want to spend TOO much) but it's a venture that I want done well (putting these images on the web) so investment in the camera is it, only thing is I don't know what to get. Thanks for your help in this so far.

No, I don't think I'm budging from getting a DSLR, I went to a concert and was close-ish to the stage and pictures looked like CRAP! Need better zoom by far. So thank you for the suggestion of actual items to get but I'm just SO CONFUSED. Rebel, D40, D80?

Also, let's say I'm in a nightclub taking pictures - I'm hoping I can get stuff like this. :D

Thanks for your help, I'll be back tonight, going to be out, but will try to take some pictures if I can get a memory card and maybe you can tell me if I'm so bad that getting a DSLR would not make a difference!
 
j5uh said:
...
i'd recommend the canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L glass. its about 1600-$1700. it's one of the best for indoor/lowlight settings....
Click to expand...

Umm... I have that lens. This lens is probably the second best walk-around lens. It's about $1200 (the IS version is about $1600). While it's the sharpest zoom I have used, it's by no means a "big zoom" (it's only 3X). From the sounds of it, he needs something in the long telephoto range- like around 400mm. Yes, Nikon makes the optically excellent 200-400 f/4 VR (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...88&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation). Yes, and while on the subject of bad advice, I must tell you, as soon as I sell my kidney, I'm getting the EF 300mm f/2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...02&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation).

But seriously Evan, unless you understand what you need, and why you need it, you shouldn't waste your time or money on something that might or might not be of use to you. A big zoom does not equate SLR. In fact most SLR lenses that are worth it are a 2-3X, although it matters what its length is (for example a 24-70 lens is about a 3X, as is a 70-200, but the latter is "longer", in that it is more of a telephoto, and less of a wideangle).
What everyone has been saying is that the more reach you need (the longer) lenses are the most expensive. Yes, if you had money I really would suggest the two lenses I linked up, because they would serve your purpose, and do what you want. But unless you can pull the 5K from somewhere (mind you this is only for the glass), I seriously would look at super-zoom cameras.

Good luck, mate.
 
EXIF says 17mm at f4.

To the OP...if you walk into a concert or club with a DSLR and long lens you are inviting large men with authority (and a chip on their shoulder) to check you for credentials. Failure to produce them usually results in an uncomfortable escorting to a back room, where you wait a long time for official representatives who then ask what you are doing and delete your photos. P&S cameras are largely ignored. This does depend on the venue and performers. Most A and B list acts do not allow photography with this kind of gear and many venues simply don't allow SLR cameras.

So again...make sure you do this right. Failure to do things by the book can result in bad times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back