Help need help on purchasing camera for night shots

[wisbucky]

I currently have a Sony Cybershot T200. The camera takes great day time shots but at night it just isnt made for low light. Can anyone recommend a camera that would take great shots like of the parade, castle, etc. I dont want some huge bulky camera as I will refuse to take it. Anyone have any recommendations? Thanks in advance.

[NateNLogansDad]

Think tripod

[KarenAylwood]

If you just want an easy point and shoot that will take pics that are pretty good in low light, then I'd recommend the Canon SD series. I have the SD800 and my mom has the SD1200. She was really happy with her night shots from this past trip. Of course they didn't compare to mine.. but I was walking around with a couple thousand dollars worth of photography equipment (incl a tripod) :rotfl:

For the average person interested in capturing moments on vacation that isn't interested in a dSLR or bringing a tripod... I'd recommend the Canon SD series. Found it works great in indoors, low light and nighttime.

[wisbucky]

Im looking at the Sony DSC-HX1. Anyone have any input on this camera?

[KarenAylwood]

None on that one specifically but I had the Sony DSC-H5 before I got my dSLR and it was a great camera- gave very high quality shots.

[wisbucky]

None on that one specifically but I had the Sony DSC-H5 before I got my dSLR and it was a great camera- gave very high quality shots.


Did it work well in low light conditions such as parades or taking photos of the castle?

[Frantasmic]

This topic has been discussed in numerous threads lately. If you want low-light pictures like some people here can and do achieve, it really isn't possible due to the sensor size of a point and shoot.

Several recent point and shoot makers have attempted to make these cameras better in low light. Fuji has one that uses 3 sensors to get a picture. Canon recently released the S90 that does raw, has F2.0 aperture and some other cool innovations that should help. But, these are pretty new cameras and don't have a lot of people using them to review them as of yet.

Newer cameras will probably do better than an older camera, but the sensors on most of them just aren't really made for low-light photography that is more than just decent. It's physics.

Search for low-light or dark rides in this forum.

[wisbucky]

This topic has been discussed in numerous threads lately. If you want low-light pictures like some people here can and do achieve, it really isn't possible due to the sensor size of a point and shoot.

Several recent point and shoot makers have attempted to make these cameras better in low light. Fuji has one that uses 3 sensors to get a picture. Canon recently released the S90 that does raw, has F2.0 aperture and some other cool innovations that should help. But, these are pretty new cameras and don't have a lot of people using them to review them as of yet.

Newer cameras will probably do better than an older camera, but the sensors on most of them just aren't really made for low-light photography that is more than just decent. It's physics.

Search for low-light or dark rides in this forum.



Thanks much with that in mind what if I purchaser a DSLR camera what should I look for.

[pjacobi]

Even if you had the proper equipment, low-light photography almost always requires that the camera to be operated in manual mode. If you are not prepared to learn some new photography skill, you will be disappointed.

Make sure you next camera can be operated in full manual mode and learn how to use it. Practice, practice, practice.

Otherwise, put the camera down, sit back and just enjoy the ride.


-Paul

[KAT4DISNEY]

Im looking at the Sony DSC-HX1. Anyone have any input on this camera?

The Sony HX1 has a function that will take multiple shots and combine together in camera to reduce noise for low light/high ISO shots but I do not have the camera to know how well it actually works.

Even with DSLR's the best option for getting pictures of the castle and anything that is static is going to be a tripod. You'd probably be able to get some quite decent photos with your current camera and a tripod but that won't help with parades. When you're talking about the night parade and indoor rides then it will be a camera that allows higher ISO and a lens with a large aperture.

[wisbucky]

The Sony HX1 has a function that will take multiple shots and combine together in camera to reduce noise for low light/high ISO shots but I do not have the camera to know how well it actually works.

Even with DSLR's the best option for getting pictures of the castle and anything that is static is going to be a tripod. You'd probably be able to get some quite decent photos with your current camera and a tripod but that won't help with parades. When you're talking about the night parade and indoor rides then it will be a camera that allows higher ISO and a lens with a large aperture.

The current camera I have has an ISO of 3200 but the aperture is obvioulsy little and I am sure that is the problem. It is irritating as all get out. My parade pictures are all very dark if I use a flash.

[Golf4food]

are all very dark if I use a flash.

That's part of the problem, right there. Good night shots are almost always no flash. Your camera cannot properly expose subjects in the distance if you are blinding it with worthless light in the foreground where you have no subject. People snapping away with their p&s flashes at the castle standing in the hub just make me laugh - your flash is good for maybe ten feet and you are 100 feet away from the castle! If you aren't taking a night photo of a person or other object near you the flash is useless and causes more problems than it solves. If you are very close you can maybe get a decent flash shot of a parade, but only if you have a powerful flash and decent camera. Most p&s flashes are too weak and the camera sensors are not good enough in low light either. And most cameras will want to use a fast shutter speed if the flash is on (which is why your shots come out so dark - the shutter isn't open long enough to "see" anything beyond a few feet away).

Photos require light. In low light situations the camera needs to manufacture light: flash, longer shutter speed, higher ISO, wider apeture. Most p&s cannot do high ISO well (sensor too small) or wider apeture (lenses too small). Flash is, as outlined above, mostly useless. So that leaves longer shutter speed - but then you get shake which causes blur. Answer? Tripod. Even with a $10,000 pro level DSLR setup you'd still want a tripod for truly good night photos.

That said, if you get even an entry level DSLR and decent lens and use a tripod you can get good night shots around WDW. Some of the newer p&s or bridge cameras might also get close, but until and unless they get sensors as big as a dslr they will always be inferior when the sun goes down.

Nobody said photography would be easy, but it is always fun (even when aggravating). :thumbsup2

[wisbucky]

That's part of the problem, right there. Good night shots are almost always no flash. Your camera cannot properly expose subjects in the distance if you are blinding it with worthless light in the foreground where you have no subject. People snapping away with their p&s flashes at the castle standing in the hub just make me laugh - your flash is good for maybe ten feet and you are 100 feet away from the castle! If you aren't taking a night photo of a person or other object near you the flash is useless and causes more problems than it solves. If you are very close you can maybe get a decent flash shot of a parade, but only if you have a powerful flash and decent camera. Most p&s flashes are too weak and the camera sensors are not good enough in low light either. And most cameras will want to use a fast shutter speed if the flash is on (which is why your shots come out so dark - the shutter isn't open long enough to "see" anything beyond a few feet away).

Photos require light. In low light situations the camera needs to manufacture light: flash, longer shutter speed, higher ISO, wider apeture. Most p&s cannot do high ISO well (sensor too small) or wider apeture (lenses too small). Flash is, as outlined above, mostly useless. So that leaves longer shutter speed - but then you get shake which causes blur. Answer? Tripod. Even with a $10,000 pro level DSLR setup you'd still want a tripod for truly good night photos.

That said, if you get even an entry level DSLR and decent lens and use a tripod you can get good night shots around WDW. Some of the newer p&s or bridge cameras might also get close, but until and unless they get sensors as big as a dslr they will always be inferior when the sun goes down.

Nobody said photography would be easy, but it is always fun (even when aggravating). :thumbsup2


Guess I should of clarified myself more. With a flash I get bascially a picture that you can barely make anything out. Without a flash I am lucky if I can see a thing.

I was standing next to a girl who bought a $79 camera at Walmart. She was getting amazing shots. I had a $500 cybershot and I couldnt get a thing. I wanted to take my camera and throw it.

I am seriously considering a DSLR. I want the night shots of just being able to shoot something in the dark.

[VVFF]

Guess I should of clarified myself more. With a flash I get bascially a picture that you can barely make anything out. Without a flash I am lucky if I can see a thing.

I was standing next to a girl who bought a $79 camera at Walmart. She was getting amazing shots. I had a $500 cybershot and I couldnt get a thing. I wanted to take my camera and throw it.

I am seriously considering a DSLR. I want the night shots of just being able to shoot something in the dark.

You were judging the quality of her pictures from what you saw over her shoulder on a 2-3" LCD? Chances are they were blurry. You were using a flash at too long a distance so you got sharp pictures but hardly anything was illuminated.

Again, as others have mentioned, if you explore the manual modes of your camera you too can get blurry pictures just like your $79 wal mart girl was likely getting.

You can do better by getting a camera with a "fast" lens and decent high ISO ability but it won't make any difference if you don't know how to exploit those. Take a look at the CAnon S90 or Canon G11. But first, take a look around the 'net and learn about aperture, Shutter speed and ISO control.

A DSLR doesn't magically make every picture work. In fact, with a kit lens and left in auto mode it may blur the same parade pictures your trying to get now.

[wisbucky]

You were judging the quality of her pictures from what you saw over her shoulder on a 2-3" LCD? Chances are they were blurry. You were using a flash at too long a distance so you got sharp pictures but hardly anything was illuminated.

Again, as others have mentioned, if you explore the manual modes of your camera you too can get blurry pictures just like your $79 wal mart girl was likely getting.

You can do better by getting a camera with a "fast" lens and decent high ISO ability but it won't make any difference if you don't know how to exploit those. Take a look at the CAnon S90 or Canon G11. But first, take a look around the 'net and learn about aperture, Shutter speed and ISO control.

A DSLR doesn't magically make every picture work. In fact, with a kit lens and left in auto mode it may blur the same parade pictures your trying to get now.

The lady with the $79 walmart camera was next to me and she commented on how well her pictures all turn out. I have explored the camera's manual modes and in fact took it into a sonystyle store. They indicated it was not designed for low light shooting.

Therefore I am looking for a different camera.

[Chikabowa]

The only point and shoot camera, in my limited knowledge of the point-n-shoot category, that would do a decent job is a Canon G11 - which runs about $500.

Now... with that said... You still aren't going to get great low-light shots unless you learn how to use it correctly and have a tripod. The tripod is the #1 thing you can do to make your night shots turn out nicely.

So my suggestion would be to invest (or even borrow from the library) the book Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. Read that so that you obtain a good grasp of photography exposure elements, get a sturdy tripod and then practice practice practice! I would even do those two things with your current camera before you invest in a new camera. If your current equipment isn't cutting it after some practice, then invest in the new camera.

And if you want the $79 wal-mart camera... get it! Who are we to tell you that the images are horrible? You saw them with your own eyes. But those people with the amazing night images have usually invested some time, practice and knowledge (not to mention a little sacrifice in terms of carrying heavy equipment and tripods!) to get those images. :)

Hope that helps a little!

[wisbucky]

The only point and shoot camera, in my limited knowledge of the point-n-shoot category, that would do a decent job is a Canon G11 - which runs about $500.

Now... with that said... You still aren't going to get great low-light shots unless you learn how to use it correctly and have a tripod. The tripod is the #1 thing you can do to make your night shots turn out nicely.

So my suggestion would be to invest (or even borrow from the library) the book Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. Read that so that you obtain a good grasp of photography exposure elements, get a sturdy tripod and then practice practice practice! I would even do those two things with your current camera before you invest in a new camera. If your current equipment isn't cutting it after some practice, then invest in the new camera.

And if you want the $79 wal-mart camera... get it! Who are we to tell you that the images are horrible? You saw them with your own eyes. But those people with the amazing night images have usually invested some time, practice and knowledge (not to mention a little sacrifice in terms of carrying heavy equipment and tripods!) to get those images. :)

Hope that helps a little!


I seriously dont want the Walmart camera. LOL I love my Cybershot T200 but it just wont do the parade shots. And Sonystyle even admitted it so at least I know it wasnt me. I would really like to get a dslr and do some different type of photoseventually, but I am looking for help from those who know something about these cameras. I would like one that has auto settings as well.

[VVFF]

I seriously dont want the Walmart camera. LOL I love my Cybershot T200 but it just wont do the parade shots. And Sonystyle even admitted it so at least I know it wasnt me. I would really like to get a dslr and do some different type of photoseventually, but I am looking for help from those who know something about these cameras. I would like one that has auto settings as well.

If her $79 wal-mart camera was taking good pictures of the parade then it should be entirely possible with the Sony. You really need to explore the manual modes more honestly. It's entirely possible that even with a DSLR that's "designed for" low light shooting that you will end up with blurry pictures if you don't know how to handle the manual modes.

No P&S camera is really "designed for" low light shooting. The closest they come to that is the Canon S90. However, I assume by parade your talking about a nighttime parade such as spectromagic. For that, you really don't always need a camera designed for low light because the lights are actually your subject that need to be exposed.

How much are you looking to spend here?

[wisbucky]

$500- $900

[Chikabowa]

I seriously dont want the Walmart camera. LOL I love my Cybershot T200 but it just wont do the parade shots. And Sonystyle even admitted it so at least I know it wasnt me. I would really like to get a dslr and do some different type of photoseventually, but I am looking for help from those who know something about these cameras. I would like one that has auto settings as well.

Sorry - when someone writes in their original post that they don't want a large camera to lug around, it usually means that they aren't looking to go in the DSLR category since it's larger, bulkier and harder to lug around. :)

Here is the deal...
The Canon G11 that I rec'd is a bridge camera, meaning that you have a lot more in terms of manual controls. You can also shoot RAW with that camera giving you more in terms of control in your post processing. It is also more compact, able to fit into a pocket, and produces outstanding images. It's in the price range you just listed. It does have auto settings.

Otherwise, if you are looking to jump into the DSLR category, there is a array of cameras to choose from in the entry level models. However, you still need to educate yourself in terms of knowing what you are doing in order to make them work. In fact, you images could very well turn out WORSE than current if you don't know what you are doing. How would you feel about plunking down $1000 for worse images? And it's not the camera's fault... it is totally the person behind the camera. :)

Popular models include the Canon lines - XS, XSi, T1i, etc. The Nikon line includes - D40, D40x, D3000, D5000, etc. There are others in both the Olympus, Sony and Pentax brands, but since I'm not familiar with those brands, I have to leave the rec's to someone else who knows a tad more than I. Those all (mostly) fit into the budget you've put out there.

Everyone will give you the same advice though - go to the camera store and hold and feel these cameras. Some say that Canon menus and ergonomics are intuitive to them. Some say that Nikon is. It's not the camera - it's the individual that makes the difference. So hold, touch, feel, see, and play around with the menus and shooting modes. All of that should help you make a decision.

Simply put...
What you want to do is difficult. It's actually some pretty medium to advanced photography principles involved - especially when you are talking about moving objects such as a parade while sitting in the dark. There isn't a single camera out there that is going to be small, be able to shoot on auto and come up with some of the pictures you see out there. The people who get those pictures have spent a lot of time studying and understanding the fundamentals of photography and then implementing them.

I'm not saying this to discourage you in the least. In fact, I hope that it will help guide you to learn more and practice more to accomplish your goals! It just sounds from the tone of your posts that you want the camera to accomplish it all and I'm just telling you that there is a portion of this equation that is camera and a portion of the equation that is you.

Everyone on this board is EXTREMELY helpful in terms of providing information and guidance in learning how to shoot a parade in the dark. So if you want to learn - ask the questions and people will be more than happy to help.

Just understand that getting the camera is only the first step. From there, it's up to you as there won't be a point-n-shoot or DSLR that will automatically get what you are looking for in terms of image.

Hope that helps! :)

[wisbucky]

Sorry - when someone writes in their original post that they don't want a large camera to lug around, it usually means that they aren't looking to go in the DSLR category since it's larger, bulkier and harder to lug around. :)

Here is the deal...
The Canon G11 that I rec'd is a bridge camera, meaning that you have a lot more in terms of manual controls. You can also shoot RAW with that camera giving you more in terms of control in your post processing. It is also more compact, able to fit into a pocket, and produces outstanding images. It's in the price range you just listed. It does have auto settings.

Otherwise, if you are looking to jump into the DSLR category, there is a array of cameras to choose from in the entry level models. However, you still need to educate yourself in terms of knowing what you are doing in order to make them work. In fact, you images could very well turn out WORSE than current if you don't know what you are doing. How would you feel about plunking down $1000 for worse images? And it's not the camera's fault... it is totally the person behind the camera. :)

Popular models include the Canon lines - XS, XSi, T1i, etc. The Nikon line includes - D40, D40x, D3000, D5000, etc. There are others in both the Olympus, Sony and Pentax brands, but since I'm not familiar with those brands, I have to leave the rec's to someone else who knows a tad more than I. Those all (mostly) fit into the budget you've put out there.

Everyone will give you the same advice though - go to the camera store and hold and feel these cameras. Some say that Canon menus and ergonomics are intuitive to them. Some say that Nikon is. It's not the camera - it's the individual that makes the difference. So hold, touch, feel, see, and play around with the menus and shooting modes. All of that should help you make a decision.

Simply put...
What you want to do is difficult. It's actually some pretty medium to advanced photography principles involved - especially when you are talking about moving objects such as a parade while sitting in the dark. There isn't a single camera out there that is going to be small, be able to shoot on auto and come up with some of the pictures you see out there. The people who get those pictures have spent a lot of time studying and understanding the fundamentals of photography and then implementing them.

I'm not saying this to discourage you in the least. In fact, I hope that it will help guide you to learn more and practice more to accomplish your goals! It just sounds from the tone of your posts that you want the camera to accomplish it all and I'm just telling you that there is a portion of this equation that is camera and a portion of the equation that is you.

Everyone on this board is EXTREMELY helpful in terms of providing information and guidance in learning how to shoot a parade in the dark. So if you want to learn - ask the questions and people will be more than happy to help.

Just understand that getting the camera is only the first step. From there, it's up to you as there won't be a point-n-shoot or DSLR that will automatically get what you are looking for in terms of image.

Hope that helps! :)


What I mean in terms of a big bulky camera is if it is one that is so heavy my arms hurt every time i lift it up then it is not worth it. But I would like a camera that has auto settings as well so if I have someone else shooting a photo for me I can easiy just hand them the camera. I understand there is a lot of practice with each camera. I have had my t200 for over 1. 5 years. I have done so much practice with it and it turns out it is the camera design and not me. So I just dont want to take that chance down the road again. The canon G11 sounds very promising but yet if there is going to be some draw backs i would like to know now before I buy it.

[disneyboy2003]

What you want to do is difficult. It's actually some pretty medium to advanced photography principles involved - especially when you are talking about moving objects such as a parade while sitting in the dark.

I agree with Chikabowa. One thing to realize about the "Auto" setting (regardless of which camera you get) is that "Auto" is pretty good at easy, daytime photos.

But when it comes to trickier scenes--like the dark Spectromagic parade, indoor sports, concert photography, etc--the camera doesn't know that you're trying to take a good picture of a small moving bright object in a low-light / dark setting. So the camera "automatically" guesses that you want the brighten the entire dark scene, and as a result, your bright subject becomes either way too bright or really really blurry.

That's why in these trickier low-light situations, you've got to tell the camera what you're trying to take a picture of (ie. you control the camera settings by using "Manual" mode).

A lot of folks on this board really recommend the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. You might also try one of the Dummies books, too (like "Digital Photography for Dummies"). I'm sure it covers the basics of photography, like aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc--the settings you'll be controlling in "Manual" mode.

[wisbucky]

I agree with Chikabowa. One thing to realize about the "Auto" setting (regardless of which camera you get) is that "Auto" is pretty good at easy, daytime photos.

But when it comes to trickier scenes--like the dark Spectromagic parade, indoor sports, concert photography, etc--the camera doesn't know that you're trying to take a good picture of a small moving bright object in a low-light / dark setting. So the camera "automatically" guesses that you want the brighten the entire dark scene, and as a result, your bright subject becomes either way too bright or really really blurry.

That's why in these trickier low-light situations, you've got to tell the camera what you're trying to take a picture of (ie. you control the camera settings by using "Manual" mode).

A lot of folks on this board really recommend the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. You might also try one of the Dummies books, too (like "Digital Photography for Dummies"). I'm sure it covers the basics of photography, like aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc--the settings you'll be controlling in "Manual" mode.


Oh gosh I wouldnt expect someone to take a photo for me in the night on an auto setting. Just that lets say we are outside and during the day and someone takes a photo of my husband and I, I would like the camera to have an auto setting. I know the camera can not have an auto setting to work in low light settings. Guess I probably worded that wrong.

[Chikabowa]

What I mean in terms of a big bulky camera is if it is one that is so heavy my arms hurt every time i lift it up then it is not worth it. But I would like a camera that has auto settings as well so if I have someone else shooting a photo for me I can easiy just hand them the camera. I understand there is a lot of practice with each camera. I have had my t200 for over 1. 5 years. I have done so much practice with it and it turns out it is the camera design and not me. So I just dont want to take that chance down the road again. The canon G11 sounds very promising but yet if there is going to be some draw backs i would like to know now before I buy it.

Of course there are drawbacks. There are to ANY camera. I shoot with one of Nikon's top-of-the-line cameras. There are STILL drawbacks. :)

All of the cameras I listed above have auto settings, so that shouldn't be a question.

There is no perfect solution... and really and honestly... you can't find those drawbacks on a message board. Sure, we can tell you that the Nikon D80, after ISO 400 gets a lot of noise, but what we can't tell you is - Does this matter to you? Do you shoot in situations where you need more ISO range? What kind of lenses do you have to mitigate the light-capabilities of this particular camera?

Additionally, for every drawback I might list about a Canon XTi, someone else will come back and say they don't notice, don't care or even like the drawback I've listed. It's just not a fair comparison.

Again, the best thing you can do is research, figure out what elements are important to you in terms of equipment needs, and then do a little more research and then go to the store and try it out.

You'd HATE my camera. It makes your arms hurt to hold it up. It's bulky and heavy. But dang... I have control in my exposures that most people can only dream about. :) So obviously I've weighed what is important to me and what isn't and then made a determination based on those factors.

So you really have to build your own pro's and con's list about each model. We can suggest models until you have a list 100 cameras long. But only you can then take that information and decipher it, apply it to your personal needs/goals/wants/desires, educate yourself and then move forward with a purchase.

There is no perfect camera - it's just a tool like a hammer.

[wisbucky]

Okay how about I post what I am looking for on a camera and maybe some folks can give me a suggestion on a certain camera.

I would like a light weight camera
A built in flash if possible
Looking to shots of the castle, parade inside rides and eventually would like to do close up of flowers
A camera that has easy to read menues
A touch screen menu
Easy control buttons to see.

Does this help.

[Bstanley]

I'm wrestling with a similar decision - a G11 or a DSLR. Mostly for low light (ie. inside rides) and it looks like small and low light do not go together.

The pictures below point out the issue (images copyright Digital Photography Review website)

http://bdz5pg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pQd6xfyluNXww9AVQLooYGMw4agdBi3kOnxEVkR3mUfP-yPx1BIL6xrAOO-84xg3H-CyXUGOfimqqUDq9GBkQsGdZxhCS4fKw/123di_button%5B1%5D.gif:

If the outer frame were a 35mm negative the sensor in your T200 (1/2.5 sensor) is about the size of the green rectangle.

http://bdz5pg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pP6JuNCexjo1aoKm_hj3e7X4V3omCx4CNd2W23aMOFzi5cmx RiWoiSNbs0JmI6tOKwtt09s0mwHOBpkFBVwDv6rDSgYSJlkQD/ccdsize%201.gif

If the outer frame were a 35mm negative the sensor in a 'starter' DSLR is about the size of the aqua rectangle.

http://bdz5pg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p8D7FfUVXxG2ByoVcXf7CcUvKJeCQJxAOxLP55rvZ0Gj00qV jLHXBgklJuGcTLwIf7sh79umnFc1-kT7b4smgZQ/ccdsize%202.gif

The G11 sensor is slightly smaller than halfway between the two (1/1.7). In this case bigger is better - it allows MUCH greater ability to sense light.

As to the weight - according to published specifications your T200 weighs 5.7 ozs, a G11 weighs 13 ozs and a Rebel Ti weighs 18.5 ozs. So go pick up a pound of dried beans from the pantry and compare it to your T200.

Sorry, but to this point at least, such a camera does not exist.

[VVFF]

I personally think the OP's best bet is the Canon S90. It has a bit better low light capabilities than the G11 and is smaller and more user friendly as well.

[Bstanley]

Yes, I absolutely agree.

I got distracted by my own G11 fascination.:rolleyes1

[mom2rtk]

Nothing beats a tripod for low light. If you don't have one, see if you can lean against something or use something to stabilize it on. Also, many lower end cameras will have "burst" mode. Try this. If you take several in quick succession, the odds are better that one will turn out.

Also, you can try the "night portrait" mode on your P & S if you are within your camera's flash range (very small, around 10 feet on many models). This will fire the flash AND leave the shutter open longer. But you still run some risk of camera shake.

Your best bet is still a DSLR and a tripod:

http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/mom2rtk/castleslights.jpg

[wisbucky]

Hello all
I thought I would let you all know I did some looking at cameras tonight and I have fallen in love with the Sony A330. I did look at the A380 and A550. But before I commit to buying it can some folks be kind enough to give me some helpful advice regarding these cameras. Maybe some insight as to positives and the negatives.

[Steve's Girl]

I'm not familiar with Sony cameras so I can't comment on the particular camera you are looking at. For low-light photography, a DSLR is clearly the winner due to the sensor size as PPs have already been mentioned. However, you may still be disappointed with the kit lens. When I bought my first DSLR, I also bought a relatively inexpensive 50mm prime lens. This lens lets in about 4 times as much light as the standard kit lens and really makes a huge difference in low-light situations.

[pixie08]

I'm not familiar with Sony cameras so I can't comment on the particular camera you are looking at. For low-light photography, a DSLR is clearly the winner due to the sensor size as PPs have already been mentioned. However, you may still be disappointed with the kit lens. When I bought my first DSLR, I also bought a relatively inexpensive 50mm prime lens. This lens lets in about 4 times as much light as the standard kit lens and really makes a huge difference in low-light situations.

i agree it is about the lens. The standard kit lens is decent to start but terrible in low light. For my canon I am buying a little nifty fifty which is cheap ($100 or so) and probably the body is a bit flimsy compared to pro lenses but great for low light.

I am not sure if any p&s really have good low light conditions???

[KAT4DISNEY]

Ok, I can comment on the A330 etc. It is certainly capable of doing what you want. For getting night time parade shots you would still want to get a "fast" lens (as you would with any of the brands). The Sigma 30 1.4, the new Sony 50mm 1.8 or a used Minolta autofocus 50mm 1.7 would all work out fine. The A330 and A380 have been designed to help P&S photogs transition to DSLR's with help in the menus so you may find that helpful.

The A550 (and also the A500 - I don't know if they had that camera but it's $200 less than the A550 b/c it doesn't shoot quite so many frames per second and has 12.3 megapixels compared to 14.2 on the A550) has a newer sensor and appears to have very good high ISO capabilities. With your desire for night shots etc. that require high ISO I would give an edge to the A500 or A550 over the A3xx's. You still would want to add one of the lenses I listed above.

Personally I find the Sony's very intuitive and easy to use.

[PaulD]

I would suggest that before you go out and buy a new camera to make sure that you are using the camera that you already own to its' fullest potential. I agree that there are a lot of cameras out there that are much more capable than what you already own but that doesn't meant that your current camera can't do what you want it to do.

I went onto the Sony website and downloaded the manual for your camera. As I suspected it has a night shot mode and a night shot portrait mode. So does pretty much every current camera made. By using one of these modes the shutter is left open much longer allowing the camera to capture more light and produce a night shot that is probably more like what you expect.

Get out your manual, read pages 43 and 44, and try using these modes (the ones with the moon). The manual suggests using a tripod as everyone here has already suggested. Experiment with these modes and see if they do what you want before spending a bunch of money looking for something that does it better. With such a small camera you can easily carry around a very small pocketable tripod that will do the job. These can be had very cheaply (as little as $10).

The pdf for the manual is at: http://www.docs.sony.com/release/DSCT70.pdf

Also, while I agree that learning the basics of exposure will always benefit the photographer I also think it's important to realize that there are a lot of people out there who just want the camera to take a photo for them. There's nothing wrong with this and, quite frankly, I think they far outnumber us photo nerds. Whether we like it or not, the auto modes generally do a reasonably good job for the average user. I like to use manual modes but I don't expect that everyone else should do the same.

So, give it a shot before you spend more money. You may be happy with your current camera and avoid the aggravation of finding out that a newer camera isn't any easier to work with.

[wisbucky]

I would suggest that before you go out and buy a new camera to make sure that you are using the camera that you already own to its' fullest potential. I agree that there are a lot of cameras out there that are much more capable than what you already own but that doesn't meant that your current camera can't do what you want it to do.

I went onto the Sony website and downloaded the manual for your camera. As I suspected it has a night shot mode and a night shot portrait mode. So does pretty much every current camera made. By using one of these modes the shutter is left open much longer allowing the camera to capture more light and produce a night shot that is probably more like what you expect.

Get out your manual, read pages 43 and 44, and try using these modes (the ones with the moon). The manual suggests using a tripod as everyone here has already suggested. Experiment with these modes and see if they do what you want before spending a bunch of money looking for something that does it better. With such a small camera you can easily carry around a very small pocketable tripod that will do the job. These can be had very cheaply (as little as $10).

The pdf for the manual is at: http://www.docs.sony.com/release/DSCT70.pdf

Also, while I agree that learning the basics of exposure will always benefit the photographer I also think it's important to realize that there are a lot of people out there who just want the camera to take a photo for them. There's nothing wrong with this and, quite frankly, I think they far outnumber us photo nerds. Whether we like it or not, the auto modes generally do a reasonably good job for the average user. I like to use manual modes but I don't expect that everyone else should do the same.

So, give it a shot before you spend more money. You may be happy with your current camera and avoid the aggravation of finding out that a newer camera isn't any easier to work with.

Thanks for the great help. But I have tried those settings. Taking a photo at night of any sort is almost impossible. I like to be able to just take a photo holding my camera of anything but it is basically useless. I have tried to settings every which way with no luck. :sad2:

[PaulD]

Thanks for the great help. But I have tried those settings. Taking a photo at night of any sort is almost impossible. I like to be able to just take a photo holding my camera of anything but it is basically useless. I have tried to settings every which way with no luck. :sad2:

Take a look at the following photo:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/2320766814_124ff207a7.jpg

This is a night shot taken with your same camera (Sony Cybershot DSC-T200). I found it with a quick search on Flickr.

I'm just trying to help you avoid the disappointment of spending $500 and then finding out you're still not getting the photos you want. I'm not saying it's the best camera for night shooting but I think it has more ability than you realize.

Let us know if you have trouble duplicating these results and we can probably help you with that. Good luck!

[disneyboy2003]

That's a really stunning photo, especially considering it came from a point-n-shoot camera!

With a little know-how, you can pretty much make any camera take similarly stunning night shots...at least, within the camera's limitations.

I'm not sure if that camera has manual settings, but if it did, the photographer probably used a low ISO, longer shutter speed, wider aperture (smaller f-number), and placed the camera on a tripod.

Or, the camera was probably on some sort of "night mode" setting, but still required a tripod.


Oops...I just re-read some of PaulD's posts, and looks like he said the exact same thing.

[wisbucky]

Take a look at the following photo:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/2320766814_124ff207a7.jpg

This is a night shot taken with your same camera (Sony Cybershot DSC-T200). I found it with a quick search on Flickr.

I'm just trying to help you avoid the disappointment of spending $500 and then finding out you're still not getting the photos you want. I'm not saying it's the best camera for night shooting but I think it has more ability than you realize.

Let us know if you have trouble duplicating these results and we can probably help you with that. Good luck!


Thanks again for taking time to help out. I would post some of the photos I have taken but they are pretty bad and I have deleted most of them. I took the ones that were bad into Sonystyle and showed them. They indicated the camera is just not designed for low light shooting. What I want the most is the ability to stand on the curb while the parade goes by and taking photos. But this has been pretty much out of the question. With a camera that allows more light in I was told those photos of the parade I want would turn out much better. If I have to use a tri-pod for every night shot I take with the current camera it is once again useless to me.

[Steve's Girl]

Take a look at the following photo:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/2320766814_124ff207a7.jpg

This is a night shot taken with your same camera (Sony Cybershot DSC-T200). I found it with a quick search on Flickr.

I'm just trying to help you avoid the disappointment of spending $500 and then finding out you're still not getting the photos you want. I'm not saying it's the best camera for night shooting but I think it has more ability than you realize.

Let us know if you have trouble duplicating these results and we can probably help you with that. Good luck!

OK, that is a nice photo. And you're correct in that most point and shoots on a tripod, with a low ISO and long shutter can take this type of photo. However, what you are missing is that the OP specifically said that she wanted to be able to take photos of night parades and other moving objects in low light. A tripod and long shutter is not the answer here. A bigger sensor is needed to be able to let in more light during a relatively short shutter speed. Using a long shutter speed will just result in motion blur and while that can occasionally create a cool effect, I don't think that is what the OP is looking for in Spectro shots.

[Pea-n-Me]

What I want the most is the ability to stand on the curb while the parade goes by and taking photos. But this has been pretty much out of the question. With a camera that allows more light in I was told those photos of the parade I want would turn out much better. If I have to use a tri-pod for every night shot I take with the current camera it is once again useless to me.
What you want would be difficult for even the best photographer with the finest equipment out there.

You can't get away from the fact that the camera has to stay still, especially when your shooting a moving subject. That = tripod, unfortunately - for all of us.

Nobody said it has to be a big tripod, though. You can use a $10 tripod from WalMart. Or a gorillapod. Or the top of a trashcan. But you have to keep the camera perfectly still. There aren't a lot of ways around it (well, maybe a few that the most skilled with the best equipment know ;) ).

Learning to work with that alone will change your photography world. Do that before you invest in any new anything.

The simple answer here is that improving your photography SKILLS will help you get the shots you want moreso than running out and buying a new expensive camera.

If once you work with that for a while you still aren't able to get the types of shots you want, then it's time to look at new equipment.

[Steve's Girl]

What you want would be difficult for even the best photographer with the finest equipment out there.

You can't get away from the fact that the camera has to stay still, especially when your shooting a moving subject. That = tripod, unfortunately - for all of us.

Nobody said it has to be a big tripod, though. You can use a $10 tripod from WalMart. Or a gorillapod. Or the top of a trashcan. But you have to keep the camera perfectly still. There aren't a lot of ways around it (well, maybe a few that the most skilled with the best equipment know ;) ).

Learning to work with that alone will change your photography world. Do that before you invest in any new anything.

The simple answer here is that improving your photography SKILLS will help you get the shots you want moreso than running out and buying a new expensive camera.

If once you work with that for a while you still aren't able to get the types of shots you want, then it's time to look at new equipment.

I agree with most of what you are saying - learning and practicing will do more for improving your photography than equipment will. However, I do not use a tripod for parade shots, low-light rides, etc. I find a tripod a little too cumbersome to use when trying to track a moving object. It is very reasonable to be able to stand on the curb and shoot Spectro as long as you have a camera and lens capable of that type of shot and know what settings to use.

[Pea-n-Me]

I agree with most of what you are saying - learning and practicing will do more for improving your photography than equipment will. However, I do not use a tripod for parade shots, low-light rides, etc. I find a tripod a little too cumbersome to use when trying to track a moving object. It is very reasonable to be able to stand on the curb and shoot Spectro as long as you have a camera and lens capable of that type of shot and know what settings to use.
Yes, but you are obviously highly skilled and have great equipment.

For a beginner, it's different. (I did allude to that in my post.)

I could be wrong, but my sense is that the OP is a beginner.

[boBQuincy]

I like a monopod for parades and such, it is easy to carry, not in the way, and allows rapid tracking of moving objects (even panning). The major plane of vibration is vertical and a monopod does away with that so it is about as good as IS but still works for moving subjects.

[Steve's Girl]

Yes, but you are obviously highly skilled and have great equipment.

For a beginner, it's different. (I did allude to that in my post.)

I could be wrong, but my sense is that the OP is a beginner.


But, I didn't start with skills and great equipment (I still question the skill part :rotfl:). Back in the fall of 2006, I posted a similar question on this board regarding upgrading to a DSLR. I received many responses advising me not to get a DSLR because I didn't posses the skills to use it, learn your existing camera first, etc. Well, I did it anyway. I bought a Nikon D80 with a kit lens and soon thereafter bought the 50mm 1.8 lens. And I practiced and learned. And a few months later, I attempted my first night parade at WDW.

http://wendymitchell.smugmug.com/Walt-Disney-World/April-2007/SpectroMagic/DSC1416filtered/151258667_mPKNk-L.jpg

I read lots of posts here, wrote down exif data from others' photos and went out and gave it a try. So, I think it is possible for a beginner to get decent low-light shots. There is a lot of trial and error involved, and they all won't turn out. But, you gotta start somewhere. And in these types of shots, the camera and lens do matter. My husband was standing next to me with our P&S and the shots were terrible! We used the manual settings and did all the "right" things. The camera just was not capable of that type of shot. I think beginners do need to be aware of the learning curve with a DSLR and have the understanding that you don't take it out of the box and magically produce great photos. But, if someone has the desire to learn and understands the pros and cons of a DSLR, why not? They're pretty forgiving. I only used program mode for a long time until I better understood exposure. But, that was how I learned.

[Pea-n-Me]

But, if someone has the desire to learn and understands the pros and cons of a DSLR, why not?
From his posts, he's said he refuses to carry a bulky camera or a tripod, etc. I more get the sense he wants to find a smallish camera that will "do it all".

Once I figured out the tripod thing for night shots and learned how to fully use my bridge camera, I was actually able to get some decent low light, moving shots out of it.

These were taken with my Canon S3 IS. So I do think it's possible for him to get what he's seeking without necessarily getting a dSLR - but it will require the efforts of learning to use it to its fullest. If he finds he still wants more, as I did, then it might be time to move up.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y69/paulandlinda/IMG_0831_f.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y69/paulandlinda/IMG_0113_1_f.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y69/paulandlinda/IMG_0114_1_f.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y69/paulandlinda/IMG_5257_f.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y69/paulandlinda/IMG_7702_f.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y69/paulandlinda/IMG_7697_f.jpg

S2 IS
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y69/paulandlinda/IMG_0020_f.jpg

[Pea-n-Me]

Wisbucky, have you considered or researched the micro 4/3 cameras? Someone like you may be who they had in mind when they designed them. Check them out. :thumbsup2

[Steve's Girl]

From his posts, he's said he refuses to carry a bulky camera or a tripod, etc. I more get the sense he wants to find a smallish camera that will "do it all".



I understand what you are saying. My comments were based on the OP expressing interest in the Sony A3xx series of cameras. I do think a 4/3 is a good option for someone who really wants the capability of a DSLR, but wants a small size. Some of the bridge cameras are as big as a 4/3 and cost as much too!

[pixie08]

I have to agree with the SLR point here. $500 is a whole lot for a P&S...you can a light small entry DSLR for $600 (like a canon rebel..it's not neccessary to have a huge $2,000 DSLR) and add a low light lens for $100, and an external indirest flash for $30 and you can get shots that are a 100 times better . Even if you are a beginner I wouldn't be intimidated by an SLR. They can be simple, not too bulky and not as far out of your price range as one may think. It's just a question of investment to me. I can not justify spending that much on a P&S.

It's all personal. If you really want those sort of shots, even the best skilled photographers won't get them with a P&S and that is jmo. If you are happy with a few decent shots than a Canon G series is what I would recommend. I have also heard great things about the Panasonic & Olympus macro 4/3 that Pea n me posted about although I have no experience with them.

[wisbucky]

Hey folks I am she LOL please dont refer to me as he LOL. I got somewhat lost in the posts here when you started talking about a 4/3 camera. I was looking at the Sony A330 since it was very user friendly very helpful in understanding functions. I dont think this camera is bulky in any way. I was just going back and forth between buying this A330 for $600 which is a dslr or should I got a step higher to a fully functioning dslr and purchase the A550. Now the question is what in the future will I use it for. Well I would use it for my scrapbooking, hanging great photos of unique shots I took on my walls in my home. I dont plan on making money of my photos, going into a photography business, comparing and trying to say my shots are better then others. It is just for my own use. My P&S camera takes great photos during the day. However I have noticed that some of my photos seem somewhat grainy. That is those that are in my scrapbooks. I did view and look at the Canon G11. Not really what I want as I would like to be able to change lenses.

Now with that all said and my gender on the right path LOL :thumbsup2 does anyone feel that the A330 or A550 by Sony would be a great fit for me? Be honest I can take it.

[boBQuincy]

For scrapbooking and printing photos to hang on the wall, any of the entry level dSLRs should be more than sufficient. Still, to get good photos of night parades will take a low-light lens such as a f/1.8. These come in various focal lengths like 50 and 30, with the 50 being the most common and least expensive.

Along with the camera and lens it will take some experience and knowledge of low-light photo techniques. Some noise reduction software would also help since you will probably be using high ISO (1600 and up).

[Pea-n-Me]

I must be confused. I thought you wanted a bridge camera. Now I see you're considering a dSLR. Good for you. Lots of Sony users here that I'm sure can give you good advice. Good luck.

[PaulD]

does anyone feel that the A330 or A550 by Sony would be a great fit for me? Be honest I can take it.

What I understand that you want is something that you can hand hold and still take photos of low light subjects (i.e. parades) without having to carry around a tripod. OK. There are two things you can do to improve your hand held low light photography. You can either increase your ISO (sensor sensitivity) or have a lens with a larger aperture (larger opening). It's true that a dSLR has a larger sensor and is therefore able to capture more light and produce better quality images. When you're using higher ISOs a dSLR is the only way to go. So, what you are looking for is a camera that is capable of high ISO, at least 3200 but preferably more. You should pair this with a lens that has a larger aperture. Look for something that has at least f/2.8 or lower (smaller numbers equal larger apertures).

I personally have a Canon 30D (ISO up to 3200) with a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. I find this combination barely usable for what you are describing but only because the quality of the image at ISO 3200 is so poor that I don't use it. As a result, I use a tripod and a lower ISO to get good low light images.

But, cameras have come a long way since then and they look a lot better at higher ISOs than mine. The Sony A330 goes up to ISO 3200 while the A550 goes up to ISO up to 12800. If you were to pick between these two the A550 should be your choice since ISO performance would be your primary concern. But, I don't know how good these cameras look at high ISOs. In the past Sony has not been able to keep up with Canon and Nikon in the image quality department. The A550 is new so it may have bucked this trend, though.

You should also consider the Canon 500D. It also goes up to ISO 12800 and so meets your needs. Pairing this with a fast lens (f/2.8 or less) should give you good results. Take a look at www.dpreview.com and read some reviews to get an idea how different cameras perform relative to each other. Then go down to a camera store and figure out which one feels best in your hand and has the most intuitive interface. I only recommend Canon because I'm familiar with them. There are lots of good cameras out there that will meet your needs. Find one you like to use and let that be the biggest influence in your final decision.

Also, make sure that you factor in the cost of the lens into your equation. The kit lenses that most of these cameras come with are not designed for night shooting since their apertures are usually pretty small (f/4 and larger).

Lastly, make sure you understand how to use your camera's exposure modes. Photos of parades are pretty difficult subjects to get right so you should have a good feel for exposure and how your camera works in general before you go to WDW. A dSLR leaves a lot more decisions up to you and it can be a lot easier to mess up your shots. Practice, practice, practice! Read, read, read!!

I hope this helps! And have fun with your camera. That's the point, right? :)

[wisbucky]

What I understand that you want is something that you can hand hold and still take photos of low light subjects (i.e. parades) without having to carry around a tripod. OK. There are two things you can do to improve your hand held low light photography. You can either increase your ISO (sensor sensitivity) or have a lens with a larger aperture (larger opening). It's true that a dSLR has a larger sensor and is therefore able to capture more light and produce better quality images. When you're using higher ISOs a dSLR is the only way to go. So, what you are looking for is a camera that is capable of high ISO, at least 3200 but preferably more. You should pair this with a lens that has a larger aperture. Look for something that has at least f/2.8 or lower (smaller numbers equal larger apertures).

I personally have a Canon 30D (ISO up to 3200) with a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. I find this combination barely usable for what you are describing but only because the quality of the image at ISO 3200 is so poor that I don't use it. As a result, I use a tripod and a lower ISO to get good low light images.

But, cameras have come a long way since then and they look a lot better at higher ISOs than mine. The Sony A330 goes up to ISO 3200 while the A550 goes up to ISO up to 12800. If you were to pick between these two the A550 should be your choice since ISO performance would be your primary concern. But, I don't know how good these cameras look at high ISOs. In the past Sony has not been able to keep up with Canon and Nikon in the image quality department. The A550 is new so it may have bucked this trend, though.

You should also consider the Canon 500D. It also goes up to ISO 12800 and so meets your needs. Pairing this with a fast lens (f/2.8 or less) should give you good results. Take a look at www.dpreview.com and read some reviews to get an idea how different cameras perform relative to each other. Then go down to a camera store and figure out which one feels best in your hand and has the most intuitive interface. I only recommend Canon because I'm familiar with them. There are lots of good cameras out there that will meet your needs. Find one you like to use and let that be the biggest influence in your final decision.

Also, make sure that you factor in the cost of the lens into your equation. The kit lenses that most of these cameras come with are not designed for night shooting since their apertures are usually pretty small (f/4 and larger).

Lastly, make sure you understand how to use your camera's exposure modes. Photos of parades are pretty difficult subjects to get right so you should have a good feel for exposure and how your camera works in general before you go to WDW. A dSLR leaves a lot more decisions up to you and it can be a lot easier to mess up your shots. Practice, practice, practice! Read, read, read!!

I hope this helps! And have fun with your camera. That's the point, right? :)


This sure helps. One reason I wanted to stick to Sony's camera have a very helpful menu. It guides you through steps to understand how your camera works.

I have had sony products for years. Have always been very peased with Sony's customer relations and thier products. The T200 is the first item of Sony's I have had that is not doing what I expected. However; it is not the camera's fault nor Sony's just my misunderstanding of what it could do.

[Pea-n-Me]

What I understand that you want is something that you can hand hold and still take photos of low light subjects (i.e. parades) without having to carry around a tripod. OK. There are two things you can do to improve your hand held low light photography. You can either increase your ISO (sensor sensitivity) or have a lens with a larger aperture (larger opening). It's true that a dSLR has a larger sensor and is therefore able to capture more light and produce better quality images. When you're using higher ISOs a dSLR is the only way to go. So, what you are looking for is a camera that is capable of high ISO, at least 3200 but preferably more. You should pair this with a lens that has a larger aperture. Look for something that has at least f/2.8 or lower (smaller numbers equal larger apertures).

I personally have a Canon 30D (ISO up to 3200) with a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. I find this combination barely usable for what you are describing but only because the quality of the image at ISO 3200 is so poor that I don't use it. As a result, I use a tripod and a lower ISO to get good low light images.

But, cameras have come a long way since then and they look a lot better at higher ISOs than mine. The Sony A330 goes up to ISO 3200 while the A550 goes up to ISO up to 12800. If you were to pick between these two the A550 should be your choice since ISO performance would be your primary concern. But, I don't know how good these cameras look at high ISOs. In the past Sony has not been able to keep up with Canon and Nikon in the image quality department. The A550 is new so it may have bucked this trend, though.

You should also consider the Canon 500D. It also goes up to ISO 12800 and so meets your needs. Pairing this with a fast lens (f/2.8 or less) should give you good results. Take a look at www.dpreview.com and read some reviews to get an idea how different cameras perform relative to each other. Then go down to a camera store and figure out which one feels best in your hand and has the most intuitive interface. I only recommend Canon because I'm familiar with them. There are lots of good cameras out there that will meet your needs. Find one you like to use and let that be the biggest influence in your final decision.

Also, make sure that you factor in the cost of the lens into your equation. The kit lenses that most of these cameras come with are not designed for night shooting since their apertures are usually pretty small (f/4 and larger).

Lastly, make sure you understand how to use your camera's exposure modes. Photos of parades are pretty difficult subjects to get right so you should have a good feel for exposure and how your camera works in general before you go to WDW. A dSLR leaves a lot more decisions up to you and it can be a lot easier to mess up your shots. Practice, practice, practice! Read, read, read!!

I hope this helps! And have fun with your camera. That's the point, right? :)
Excellent explanation.

The only problem for Wisbucky now is that the set up you describe is going to be a bit of a budget buster for her (she didn't want to go over $500-900). That ain't no $79 WalMart camera, that's for sure. :rotfl:

[Pea-n-Me]

A DSLR doesn't magically make every picture work. In fact, with a kit lens and left in auto mode it may blur the same parade pictures your trying to get now.
Also a good point. Even with great equipment, it still takes a while to learn to use it (some never do if they don't have the desire) and you also have to figure out which lenses work in different situations.

No magic bullet here, unfortunately.

[PaulD]

This sure helps. One reason I wanted to stick to Sony's camera have a very helpful menu. It guides you through steps to understand how your camera works.

I have had sony products for years. Have always been very peased with Sony's customer relations and thier products. The T200 is the first item of Sony's I have had that is not doing what I expected. However; it is not the camera's fault nor Sony's just my misunderstanding of what it could do.

You can't go wrong with Sony. We all have our preferences so stick with yours. As Pea-n-Me said, though, it's expensive!! But, you get what you pay for. We all have to work within a budget but keep in mind that a camera like this will last for years. Make sure it's one that you will enjoy using. Then prorate that cost over the life of the camera. That's how I talked my wife into letting me spend that money on mine! :rolleyes1

I see it on B&H for $949 without lens and $1049 with a kit lens. The kit lens goes down to f/3.5 so it's almost fast. This may be good enough for starters. Does anyone have any experience with this lens that can comment? Better lenses will cost you. If I were you I'd probably go with the kit lens and buy a better lens down the road once you know what you want and what kinds of photos you like to take. That's one of the cool things about SLRs; you can put any lens you like on there and it's like having a new camera.

I also just realized that the A550 has image stabilization built into the body. Pretty cool!

Let us all know what you decide! A camera like this should last for years. Get one you like

[wisbucky]

You can't go wrong with Sony. We all have our preferences so stick with yours. As Pea-n-Me said, though, it's expensive!! But, you get what you pay for. We all have to work within a budget but keep in mind that a camera like this will last for years. Make sure it's one that you will enjoy using. Then prorate that cost over the life of the camera. That's how I talked my wife into letting me spend that money on mine! :rolleyes1

I see it on B&H for $949 without lens and $1049 with a kit lens. The kit lens goes down to f/3.5 so it's almost fast. This may be good enough for starters. Does anyone have any experience with this lens that can comment? Better lenses will cost you. If I were you I'd probably go with the kit lens and buy a better lens down the road once you know what you want and what kinds of photos you like to take. That's one of the cool things about SLRs; you can put any lens you like on there and it's like having a new camera.

I also just realized that the A550 has image stabilization built into the body. Pretty cool!

Let us all know what you decide! A camera like this should last for years. Get one you like


Everyone has been so helpful. I am leaning towards the A550. I would like to get a 50mm f/1.8 lens so I have better capabilities of taking shots of the parade and such night shots. With the built in stabilization I was informed lens would be cheaper since they dont need this.

With all said what would you all recommend for a lens to purchase that would work well for night shots at disney.

[mom2rtk]

I bought the 50mm f1.8 first, but really didn't like that focal length. I added the 30mm f1.4 (I use Canon) and was MUCH happier. That lens is more exensive, but you might want to see if you can get a shorter focal length at f1.8 that would be reasonable. At 50mm, you could not shoot the entire float standing on the sidelines.

[KAT4DISNEY]

LOL - maybe you saw my post on page 3: http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=34186089&postcount=33 or maybe not but I talked about the A330/A550 and a couple of lenses.

Personally I even though I really like wide angle for some reason I like the 50mm lens better than the 30mm. That might be different though if I didn't have any zooms I really liked that went wide.