Camera Help!

[disneyfanUSA]

I currently have the Sony T77. I have had it since 2008. I am thinking about getting a new camera I want something that will

*take good night/ low light shots and are not blurry.
*Is affordable
*Built in video camera
*Easy to use
*Good zoom
*Do not want to be extra lenses.
*Do not want to carry a tripod around.
*Also I saw these on another thread but have no clue what they mean easy access to exposure compensation, RAW and HDR.??

I was thinking I would get a DSLR but after reading some posts it sounds like alot of work. I want a camera that will take really good pictures right out of the box. I have some knowledge about cameras and would probably be able to learn quick however. Would a point and shoot camera be a better choice?The camera must also be ALOT better then my other camera I don't want too wast my money on a camera that is practically like my old camera.

Please help :headache:

[Master Mason]

*take good night/ low light shots and are not blurry.

*Do not want to carry a tripod around.
:

The second item the list above makes the first one impossible.

[disneyboy2003]

I currently have the Sony T77. I have had it since 2008. I am thinking about getting a new camera I want something that will

*take good night/ low light shots and are not blurry.
*Is affordable
*Built in video camera
*Easy to use
*Good zoom
*Do not want to be extra lenses.
*Do not want to carry a tripod around.
*Also I saw these on another thread but have no clue what they mean easy access to exposure compensation, RAW and HDR.??

I was thinking I would get a DSLR but after reading some posts it sounds like alot of work. I want a camera that will take really good pictures right out of the box. I have some knowledge about cameras and would probably be able to learn quick however. Would a point and shoot camera be a better choice?The camera must also be ALOT better then my other camera I don't want too wast my money on a camera that is practically like my old camera.

Please help :headache:

Hmmm, it might be a little tough to meet all your requirements with a non-dSLR camera.

I took a look at your current Sony Cybershot T77:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41vRJ7sJP1L._AA300_.jpg

There are 2 reasons dSLR cameras are better than point-and-shoot (P&S) cameras for low-light / night photography. First, dSLR cameras have *much* larger sensors than P&S cameras. In a low-light situation, a larger sensor gives the dSLR camera a larger area to "collect" more light.

For example, your Sony T77, like most P&S cameras, has a sensor dimension of 6.16 x 4.62 mm = area of 28.5 mm2. On the other hand, the Canon T2i (an entry-level dSLR) has a sensor size of 22.2 x 14.8 = area of 329 mm2. As you can see, a dSLR has at least 11.5 times *more* sensor area to collect light than a typical P&S camera.

The second reason dSLR cameras are better at low-light & night photography is that you have the option of switching lenses, and using lenses that specifically have larger apertures. Larger apertures allow more light into your camera, which is important in low-light photography. As you delve more into photography, you'll learn about the concept of aperture, and how larger apertures (small f-numbers) allow more light into your camera.

I'll go ahead and address your other requirements:

You mention that you don't want to change lenses, but by definition, dSLR cameras give you the option of changing lenses. You can certainly use the "kit" lens that comes with your dSLR, and I'm sure that a lot of dSLR owners never venture to change lenses. But if you really want to get better at low-light photography, you'll need to get used to switching lenses so that you *can* use your large-aperture lens for low-light photography.

You mention that you want a camera that's affordable. I guess that's pretty subjective. You can currently buy the Canon T2i (Canon's entry-level dSLR, which came out in Feb 2010) for about $899.99. I'm only familiar with Canon's models, so others will have to chime in about Nikon, Pentax, Sony, etc.

The Canon T2i also allows you to shoot HD video, too. Shooting video with a dSLR is a brand new feature in the past 2 years, and might be somewhat different than what you're used to, but not that hard.

Easy to use? Canon's (and Nikon's) advertisements boast how easy their cameras are to use. You can certainly set the camera to "Auto" mode (ie. set it and forget it), but your pictures will really shine when you learn the basics of photography and venture outside "Auto" mode. Also, "Auto" mode is best at easy, daytime photography. However, as easy as it may be, "Auto" mode really doesn't do well with low-light or night photography.

Whether or not you want to carry a tripod is up to you. I went without a tripod for a few years, and I think I did okay. But if you're looking to take spectacular low-light photography, you will eventually need a tripod. A tripod is most useful for photographing fireworks and low-light *stationary* subjects (ex. Cinderella's Castle at night, Sunset Boulevard at Disney's Hollywood Studios, etc.). A tripod allows you to take long-exposure photos (ie. at least 1/2 second or longer) and still get your photos tack-sharp.

For low-light photography, you *might* need to use longer exposures (ie. slower shutter speeds) to allow more time for light to get into your camera. That's why for longer exposures, you'll eventually need a tripod to prevent shaking / blurring during your multi-second exposures.

Finally, you mentioned that you wanted a camera that's a LOT better than your current camera. Your current ultra-compact P&S camera really isn't ideal for low-light or night photography. For these photos to be "a lot better", you'll have to look into so-called "bridge cameras" (which would probably give you a moderate improvement) or dSLR cameras (which would give you a significant improvement) for low-light photography.

Low-light photography is not just about what camera you have, but it is also dependent on your understanding of photography, too. Go to your local library or bookstore and browse through any Intro to Digital Photography book. Or check out Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson (link (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Photographs-Camera/dp/0817439390/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275806251&sr=8-2) to Amazon). These books will teach you the basic concepts of photography, like aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc. I've already hinted at aperture and shutter speed above. Regardless of what camera you have (ex. dSLR, bridge camera, point-and-shoot, etc), these are the concepts you'll need to know for successful low-light photography.

Sorry for the long post. Hope that helps.

[ukcatfan]

Sorry, but I do not think that camera exists. There have been some nice things said about some of the new p&s Sonys when it comes to low light (see note below), but I believe that they are all around 3x zoom. I personally think you need to get over your fears of a DSLR and jump right in! As for changing lenses, you can cover almost all needs with two or three lenses. I personally use a basic three lens setup. An 18-55mm, 50-200mm, and a 50mm f/1.4 (for low light). If you decide to check it out, be sure to look at all brands. The Canon and Nikon options are the most popular, but there are very nice options besides them. I personally have a Pentax K-x and love it! It is my second Pentax DSLR.

Note: From what I understand, the Sony applies different levels of ISO and noise reduction to the different areas of the picture. So, the areas needing more ISO end up being a little less detailed and have kind of a smooth look to them. For me, that is not good enough, but you have to make your own decision.

[photo_chick]

I'm only gonna touch on low light, since everything else are things you can look at on the specs for the camera, or is a subjective requirement (like affordable and easy to use) that can vary greatly by interpretation.

ISO 1600 on a point and shoot has the same light sensitivity as ISO 1600 on a DSLR. The difference comes down to noise and usable ISO settings. It's not just about the sensor collecting more light. It's also about how ISO sensitivity is achieved and how the size of the sensor effects that. Bigger is generally better, but many, many people are happy with what today's point and shoot offer. What's acceptable is like so many things, subjective.

I also think when it comes to low light people need to keep it in perspective. The average film user used ISO 400 or 800 in their camera. ISO in DSLR's is comparable to ISO in film. A growing number of point and shoots can achieve ISO 3200 with noise comparable to grain in that speed film. Just something to think about when you are seeking out a camera that can shoot in the dark.

[rtphokie]

I currently have the Sony T77. I have had it since 2008. I am thinking about getting a new camera I want something that will

Based on your requirements, you are looking for a good point and shoot. If you could share a bit more of how you want to use the camera (what you will be taking photos of, how you will carry it, etc.) and your budget, we might be able to help a bit more.


*take good night/ low light shots and are not blurry.

Look for a camera which allows you to adjust the ISO. A higher ISO means you can take photos in a darker room without a flash. The trade off is digital noise. The solution to digital noise is post processing in your computer with software like NoiseWare Community Edition (it's free, it's an extra step but you wont have to do it with all your photos). Most point and shoot cameras have a night mode which is simply cranking up the ISO and opening the aperture as wide as possible to allow as much light as possible in, but it does it for you.

*Is affordable


This is a bit too subjective for anyone here to help out with much. Did you have a budget in mind?

*Built in video camera


Most manufacturers have put this feature on point and shoots and are starting to do it on dSLRs. It's because they often use the same sensors in their video and still cameras so it's cheap and easy to add it as a feature to still cameras. The quality of the video produced really varies among cameras, even those with the same sensors under the hood. If this is a big requirement for you, you'll need to visit your local store, try them out and compare.

Something to be aware of is that many lower priced cameras produce motion JPEG movies which can create compatibility headaches (uploading to YouTube, importing to Windows Movie Maker, etc.)

If the camera will output HD quality video (many newer ones do), you are more likely to get it in a format like quicktime which you'll have less compatibility problems with.

*Easy to use


*Good zoom


A good zoom generally means an optical zoom. Digital zooms will bring the subject in closer but they do it by cropping the image which reduces its quality.

10x optical, 4x digital zoom good
4x optical, 10x digital zoom bad


*Do not want to be extra lenses.


Sounds like you are looking for a point and shoot rather than an SLR. Just keep an open mind that if you find an SLR that meets your needs (there are some smaller ones) that you dont have to change lenses on it if you dont want to.

*Do not want to carry a tripod around.


Thats up to you. I sounds like you are more interested in snapshots than artistic ones so you can easily go with out it.

*Also I saw these on another thread but have no clue what they mean easy access to exposure compensation, RAW and HDR.??


Unless you plan to venture beyond the preprogrammed modes the camera offers (auto, sports mode, night mode, portrait mode), you wont need to worry about These too much. To answer your question though, RAW is an optional, often manufacturer specific, file format that takes the image straight from the sensor without any in camera sharpening, white balance ect., not as convenient as the JPG files that most cameras produce. Exposure compensation is a feature that allows some finer control over the exposure of a photo beyond what the camera has automatically calculated. HDR (high dynamic range) imaging is an artistic technique where multiple images of the same subject are taken purposefully over exposed and underexposed then combined together to make an image with greater dynamic range. Details which are very dark in a normally exposed photo are visible thanks to the overexposed image and details which are blown out in the normally exposed photo are more detailed thanks to the underexposed image. This is more of an artistic technique. You may see it mentioned alongside bracketing as a feature as it's helpful in creating HDR images.

Another thing to consider is the memory cards used by your current camera. It would be nice for your new camera to use those same cards. Your S77 uses Memory Stick Duo which will limit you to Sony products unfortunately. This would reduce the investment you need to make but it also signifcantly reduces the choices available to you. Also its got to be said that which there have been incredible advances in the quality of even low priced digital cameras, you still get what you pay for.

All that being said, Canon, Sony and Nikon have some point and shoot cameras that might fit your needs. The links below might help you decide.


Canon Camera Advisor (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductAdvisorAct&fcategoryid=144&modelid=14903)
Nikon Coolpix series (http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Digital-Camera/index.page)
dpreview.com has an excellent feature search tool (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp) and play with the settings until it starts to narrow things down for you a bit.

[disneyfanUSA]

Thanks for al the help so far :thumbsup2...I am not against getting a DSLR I'm just not sure. I also do not care about changing the lenses I just do not want to buy any extra lenses ...I see people buy additional lenses for $500 :scared1:!!

$400 would be the most I am willing to pay hopefully less. .....

Some of the pictures my T77 takes are great well, compared to my old camera, not compared to pictures other people on this board take those are.... AMAZING!

My old kodak camera never would of been able to capture fireworks...I found firework mode dose not work on my Sony (maybe because I do not use a tripod?) so I use PGM mode (not really sure what it is but it works the best,) for all my pictures it allows me to adjust the ISO and flash.

but there is still some noise (Is that what it's called?)
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/disneychristmas280-1.jpg

And these pictures of the castle and osborne lights would have been a total blur with my old Kodak

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/videos338.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/videos389-1.jpg

Now here are some pictures I am not happy with and would like a camera that improve how they come out..I know the above pictures could use improvment too.

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/videos264-1.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/videos085.jpg

The colorig always seems off for inside pictures like this:
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/videos057.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/videos031-1.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/videos020-1.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/videos013-1.jpg

So all in all I don't have a preference of point and shoot or DSLR I just want to buy a camera that will take nice pictures. Maybe there is any older model DSLR camera that still takes great picture but I can still afford? Perhaps something refurbished? Is that a bad idea?

[ukcatfan]

It looks like you would benefit the most from learning about white balance and using a tripod/monopod. A tripod is pretty much a must for fireworks. Here are some of my ideas on your shots you posted.

GF tree:
You were too far away for a flash to help and with the low light you would probably need a monopod at least so you can use a slow shutter speed without blurring. You also need a custom WB or use RAW to set it after the fact.

Dock picture (Boardwalk?):
A tripod would be a must. A monopod would not be enough.

On the last four shots:
The WB is tough to get on these because the WB is different for the subject and background. The flash is lighting your subject and the camera set the WB to match that. The background is lit by the surrounding lighting which has a different colr temperature than the flash. That is why they do not match. The only way to fix this is by not using a flash or in post processing. Using RAW would help.

[photo_chick]

What I'm seeing in the images you are unhappy with are user issues mostly. You will run into similar problems with just about any camera unless you learn more about photography.

[Altair]

*Also I saw these on another thread but have no clue what they mean easy access to exposure compensation



Your camera is capable of +/-2 EV of exposure compensastion. In low light situations you can tell the camera to increase exposure by up to 2 stops. In bright situations you can decrease exposure by up to 2 stops. Both can be changed in 1/3 stop increments.

Most of the things you list, your camera should already be able to do. You just need to learn how to tell it to do it.;)

[disneyfanUSA]

Thanks for the help every one I found I camera I might be interested in getting

here is the link

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Nikon+-+6.1MP+Digital+SLR+Camera+-+Black/8139169.p?id=1158323379076&skuId=8139169#tabbed-customer reviews

The reviews on the website seem VERY good! It is also affordable!!

One thing I am confused about is it says it has only 6.1 mp while my Sony has 10.1 mp. What does that mean?

Sorry for all the questions that probably seem dumb, but I would really like to get a good camera before DS graduation on the 24Th. I know my camera now would not be take good pictures in the low light. :headache:

[ukcatfan]

The D40, like any DSLR, is a nice camera. The only problem is that it is getting a little old. For only $100 more you can get a current model. If you go with a DSLR, you have to think a little more than just getting the cheapest one. There are many more considerations that you need to think about. As for the 6MP vs. 10MP, it is like apples to oranges. A MP from a DSLR is a higher quality one than one from a p&s. My first DSLR was 6MP and I never felt like it held me back. It is because the larger sensor on a DSLR is able to capture more detail and the lenses on them are also better at capturing the light.

Speaking of lenses, remember that the kit lens on almost all DSLRs are only around a 3x. You might want to consider something in a two lens kit such as an 18-55mm and a 50-200mm. That gives you 18-200mm, which in zoom terms is around 11x. Adding the second lens is going to add at least another $100 to the total price. Check out Adorama, B&H, and Buydig. They are all reputable online stores.

[photo_chick]

I would not buy the D40 at that price. Like said above, you're not saving that much and it's an old model. It's only $100 more for the Rebel XS, which is a bit newer.

But you can't let price be the bottom line with a DSLR. You need to go to the store and hold the cameras to see which one fits in your hands well. Make sure the controls are easily accessible to you. This is a size able investment for most people and you need to make sure it fits you.

And if you're looking at a DSLR factor in the cost for any additional lenses you will want, as well as memory cards and extra batteries. That can easily add a few hundred dollars to your total. You're not just buying a camera, you're buying a system. Unfortunately affordable and DSLR rarely go together.

[ukcatfan]

I would not buy the D40 at that price. Like said above, you're not saving that much and it's an old model. It's only $100 more for the Rebel XS, which is a bit newer.

But you can't let price be the bottom line with a DSLR. You need to go to the store and hold the cameras to see which one fits in your hands well. Make sure the controls are easily accessible to you. This is a size able investment for most people and you need to make sure it fits you.

And if you're looking at a DSLR factor in the cost for any additional lenses you will want, as well as memory cards and extra batteries. That can easily add a few hundred dollars to your total. You're not just buying a camera, you're buying a system. Unfortunately affordable and DSLR rarely go together.

Agree, but I was thinking the Pentax K-x instead of the XS :thumbsup2 Same price for a lot more camera. Just sayin' :rotfl2:

[disneyfanUSA]

Agree, but I was thinking the Pentax K-x instead of the XS :thumbsup2 Same price for a lot more camera. Just sayin' :rotfl2:

I like the looks of this camera it seems good! I like that it had a HD video camera built in! Have you used it is it good? I could probaly get the camera now but might have to wait before I get another lens how would the camera fair without it the 11x? Is the 3x really bad?

[ukcatfan]

I like the looks of this camera it seems good! I like that it had a HD video camera built in! Have you used it is it good? I could probaly get the camera now but might have to wait before I get another lens how would the camera fair without it the 11x? Is the 3x really bad?

I have not used the video too much, but have used it for a middle school band concert and I was pleased. I have also used it a couple times just messing around with the kids. You have to use a decent speed card though. My Kingston DSHC Class 6 works just fine, but all my Class 4 cards only allow two minutes at a time. As for the batteries mentioned earlier, the K-x uses AAs, so it is less expensive to get rechargeables and you can always find disposables in a pinch.

I cannot answer if you need the extra lens or not. It all depends on how close you can get to the action. I do not use mine very often, but I am glad I have it. The benefit of buying it in the two lens kit is that it is cheaper than buying it alone. You can however pick one up used for cheaper than retail. The real nice thing about Pentax is that you can use any old Pentax K mount lens ever made going back decades. Check out the used lens departments at Adorama, B&H, and KEH where you can pick up a lower quality telephoto lens for pretty cheap. I bought one for only $30 when I first got my old K100D. It was not the best lens, but that is relatively speaking. The quality out of it still beat a p&s camera.

[photo_chick]

Agree, but I was thinking the Pentax K-x instead of the XS :thumbsup2 Same price for a lot more camera. Just sayin' :rotfl2:

Good point. The Pentax does give you more for your money between those two.

Also with the Pentax they make an adapter to let you use the old screw mount (M-42) lenses that Pentax used before they adopted the K mount.

[ukcatfan]

I like the looks of this camera it seems good! I like that it had a HD video camera built in! Have you used it is it good? I could probaly get the camera now but might have to wait before I get another lens how would the camera fair without it the 11x? Is the 3x really bad?

One last thing to consider about the K-x two lens kit. If you get that kit, you get a black camera and lenses. If you go with the standard one lens kit, you can chose from black, white, red, or navy. Or directly from Pentax (i.e. regular retail $) you can also pick blue, green, orange, or purple.

[Daisy14'sDH]

Ukcatfan, could this be another future Pentaxian? I didn't want to put my 2 cents in and try to steer another P&S user to the light... but what the heck... the Kx rocks! woot woot! <insert frat boy photo here>

In all seriousness For the price point its a great place to start.

[disneyfanUSA]

Does this seem like a good deal?

http://www.adorama.com/Als/ProductPage/IPXKXBK2A.html

Is there a thread of pictures that where taken with this camera I would?

Would shots of fantasmic come out with this camera I have never been able to before and would like too.

[photo_chick]

Is there a thread of pictures that where taken with this camera I would?

Would shots of fantasmic come out with this camera I have never been able to before and would like too.

Whether or not shots will come out or how good shots people get are, will depend on your skill level and what lenses you choose as well. The camera body is really only a small factor. 90% of what gets the shot is all on the photographer, not the equipment.

[ukcatfan]

Does this seem like a good deal?

http://www.adorama.com/Als/ProductPage/IPXKXBK2A.html

Is there a thread of pictures that where taken with this camera I would?

Would shots of fantasmic come out with this camera I have never been able to before and would like too.

That is a little high in my opinion. You can get the two lens kit for $623.95 from B&H. You do not get the extras but they are not worth much. The card is worth about $7-8 and is not likely fast enough for video. The bag is practically worthless for walking around Disney. The cleaning kit is not worth much either. The only thing of value is the charger and batteries which are probably worth about $20-25 combined. B&H also has free shipping on it right now where Adorama is probably going to be around $10. That said, I bet Adorama would cut a little off the price or offer free shipping to get the sale from B&H. You could call them to see what they will do.

[ukcatfan]

Is there a thread of pictures that where taken with this camera I would?

Would shots of fantasmic come out with this camera I have never been able to before and would like too.

Whether or not shots will come out or how good shots people get are, will depend on your skill level and what lenses you choose as well. The camera body is really only a small factor. 90% of what gets the shot is all on the photographer, not the equipment.

She is absolutely correct. For Fantasmic itself, I would use the 50-200mm and around ISO 3200-6400 and shutter priority. You should do pretty well with that. A better lens would let you lower the ISO, but at the cost of around $900-1000 for the lens. Since the output of the K-x at high ISOs is some of the best around, I find it just fine for the money. It certainly blows away any p&s.

There is not much point in looking at sample shots at this level of camera. They are all capable of capturing incredible images and the skill level of the photographer means the most in the quality of the shot. Also, the lens used for the shot can make a huge difference. If you want to compare similar shots from other cameras in the class, check out the K-x review on DPReview. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkx/

[ukcatfan]

One last thing I saw you mention in your first post was HDR. The K-x can do in camera HDR images. Like all HDR images, you must use a tripod, but it is a pretty fun feature.

[disneyfanUSA]

Thank you both soooo much for all the help! One more thing I found on walmart that they have this camera for 500 could someone point me towards a used lens for about $100 what would be a better this option or just buying the two lens kit? :goodvibes

[ukcatfan]

Thank you both soooo much for all the help! One more thing I found on walmart that they have this camera for 500 could someone point me towards a used lens for about $100 what would be a better this option or just buying the two lens kit? :goodvibes

This is the cheapo tele I have from when I first bought my K100D. It is not the same quality as the Pentax 50-200mm, but it is decent and $37 http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Autofocus-Non-Mfg-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-AP099991076410?r=FE

Here is another that KEH has. It is a Sigma and I know nothing about it. It is $76 http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Autofocus-Non-Mfg-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-AP09999050993J?r=FE

They probably have some more options as well as the Pentax 50-200mm used, but their site is acting up tonight and I cannot find much. B&H and Adorama also have used departments.

[seashoreCM]

For good low light pictures of not absolutely still subjects, you need a faster lens. Like f/2.0 or bigger. Very few point and shoots have this.

Also I saw these on another thread but have no clue what they mean easy access to exposure compensation
I too wish I could get to the exposure compensation adjustments more quickly. Without so many button pushes for "menu", "scroll up or down", and "exit"

A reminder, exposure compensation does not make the camera take better low light pictures compared with other adjustments you might make instead. Lightening up the picture requires the same means -- bigger aperture, higher ISO, or slower shutter.

Exposure compensation is used mainly to make the background less washed out when the camera automatically optimized the exposure for a darker subject, or make the background less shadowy when the camera optimized for a lighter subject.

Some cameras let you do the equivalent of exposure compensation by aiming at something else in the picture about the same distance away as the main subject, pressing the button halfway, then framing the shot and taking it. Often the panel viewfinder will lighten or darken to give a better idea of what you will get before you take the shot.

Digital camera hints: http://www.cockam.com/digicam.htm

[Master Mason]

For good low light pictures of not absolutely still subjects, you need a faster lens. Like f/2.0 or bigger. Very few point and shoots have this.


I too wish I could get to the exposure compensation adjustments more quickly. Without so many button pushes for "menu", "scroll up or down", and "exit"

A reminder, exposure compensation does not make the camera take better low light pictures compared with other adjustments you might make instead. Lightening up the picture requires the same means -- bigger aperture, higher ISO, or slower shutter.

Exposure compensation is used mainly to make the background less washed out when the camera automatically optimized the exposure for a darker subject, or make the background less shadowy when the camera optimized for a lighter subject.

Some cameras let you do the equivalent of exposure compensation by aiming at something else in the picture about the same distance away as the main subject, pressing the button halfway, then framing the shot and taking it. Often the panel viewfinder will lighten or darken to give a better idea of what you will get before you take the shot.

Digital camera hints: http://www.cockam.com/digicam.htm

I have used exposure comp to increase shutter speed when I have maxed ISO and apeture, and then gone back and adjusted it in post processing. A picture with a slightly off exposure can be fixed, you can't fix blurr.

[zackiedawg]

As the thread has clearly migrated towards DSLRs, I just wanted to back up a tiny bit and throw in one small suggestion, in case the OP happened to really just want to stick with something small and pocketable, or is of a fairly low skill level with cameras and just wanted something fairly simple that could manage to perform in low light. Being as the OP had a T77, they are familiar with the size convenience, and have gotten decent results from it in better light...low light is the one area it, along with all compact cameras, falls down.

Just in case a compact camera is still wanted, several models of Sony P&S cameras have features built in which allow them to perform in low light conditions far better than other compact cameras...it might be something worth considering if deciding not to make the move to a DSLR at this time (I have nothing bad to say about moving to DSLRs...I've had them myself for years, and love them). The Sony HX5, TX1, TX5, and TX7 all have 3 modes specifically designed for low light situations, notably hand-held: Anti Motion Blur (AMB), Hand-held Twilight (HHT), and High Dynamic Range (HDR). With these modes, these cameras have greatly expanded abilities at higher ISOs, up to ISO3200, and can shoot with very low noise and high detail not possible with other P&S cameras. AMB and HHT mode take 6 consecutive photos (at a rate of up to 10 frames per second) with one shutter press, aligning and stacking those in-camera - the stacking process rebuilds detail lost in each individual frame from noise, while eliminating that noise. AMB mode prioritizes shutter speed and avoids stacking any part of the photo in motion, so you have no motion blur in the shot (but lose a little detail and clarity within the moving subject) while HHT mode prioritizes the lowest possible ISO to properly expose. HHT mode would be the preferred mode, and can be used when there is only light movement in the shot...AMB mode should be used when there is clear motion within the shot that must be unblurred. HDR mode only stacks 2 frames rather than 6, but it specifically shoots one frame for highlights and one for shadows, blending the two as needed for better shadow detail. It can be used even handheld, as the camera has the ability to both align and stack the shots.

The TX-series cameras are the replacements for your T77 camera...slimline cameras with sliding covers that can fit in a chest-pocket. They have touch screen controls that work surprisingly well, with customizable screen layouts to put your most-used controls at one-touch operation, and allowing custom movable spot focus by touching any point on the screen where you want to focus. The TX5 is slimmer, is waterproof and shockproof, and has HD video while the TX7 is slightly larger, but with a higher res LCD screen and higher-spec HD video output.

I use a TX1 as a backup to my DSLR - nice to have something small that slides in a pocket and can be forgotten. I just got back from Disney yesterday, and used the TX1 quite a bit day and night around DHS and Downtown Disney, shooting handheld HHT mode up to ISO3200...it really is a marvel that a P&S can perform quite so well at high ISO and in low light.

Just thought I'd add that into the mix, if you decide to go that route. Or even if you decide to get a DSLR, many of us love having a small second camera on hand for those times when you don't want to lug the big cam along, or for spontaneous shots when you otherwise wouldn't have a camera on hand.

[photo_chick]

I have used exposure comp to increase shutter speed when I have maxed ISO and apeture, and then gone back and adjusted it in post processing. A picture with a slightly off exposure can be fixed, you can't fix blurr.

I've done this too (it's how I shot my DD's dance with a Rebel XT and the 75-300). You can push digital this way if you shoot RAW.

Exposure compensation has a lot of uses.

[disneyboy2003]

Is there a thread of pictures that where taken with this camera I would?

Have you looked on Flickr? There is an entire Flickr group dedicated to Pentax K-x users. Here's the link (http://www.flickr.com/groups/kx/pool/) to photos from the Pentax K-x.


Would shots of fantasmic come out with this camera I have never been able to before and would like too.

Whether or not shots will come out or how good shots people get are, will depend on your skill level and what lenses you choose as well. The camera body is really only a small factor. 90% of what gets the shot is all on the photographer, not the equipment.

I absolutely agree with what photo_chick said above and with what ukcatfan & others have said previously. The camera itself is only a *very small part* of what gives you great photos. And, honestly, *any* dSLR camera (not just Pentax or Canon or Nikon or Sony or etc) has the potential to give you the kind of photos you're looking for.

It's like asking whether this brush will help me paint a masterpiece. In the hands of an artist, *any* brush can paint a masterpiece. In my hands, however,...well, I guess you can call it "modern art." So the analogy is that it's NOT the camera that takes good photos, it's the photographer who *knows* how to use the camera to take great photos.

What I would hate to see happen to you is that you spend the $400-600 for a new dSLR camera, only to end up with the exact same photos (or worse photos) than the ones you've been taking before!

For Fantasmic photos, you'll not only need a dSLR, but you'll also need (1) a low-light (large aperture) lens and (2) knowledge of the basics of photography (ex. aperture, shutter speed, ISO). These are the tips for low-light photography that everyone has alluded to on this thread.

Here are my photos from Fantasmic, using my Canon dSLR and a low-light lens.


http://www.smugmug.com/photos/758249019_SXsfB-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/763675933_UXGt9-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/758249073_fZFdV-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/758249116_5d3pB-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/763676000_hsewR-L.jpg

[disneyfanUSA]

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/758249019_SXsfB-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/763675933_UXGt9-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/758249073_fZFdV-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/758249116_5d3pB-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/763676000_hsewR-L.jpg


Wow those pictures are amazing thanks for sharing!!:thumbsup2

This is how my Fantasmic photos came out in in 2007!!!:rotfl:

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/Picture504.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/Picture528.jpg

----------
Thanks everyone for the help and pointers! I am really serious about getting the Pentax!!
----------

and for a random question will HD videos burn onto regular DVD+R discs?

[ukcatfan]

For Fantasmic photos, you'll not only need a dSLR, but you'll also need (1) a low-light (large aperture) lens and (2) knowledge of the basics of photography (ex. aperture, shutter speed, ISO). These are the tips for low-light photography that everyone has alluded to on this thread.



I disagree with (1). Fantasmic is not dark enough to need one if you use a high enough ISO. Using 1600 is probably pushing it, but at 3200 or 6400, you will get a fast enough shutter speed for most of the shots in that show using a normal zoom lens.

[Altair]

;)Canon 75-300mm no IS kit lens at 120mm, 400 ISO, 1/60th sec at f/4.5, -1EV and no Photoshop trickery:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4004/4683117949_777dae6ecb_b.jpg

Brightlly lit subjects surrounded by a very dark background confuses your camera. You can take fireworks at 1/60 also. While these shots may not be perfect, they are at least decent.
The changing light conditions and how fast things happen are what make Fantasmic! tough.

[disneyfanUSA]

edit:

I found on adorama the white pentax K-x for $498 no tax. and amazon has the lens for $129 new. Do you think Adorama would price match this I would rather buy both items together.

[ukcatfan]

edit:

I found on adorama the white pentax K-x for $498 no tax. and amazon has the lens for $129 new. Do you think Adorama would price match this I would rather buy both items together.

It never hurts to call and ask.

[disneyfanUSA]

It never hurts to call and ask.

I am going to order the camera tomorrow. What lens would you use for a graduation that is indoors with low light, the 50 200mm or the 18 55mm. Do you think a high shutter speed and iso are required?

[ukcatfan]

I am going to order the camera tomorrow. What lens would you use for a graduation that is indoors with low light, the 50 200mm or the 18 55mm. Do you think a high shutter speed and iso are required?

You cannot know until you get there and see how far away you are. My guess is that you would use the 50-200mm. For the shutter speed, you need to remember the 1/focal length rule. So, if you are shooting at 50mm, you calculate as follows: 50mm x 1.5x(crop factor)= 75mm = shutter speed of 1/75. Since there is no 1/75 on the camera, you use 1/80. Now, since you have IS in the camera, you can go a little slower than that when worrying about camera shake. What you cannot do is get so slow of a shutter that you get blur from the subject moving, so I would not ever go slower than around 1/125 when the subject is slowly moving. I think the slowest I would go at 200mm is 1/160, but a little faster is better if possible.

So, that takes us to ISO, since you are probably going to be using the most wide open aperture anyway. (Use shutter priority mode) You need to up the ISO to the point where you are getting the proper exposure. You will know you are there by the settings not blinking in the viewfinder. If they are blinking, up the ISO some more. Since using the K-x for around six months, I find all the way up to ISO 6400 to be acceptable. I would try to keep it below 3200 if you can though.

For the white balance, I suggest enabling the strong auto WB under tungsten light option. It is option 9 in the custom menu. The options are strong or subtle. I set mine to strong and have never looked back! That is one of the WB situations where DSLRs are known to struggle. The K-x blew me away on this.

[disneyfanUSA]

Is the Pentax k-x heavy how big is it? Will it be a pain to carry around? After reading this post i am getting nervous it will be a pain to carry around and I won't be able to use it! :confused3

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2485289

[ukcatfan]

Is the Pentax k-x heavy how big is it? Will it be a pain to carry around? After reading this post i am getting nervous it will be a pain to carry around and I won't be able to use it! :confused3

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2485289

For a DSLR, it is small and light. Even the kit lens sold on it was made a little lighter than the older version. The big difference maker for many is the quality of the strap they use. Don't use the free one as they are never comfortable. Many on our board are fans of the BlackRapid sling, but I have not used one. I use an OP/TECH Pro Loop and find it very comfortable. If you start to get more things like a flash and more lenses, then you will probably want a camera backpack as well. If you are going to just use two lenses, then you do not have to use a special bag. Since most people carry some sort of bag anyway, an extra lens and the extra batteries can fit there. (Be sure to protect an extra lens though) For water protection, I suggest always carrying a couple big Ziploc baggies to put the camera in if raining.

[disneyfanUSA]

Thanks!....one more question what is the difference between the DA and DAL for the Pentax 50-200mm?

[ukcatfan]

Thanks!....one more question what is the difference between the DA and DAL for the Pentax 50-200mm?

The DAL line is basically DA "light". They made them to go with the K-x (and its predecessor the K-m) so that the total weight would be lower than the original versions. The DAL are the ones that come with the packages when you buy the K-x. In terms of image quality, they are basically identical. In terms of build quality, the DAL are lighter because they replace some metal parts with plastic, so are technically not as durable. It is really hard plastic, so the only real risk of damage is if you drop the camera really hard and it broke the plastic mount. If you do that, you have more to worry about than the lens mount anyway! I have both the original DA 18-55mm and the DAL 18-55mm and I do not have a preference between the two. I have been using the DAL lately because I have the red one and it matches my red body :thumbsup2

I think there are only three DAL lenses: 18-55mm, 50-200mm, and 55-300mm

[DawnM]

Did you order?

[disneyfanUSA]

I just bought it tonight a couple of hours ago!! :cool1: I am excited!!!

Thanks everyone for the help! :thumbsup2

I am sure I will have more questions when it arrives. :rotfl:

[DawnM]

How exciting!

I hope it comes quickly.

I love my DSLR, but there is a huge learning curve and I still have a lot to learn.

Dawn

I just bought it tonight a couple of hours ago!! :cool1: I am excited!!!

Thanks everyone for the help! :thumbsup2

I am sure I will have more questions when it arrives. :rotfl:

[disneyfanUSA]

Well my camera hust arrived :cool1:

But i can not get it to turn on :headache: There where no batteries in the box so I used CVS alkaline batteries. Are these not compatible? Help please. :confused3

[disneyfanUSA]

Never mind I bought some lithium ones and they work!

[disneyfanUSA]

I received my additional lens today as well. I ordered a 50-200mm and received a pentax 55-300mm. Is this a better lens? Should I keep it.

[zackiedawg]

I'd say if you paid for the 50-200, and they shipped you a 55-300, and based on reviews of the two lenses, it sounds like you made out! The 55-300 seems to get better reviews, has significantly more range, and seems to run about $100 more. The extra range is certainly nice for birds, wildlife, and travel...I'd keep it myself.

[disneyfanUSA]

Just as I expected I am not to good with the DSLR yet...

I have been lurking on pentaxforums. But one thing I do not know how to fix is how to stop the iso and the other stuff to stop flashing red when in live mode. I am currently in P mode. I read this is a good setting for beginners? What do you think??

[ukcatfan]

Just as I expected I am not to good with the DSLR yet...

I have been lurking on pentaxforums. But one thing I do not know how to fix is how to stop the iso and the other stuff to stop flashing red when in live mode. I am currently in P mode. I read this is a good setting for beginners? What do you think??

I do not use live mode often, but I suspect that is a warning that the image is either over or under exposed and the camera needs some setting changed in order to get a proper exposure.

[disneyfanUSA]

I do not use live mode often, but I suspect that is a warning that the image is either over or under exposed and the camera needs some setting changed in order to get a proper exposure.

I think it is under exposed? When in manual it flashes -3. Any idea what I should change? I tried changing the shutter speed and aperture. I probably was not doing it correctly any ideas?

[ukcatfan]

I think it is under exposed? When in manual it flashes -3. Any idea what I should change? I tried changing the shutter speed and aperture. I probably was not doing it correctly any ideas?

Try adjusting ISO. The combination of the three makes the exposure.

[disneyfanUSA]

Try adjusting ISO. The combination of the three makes the exposure.

I feel like I have tried every combo and it is still -3...:mad:

[zackiedawg]

Have you tried pointing the camera at a bright light, and see if the -3 goes away? It could just be telling you that the room is dark and the settings are underexposed badly. Maybe going to the smallest F stop number, ISO3200-6400, and a shutter speed of 1" or so, and see if that makes the -3 go away.

[disneyfanUSA]

:headache:Have you tried pointing the camera at a bright light, and see if the -3 goes away? It could just be telling you that the room is dark and the settings are underexposed badly. Maybe going to the smallest F stop number, ISO3200-6400, and a shutter speed of 1" or so, and see if that makes the -3 go away.

That worked for getting rid off the -3 and it I got it to zero but the bottom of the screen is still flahing red. :headache:

[ukcatfan]

I just put mine on LV and manual and cannot duplicate what you are seeing. The red flashing is telling you that the exposure is not within the -3 to +3 range. If you got it anywhere in that range, the bottom should stop flashing. If you are not in manual mode, then there could be something else going on. In the other modes, the -3 to +3 is the exposure compensation that is adjusted by the wheel and pressing the Av button. So, if you are not in manual, you can get it to 0 while still not getting a proper exposure and causing the blinking at the bottom.

FWIW, I would not use the LV mode too much. Using the viewfinder is a much better technique at taking pictures and you will get better results. Also, you do not get the really fast focus on LV.

[zackiedawg]

Agreed with UKcatfan...it really should stop blinking once you're in the range...so if something is still blinking, it's making me think there's something else it's trying to tell you.

Really, most DSLRs are not suited to being used in live view mode - live view in most DSLRs is designed to be an occasional focus aid for manual focus or tripod work, or for closeup macro work and studio work on tripod. The only DSLRs suited to regular live view use would be the Sony models.

The only other thing i can think of would be if you have a blinking icon in the middle left of your screen - there's one shaped like a thermometer which will warn you when the sensor is overheating. Again, live view systems (other than Sony) are not meant to be used much, so if you keep live view on for 5 minutes or longer, it can overheat the sensor and the camera might warn you to shut it down. If that's the blinky-thing you're seeing...turn off live view!

[disneyfanUSA]

ugg my battery just died! I need to go buy some rechargeables. What kind do you use? I have a AA charger that's Kodak would any brand of rechargeables charge on this or just Kodak ones?

Also, when I get the batteries I will probably get a new SD card what type and size do you recommend? I would like to use the video camera the one have now only lasts for 2mins and 20secs.

And do you recommend using RAW all the time? Because it takes up a lot of space.

[ukcatfan]

ugg my battery just died! I need to go buy some rechargeables. What kind do you use? I have a AA charger that's Kodak would any brand of rechargeables charge on this or just Kodak ones?

Also, when I get the batteries I will probably get a new SD card what type and size do you recommend? I would like to use the video camera the one have now only lasts for 2mins and 20secs.

And do you recommend using RAW all the time? Because it takes up a lot of space.

It should charge any NiMH battery. If there is a chance the batteries might sit for weeks without use, I suggest getting the new "pre-charged" AAs. The most popular is probably the Sanyo Eneloops. I use the Duracell version sold all over and have been happy. They do not last as long as say a 2500 mah normal NiMH, but those lose their charge when just sitting around.

Look for a Class 6 or higher SDHC card. You might have to order one. The typically sold ones are Class 4 and will limit the video time to around two minutes. My favorite brand is Kingston. They have been extremely reliable and are cheaper than Sandisk, which is the market leader. I like buying from Newegg b/c they have the best customer service I have ever seen with an online retailer. I have also bought off of Buy.com and Amazon.

I shoot RAW+JPG b/c I have enough storage and then I have a JPG to share with my wife right away.

[zackiedawg]

My PERSONAL recommendation - and to each their own here - would be that you probably shouldn't use RAW. At least not yet. RAW is the overall best mode to use for heavy tinkerers because it allows you the most leeway in recovering, and personally manipulating, the output from the camera. But as you noted, it does take up more space. And moreso, it also requires a bit more hands-on. It doesn't sound to me like you're ready for a serious post-processing commitment for all your photos - you can set up RAW converters to do some batch-processing for you which takes some time, but now you're not really using the advantages of RAW to begin with.

Many folks, and this may be surprising to hear, shoot in JPEG all the time. Even pros. Really! In the end, for 99% of use, including publication and professional large-scale printing, very few could tell the difference between a JPEG and a RAW file that's been processed and converted. As long as they are both shot correctly...there isn't much difference. RAW is more about the leeway it provides - recovering blown highlights, brightening shadows, reducing noise, sharpening, altering white balance, color, etc...all these things normally done in your camera are able to be done with the computer instead. But you have to want to do all this.

For basic users, P&Sers, non-enthusiasts, etc I'd always recommend JPEG - it's simple, fast, easy, and can produce very nice results right out of the camera - moreover, you are letting the camera do for you what you really don't want to or know how to do yourself - white balance, color, sharpening, noise reduction, etc. And even for enthusiasts and pros, JPEG vs RAW can just be a personal choice. JPEG files can be manipulated after the fact as well - just not as much. If you get things right in the camera when you shoot, the JPEG can be just as lovely. Some shoot both. or shoot JPEG most of the time, and occasionally RAW when it's important to have maximum insurance on being able to recover the shot if you do something wrong.

So my recommendation would be to shoot jpeg, at least until you know a bit more about your camera, and photography. And maybe jpeg will be all you ever need...or maybe you'll decide RAW will work for you later.

[photo_chick]

I agree with you in some ways, zackiedawg. Working with RAW files is adding more to learn when you're starting out. Processing RAW files is the equivalent to processing film in a darkroom. Many, many people are just as happy to send their film out to the lab.

However.... you can set up auto settings for processing or shoot RAW+jpeg. And if you always shoot RAW, then you can come back years later, when you know what you're doing, and make those images even better where as you're kind of stuck if you shot jpeg. I know I go back and play with old stuff every time I learn a new technique or get new software.

So I can see the point of view from either side. It really comes down to how much work an individual wants to put into it.

[disneyfanUSA]

Thanks everyone for the advice.

I just bought some Duracell pre charged rechargeables!

[disneyfanUSA]

I have a few focusing issues....

1. When taking a picture of a person the person comes out good but the background comes out blurry and not sharp.

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0002.jpg

I mean its still pretty good but I would like to improve it.

2. http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0470.jpg
In this picture Mickey and goofy are clear while the other characters are blurry...I had to throw in a Disney pic :rotfl:

3. And also when taking a picture with two people and one is behind the other the person in front comes out sharp and clear while the second person is kind of blurred out. How do I correct this?

------
I am using AF not MF. Any tips or pointers would appreciated.

[disneyboy2003]

I have a few focusing issues....

1. When taking a picture of a person the person comes out good but the background comes out blurry and not sharp.

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0002.jpg

I mean its still pretty good but I would like to improve it.

2. http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0470.jpg
In this picture Mickey and goofy are clear while the other characters are blurry...I had to throw in a Disney pic :rotfl:

3. And also when taking a picture with two people and one is behind the other the person in front comes out sharp and clear while the second person is kind of blurred out. How do I correct this?

------
I am using AF not MF. Any tips or pointers would appreciated.

Congratulations on your new dSLR!

Believe it or not, having the subject in focus and having the background out-of-focus is something that many photographers strive for, especially portrait and wedding photographers! Having a blurry background actually leads the viewers' eyes toward the sharper foreground subject. That way, viewers won't be drawn to a distracting background, too.

A blurry background is also called "bokeh", in photography terms. You'll see photographers comparing which lenses give a more pleasing "bokeh".

There are several factors that make your background blurry. It all relates to the concept of "depth of field", where you focus on your foreground subject, and you can calculate how much distance in front of and behind the subject will be acceptably sharp. Anything beyond the depth of field will be blurry.

"Larger depth of field" means that more stuff is in focus. "Shallower depth of field" means that fewer things are in focus.

The factors that make your background blurry are:

aperture - the larger the aperture (ie. the smaller the f-number), the blurrier the background
focal length - longer focal lengths will have shallower depth of field. Wider focal lengths (ex. wide-angle lenses) will have larger depth of field
camera-to-subject distance - the closer your camera is to your subject, the shallower your depth of field
distance from subject to background - if the background is farther from your foreground subject, it'll be more blurry


Usually, folks place a lot of weight on the aperture to control the background blurriness. That's why portrait and wedding photographers try to buy lenses with large maximum apertures (small f-numbers) so they can control how blurry their backgrounds will be. Look for lenses with apertures of f/2.8 or larger (smaller f-numbers).

The danger of using super large apertures is that the depth of field can be razor thin (like a few millimeters). For example, you might get a person's eyes in focus, but the nose will be out-of-focus! :eek: Or, if you have 2 people standing next to each other, but one is standing just a few inches in front of the other, then you might only get one person in focus and the other out-of-focus if you used a very large aperture.

In your case, if you want the background to be sharper, you can try using a smaller aperture (larger f-number). If you want a group of people to be sharp in the same photo, use a smaller aperture (larger f-number), perhaps like f/8.

In your first photo, my eyes are first drawn to your subject, but then you've got a lot of stuff in the background, so now I'm distracted and want to see what you've got in the background. In this case, I'd try to throw the background even more out-of-focus so that the viewer's attention is on the subject.

Why not just use the smallest aperture (largest f-number) all the time? Why not just use f/22 all the time? When your aperture gets really really small, you run into a problem called "diffraction", where light waves that go through a tiny opening actually interferes with itself, ironically causing a photo to be slightly blurrier. I try not to go smaller than f/11, or maybe f/16.

For more information about "depth of field": http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

Hope that helps! Sorry for the long post.

[disneyfanUSA]

Congratulations on your new dSLR!

Believe it or not, having the subject in focus and having the background out-of-focus is something that many photographers strive for, especially portrait and wedding photographers! Having a blurry background actually leads the viewers' eyes toward the sharper foreground subject. That way, viewers won't be drawn to a distracting background, too.

A blurry background is also called "bokeh", in photography terms. You'll see photographers comparing which lenses give a more pleasing "bokeh".

There are several factors that make your background blurry. It all relates to the concept of "depth of field", where you focus on your foreground subject, and you can calculate how much distance in front of and behind the subject will be acceptably sharp. Anything beyond the depth of field will be blurry.

"Larger depth of field" means that more stuff is in focus. "Shallower depth of field" means that fewer things are in focus.

The factors that make your background blurry are:

aperture - the larger the aperture (ie. the smaller the f-number), the blurrier the background
focal length - longer focal lengths will have shallower depth of field. Wider focal lengths (ex. wide-angle lenses) will have larger depth of field
camera-to-subject distance - the closer your camera is to your subject, the shallower your depth of field
distance from subject to background - if the background is farther from your foreground subject, it'll be more blurry


Usually, folks place a lot of weight on the aperture to control the background blurriness. That's why portrait and wedding photographers try to buy lenses with large maximum apertures (small f-numbers) so they can control how blurry their backgrounds will be. Look for lenses with apertures of f/2.8 or larger (smaller f-numbers).

The danger of using super large apertures is that the depth of field can be razor thin (like a few millimeters). For example, you might get a person's eyes in focus, but the nose will be out-of-focus! :eek: Or, if you have 2 people standing next to each other, but one is standing just a few inches in front of the other, then you might only get one person in focus and the other out-of-focus if you used a very large aperture.

In your case, if you want the background to be sharper, you can try using a smaller aperture (larger f-number). If you want a group of people to be sharp in the same photo, use a smaller aperture (larger f-number), perhaps like f/8.

In your first photo, my eyes are first drawn to your subject, but then you've got a lot of stuff in the background, so now I'm distracted and want to see what you've got in the background. In this case, I'd try to throw the background even more out-of-focus so that the viewer's attention is on the subject.

Why not just use the smallest aperture (largest f-number) all the time? Why not just use f/22 all the time? When your aperture gets really really small, you run into a problem called "diffraction", where light waves that go through a tiny opening actually interferes with itself, ironically causing a photo to be slightly blurrier. I try not to go smaller than f/11, or maybe f/16.

For more information about "depth of field": http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

Hope that helps! Sorry for the long post.

:worship: thank you very much that did help!

[DawnM]

Yeah! Your camera came!
:goodvibes

[disneyfanUSA]

Yeah! Your camera came!
:goodvibes

:cheer2::cool1:

[Master Mason]

Congratulations on your new dSLR!

Believe it or not, having the subject in focus and having the background out-of-focus is something that many photographers strive for, especially portrait and wedding photographers! Having a blurry background actually leads the viewers' eyes toward the sharper foreground subject. That way, viewers won't be drawn to a distracting background, too.

A blurry background is also called "bokeh", in photography terms. You'll see photographers comparing which lenses give a more pleasing "bokeh".

There are several factors that make your background blurry. It all relates to the concept of "depth of field", where you focus on your foreground subject, and you can calculate how much distance in front of and behind the subject will be acceptably sharp. Anything beyond the depth of field will be blurry.

"Larger depth of field" means that more stuff is in focus. "Shallower depth of field" means that fewer things are in focus.

The factors that make your background blurry are:

aperture - the larger the aperture (ie. the smaller the f-number), the blurrier the background
focal length - longer focal lengths will have shallower depth of field. Wider focal lengths (ex. wide-angle lenses) will have larger depth of field
camera-to-subject distance - the closer your camera is to your subject, the shallower your depth of field
distance from subject to background - if the background is farther from your foreground subject, it'll be more blurry


Usually, folks place a lot of weight on the aperture to control the background blurriness. That's why portrait and wedding photographers try to buy lenses with large maximum apertures (small f-numbers) so they can control how blurry their backgrounds will be. Look for lenses with apertures of f/2.8 or larger (smaller f-numbers).

The danger of using super large apertures is that the depth of field can be razor thin (like a few millimeters). For example, you might get a person's eyes in focus, but the nose will be out-of-focus! :eek: Or, if you have 2 people standing next to each other, but one is standing just a few inches in front of the other, then you might only get one person in focus and the other out-of-focus if you used a very large aperture.

In your case, if you want the background to be sharper, you can try using a smaller aperture (larger f-number). If you want a group of people to be sharp in the same photo, use a smaller aperture (larger f-number), perhaps like f/8.

In your first photo, my eyes are first drawn to your subject, but then you've got a lot of stuff in the background, so now I'm distracted and want to see what you've got in the background. In this case, I'd try to throw the background even more out-of-focus so that the viewer's attention is on the subject.

Why not just use the smallest aperture (largest f-number) all the time? Why not just use f/22 all the time? When your aperture gets really really small, you run into a problem called "diffraction", where light waves that go through a tiny opening actually interferes with itself, ironically causing a photo to be slightly blurrier. I try not to go smaller than f/11, or maybe f/16.

For more information about "depth of field": http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

Hope that helps! Sorry for the long post.

Also, in the first picture you're shooting in portrait mode, where the camera will attempt to do exactly what it did, blur the background.

In the second, you're very close to the subject, and then zoomed in to 300, which is why the depth of field is almost paper thin.

[disneyfanUSA]

We live near the American side of the falls, nut we went to Canada for fathers day. Here are some pics I took any pointers?

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0088-1-1.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0263-1.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0038-1.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0061-1.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0130.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0151.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0203-1.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0324.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0354-1.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0414-1.jpg


http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0438-1.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0457-1.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/yankeesgirl255_2006/IMGP0293.jpg
Also, it seems like the ones I uploaded to photobucket lost some resolution and are not as clear? Is there any better photo uploaders.

[disneyfanUSA]

Would you recommend using High-iso NR? Should I put it on medium low or high?

[StrwLady]

Prior to getting my DSLR I had a Fuji S9100. While this is considered a point and shoot, it did have a lot of features on it as well as a fixed mount lens focal range equivalent of 28mm - 300mm.

I know Fuji does not sell the camera anymore. From what I read, many peoples opinion, Fuji commercial market was mostly in the point and shoot area. The S9100 was more advanced then most point and shoot customers are looking for. There was rumor of a new model in the works back in Jan 2008 but I haven't seen anything similar

But I have seen the S9100 on sale used on Ebay for $150 to $200. Amazon has a seller selling a couple new for $690 but that's insane when you consider about 3 4 years ago they were right about $350.

Here are some night shots I took with the S9100.

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj98/Strwlady/DSCF2233.jpg

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj98/Strwlady/DSCF2270.jpg

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj98/Strwlady/DSCF2275.jpg

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj98/Strwlady/DSCF2402.jpg

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj98/Strwlady/DSCF2411.jpg

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj98/Strwlady/DSCF2491-1.jpg

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj98/Strwlady/DSCF2494-1.jpg

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj98/Strwlady/DSCF2514.jpg

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj98/Strwlady/DSCF2411.jpg


This next one was taken with a tripod (which you can see was not even LOL :) I was too busy trying to get the right setting and didnt notice it was not even)

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj98/Strwlady/DSCF2475.jpg

I know you said you didn't want to carry around a tripod but for any camera you consider look into the gorillapod (or other flexible tripod) They are really small and you can wrap them around anything.

http://www.amazon.com/Joby-GP1-D1EN-Gorillapod-Flexible-Tripod/dp/B000EVSLRO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1277373618&sr=8-1

Whatever you decide to buy I know you will enjoy it :)

PS these have all been resized to 640 X 480 on photobucket. I don't know why there are posting larger here. Sorry

[StrwLady]

oops just noticed this thread is a little old. Well I will leave my other post in case anyone else is interested in a used S9100 :)

[Master Mason]

We live near the American side of the falls, nut we went to Canada for fathers day. Here are some pics I took any pointers?

Also, it seems like the ones I uploaded to photobucket lost some resolution and are not as clear? Is there any better photo uploaders.

Not bad for a new dslr user..

Photo Sites to take a look at

Flicker, Smugmug, Zenfolio. I think that Flicker has a free option, possibly zenfoolio, I don't know much about them. Smugmug is a pay site,(you can have a free trial)

Of the 3 I have only used Smugmug, but I have been happy with them from day one.

[seashoreCM]

PS these have all been resized to 640 X 480 on photobucket. I don't know why there are posting larger here. y
They are genuine 640x480.

[disneyfanUSA]

Noise reduction. Yesterday I took some photos at DS graduation Since the ISO was high there is some noise. I just tried using Pentax Digital Camera Utility 4. I shot in raw for these photos because they where important. Anyways, it seems like the random noise reduction bar on PDCU4 makes the pictures worse not better? What am i doing wrong? :upsidedow