DSLR Camera Questions

[captsparrowslady]

So I'm a Theatre Student (I want to be a lighting designer) and I'm thinking about investing in a DSLR camera to take photos of my work for my theatre portfolio. I need a camera that can deal with theatre lighting (low light). The cameras that I own currently don't take the best pictures for portfolio purposes. I need something that will capture my lighting as true to life as possible.

I know Nikons are a good brand, but they can be very very expensive. I'm on a budget (poor broke college student living on grants & student loans) but as I said, I want to invest in a quality camera that I can use throughout my college career and into my professional life as well.

So I need to find a balance between quality and cost. I think in terms of budget I want to try and keep it to about $300.00 or less. I know more expensive does not necessarily translate into better quality (sometimes you're just paying for the name brand, not the quality)... so if I could get some advice from those of you who own DSLR cameras (maybe share some of your photos you've taken with your camera, especially low light photos)

Thanks in Advance!

 

[cndij]

My cousin is an advanced hobbyist photographer of many years, and had not made the jump to digital. After much research, I bought him a Panasonic Lumix DMC G-1 body only. This because he has a large collection of lenses for his Pentax film camera, and I was able to buy a "converter ring" that allows him to use his conventional lenses with this camera. I paid less than $200 at the time (2 years ago) on Ebay for the body, and I see now you can get the body plus a standard lens for under $300. The great thing is, conventional lenses are really cheap these days as not many people know about using them for digital. The converter rings are about $50 for each type mount, so you may want to choose a specific type and stick to it.

 

[Kies99]

There is a photography board here on the DIS. You might get better luck asking over there.

 

[Jules54]

Just remember that once you choose a camera most are committed to that brand. Not because of the cost of the camera, but because of the investment in the lenses. Your lenses will rapidly become much more valuable than your camera.

 

[MichelleinMaine]

I agree that your bigger expense will be a good low light lens vs the body. Sad to say, the lens alone would likely be over $300. (I just got a not-wonderful lower light one that $450.)

Do you know how to use a DSLR? There is a learning curve and stage lighting (eg can't use a flash) would really mean you're using manual settings.

Just thinking outside the box here- is there a visual art dept at your school? Could you find someone who is a photog student and barter to have him/her take pictures that you need?

 

[wnissen]

Only the most expensive DSLR/lens combinations have the ability to take handheld photos of low-light situations. Ordinary indoor lighting is considered lowish light, so theater lighting definitely counts. Do you need people in the shots? That makes it harder, because you have to have an exposure time that will keep the people from being blurry. The equipment to do that is probably out of your price range, unless you're really comfortable with manual focus. You'd be looking for a lens of "f stop" f/2 or less.

If it's just the scenery you need to capture, a tripod and any camera with the ability to take timed exposures will work. It's very similar to the requirements for taking pictures for astronomy. Unfortunately, I don't know any current model cameras that can do that.

 

[Ladygoldenhair]

I upgraded to a DSLR from a Panasonic Lumix. I tend to go back to the Lumix for nearly everything. In theory the DSLR was going to cover all my needs. I Lund many situations where I. Would have. To change settings or lenses. That was a royal pain. With my Lumix I have framed many travel photos, documented many family events, Disney trips, vacations, in low light, near to no light etc.

The Lumix is the best I ever used in low light.

it is under $300, I have one with a great mega zoom and tons of scenery settings. It takes video in HD too. I bought it off 1saleaday.com or Bensoutlet.com.

My DSLR Sony Was $900, and I bought an all around lens extra. It is a lot of work learning the settings.

I am a point n shoot kinda gal.

 

[dawn25]

I have a Nikon D3100 and have been very happy with it thus far...takes very crisp photos. I purchased it on Amazon as it was about $100 cheaper there than anywhere else.

 

[melifeld]

Do you have a professional camera store near you? If so, they often sell good quality used equipment. I would recommend something easy to use like a Nikon D3000, D3100, D3200, D5000, or D5100, with a good low light lens. Also, check out what they have used at www.adorama.com or www.bhphotovideo.com. They are both reputable stores that usually have a good selection of used equipment.

 

[mrsarbogast]

Just remember that once you choose a camera most are committed to that brand. Not because of the cost of the camera, but because of the investment in the lenses. Your lenses will rapidly become much more valuable than your camera.

Ditto!!!
I had a Nikon SLR and recently switched to Canon t4i but had to basically start completely over with new lenses and equipment.
Good luck on your search.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[aimeeinohio]

Consider a micro 4/3 camera instead of a larger DSLR. The micro 4/3 is a mirrorless DSLR, so the body is much smaller. Panasonic, Nikon, etc make them. I myself am an olympus girl, and you can get a pen mini (e-pl1) refurbished for under $200.00.

 

[IDoDis]

You should check out the Canon refurbished cameras. http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/cameras/subCategorySort_10051_10051_-1_29252_lowPrice_list

A couple of weeks ago I bought a refurbished Canon T3i and LOVE it. It's a great entry level DSLR. A year and a half ago I bought DD a Canon Rebel 1000 which is just an older model of what I have. The cameras both came looking brand new. The refurbs now have a 1 year warranty (used to be 90 days). There is a sale right now that ends tomorrow (June 10th). The T3i is out of stock, but the T3 is in stock for $287.00.

You will need a better lens than the stock lens, but you've got to start somewhere. Look for the Canon 55-250EF-S lens when you have more money. I bought one at Adorama on sale for around $200.

 

[OklahomaTourist]

When it comes to low-light photography, the lens is arguably more important than the body. For low-light, you need large apertures (openings) that let in lots of light to support fast exposures. The aperture is measured in "f" numbers, eg f/2.8, f/4.5, with lower numbers indicating larger openings. Better lenses support larger apertures, but at correspondingly higher prices.

Most of the "kit" lenses that come with the newer DSLR's are general purpose lenses that support smaller apertures in the f/4.5 range, and as such aren't ideal for low-light conditions. You end up with longer exposure times and, unless you're using a tripod, blurred images. You typically need what they term "faster glass," with apertures around f/2.8, which are much more expensive than the kit lenses.

In the absence of fast glass, the alternative is to push the ISO equivalence up, but that introduces grain and can, in some circumstances, create overexposed images.

I do photography for my son's high school football team, and all their games are at night. I've got a Nikon D90 with an 80-200 zoom that can only go up to an f/4.5, so I have to push the ISO up quite a bit to get the exposure I need, but even then its very difficult to get stop-motion images as its tough to get the exposure down to the 1/350 range you need in that situation. I've had decent luck, fortunately, but it doesn't keep me from lusting for the Nikkor f2.8 80-200 zoom for about $1K. If I've gotten good results with what I have, I figure I'd get some dynamite photos if I got that lens (drool, drool).

The point-and-shoot cameras are typically geared for general purpose photography, so be cautious if going in you know you need special conditions that might fall outside that area. I know there's a learning curve for DSLR's, but I'm delighted with my Nikon D90, and love the flexibility provided by the varying lenses even if it can be a bit cumbersome.

 

[MM_Bound]

There are tons of options and I think it really comes down to personal preference. As a LD you will often to get the chance to shoot in rehearsal both with and without bodies. Without people moving you will be able to tripod and extend shutter time while keeping ISO low. Then with people moving you will need a faster shutter speed and a higher ISO.
Personally if it were me I would go with something like the canon t3i and the cheap 50mm 1.8 lens. I would buy them second had or from the referb site. As you get better and gain money (hard being a LD) you can upgrade the camera body and lens to get faster, sharper and less noise.
In the theatre business most of how you get places is who you know anyway. Been there done that, FOH and Monitor tech, thankfully no need for a image portfolio.

 

[Razor Roman]

My recommendation, a Canon Rebel T3 and the "Nifty Fifty" Prime Lens, you can buy the Rebel body only without the 18-55 zoom lens to save a few dollars. And get a tripod. You can set up your camera at the right distance, load your cue, and do some nice slightly longer exposures.