Help need help on purchasing camera for night shots

[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 ). 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.

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.

S2 IS

 

[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.

 

[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 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.

 

[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!

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!

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.