new camera advice

[EEyorelover22]

Can someone recommend a good digital camera for fireworks and general WDW pics? Ours went belly up. I'd like one with a decent zoom on it too so I could use it for pictures in the real world as well at games, etc. I guess I'm glad ours went belly up...the shutter speed was way too slow.

I went to a website with reviews and I'm overwhelmed.
Any suggestions?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

The two biggest quesitons are "what's your budget" and "are you willing to deal with the complexity of a DSLR?" A DSLR is one of those cameras where you look through the viewfinder and you can change lenses.

Obviously, I can recommend cameras costing $1,000 that substantially outperform cameras that cost $300, but if that's out of your price range it does you no good. I can also recommend some really good DSLRs that will outperform any point&shoot camera and still cost well under $1,000, but they'll be more complicated.

 

[YEKCIM]

As Mark said, a little more info on what you can or want to spend would be helpful, along with some idea of your expectations, both now and down the road. There are a number of "superzoom" point & shoot cameras on the market, if you want to keep it simple or, if you really want to push the quality envelope, you may want to consider a dSLR (digital Single Lens Reflex), as Mark suggested.

~YEKCIM

 

[EEyorelover22]

okay...the money isn't the biggest concern, how difficult it is to use would be. So, point and shoot is more what I'm thinking. I'd like to be able to take pics of DS playing football from the stands too. Our old one didn't shoot very fast...it was even difficult to take pics of the parade at WDW. I take pics on vacation and pics of family events. It's not a hobby for me.

 

[captaincrash]

To shoot fireworks is generally (as I do) shoot for variable lengths of time at f8 - and for football - I think you're in a very demanding situation - especially for nite games where you're unlikely to use flash. Football or fleeting athletic events at night could use the best DSLRS and fastest lenses... and still not yield you great results.

HOWEVER, the bare minimum which would get you most of the performance would be something like a Canon 30D or Nikon 40X... DSLRs with ISO 3200H sensitivity positions. THEN I would suggest you try either a FAST and CHEAP lense like the 50mm f1.8 basic lenses or an inexpensive zoom which is much "slower" at the f3.5 or f4 range as maximum aperature. The former gives fast exposures to freeze the action without as much ISO boost - but it come at the loss of image magnification - forcing a post camera crop to get the action sized decently. AND being distant from the subject could pose a huge problem when cropping. OTHERWISE... getting a zoom lense or telephoto with slower aperatures will get you closer in image magnification but force you to boost the sensor ISO setting thus bringing on some digital noise. Generally, the telephoto and high boost on a monopod might be your basic approach to this. The cost for a budget minded outfit might run a little over 2K if bought new. Alternatively, you could buy a used DSLR like a 10D and used telephoto for under $1000 - and not have the newest stuff but it will perform well if you're not unlucky in the 2nd hand purchase (ebay or used camera stock at local store).

Hope this helps - and I'm sure someone else has an opinion that is better then my wild ideas here!

 

[Groucho]

Like the others said, the quantity of light is the major concern. If the games you are concerned about photographing are during the day, then you can get by pretty easily with a long-zoom PnS. If they're at night... well, keep your expectations realistic. For low-light ability, the big-sensor Fujis are untouched in the PnS arena, but they don't have image stabilization, but the dramatic improvement in quality over the others can outweigh that. Similarly, the daytime parades at Disney are easy, but SpectroMagic can be extremely difficult.

For fireworks, most any camera can do very well, a tripod/Gorillapod/Clamperpod is more important than the type of camera (within reason, of course.) Ideal is a camera that has a "bulb" mode (takes a picture for as long as you hold with the shutter) with a remote shutter release, so you don't shake the camera as you take the photo. You can still do pretty well with by manually setting a long-ish exposure (2-5 seconds, probably) with a 2-second delay after pressing the shutter, to give the camera time to stop shaking from you pressing the shutter.

Most current PnSs will be a lot more responsive than what you're used to if your camera was a few years old. You may want to try some in the store, but by and large, shutter lag isn't nearly the problem that it used to be. However, don't be sold on megapixels, more megapixels don't guarantee a better picture, often it's the exact opposite.

 

[Groucho]

HOWEVER, the bare minimum which would get you most of the performance would be something like a Canon 30D or Nikon 40X... DSLRs with ISO 3200H sensitivity positions. THEN I would suggest you try either a FAST and CHEAP lense like the 50mm f1.8 basic lenses or an inexpensive zoom which is much "slower" at the f3.5 or f4 range as maximum aperature.

FWIW, the Pentax K100D has ISO 3200 available, and most any DSLR that can shoot ISO 1600 can fake ISO 3200 by shooting at 1600 with a -1 exposure compensation, then push it back up in post-processing. Since the regular Nikon D40 has the same sensor at the K100D, it can probably probably achieve roughly the same quality by "faking" ISO 3200 like that. Of course, the D40/D40x can't autofocus with Nikon's 50 F1.8.

However, based on the OP's statements, I would say that a DSLR is not going to be an option here. (And the K100D is probably not a great option for sports, if you want to do a lot of continuous shooting.)

 

[EEyorelover22]

The two biggest quesitons are "what's your budget" and "are you willing to deal with the complexity of a DSLR?" A DSLR is one of those cameras where you look through the viewfinder and you can change lenses.

Obviously, I can recommend cameras costing $1,000 that substantially outperform cameras that cost $300, but if that's out of your price range it does you no good. I can also recommend some really good DSLRs that will outperform any point&shoot camera and still cost well under $1,000, but they'll be more complicated.

Your pictures are amazing. I've done a bit more looking at cameras and I'm still clueless. I know nothing about photographing so many of these posts are way over my head. I love the pic at the stunt show. That's about the distance at a football game.

 

[EEyorelover22]

FWIW, the Pentax K100D has ISO 3200 available, and most any DSLR that can shoot ISO 1600 can fake ISO 3200 by shooting at 1600 with a -1 exposure compensation, then push it back up in post-processing. Since the regular Nikon D40 has the same sensor at the K100D, it can probably probably achieve roughly the same quality by "faking" ISO 3200 like that. Of course, the D40/D40x can't autofocus with Nikon's 50 F1.8.

However, based on the OP's statements, I would say that a DSLR is not going to be an option here. (And the K100D is probably not a great option for sports, if you want to do a lot of continuous shooting.)

You're right...too complicated for me!! A lot of these posts are probably what my math students are thinking when I'm explaining poloar coordinates

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Your pictures are amazing. I've done a bit more looking at cameras and I'm still clueless. I know nothing about photographing so many of these posts are way over my head. I love the pic at the stunt show. That's about the distance at a football game.

Thanks. I'm afraid that my gear falls into "difficult to use" category. If you want to invest considerable time in learning to use it all, it's some really good gear, but it's definitely not for the easy to use crowd. Heck, I have four switches just on one of my lenses.

 

[EEyorelover22]

maybe when I retire I can take up a new hobby!!
Right now I'm a point and shoot kind of gal.

 

[YEKCIM]

May I suggest you look at one of these three "superzoom" models?

The Sony and Canon both offer Image Stabilization and a zoom with a little more telephoto reach; the Fuji is better in low light, due to larger sensor, and goes a bit wider on the wide angle end.

~YEKCIM

 

[EEyorelover22]

Thanks. That Cannon is the one I was looking at today.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

FWIW, the Pentax K100D has ISO 3200 available, and most any DSLR that can shoot ISO 1600 can fake ISO 3200 by shooting at 1600 with a -1 exposure compensation, then push it back up in post-processing. Since the regular Nikon D40 has the same sensor at the K100D, it can probably probably achieve roughly the same quality by "faking" ISO 3200 like that.

I've seen experiments that show that, in the prior generation of Canon's DSLRs using whatever mode they designate as H (typically 3200), you get essentially the same results as using the "faking" technqiue that Groucho described. The only difference appears to be that the camera does the "faking" for you.