New to DSLR's help Required

[photo_chick]

I don't interpret this as giving a complete picture of the OVF. It doesn't give an actual view of what you're going to get even though you are looking thru the lens. White balance and exposure are the 2 big examples that you see represented on EVF's but not optical and can make a large difference in the end result. So, vice versa, with an OVF, if your settings on the camera are off in a number of ways you won't know until after you review the picture.

I wasn't trying to give a complete picture, I was stating why I personally prefer one type. And those are some of the advantages to EVF. But if you shoot RAW the in camera processing means very little since you can change all of those settings after the fact. THe only exception would be exposure, and that's not a huge thing for me personally. As far as OVF being an actual representation of what you see through the lens... white balance and other in camera settings are not what the lens sees, they're what the sensor records. Big difference. SLR optical viewfinders use a series of mirrors or prisms to reflect the image projected from the lens into your view finder. The only thing that makes some of today's OVF's on DSLR's not an accurate representation of what the lens sees is that they do not all offer 100% coverage. Which would be another advantage of EVF's.

If you like EVF or OVF is largely personal preference. You have to weigh each factor and decide which one is for you.

These types of discussions are how we learn about other's systems. We each have chosen our's for whatever reasons, but none of us should become total fanboys (or girls) to preclude or denigrate others. That is what is good about this forum compared to some others. Its all about the photography. I know my system, its strengths and weaknesses, but have learned so much about the other's. Sometimes, I still get confused by some of the terminology of the different brands, but I'm getting better.

Absolutely agree. I've learned a lot from discussion on this board. And many times, especially in some of the more heated discussions, I've stepped back and re-evaluated things I thought I knew. Every time it has only added to my overall knowledge.

This is absolutely true, yet it's still not so easy to say which camera is better for action shooting. Not a simple trade off.
I shoot with the a55-- it can shoot at 10 fps, but with the "slideshow" effect. It can shoot at 3 fps, with the EVF refreshing fast enough to pan.
Most consumer ovf dslrs shoot at 4 or 5 fps.
So what's better shooting action? 4 fps with true panning, or 10 fps with a slideshow?(and the ability to do 3 fps with panning).

When I've shot my kids' sports at 10fps, the slideshow does cause me to miss some shots, but the high burst rate also gives me some shots I wouldn't otherwise get. Basically, if I need a burst more than 1-2 seconds, I can start to have trouble following the action.

Every time a point is made about insanely high burst rates I go back and look at some of the great action photographs over the course of the history of photography. To me, if they could do it with far less equipment than I have then I'm not going to let only having 3 or 5 FPS hold me back. There's something to be said for anticipating the shot. I think it's an art that's being lost in the rapid fire world we live in.

 

[havoc315]

Every time a point is made about insanely high burst rates I go back and look at some of the great action photographs over the course of the history of photography. To me, if they could do it with far less equipment than I have then I'm not going to let only having 3 or 5 FPS hold me back. There's something to be said for anticipating the shot. I think it's an art that's being lost in the rapid fire world we live in.

All true..... Not just burst rates. Great photographs were taken with much simpler cameras, with a whole lot less bells and whistles. But the technological advances, including insane burst rates, certainly can make it easier to achieve certain shots. And nothing wrong with that either.

 

[photo_chick]

All true..... Not just burst rates. Great photographs were taken with much simpler cameras, with a whole lot less bells and whistles. But the technological advances, including insane burst rates, certainly can make it easier to achieve certain shots. And nothing wrong with that either.

Agreed. I love my bells and whistles. I think it's the idea that they're a necessity that gets me. They're nice to have and can make life easier, but not really a requirement.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Agreed. I love my bells and whistles. I think it's the idea that they're a necessity that gets me. They're nice to have and can make life easier, but not really a requirement.

My son plays baseball. For winter practices, they're required to use a wooden bat - the thought being that if you can hit a ball well with a wooden bat, you can hit a ball well with anything. I liken photography to kind of the same thing. I've enjoyed working hard to develop my skills. I may not be the best "hitter" out there, but I know how to play the game. And that will serve me well whatever "bat" I choose to use.

 

[DisneyTardis]

Wow.. didnt realise my post would receive such a great response. Just want to say a big thankyou to all of you who went to the trouble of replying to it Having read everyones's post I'm definately more informed than i was and more than ever want to get better at photography. I do realise messing about with the manual settings on my P/S is one thing... but i think with some help from you guys and some major trial and error im definately up for the challenge of learning to handle a DSLR.

Anyway i hope you don't mind some more newbie questions if thats ok?

Photo chick said that the kit lense will be ok for the parades with a tripod which is great as obviously thats the first lense i will own and i have a tripod already from a previous camera. Well my question is do most of you still use a tripod for the parade or do you shoot handheld? and if you shoot handheld what settings on your cameras do you use the most? I will admit i would like the ability to shoot it handheld. Now obviously i'm assuming its depending on the capabilities of the camera and one with a faster lense than the kit one. Also do you use burst mode to try and capture the shot? as i use that alot with my P/S. I also use the timer on my P/S to avoid as much camera shake as i can.

Here's another seriously newbie question...do you shoot in raw mode more than jpeg at night or use both? my P/S dosent have raw mode so i don't have the luxury of that decision. Having read up raw mode gives you more ability to fix things in post processing..do i have that correct? I ask this as i'm going to get my mitts (thats english for hands ) on lightroom as the guy at my local camera shop recommended it. I guess the way to look at it...me being new to this...more likely to make mistakes so something like lightroom might at least help towards making up for some of my mess ups .

Oh and one last thing if anyone has any shots they have taken of the night parade and fireworks at MK and Epcot with some of these cameras (a35, a37, a57, d3100, d3200, d5100 or anything that shoots similar) and wouldn't mind me looking at them and telling me how they took them that would be great

Oh and i didnt think my post was hijacked at all.. more information the better so keep it coming

Anyway thanks again to all of you who posted a reply i really appreciate it

 

[havoc315]

As Disney, I would only use a tripod for fireworks and maybe some posed portraits around the resort. At a parade, I prefer to be handheld, to give me more freedom to move around and get the shot. With fireworks, I can set up my composition before the show even begins, but with a parade, I want the freedom to change my composition. Also, the point of a tripod is to be able to use slow shutter speeds. Use a slow shutter speed on a parade, and you'll blur the parade movement.

I use burst modes for fast moving action. For example, burst mode let me get some great shots of my kids sledding down a hill. I wouldn't use it at a parade, where the action isn't exactly that fast. I'd frame each shot as I want.

For settings -- You need to shoot fast enough to capture the action. So aim for 1/200 or faster in shutter speed. You may need to manually increase your ISO to get the proper exposure. A faster aperture lens will let you get adequate shutter speed, without necessarily going too high on ISO.

I mix shooting RAW and jpeg. Your camera can also shoot both simultaneously. RAW is *easier* to fix in post-processing, as you get more data to work with. Thus, you can recover highlights and shadows, while that data may be lost in jpeg. But there are certainly some level of corrections you can make with jpeg.
The big advantage of jpeg -- If you shoot RAW, you will want to manually fix up just about every image. With jpeg, most of your images will be usable straight from the camera. This is especially true of noise in low light pictures.
At ISO of 1600 or higher, for those night time parade pictures --- If you shoot in jpeg, the camera will take out the noise. But it may not fine tune it to your liking, it make take out too much detail, in order to take out the noise.
All your RAW pictures will have noise -- but then you decide on the noise/detail balance yourself in post-processing.

 

[1Grumpy9]

It isn't pictures of a parade or fireworks, but I do have some pictures from three weeks ago of the castle projection show at night. I have a Sony A57 and I used a Sigma 50-200 lens. We got to the spot for the first showing a little late, so we didn't have a prime spot (and I didn't take my smaller kit lens with me), so I couldn't get the whole castle in my picture. These were all done hand held.

This picture was taken during the second showing after we walked out of the Emporium.

 

[zackiedawg]

Photo chick said that the kit lense will be ok for the parades with a tripod which is great as obviously thats the first lense i will own and i have a tripod already from a previous camera. Well my question is do most of you still use a tripod for the parade or do you shoot handheld?

At parades, I typically will shoot handheld - for the most part, most people would, because to shoot parade floats and members which are moving, you need faster shutter speeds, and typically in low light higher ISO levels and wide-open apertures to get those fast shutters...that means tripods have less use.

For fireworks as mentioned above, tripods are usually best, because you typically want to capture a longer exposure, so the full travel of the bursts are captured. I've actually shot fireworks both handheld and tripod - the handheld typically for different effects such as shooting silhouettes of people or portraits with fireworks going off behind them.

Here's another seriously newbie question...do you shoot in raw mode more than jpeg at night or use both? my P/S dosent have raw mode so i don't have the luxury of that decision. Having read up raw mode gives you more ability to fix things in post processing..do i have that correct? I ask this as i'm going to get my mitts (thats english for hands ) on lightroom as the guy at my local camera shop recommended it. I guess the way to look at it...me being new to this...more likely to make mistakes so something like lightroom might at least help towards making up for some of my mess ups .

Indeed, RAW files do have much more room for adjustments in almost every measure - you can drastically change a RAW photo, sometimes to something completely different than what you saw on screen. This can be good for those who want to correct for larger mistakes, or just for those who enjoy really getting into processing and creating their photos more form the computer than from the camera. RAW files don't throw away any information, so colors, white balance, shadow recovery, etc are all much more adjustable. Of course you CAN still edit JPG files, and even a pretty fair amount, but RAW is definitely going to give more latitude. However, a fair warning - RAW files are also sometimes a bit HARDER to get a great result from, if you have no experience with RAW processing or don't really know what it is you're trying to recover. So give yourself plenty of time and patience to learn how to process and convert RAW files because it does tend to work out better the more you learn and gain experience.

But don't feel any pressure to use RAW either - it's a choice, and there are some very skilled and experienced photographers who choose to shoot JPG; even some RAW shooters who have turned back to JPG or use it more often. It sometimes takes a little more skill with the camera and your photography knowledge to be able to get the results you want in-camera, to where you can use JPG and not require any corrections or alterations. Or, you simply may not enjoy computer processing as much, and want to limit your time spent doing it - learning how to nail your JPGs, how to set your camera up to deliver the JPGs you want, can allow you to spend more time enjoying your photography taking, and less time slogging through photography editing. Again, this comes down to what you want, what you like, and what you choose. Shooting JPG doesn't mean you're an amateur or missing out, and shooting RAW doesn't mean you don't know how to shoot and need to fix all your photos - very skilled and knowledgeable photographers use both modes, or either...and you can choose whichever works best for you!

 

[cjstarr]

Here is one of my fireworks pictures shot with the Sony a100.
I was not using a tripod but handheld with in-body stabilization.

I have not had the chance to use my new Sony a57 on any fireworks yet!!!

 

[zackiedawg]

Oh and one last thing if anyone has any shots they have taken of the night parade and fireworks at MK and Epcot with some of these cameras (a35, a37, a57, d3100, d3200, d5100 or anything that shoots similar) and wouldn't mind me looking at them and telling me how they took them that would be great

Here are a few quickie examples of fireworks taken with a different Sony camera, but sharing the same sensor (Sony A580 is a DSLR with the same 16mp sensor as the A57 & D5100 and a few other cameras) - all taken with tripod and long exposures. The first was a shorter exposure with a stopped-down aperture, the middle three are long 30-second exposures using a very dark ND filter, and the last was a shorter exposure taken from the roof of the Bay Lake Tower:

 

[photo_chick]

My approach... I would shoot a parade hand held if I could get the shutter speed I need. But if that wasn't enough with the camera and lens I had I would pull out a tripod or monopod to get a couple more stops just from loosing the camera shake. We all approach things differently though and there's no right or wrong.. just what gets you the shot you want.

 

[DisneyTardis]

Thanks Grumpy, cjstarr and zackiedawg i love the photo's and thankyou for sharing them with me i really appreciate it. Also all the fantastic information from yourselves and havoc and photochick is sincerely appreciated and helping grow my knowledge of DSLR's. So keep them pictures and information coming if you are happy to share some more

Big thanks again for the information on how you all go about taking your shots at night it's helping me big time. I think after reading all the stuff you have said it's sold me on the idea of treating myself to more than just the standard kit lense. Having checked out some prices a prime lense definately sounds like something i would like to have. Looked at 50mm f1.8's and 35mm as they seem to give pretty good value for money and will give me the ability to shoot handheld at night. They also seem to crop on ebay which is handy.

So i think it's fair to say i have definately picked your brains on the parade and fireworks i do have one last question about the fireworks do you guys use a cable shutter release or remote to take your photos or do you set the camera on a timer and let it fire? just curious which way you guys do it? i know depending on the camera some have cable and some have a remote. On my P/S i put it on timer so to avoid as much camera shake as possible.

Ok what about jumping across parks to Disney Hollywood Studio's. How do you guys shoot Fantasmic? For starters you have a certain amount of distance between you and mickey and his sparkling fingers. Do you use a tripod for fantasmic or do you do it handheld? Now obviously with the distance between you and the subject you need a decent zoom. I have checked out some shots taken at fantasmic by people on the forum and most seem to be at least 100mm. I have read up a fair bit about lenses with a decent zoom and knowing those lenses don't come cheap..although i did read about a minolta lense called the beer can...which did make me laugh because the thing actually is the size of one. That thing is F4 all the way going by its specs so is that good enough for fantasmic? I've never had a lense that size so dumb question do you actually hold it with your hand while the other grips the camera? i only ask due to the problem of camera shake...again being new to it all i might be way off Anyway if you guys have any suggestions on what might be a good lense size wise for the money then that would be fantastic or should i say fantasmic (i know such a terrible gag).

Now you probably think i'm getting ahead of myself talking multiple lenses as i'm new to the world of DSLR's. Well i guess no harm in asking as they say and i do have a birthday coming up. I will actually be in Disney for my birthday this year..first time ever at disney for my birthday. If you see a brit looking like someone trying not to get noticed because he's wearing a huge badge stating his age and that it's his birthday that will be me

 

[havoc315]

I have read up a fair bit about lenses with a decent zoom and knowing those lenses don't come cheap..although i did read about a minolta lense called the beer can...which did make me laugh because the thing actually is the size of one. That thing is F4 all the way going by its specs so is that good enough for fantasmic? I've never had a lense that size so dumb question do you actually hold it with your hand while the other grips the camera? i only ask due to the problem of camera shake...again being new to it all i might be way off Anyway if you guys have any suggestions on what might be a good lense size wise for the money then that would be fantastic or should i say fantasmic (i know such a terrible gag).

I have the beercan and I love it. It's my "low light" telephoto lens, and it's an amazing lens for outdoor portraits. (See another active thread for the benefits of a telephoto portrait lens).

I'll look for some beercan examples to post. Yes, it is handheld. No worries about camera shake... especially with Sony in-camera stabilization -- every lens becomes stabilized. But it is a big heavy lens, so you don't want to have it with you at all times. Only when you need it.

examples:


untitled-92.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


football by Havoc315, on Flickr


thanksgiving-18.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[DisneyTardis]

Thanks so much for going to the trouble of posting the photo's havoc i really appreciate it The photo's look amazing and i'm seriously impressed with the clarity at the maximum 210mm. I wanted to reach out and pinch one of the brownies..espcially as they look so good. So silly question from a newbie im guessing the beercan is more than up for the job of night shots at fantasmic. I only ask as truth be told i would love to capture really great shots of mickey with the sword in his hand and when the fireworks sparkle out of the tips of his fingers. I'm sure you know the bit and i would imagine thats the part most people want to capture. I have tried many times to get them with pervious cameras and they just haven't come out as well as i would have like.

Thanks for the tip about the active thread for the benefits of a telephoto portrait lens will definately look it up as the more information the better. I will say the reason for the getting the zoom lense is not just for fantasmic im also going to be at disney for the star wars weekends this year and knowing disney it will be rammed. I think a decent zoom lense will help a ton as i dont expect to get close to the action. Also when i visit the states apart from orlando i normally take in a game of football, hockey or baseball and if the beercan can get me decent action shots that would be great.

Anyway sincere thanks again for posting the photo's, i will look up the thread you mentioned and i'm going to start trawling ebay to see if anyone has listed a beercan lense

 

[havoc315]

There are always beercans on eBay but look for an experienced seller with a top rating and a good description so you can gauge the quality of the lens. I found an exceptional copy. And make sure you get the hood.

Fantasmic can still be challenging. I actually only had my rx100 with me this year to shoot fantasmic. Look in my Flickr album and you should be able to find the pics in my Disney album. Didn't have a whole lot of zoom on that camera. Looking at my exif as I type.. I see I got sharp shots at f4, ISO 1600-- so the beercan should work great. Can bump ISO up to 3200 if necessary... Even 6400 to get your shutter speed up.

It's a good example of why I like Sony.. With access to Minolta lenses and in-camera image stabilization.. How much would a stabilized 70-210 constant aperture lens cost for most systems?

 

[havoc315]

In general, if you carefully shop Minolta lenses, you can affordably build a good collection for a Sony system. Constant aperture 2.8 lenses are still expensive, even 20 year old Minolta lenses.
But some "bargains" include the Minolta 50/1.7 as a prime, the 70-210 beer can, the 100-300 apo. Bit more expensive, but to 50/2.8 macro lens is fun, and a bargain considering the quality.

 

[agalati]

I have been keeping my eye out for a decent Nikon 3200 sale for a while, but there don't seem to be any at this point. I did a lot of researching online for a 16 mp or more camera, specifically CMOS, and this seems to be the best I've found for the price range. The rear of the camera is similar to my Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D, which is very easy to use.

 

[traylorc]

Ok what about jumping across parks to Disney Hollywood Studio's. How do you guys shoot Fantasmic? For starters you have a certain amount of distance between you and mickey and his sparkling fingers. Do you use a tripod for fantasmic or do you do it handheld? Now obviously with the distance between you and the subject you need a decent zoom. I have checked out some shots taken at fantasmic by people on the forum and most seem to be at least 100mm. I have read up a fair bit about lenses with a decent zoom and knowing those lenses don't come cheap..although i did read about a minolta lense called the beer can...which did make me laugh because the thing actually is the size of one. That thing is F4 all the way going by its specs so is that good enough for fantasmic? I've never had a lense that size so dumb question do you actually hold it with your hand while the other grips the camera? i only ask due to the problem of camera shake...again being new to it all i might be way off Anyway if you guys have any suggestions on what might be a good lense size wise for the money then that would be fantastic or should i say fantasmic (i know such a terrible gag).

I took pictures of Fantasmic during our last trip to Disneyland. I used two lens: 1) 70-200mm f/2.8 (this lens has vibration reduction) and 2) 300mm f/4. I also used a 1.7 teleconverter with the 300mm for extra reach (the teleconverter gave the effect of using a 500mm lens). All my shots were taken hand held. Fantasmic can be tricky due to the ever changing lighting conditions throughout the show.


Mickey At Fantasmic by traylorc, on Flickr


Maleficient Unleashed by traylorc, on Flickr


Maleficient's Fury (1 of 1) by traylorc, on Flickr

 

[DisneyTardis]

Thanks for sharing your flickr album havoc you have some really amazing shots in it The fantasmic shots look great and i think the beercan should definately be up to the task aslong as yours truly (the photographer) does his bit . I've got to say the RX100 seems a great little camera. I'm in the process of hunting the beercan down on ebay taking on board what you said to make sure it comes with the lens hood. Ironically all this lense talk and i don't even have a DSLR to put them on To be fair the lense talk has helped me really decide that for me sony is the way to go. I did have a good read about the Sony A55 which you have, sounds like a great camera and something i'm definately interested in along with the later a37, a57 etc. Just got to find one at a price im happy with.

Trayloc what can i say....WOW!!!!! amazing photo's. Thanks so much for sharing them I love the one with mickey and the sparkling fingers. It's the shot i really want to capture. OK...silly question from a newbie can i ask which ones were done with the F4 lense?

 

[havoc315]

If you want to buy new, hard to beat the deals on the A57 now as it's being cleared out. The replacement-- the a58 is not a true upgrade. They are merging the 3s and 5s.. They should call it the a48. It's a downgrade of the a57 in many ways.

Of course, especially if you wait, you can save more by buying a nearly new model off eBay.

But I'd probably take the chance to buy a brand new a57 body for $500.. Add a beercan, a Minolta 50/1.7 and some sort of kit lens. And for under $1,000 have a really top notch set up that will cover all the basics.