New to DSLR's help Required

[DisneyTardis]

Hi

Well like so many others before me who have posted on this forum i need some help in the DSLR dept. I'm new to the DSLR world so was just thinking of a starter DSLR like an Sony a37 or d3100 etc or even something like an Sony a35. I want something that will take really great low light photo's as thats where my great little P/S (Sony Hx20v) falls down. Having seen so many fantastic photo's posted by people on here i just want to get something that will capture the night parade and fireworks and disney at night as that's where it comes alive for me. I just love disney at night and it would be great to be able to capture it. Away from disney something with decent capability to capture sports like at a hockey game, baseball or American football is definately something i would like.

Anyway first and foremost Disney as this is what i really want the camera for. Having read numerous posts by you the pro's and spoken to a guy in my local camera shop (london camera exchange for those brits out there ) it seems for what i want...the ability to stop motion and capture the night parade i'm going to need a fast lense and boost the iso. It's to do with F stops so im told. Please do correct me if im wrong. Reading into that it means the kit lenses which you get with the camera may not do what i want? is that correct? They all start at f3.5 which im guessing wont be good enough for what i want. So if i'm right the only way to go if i don't want to spend mega bucks on a lense..is to go the prime lense route? i know you can get 50mm and 35 mm etc at f1.8 and less 1.4 etc. So if you were to pick a lense also to go with the camera what would you recommend? Actually here's another question..do you use a tripod when taking the parade? i know its definately a thing to have for the fireworks but what about the parade?

Anyway excuse the major long post...i have to laugh at how many questions i've asked . I just want to say a big big thankyou to anyone who helps me with this

 

[havoc315]

I love the Sony SLTs and you can get a great deal on the A57, as it's being discontinued. Ironically, the "new" version -- the a58-- is largely a downgrade. They are reducing the price of the line, and making the 5-s the new entry level.
So it's a great time to pick up the a57.

The kit lens is just fine for fireworks.

For parades and dark rides, you need a way to get more light inside the camera.
1 way is to slow down the shutter speed (as with fireworks), for which you can use a tripod.
Obviously, can't use a tripod on dark rides.

The other way is to use a lens with a large aperture (small number).

The 50-1.8 and 35-1.4 would both be sufficient. The 35-1.4 has the slightly larger aperture. And it gives you a wider view, so less fear of being toooo zoomed in.
But the 50-1.8 is sufficient and much cheaper.

For Sony cameras, I use a used minolta 50-1.7, can get mint copies on eBay very cheap.

 

[photo_chick]

I snipped your post because it was a lot to quote.

......I want something that will take really great low light photo's as thats where my great little P/S (Sony Hx20v) falls down. Having seen so many fantastic photo's posted by people on here i just want to get something that will capture the night parade and fireworks and disney at night as that's where it comes alive for me. .....

Parades and fireworks can be captured with a good point and shoot as easily as with a DSLR if you know how to push it. Those great shots you see posted have a lot more to do with the photographers taking them than the camera they're using. No camera will consistently give you those shots on auto. The amazing shots on dark rides that people post do tend to require a fast prime and often come from a lot of trying, learning what was done wrong, then trying some more. You're not going to just pick up a camera and get the shots. Expect to spend some time learning as well.

..... Reading into that it means the kit lenses which you get with the camera may not do what i want? is that correct? They all start at f3.5 which im guessing wont be good enough for what i want. So if i'm right the only way to go if i don't want to spend mega bucks on a lense..is to go the prime lense route? i know you can get 50mm and 35 mm etc at f1.8 and less 1.4 etc. ....

Start with the kit lens. The only thing it won't cover you for is on dark rides. Fireworks are done with a tripod and a smaller aperture than f/3.5. The kit lens pulled wide to 18mm on a current DSLR is enough for parades. Add a tripod to that setup and it's more than enough. The only thing that doesn't cover you for is dark rides. There's no getting around needing a fast prime on those. But also keep in mind a DSLR is not about a one time purchase. It's buying into a system. If you're not looking to build a lens collection you may find yourself getting a lot more use out of a high end point and shoot. There are a few out now that have apertures that rival fast primes.

 

[Tigerlulu]

I snipped your post because it was a lot to quote.

Parades and fireworks can be captured with a good point and shoot as easily as with a DSLR if you know how to push it. Those great shots you see posted have a lot more to do with the photographers taking them than the camera they're using. No camera will give you those shots on auto. The amazing shots on dark rides that people post do tend to require a fast prime and often come from a lot of trying, learning what was done wrong, then trying some more. You're not going to just pick up a camera and get the shots.

Start with the kit lens. The only thing it won't cover you for is on rides. Fireworks are done with a tripod and a smaller aperture than f/3.5. The kit lens pulled wide to 18mm on a current DSLR is enough for parades. Add a tripod to that setup and it's more than enough. The only thing that doesn't cover you for is dark rides. There's no getting around needing a fast prime on those. But also keep in mind a DSLR is not about a one time purchase. It's buying into a system. If you're not looking to build a lens collection you may find yourself getting a lot more use out of a high end point and shoot.

Agreed. Well said.

 

[hakepb]

You are probably on a good path, for you, considering a Sony SLT.
You could also consider the Sony NEX. They have the same sensors / image quality (ie low light) in a more compact body, but they have a smaller native lens selection, then the more mature A mount.

If you consider the Nikon path, consider the D5100+ or a D3200..only because you are talking about low light, and those cameras have much better high-ISO performance.

The biggest physical difference between the 2 systems is Optical vs Electronic viewfinders. They both have advantages and disadvantages, and I largely a personal preference.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Since you are new to the DSLR world, I wouldn't limit myself to two brands. I would try the Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc. All the systems have their strong points and weak points. An example, Nikon arguably has the best flash system. Pentax and Sony have in-body stabilization which allows all lenses including legacy lenses to be stabilized. Nikon and Canon are the two largest companies and from top to bottom have the greatest varieties of cameras. Pentax has the largest group of legacy lenses that fit today's modern DSLR's (with varying degrees of manual vs auto controls) and the best weather resistant bodies in their class. Sony does not make a true DSLR but uses their SLT translucent mirror system. This has advantages of faster liveview focusing and higher burst rate but the downside is that you lose a stop of lowlight capability. Each brand has their own menus and body ergonomics. I would highly recommend that you hold and try as many as possible. You will find that some will fit and work better for you. I can't count the number of times that someone went into this process with an idea of what they wanted and wound up with something different. Take your time and make the right decision for you. As you learn a little more, you will have a lot more questions. You're on the right track, just don't rush it.

 

[cjstarr]

Gianna'sPapa and photo_chick have some good advice as for me I just purchase my second Sony. My first was the a100 and did quite good with it. I've had some great firework w/o a tripod shots with it as well as indoor and outdoor shots. The in-body stabilization is hard to beat also. This will bring down the cost of the lens for the Pentax and Sony cameras.
Now my lastest is a Sony SLT a57 that I found on e-bay for under $500 and for what it's worth was brand new, (purchase on Dec.3 2012 by the original owner) and so far I can't say enought about their SLT translucent mirror system. It is FAST and always in focus no matter how fast you are on the shutter or how fast I move the camera. (Did I say it is FAST!!!)
I do recommend that you but a good 2.8 f17 - 50 or 70 lens or the 30 or 35 1.4 or 1.7 prime. You won't regret it. As for as the 50 or 70 - 210 or 300 I know I can't afford good glass unless I get lucky that is, so I will be looking at a f4-?.
I will also recommend that you look at the pictures from the Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Sony here on the Photography site and see what you like.
Then go by a camera shop or Best Buy and pick up and see how they feel in your hand.

Good Luck
and
Happy Shooting

 

[photo_chick]

Good point about the Sony being an SLT and not a DSLR. It also uses an EVF instead of an optical viewfinder which has advantages and disadvantages.

 

[cjstarr]

Good point about the Sony being an SLT and not a DSLR. It also uses an EVF instead of an optical viewfinder which has advantages and disadvantages.

True photo_chick but so far I have yet to see the disadvantages.
Will you mine telling me what you think they are.
Thanks

 

[havoc315]

True photo_chick but so far I have yet to see the disadvantages.
Will you mine telling me what you think they are.
Thanks

Some people just don't like the look of the EVF. It's not as natural looking, in low light it can be grainy.
Also, since it is a virtual image that can only refresh so quickly, it isn't truly a live view when using the camera's fastest burst modes. (But then again, comparably priced dslrs don't have burst modes anywhere near as fast).

The big disadvantage of the SLT is that you lose a bit of ISO performance, about a half stop. Sonys and Nikons mostly use the same sensors, yet you will see better IQ ratings on the Nikon-- due mostly to the SLT.
Makes no difference at ISOs under 800.. Even 1600 in most cases. But as you go higher, you start to see some differences. I find the highest truly usable ISO on the A55 is about 3200, and that requires jpeg or post processing noise reduction.

 

[photo_chick]

havoc covered the actual issues pretty well.

I don't like EVF's as a matter of personal preference. I want a DSLR because I want the SLR part. I want the actual view of what my lens sees with a through the lens optical viewfinder, not a digital representation of what my sensor is recording. If that EVF is off in any number of ways I won't get a true representation of what my lens sees.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

havoc covered the actual issues pretty well.

I don't like EVF's as a matter of personal preference. I want a DSLR because I want the SLR part. I want the actual view of what my lens sees with a through the lens optical viewfinder, not a digital representation of what my sensor is recording. If that EVF is off in any number of ways I won't get a true representation of what my lens sees.

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.

 

[cjstarr]

Just a thought on my part but I frame my shots not with the view-finder but by looking at what I'm shooting. Then I look through the EVF and take my shot. I did the same thing when I had my Sony DSLR a100 before looking through the SLR view-finder.
As for what I get after I pust the button I screen my shoots on my laptop, pick the ones I like and then run them though a photoshop.
So in retospect the shot I take is going to be changed anyway no matter what I see through the EVF view-finder.
Doesn't everyone else do the same, I mean take the picture, pick out the shot you like, and then photoshop it?
If not then I need to go back to square one and start over because I have misunderstood what I have been reading here on the Photography Board.

A note to the OP:
If you think we have high-jack your page it's just the opposite.
By discussing different aspects of the system we use or what we all see as an advantage or disadvantage is how I learn to fix problems that I might have.
I would this this applies with others also as we all learn from each other.

 

[havoc315]

EVF vs OVF

OVF-- sees what the lens sees.
EVF-- represents what the sensor sees.

So in many cases, the OVF gives a brighter more natural view, preferred by many people, especially those who are used to it.
The EVF is digital representation of the final product-- so it can actually give you a better idea of what the final photograph will look like-- white balance, exposure, etc.

As the quality of EVFs improve (to where they are as bright and clean as OVF), I suspect they will win more converts.

 

[hakepb]

Just to throw in a few advantages for a balanced concersation after the disadvantages:
The Sony A57 EFV is much larger than a crop body OFV (Full frame SLR's have a bigger OFV)
The EFV gets you the exact coverage of the final shot, some OFV only have partial coverage
An EFV let's you see settings while you are shooting. Many like the option to have a live histogram in the EFV
An EFV works during video while an OFV blanks out. (OFV quickly blank out during a shot)

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

A note to the OP:
If you think we have high-jack your page it's just the opposite.
By discussing different aspects of the system we use or what we all see as an advantage or disadvantage is how I learn to fix problems that I might have.
I would this this applies with others also as we all learn from each other.

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.

 

[zackiedawg]

As for what I get after I pust the button I screen my shoots on my laptop, pick the ones I like and then run them though a photoshop.
So in retospect the shot I take is going to be changed anyway no matter what I see through the EVF view-finder.
Doesn't everyone else do the same, I mean take the picture, pick out the shot you like, and then photoshop it?
If not then I need to go back to square one and start over because I have misunderstood what I have been reading here on the Photography

I don't do it this way, but that doesn't mean any way is wrong or right. You use whatever method works best for you.

I actually prefer to work on the entire photo while I'm out in the field with the camera, setting up the exposure, the focus, the depth of field, the color and contrast, under- or over-exposure, white balance, even settings like HDR stacking and pano-stitching...it doesn't matter whether I'm using an OVF or an EVF, as I still use the same method ( I have a long enough experience in photography to know my exposure and DOF based on the chosen settings). This lets me pretty much avoid post-processing - or reduce it to a bare minimum. I much prefer to spend all the time I can actually taking photos, and not sitting at a computer working on them - just personal preference...I never found too much joy sitting in front of computer screens!


As to the question of EVF DISADVANTAGES asked earlier - I can elaborate on one of the key ones, since I actually shoot with both an OVF and an EVF camera regularly. The biggest disadvantage of EVFs won't affect a vast majority of photographers because it affects a specialty type of photography - action/sports. This includes something I shoot often, which is birds-in-flight. An EVF being a digital image rather than a live optical one, you can follow, track, shoot, and focus just fine on non-moving targets, and even pan and follow a moving target when not firing the shutter. But if you need to start firing off continuous frames WHILE panning and tracking a moving subject, it becomes difficult with an EVF because the EVF cannot continuously show you a live real-time scene in between each shutter cycle, but rather has to show you the frame just taken when the shutter was open, which is a few milliseconds behind the real scene. It continues to show you this procession of previously taken frames, always a few milliseconds behind the real-time view, which when trying to follow along with a moving subject, especially one that may change speed or direction, becomes increasingly difficult. This is commonly referred to as the 'slideshow effect'. This is not to say birds in flight, sports, or action cannot be done with an EVF - it can. But it requires a little adaptation and relearning, and it will be more challenging when you start firing continuous bursts while panning. An optical viewfinder simply makes this type of shoot easier.

EVFs of course have a few other minor disadvantages - such as battery draw - EVF cameras don't have anywhere near the battery life of OVF cameras. But as mentioned they also have several advantages, such as the ability to see exposures, white balance, depth of field, and various other camera settings right in the finder, the ability to gain up in low light to help see subjects that might be too dark in a smaller OVF, and depending on the camera, they can be more flexible - placed almost anywhere on the camera body since they don't require a direct view through a series of mirrors or prisms, and can even be designed as detachable or tiltable units.

I enjoy shooting with both. I find the OVF still gives me some strong advantages when shooting wildlife, especially moving, while the EVF makes indoor and night shooting a pleasure since I can always quickly see and set my white balance visually on screen and judge exposure visually.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

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.

Yes.

I actually prefer to work on the entire photo while I'm out in the field with the camera, setting up the exposure, the focus, the depth of field, the color and contrast, under- or over-exposure, white balance, even settings like HDR stacking and pano-stitching...it doesn't matter whether I'm using an OVF or an EVF, as I still use the same method ( I have a long enough experience in photography to know my exposure and DOF based on the chosen settings). This lets me pretty much avoid post-processing - or reduce it to a bare minimum. I much prefer to spend all the time I can actually taking photos, and not sitting at a computer working on them - just personal preference...I never found too much joy sitting in front of computer screens!

This is how I tend to work as well. I have little interest in post processing, and will generally do the bare minimum if at all.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I don't do it this way, but that doesn't mean any way is wrong or right. You use whatever method works best for you.

I actually prefer to work on the entire photo while I'm out in the field with the camera, setting up the exposure, the focus, the depth of field, the color and contrast, under- or over-exposure, white balance, even settings like HDR stacking and pano-stitching...it doesn't matter whether I'm using an OVF or an EVF, as I still use the same method ( I have a long enough experience in photography to know my exposure and DOF based on the chosen settings). This lets me pretty much avoid post-processing - or reduce it to a bare minimum. I much prefer to spend all the time I can actually taking photos, and not sitting at a computer working on them - just personal preference...I never found too much joy sitting in front of computer screens!


As to the question of EVF DISADVANTAGES asked earlier - I can elaborate on one of the key ones, since I actually shoot with both an OVF and an EVF camera regularly. The biggest disadvantage of EVFs won't affect a vast majority of photographers because it affects a specialty type of photography - action/sports. This includes something I shoot often, which is birds-in-flight. An EVF being a digital image rather than a live optical one, you can follow, track, shoot, and focus just fine on non-moving targets, and even pan and follow a moving target when not firing the shutter. But if you need to start firing off continuous frames WHILE panning and tracking a moving subject, it becomes difficult with an EVF because the EVF cannot continuously show you a live real-time scene in between each shutter cycle, but rather has to show you the frame just taken when the shutter was open, which is a few milliseconds behind the real scene. It continues to show you this procession of previously taken frames, always a few milliseconds behind the real-time view, which when trying to follow along with a moving subject, especially one that may change speed or direction, becomes increasingly difficult. This is commonly referred to as the 'slideshow effect'. This is not to say birds in flight, sports, or action cannot be done with an EVF - it can. But it requires a little adaptation and relearning, and it will be more challenging when you start firing continuous bursts while panning. An optical viewfinder simply makes this type of shoot easier.

EVFs of course have a few other minor disadvantages - such as battery draw - EVF cameras don't have anywhere near the battery life of OVF cameras. But as mentioned they also have several advantages, such as the ability to see exposures, white balance, depth of field, and various other camera settings right in the finder, the ability to gain up in low light to help see subjects that might be too dark in a smaller OVF, and depending on the camera, they can be more flexible - placed almost anywhere on the camera body since they don't require a direct view through a series of mirrors or prisms, and can even be designed as detachable or tiltable units.

I enjoy shooting with both. I find the OVF still gives me some strong advantages when shooting wildlife, especially moving, while the EVF makes indoor and night shooting a pleasure since I can always quickly see and set my white balance visually on screen and judge exposure visually.

Great explanation, as always!

 

[havoc315]

I

As to the question of EVF DISADVANTAGES asked earlier - I can elaborate on one of the key ones, since I actually shoot with both an OVF and an EVF camera regularly. The biggest disadvantage of EVFs won't affect a vast majority of photographers because it affects a specialty type of photography - action/sports. This includes something I shoot often, which is birds-in-flight. An EVF being a digital image rather than a live optical one, you can follow, track, shoot, and focus just fine on non-moving targets, and even pan and follow a moving target when not firing the shutter. But if you need to start firing off continuous frames WHILE panning and tracking a moving subject, it becomes difficult with an EVF because the EVF cannot continuously show you a live real-time scene in between each shutter cycle, but rather has to show you the frame just taken when the shutter was open, which is a few milliseconds behind the real scene. It continues to show you this procession of previously taken frames, always a few milliseconds behind the real-time view, which when trying to follow along with a moving subject, especially one that may change speed or direction, becomes increasingly difficult. This is commonly referred to as the 'slideshow effect'. This is not to say birds in flight, sports, or action cannot be done with an EVF - it can. But it requires a little adaptation and relearning, and it will be more challenging when you start firing continuous bursts while panning. An optical viewfinder simply makes this type of shoot easier.

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.