Photos of Fireworks

[ransom]

We have a Canon Elph SD700IS that takes great shots and is of course very easy to bring along to the parks.

The only time we had trouble was with night shots. Without a tripod, nearly every one turned out blurry.

Other than always using a tripod, is there any way to get good shots of bright things at night - such as fireworks, but also the Osborne Lights and the like?

 

[madhttr]

Hate to break this to you but from what everyone on here has told me is...

No, it is extremely hard to get decent shots without a tripod. There are several suggestions on this board for tripods. I am going this weekend to get one for our trip in 2 weeks.

HTH!

 

[Groucho]

You need SOME sort of support system, especially if you're using a PnS camera, where you're limited by the capabilities of the lens and the small sensor.

Whether this takes the form of a tripod, a Gorillapod, a Clamperpod, a bean bag, a flat surface, or having Robby the Robot hold it for you is up to you. Humans are just too wobbly to hold a camera steady.

That being said, some nighttime things are bright enough where you can probably get away with hand-holding, like the Osborne Lights, which are quite bright.

And you can help a little by putting your camera is "high ISO" mode (I think that's the wording for the SD series but I'm not sure off the top of my head), and you don't want fireworks mode if you're photographing something moving, like a parade.

 

[ransom]

That's what I feared.

Strange thing is, back in the 80s, I brought a point-and-shoot 35MM camera to Disneyland, loaded it with ISO1600 film, and took beautiful pictures of fireworks - no tripod needed. And I'm a total duffer when it comes to cameras!

Try the same thing with a digital camera, and you get nothing but blurs.

How depressing.

On the other hand, DW has been collecting and using film cameras and accessories for more than 30 years, so has many to choose from for going back to that medium. We just didn't want to bring a big ol' honkin' camera to the parks, nor a tripod, nor did we want to have to develop it all then scan 'em in. Oh, well. If necessary, we'll just have to break out the enlarger, chemicals, and pans and see what happens, I guess.

Thanks for the confirmation!

 

[Groucho]

It's not the fact that it's a point-n-shoot per se, it's all about the sensor.

Your 35mm camera records images on a piece of film that was 36mm x 24mm (yes, 36mm - bizarre, eh?)

Most digital cameras use a 1/2.5 sensor, which in English translates to 5.76mm x 4.29mm. This is what your SD700 has. It should be starting to make sense now.

Put it another way - the area of the sensor in your SD700 is 24.71 square mm. The area of a piece of 35mm film is 864 square mm. That's why digital point-n-shoots are woefully inadequate in low-light situations. On the other hand, you couldn't fit a 35mm sensor in a camera as small as yours!

Higher-end PnSs have a 1/1.8, or 7.176mm x 5.319mm sensor, which works out to 38.17 square mm. Digital SLRs vary but most have somewhere around a 23.5mm x 15.7mm sensor, or 368.95 square mm. That's why DSLRs are so much better at low-light photography than digital.

There's no reason that a big sensor couldn't go in a digital PnS but it would be a tough sell to consumers who want tiny cameras and have been led into believing that more megapixels means better image quality (which is hardly the truth.)

 

[ransom]

That's just it - every time something new comes on the market and takes over, things are worse in some way. Like with CDs vs. vinyl (warmth of sound) or VHS versus DVD (8-track player like behavior as it switches layers).

And, as you point out with digital cameras, all of these problems could be solved. With a big enough buffer, you wouldn't notice the DVD layer switching. With great enough data density, digital music approaches the quality of vinyl. With a large enough CCD, you'd have true 35mm image quality. (Should we be comparing the granularity of various 35mm films with the resolution of various CCDs, or the absolute size of an arbitrary piece of film with the absolute size of an arbitrary CCD?)

It's too bad folks are always willing to give up something instead of insisting products improve in all ways before accepting them.

But, that's off topic. Thanks for the explanation!

 

[Groucho]

Well, CDs have a lot of advantages over vinyl and if you want even better quality, you can buy DTS CDs, SACDs, or DVD Audio.

As for video... VHS has ZERO advantages over DVD. VHS is junk and always has been, it's absolute garbage quality. Any DVD player worth its price will give you a seamless layer change, I have bought several under-$50 players and the layer break is 100% undetectable. Plus, not all DVDs have a layer break, so that's not really a fair statement. If you are seeing a noticeable pause during a layer break, I'd recommend buying a newer player - generally, only very old players had such an issue.

And, HD-DVD and BluRay blow DVD away... more improvements.

Similarly, digital PnSs offer many advantages over film, but you simply cannot expect to get film quality in such a tiny package as something like a Canon Elph or similar-sized cameras, especially as the megapixels ramp up (trying to squeeze more pixels out of the same tiny sensor means more noise.) A DSLR will give you results that are pretty comparable as you'd get from a 35mm SLR. If you are unhappy with the quality of your SD700, you could vote with your wallet and purchase an entry-level DSLR. Until then, the companies will continue to sacrifice quality to give you a smaller camera.

Sorry, don't mean to get grumpy, but any mention of VHS brings out the grouch in me!

 

[ransom]

Gee, sorry, I didn't mean to push your buttons!

I was speaking mainly of the point at which things are adopted by the general public. At that point, generally speaking, the new items are worse in one or more ways than what they are replacing. Not worse overall, but worse in one or more ways.

For example, I agree that any DVD is going to provide better audio and video quality than any VHS tape. And it'll last longer. And so on. -BUT- when they were becoming popular, the average DVD player hesitated as it shifted layers. (Remember before dual layer, when you had to flip it over like a cassette tape?)

The same can be said of digital audio. And, I think, some day we'll be saying the same about digital still cameras. At some point, they'll have to stop competing on 'megapixels' and start competing on something else. Hopefully they'll eventually get around to competing on low light capture capability.

 

[handicap18]

Strange thing is, back in the 80s, I brought a point-and-shoot 35MM camera to Disneyland, loaded it with ISO1600 film, and took beautiful pictures of fireworks - no tripod needed. And I'm a total duffer when it comes to cameras!

This is the biggest point to really focus on. You CAN get very good pictures of fireworks without using a tripod, however, they will look very different from pictures taken with a tripod using a long shutter.

People here have taken great pictures of fireworks, great big colorful bursts, that were taken handheld with a PnS camera.

If you use a tripod and a looong exposure, like 2 or more seconds (impossible to do handheld) then you will also get the long streaks that proceed the big colorful bursts.

So it really depends on the type of picture you want. Handheld at like 1/20th - 1/30th or so, maybe a bit slower while leaning against a pole (or something similar) and with the right timing you can get excellent shots of the big bursts and will also get some color from the Castle.

If you have a PnS camera you can pickup a small table top tripod and then find yourself a trash can (at MK they have flat tops and are EVERYWHERE). Set up the tripod and camera on the trash can and have at it. Use your self time (set to 2 seconds) so you wont get camera shake from pressing the button. Table top tripods can be had for less than $15 and can fit in a pocket (at least mine will).

 

[ransom]

Thanks, handicap18! That answers my question.