Want a new camera...

[05ChristmasSurprise]

replied to this below - see page 2.

 

[Miss Park Avenue]

It's been over 20 years since my photography lessons but it sounds like you've got the wrong speed film.

I would try 400 film before I'd chuck out the camera. Still plenty fast for action shots and not as grainy.

A better photographer may give you better advice.

 

[caverill]

You are correct about the film speed. When I was using a 35mm, I never went about 400 for normal pictures.

I have converted to digital since I was getting sick and tired of getting the picture developed and finding out I didn't care for the shot.

There are two main things that you need to ensure if you are using digital. Understand the settings and how the camera works and have a good printer (or have the prints done at a "photo kiosk").

Poor digital prints are not normally the camera. They are normally due to the poor quality of the printer. Either buy a very good printer or have them printed by a photo shop.

 

[Yensid_MD]

first off I agree with all of the above . For a digital camera I use a Nikon Coolpix 3200 which has been great. There is also a 4200 now I believe as well.

Good Luck

 

[nativetxn]

I'm going to move this to our community board for you.

 

[KathyTX]

Agreeing with what's been said, 800 ISO is too fast for what you're trying to shoot on film.

For the kind of candid shots you're after, a 200 or 400 film would be my choice.

Actually, that's not entirely true. My choice is actually digital. It enables you to be very free about the number of shots you take, and just delete the ones you don't like. I might take 400 shots to get 30 I really like on digital, but it costs me nothing.

Then I can do some pretty minimal editing to the digital shots on the computer (cropping to get the subject framed better, a little color correction, red eye removal) to get the photos looking the way I REALLY want them.

If I want prints, I have a photo lab print them. That's the only way you'll get digital prints that are comparable to film prints. Your little inkjet printer at home just isn't the same, and those prints won't hold up over the years like film prints.

Lots of film labs will process your digital photos. I like www.shutterfly.com. I upload my photos to their site and order what I want. The quality is good, the turnaround is fast, and the price is right.

Here are the current print prices at Shutterfly, and I think this is pretty typical for any of the online photo processing services:

Size Price*
4x6 $0.22 - $0.29
5x7 $0.79 - $0.99
8x10 $3.19 - $3.99
Wallet(4) $1.49 - $1.79
11x14 $7.99
16x20 $17.99
20x30 $22.99

When you open an account, I think you get your first 15 prints free, as an easy way to see how it works and whether you like the prints.

I do print some photos at home, but only if I'm wanting something "quick and dirty", not for anything I want to keep.

(Santa just gave me an early Christmas present yesterday, a new digital camera. It's an Olympus C-765, and I think I'll really like it. Nothing real fancy, but it has a nice 10x optical zoom and some features I'd been missing on my older camera. I'm anxious to start playing with it at WDW next month!)

 

[wdwmom2]

I have a Nikon Coolpix 4300 and absolutely love it. Very easy to use. I took it on our WDW land/sea and it took outstanding pics. Just as good if not better than my Cannon 35mm. Alot of the printed quality has to do with who processes your pics, I found this out. My first batch I took to Walmart. The pics were so bad that I refused to buy them. (I am not dising Walmart, just the digital pics I got from them.) Then I had them processed by a professional photo store. The difference was amazing.

Go to www.nikonusa.com and check out their selection of cameras. Right now they have a $50 rebate on the 4300.

 

[crz4mm2]

I have an olympus digital too. I LOVE the zoom. It has been a challenge for me though. Too many settings etc. I also don't like the delay when I am shooting action shots, but I am getting better at it. Nice that you can delete the shots you don't want
I always used either 200 or 400 speed film when I used my 35mm.

 

[BriarRose59]

I have a Canon Digital Rebel that I absolutely love, but when I go places that I don't want to take a larger camera I borrow my daughter's Olympus Stylus 410. It is an exceptional camera that is small and easy to use. I bought it on the advice of the salesman at Best Buy. He said its hard to hurt this camera even if it is dropped. The pictures that I get from it are every bit as sharp as the ones I used to take with my 35mm. I have an Epson Photo 2200 printer which helps. It uses the archival inks. There are a lot of smaller photo printers out there if you are interested in not printing larger than 5x7 pictures.

 

[crow11ad]

Well I will be more than happy to suggest the Sony CD Mavica. It doesn't take cards, but takes mini cd's. You can get a lot of pictures on one cd. And for about 10 cd's it only costs about 8.00. We are very happy with this and has done our last trip well.

 

[jajuan]

Shoot...I hated to read this post. I just bought 5 big packs of 800 speed from Sam's. When I read the side of the box, it said it was great for all pictures and the big pack of film (I think 5 in there) was only 9.00. I think I know why now.

 

[dmadman43]

Not sure what your budget is, but I have a Nikon D70 and it is the best camera I have ever owned. It go completely automagic, all the way to complete manual. I have digital point and shoots,but like you the shutter delay is annoying for taking candids of kids. I finally had it with missed shots and invested in the DSLR.

Digital point and shoots are good and serve the masses well, I guess it depends on the type of photography you like to do and the type and quality of pictures you like to take. Digital p/s do have their downsides. The sensors are tiny compared to the real DSLRs. Because the p/s cameras use such tiny pixels they are subject to two serious flaws: 1.) much more noise (grain) and the related 2.) much slower ISO speeds.

Even the fanciest p/s cameras have sensors only 2/3" diagonally. Also as they add more pixels each pixel gets smaller, and therefore noisier. Digital p/s cameras have to work at much slower ISOs to get a decent image. The p/s cameras typically default to ISO 50 and go up only to ISO 400, at which speed they look pretty bad. By comparison most DSLRs start at ISO 200 and go to ISO 1,600 to 6,400. Because you have to use slower ISOs in the p/s you wind up with blurrier photos compared to DSLRs because of the longer exposure times. Longer exposure times lead to blurring when either the subject or camera moves, which is most of the time unless you enjoy looking at photos of test charts or posed picture, or anything that doesn't move.

And the internal electronics of p/s just aren't fast to responnd as fast as we'd like. Some cameras are much better than others.

You have to wait for them to turn on, and then you have to wait after you press the button for something to happen. With these long delays you have to hope your subject doesn't lose interest or fall asleep while you're trying to get a photo.

To me it comes down to trading ease of use, speed, and image quality for size and weight.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Not sure what your budget is, but I have a Nikon D70 and it is the best camera I have ever owned. It go completely automagic, all the way to complete manual. I have digital point and shoots,but like you the shutter delay is annoying for taking candids of kids. I finally had it with missed shots and invested in the DSLR.

Digital point and shoots are good and serve the masses well, I guess it depends on the type of photography you like to do and the type and quality of pictures you like to take. Digital p/s do have their downsides. The sensors are tiny compared to the real DSLRs. Because the p/s cameras use such tiny pixels they are subject to two serious flaws: 1.) much more noise (grain) and the related 2.) much slower ISO speeds.

Even the fanciest p/s cameras have sensors only 2/3" diagonally. Also as they add more pixels each pixel gets smaller, and therefore noisier. Digital p/s cameras have to work at much slower ISOs to get a decent image. The p/s cameras typically default to ISO 50 and go up only to ISO 400, at which speed they look pretty bad. By comparison most DSLRs start at ISO 200 and go to ISO 1,600 to 6,400. Because you have to use slower ISOs in the p/s you wind up with blurrier photos compared to DSLRs because of the longer exposure times. Longer exposure times lead to blurring when either the subject or camera moves, which is most of the time unless you enjoy looking at photos of test charts or posed picture, or anything that doesn't move.

And the internal electronics of p/s just aren't fast to responnd as fast as we'd like. Some cameras are much better than others.

You have to wait for them to turn on, and then you have to wait after you press the button for something to happen. With these long delays you have to hope your subject doesn't lose interest or fall asleep while you're trying to get a photo.

To me it comes down to trading ease of use, speed, and image quality for size and weight.

Yeah, what he said.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by jajuan
Shoot...I hated to read this post. I just bought 5 big packs of 800 speed from Sam's. When I read the side of the box, it said it was great for all pictures and the big pack of film (I think 5 in there) was only 9.00. I think I know why now.

A few years ago, we gave my in-laws a trip to WDW as a Christmas present (of course they NEEDED guides so we went too!!) and a bunch of 800 speed film. What a mistake. Even though his P&S film camera took it, we were not satisfied with the pictures. Fortunately, a few years later we all went back afgain and had digital cameras for that trip. BIG difference!!

Once you go digital (a decent one), you'll be hard pressed to touch a film camera again.

 

[lapinluv]

Do not use the 800 film for your action shots. 200 or 400 would work best. For my Canon 35mm SLR, I use the Kodak 400 High Definition (I think that's it) film and it works great in all settings - inside, outside, low light, etc. It's more expensive, buy my ruined shots have decreased significantly.

 

[05ChristmasSurprise]

I hate to do it, but I might just lug both with us.

I don't know.

I recently shot some pictures at a friend's wedding (digital) and the pictures were grainy and shadowed from further away - with LOTS of red eye. I haven't seen this much red eye since my old 110 Fisher Price camera days It's a Canon PowerShot A75. Not top of the line, but the stinkin' thing is brand new. I originally got it because I thought I'd be photographing things for ebay and was only concerned with improving the quality of those photos. It never occurred to me to get one that I could use for our upcoming trip.

If I'm shooting night shots and fireworks (which I realize are really tricky - I've not held the camera still enough and got lots of movement) - what should I do? My nighttime castle shots are not great either, and I'm really bummed.

I know I can get great shots during the day with my EOS Rebel, but who can't , huh?

For the person who just bought 800 speed film, do yourself a favor and take it back (Sam's takes returns, no questions asked). I got it because of "maximum versatility" and it was AWFUL! Ruined all 27 rolls of my girls' first trip to WDW. DEFINITELY get a high quality 400 speed instead.

So, what do you all recommend for night shots? I don't think the digital I have is going to cut it and, like I said earlier, I really don't want to deal with a tripod.
Thanks!

 

[Elwood Blues]

Most P&S digitals don't do that well in low light. The images get noisy. Digital noise is like film grain.

My new nikon D70 (digital SLR) has very low noise even at ISO 1600.

Also, as a side note, there are several programs that you can use to remove the "grain" from digital images. One is "Neat Image". I know, dumb name but a great program. It's a bit tricky to use but has tons of adjustments.

I've seen some daylight shots from the A75 and I was quite impressed for an inexpensive camera (it's around $200 now but on it's way out). I haven't see night shots with it though. You may want to check your settings to see if you can "lock" the ISO setting to 100 or 200. Some cameras will automatically adjust the ISO speed higher.

You don't need a tripod but you will need to find a solid support like a wall. The BEST place to take fireworks at WDW is on the bridge to Tomorrowland. Stake out a spot just where the boulders end and the bridge starts. The bridge makes an excellent support. You might consider a mini tripod. They're small and easy to carry.

Here's a pic I took from that wall with my Olympus in 2001.

 

[KathyTX]

Yep, the low light shots are a challenge, and you really need a tripod for the slow shutter speeds necessary at night.

And even then, you've got the noise.

Unless, of course, you move up to the expensive and more complex class of camera's EB's talking about. I'm just not smart enough or geeky enough or serious enough about my photos to take that plunge, though.

No offense.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by KathyTX
Yep, the low light shots are a challenge, and you really need a tripod for the slow shutter speeds necessary at night.

And even then, you've got the noise.

Unless, of course, you move up to the expensive and more complex class of camera's EB's talking about. I'm just not smart enough or geeky enough or serious enough about my photos to take that plunge, though.

No offense.

Well, you don't need to be smart, geeky or serious to use the D70. Granted you can do everything (and more) with the D70 that you can with a traditional SLR. But, in the automagic mode, with Autofocus, just look through the viewfinder, and shoot. Voila! Excellent pictures, in any light. The camera will do almost all the work. So, it really comes down to price of the camera and quality of the pictures. But, I'm of the opinion that any camera can take a great picture. Your camera has almost nothing to do with taking a great picture. The less time you spend worrying about your camera, the more time you can spend on making great photos. The right equipment just makes it easier. Photographers make good pictures, not cameras.

So, I do think you can get great pictures from your A75, even in low light. Just understand its limitations and how to compensate for them

 

[05ChristmasSurprise]

Do you think this would be a step up from the Canon A75 that I currently have?
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/19/131/1155&pq-locale=en_US

Should I just try to shoot the fireworks with 400 speed film in my canon EOS Rebel? (Rebel X?) Something like that.

Which "mode" is best for night shots? (And which film? What about motion?
Thank you all SO much for your help!