Digital cameras: Need advice for my first DSLR Camera
Need advice for my first DSLR Camera
by ardent123 - 5/30/09 11:17 PMHi, I'm planning on buying my first digital SLR camera. I'm a real newbie when it comes to photography, so please bear with me.
I want to do is take really good pictures when I go to concerts. Concerts are generally dark, but flash is forbidden. Also the band tends to move around a lot. So I'll need a camera that can take pictures in the dark without flash, take pictures of things in motion, and can focus really quickly.
I also plan to go study abroad in Japan. I really want to take pictures of the cheery blossoms falling. In other words, I want really good landscape pictures.
I've been researching cameras, but I getting confused. I found cameras that can take great pictures in the dark, but the focus is too slow. I'm hoping you guys can help me. Thanks in advance for any help.
There are 2 categories you need to be concerned.
by jump1127 - 5/31/09 1:15 AM In reply to: Need advice for my first DSLR Camera by ardent123First, the kind of DSLR cameras are so many. You can't have everything good in just any DSLR camera. The budget range is from $700 to $8,000. These cameras can take good photos better than any point & shoot camera under the dim light circumstance. Nevertheless, how far you want to choose is quite an issue here. So, be specific what you really need. For some popular brand information, Nikon is an excellent camera for landscape shooting-high contrast & vivid color tone-while Canon leans toward portrait shooting-softer skin tone. You can't have everything in just one roof. Just to make life easier. Any way, you can also manipulate picture files the way you want by your photoshop software.
Secondly, the bright lenses with image stabilizer ( IS lense for Canon ) or vibration reduction ( VR for Nikon ) are necessary. It doesn't have to be either zoom or prime lenses, but the right focal length to shoot for. Most common focal length lenses are from 24-200mm. The brighter lenses to me is at least F2.8 or less. It's not always true that the brighter lenses are always expensive. For instance, Canon 50mm F1.8 and Nikon 50F1.8. In your case, I'd suggest that you get started with some zoom lenses covering the common range first.
Another precaution, you won't end up in just the camera & kit lense. Flash, shutter release, and tripod are also the must have. Don't rush buying everything all at once. Figure out what you really need to shoot for. Good luck.
Taking fast pictures in the dark is most important
by ardent123 - 5/31/09 9:21 AM In reply to: There are 2 categories you need to be concerned. by jump1127Thanks. I guess what I really want in my camera is to quickly take good photos in the dark without flash. What I always hated about my normal camera is how long takes to focus without the flash and bad the pictures are without flash. My budget is around $700 max, so I'll have to start out with just the camera case.
it'll be up to you and the lens
by kalel33 - 5/31/09 2:12 PM In reply to: Taking fast pictures in the dark is most important by ardent123You could spend as much money on a DSLR and it still won't do low light well. You have to buy another lens that can do the job. If the band doesn't move around a lot and you are really close then you can buy a 50mm F1.8 for $100, with Canon. You could look at the Canon XSI(body only) and with the 50mm will put you right around your budget.
If you want a zoom lens for that type of situation then you'll have to look at an F2.8 lens. The cheapest I can think of for telephoto is the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, but that lens alone is your budget.
The last thing is that these are not point and shoot cameras. If you don't understand about ISO, shutter speed, focal length, and aperture and how they all work together then you won't be able to get the shots anyways. It's like buying a professional chefs equipment, if you don't know how to cook then the pots and pans won't make difference in how good the food tastes. I've seen many awful DSLR photos and the people wonder why they spent so much money and the photos look better on their point and shoot. It's because the DSLR is meant for you to take control, not having the camera do everything.
XSI/50mm f 1.8
by Charles_Bronson - 5/31/09 9:50 PM In reply to: it'll be up to you and the lens by kalel33is a good suggestion if you want to go the Canon route and it should fit your budget. I'm a fan of Canon myself, since I already had EF lenses. Check out Nikons as well. The D40 or D60 are both really nice cameras within your budget.
As mentioned, you're really going to have to learn how to use it. I inherited an old 35mm SLR before I bought my digital, and learning how to use that really helped ease me into the DSLR. To be honest the DSLR was a bit overwhelming at first, but the fact that I had that year with the old-school 35mm made it a whole lot easier to understand. I'm not saying not to buy one, just be ready to devote some time to it.
There's also DSLR-like cameras. My ex had a Canon powershot and it was a really nice camera. Some people suggest buying one of those beforehand to help ease you into it. Just a suggestion. If you're anything like me you'll want to skip all that bs and go right for the good stuff. Ha.
Also, be REALLY careful if you're purchasing the camera online. Make sure it's from a reputable place that's selling you a camera with an American warranty(assuming you're from America, that is).
Best Camera To Take Pics In Low Light
by JCipo - 6/5/09 8:15 PM In reply to: Need advice for my first DSLR Camera by ardent123This will probably be a waste of my time because no one from this news letter EVER acknowledges my answers but I'll try one more time. After 50 years in photography and still being paid for my work, I do have something to say. Yes you need a camera with an f 2.8 or faster lens. Yes there are many good brands but here is the problem. For natural light pics (that I do) you first need a camera with a real ISO of 3200 with little noise. You also need to understand that practice is critical. Also, a real pro will take 10 shots of each item and throw 9 of them away saving the best. Finally, you need a good software program to edit and fix your low light shots, like photoshop. You can't do it on the cheap unless you can find a Fuji 6000 point-and-shoot camera ( runs rings around most DSLRs) for about $300.
Fuji S6000?
by kalel33 - 6/6/09 10:50 AM In reply to: Best Camera To Take Pics In Low Light by JCipoIt might run circles around point and shoots, but it couldn't even beat the F31fd in high ISO unless you shoot RAW, and even then the reviews say ISO 800 is all you'd want to take it. The jpegs have bad noise reduction and artifacts. It's not a threat, in high ISOs, to any DSLR...even the Sony and Olympus DSLRs. The sensor is still to small.
I don't mean to hijack, but...
by Charles_Bronson - 6/6/09 2:08 PM In reply to: Best Camera To Take Pics In Low Light by JCipoSince this is semi-relevant...
Do you think the Canon 28mm f2.8 is a good landscape lens? I'm looking for something affordable that can also be used for some other stuff. I considered the 50mm f1.8 but I don't like the fact that it's no wider of an angle than the lenses I already have. I also don't use the flash too often, though shooting in low-light isn't something I commonly do. Any recommendations?
not really
by kalel33 - 6/6/09 8:25 PM In reply to: I don't mean to hijack, but... by Charles_BronsonMany of the landscape shooters I know use a range like the 10-22mm or 11-20mm range. Canon makes the 10-22 and I've heard very good things about the Tokina ultra-wide angle lens. The 28mm ends up being a 45mm(considering the 1.6 crop factor), which isn't very wide.
Those
by Charles_Bronson - 6/7/09 6:35 AM In reply to: not really by kalel33both look like really nice lenses. 104-82° angle of view sounds like it'd be amazing. I'm not sure whether they're compatible with my camera -- 450D. Besides that they cost a lot more than I'm looking to spend right now. Part of my interest in the 28mm was the $200 price tag. I just upgraded to digital a couple months ago and I'm still using my old Rebel G kit lens and a Tamron 100-300mm. They're old and I don't think they do the camera justice.
I do appreciate the recommendation though, and if anything else comes to mind definitely let me know. I was also considering the 18-55mm IS lens that would have come with my camera. Would my money be better spent on something else? Was also looking at the 28-105mm f3.5 IDK. Perhaps I should just start my own thread. lol.
For the price
by kalel33 - 6/7/09 10:04 AM In reply to: Those by Charles_BronsonThe 18-55IS lens is your best choice, but if you wanted a low light lens too the you could look at the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 at around $450.
For a Nikon
by Flatworm - 6/6/09 5:46 AM In reply to: Need advice for my first DSLR Camera by ardent123I like Nikons. The Nikkor lenses tend to be more compact and optically better made.
Here is probably the best lens for shooting in low light, the Nikkor 50 mm f1.4 AF D. Unfortunately it does not include vibration reduction, although Nikon seems to be including VR in all of its more recent lens releases.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5014af.htm
some problems with the statements
by kalel33 - 6/6/09 8:32 AM In reply to: For a Nikon by FlatwormNikon lens are not more compact than the Canon lens. I don't know where this myth comes from, but I've looked at both of the manufacturers' websites and they are extremely close with Canon being smaller on many of them. I would also like to see where you have the information that the Nikkor lens are optically better, because I have never seen a site saying that.
Also, the 50mm F1.4 AF-D lens will only be able to be manually focused with a camera below the D90.
Need advice for my first DSLR Camera
by zekeisaac - 6/10/09 5:15 PM In reply to: Need advice for my first DSLR Camera by ardent123For a bit less cash, and possibly less headaches, I will suggest SONY a (alpha) series...I just got an a350 and am loving it...of course, mostly due to having a ton of Minolta Lenses, from my 35mm days!
The great things to love about this a350 and others in the line-up are the "Steady-Shot" inside (gives up to 3 stops slower shutter speeds handheld) instead of IS lenses (which are usually much more expensive than some Sony [ and many other makers] cameras! And although I have shot most concerts at ISO 800 , ISO's of even 1600 (in some cases 3200) can be used for a faster shutter speed, which will give you very good chances of great shots of concerts or other low light action!
If you are shooting a concert professionally, you will have permission to get them from better (closer) distances and P.O.V.!
But, if you're shooting for personal use be aware of the fact some performers (and their managers/promoters/security) as well as the venues may have severe restrictions on this and may confiscate your gear! So make sure you are fairly camoflaged (sic) , using a fairly wide open 28-200 or 38-380 tamron 3.5-5.6 superzoom (not that expensive, especially if you get them 2nd-hand, Maxxum, Minolta mount)and brace the camera on a chair back or other solid bit (TOUCH IT FIRST TO BE SURE IT AI'NT ROCKIN' AS HARD AS THE BAND, VIBRATONS WILL WREAK HAVOK or LOOK PURDY COOL)bracket your exposures or shutter speeds and shoot away at the highest burst rates! And don't forget to have fun with it, blur can be very cool!
Oh, one last thing , I think I read that a few canons will give a faster low-light focus speed, even better than Nikons, just to be fair!
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
