Topic: Good pictures without Flash

[mozmoz8]

HI,
Anyone know of a good camera I can use in a show that will give sharp clear images without a flash. Most pictures I take with my old camera without a flash looks more fuzzy than with flash. I cannot use flash camera in a show. So maybe a camera with anti-shock/shake? Any advise will be great. Thanks

[bhtoque]

most point and shoot cameras will give you that result. Try to find the setting that lets you take multiple shots while holding down the button. That will help. You can also try shooting b&W.

The least expensive way I can suggest is to pick up a used cannon eos body (rebel or rebel xt) and the 50mm 1.8 lense. An SLR camera is really the only way to get it done consistently.

This will get you great shots up close, and still be decent farther back. You'd need a zoom farther back in a room, but that's a good start. Unfortunately to get good results way back (say at your favorite theater) you'd need a long zoom that'll run ya 1200 or more.

JAson

[wjlapier]

HI,
Anyone know of a good camera I can use in a show that will give sharp clear images without a flash. Most pictures I take with my old camera without a flash looks more fuzzy than with flash. I cannot use flash camera in a show. So maybe a camera with anti-shock/shake? Any advise will be great. Thanks

A few things to consider.  A camera that takes clean pictures at high ISO.  Fast glass.  VR or IS in fast glass. 

In the P+S category you basically have two options.  Fujifilm f30 and f31.  I have the f30 and have taken alot of 800 and 1600 ISO shots and the pics are clean and not too heavily processed by in camera NR.

In regard to DSLRs, you have many options, but depends on how much money you want to spend.  The Nikon D50 takes great pics at high iso.  Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 lens is an excellent lens for the price.  Canon's 20D does well with high ISO too.  Both cameras can be found for less than $400 used these days.  Nikon and Canon both have very nice fast glass.

[stirinthesauce]

You can find a 20d for less than 400?  Where?  I'll by one as 2nd.  Seriously.

The rebel xt's used can be had for at or just below 400, the 20d's are still commanding in the low to high 5 range.

[BJ]

yes, and IS or VR doesn't necessarily  mean fast.  I have seen f4 IS glass.  Glass for concerts/dark shooting, should be at f2.8 or lower if you want to get the best quality from the most available light.

[stirinthesauce]

yes, and IS or VR doesn't necessarily  mean fast.  I have seen f4 IS glass.  Glass for concerts/dark shooting, should be at f2.8 or lower if you want to get the best quality from the most available light.

to expand

f2.8 non IS in low light example below.


IS or VR helps, but can't stop artist body movements.  Best bet is to keep your shutter speed equal or above (for crop sensors) your focal length.  Myself, I have no issues hand holding my beast, 70-200L f2.8.  A monopod helps as well, but I find that below 1/50th or 1/60th of a second, there will be blur.  Most of the time on the hands strumming the guitar or in rapid head movement.

[mozmoz8]

How about my limit is $350 (old or new) for a digital camera? Anyone know of any good camera so i can use it to take pictures of low light situation without a flash...Mainly use it for taking pictures of shows and stuff from a distance. Would I be able to get something with that price range? I will take pictures without a stand so anything with anti-shock will be good.

[stirinthesauce]

you can find a used dslr body for around that price range.  Then you will need fast glass, which isn't cheap at all.  However, there is the  50mm f1.8 which can be had around 100 and is more than capable of outstanding images. 

rebel xt (350d) used, around 350ish
rebel (300d) for 300 or less

Not familiar with Nikon stuff.  I hear the d40 is quite capable and can be had in that price range.  Or maybe a used d50.

[BJ]

How about my limit is $350 (old or new) for a digital camera? Anyone know of any good camera so i can use it to take pictures of low light situation without a flash...Mainly use it for taking pictures of shows and stuff from a distance. Would I be able to get something with that price range? I will take pictures without a stand so anything with anti-shock will be good.

you can find a used dslr body for around that price range.  Then you will need fast glass, which isn't cheap at all.  However, there is the  50mm f1.8 which can be had around 100 and is more than capable of outstanding images. 

rebel xt (350d) used, around 350ish
rebel (300d) for 300 or less

Not familiar with Nikon stuff.  I hear the d40 is quite capable and can be had in that price range.  Or maybe a used d50.

the 50mm f1.8 is 80$ brand new at B&H photo...so if you can find a rebel xt for around 300 used..you should be close to your price range.
If you want to go this route..i MAY know of a body rebel XT...

[rastasean]

the best way to have a good picture without using the flash is to have good lighting.
the best way to have have good pictures without a flash, is to hold the camera as still as you can while capturing at just the right moment in time to freeze the action. Play with your shutter settings & aperture settings to find something good. Don't use p/auto when you can help it.

[wjlapier]

you can find a used dslr body for around that price range.  Then you will need fast glass, which isn't cheap at all.  However, there is the  50mm f1.8 which can be had around 100 and is more than capable of outstanding images. 

rebel xt (350d) used, around 350ish
rebel (300d) for 300 or less

Not familiar with Nikon stuff.  I hear the d40 is quite capable and can be had in that price range.  Or maybe a used d50.

For Nikon the D50 handles noise very well at high ISO--sub $400--closer to $350.  The D40 and D40x require AFS lenses--no motor in the body.  The Rebel and 50 or 85 1.8 would be the best bet if you want DSLR.  The Fujis I mentioned demand a high price these days.

As for sub $400 20D's.  I've seen a couple on fredmiranda.com lately.  A rebel for less than $300.

Bill

[sunjan]

You'd need a zoom farther back in a room, but that's a good start. Unfortunately to get good results way back (say at your favorite theater) you'd need a long zoom that'll run ya 1200 or more.

A lot of people tend to mix up zoom with tele. A zoom lens doesn't necessarily mean large magnification, there are 17-55 and 18-28 zooms too!

If you want to squeeze out the most of your fast glass, a fixed tele (with VR/IS for the heavier ones) is the way to go, as opposed to a zoom. Less versatility, yes, but work with your feet moving forwards/backwards instead.

The Rebel and 50 or 85 1.8 would be the best bet if you want DSLR.

Echo that. I find the fixed 85mm/1.8 ideal for concert shots without flash! It's small and lightweight enough not to induce camera shake, and can be stealthed with a bit of luck. If you choose this over a zoom, you earn one step or more in aperture, plus the physical size advantage.

A few comparable models:
Nikon AF 85/1.8 D (Physical size (length x diameter) 58,5 x 71,5 mm, weight 380 g)
Canon EF 85/1.8 USM (Physical size (length x diameter) 71,5 x 75 mm, weight 425 g)
Pentax SMC-FA 77/1.8 Limited  (Physical size (length x diameter) 48 x 64 mm, weight 270 g) Image below!


/J

[Sloan Simpson]

Glass for concerts/dark shooting, should be at f2.8 or lower if you want to get the best quality from the most available light.

Can someone describe what happens if you'd use something like a f4.0 in these situations?  I.E. no shadow detail, too much grain, whatever?

Thinking about beginning the DSLR trek when these stimulus checks come through and wondering just how cheaply I can jump in.

[sunjan]

Glass for concerts/dark shooting, should be at f2.8 or lower if you want to get the best quality from the most available light.

Can someone describe what happens if you'd use something like a f4.0 in these situations?  I.E. no shadow detail, too much grain, whatever?

Basically, the higher the F-stop number, the less light will reach your sensor. So by running that lense you'll have to compensate the lack of light in either of these ways:
a. Longer exposure time (possibly leading to "noisy" pictures, and motion blur - which you can limit partially by using a tripod or monopod, or by activating the anti-shake (known as VR/IS) if your lense has it)
b. Cranking up the ISO (again leading to noise)
c. Getting closer to the light source/the stage
d. Using a fill-in flash (changing the ambient light temperature and overall "atmosphere" of your shot)
... or a combination of the above.

Another downside which people tend to ignore is that the consumer lenses (F4.0 etc) usually are optically inferior in other ways: vignetting, uneven light fall-off in the corners, not as sharp when running on max aperture etc. YMMV...

/J

[stirinthesauce]

another disadvantage is simply not getting enough light for anykind of exposure.  Some (many) clubs have inadequate or virtually nonexistant stage lighting.  Even at iso3200 and f2.8, I have a hard time getting the exposure I need on the proper speed to eliminate body movement on stage.


I can't stress this enough for those getting into dslr low light (concert) photography on the cheap:
Do not buy the combo body/lens packages.  Buy a body (preferebly used, they don't hold the resale, however, good glass does) without a lens.  Then, buy a lens.  Preferebly a good quality pro zoom lens with a wide focal range.  24-70f2.8 is a good starting point.  If you are on a serious shoestring budget, just pick up an fixed 50f1.8.

You will find, that the lenses that come with the packages will leave you wanting more, very quickly.  Think of it like your taping rig.  The glass is your mics, the body is your recorder.  Quality glass will give you quality images (provided the guy firing the shots knows what he is doing).  As for the body, new is not necessarily better, especially in competent hands.  A 2-4 year old model body is going to be a heckuva alot cheaper than the newest model on the streets.  For example, the body I shoot was around 1400 new.  Today, they can be had for around 450-500, give or take 100 depending on shutter count/condition of body.  It is barely 4 years old. 

Glass is your investment.  Good glass is spendy, but worth it.  It will also hold resale very well (just like good mics will hold their value over time).  A good body is spendy as well, but won't hold it's value (it's electronics) over time.  For a pro, it is worth it if your firing 20k to 50k shots a year.  That is their bread and butter and need a new body every year or so as they are wearing out the shutter and can justify the budget expense on a new body.  For the average user, it isn't justified to spend 2-4k on a body that will be worth half that in 2 years and even less 4 years down the road.

Also, don't fall into the megapixel hype wars.  Yes, megapixels are important, but most important is the the sensor.  If your sensor is small (crop sensors), cramming more and more pixels on it won't necessarily make a better image.  Often times it will make an image noiser or there will be more hot pixels.  For example, on canon's 1.6x crop cmos sensor, canon keeps trying to cram more and more pixels on the same little chip.  People are reporting that the images on their older, less megapixel cmos sensors are better and less noiser than on the newer ones with more pixels (think about the 24/192 audio wars.  It's not necessarily about resolution on paper, but how well the converters <chips> handle the encoding).  Plenty of 12 megapixel point and shoot cams out there, and I still shoot 8 on my dslr.  The end result though, I'm going to have the better image.

Now on a full frame sensor, more is better.  More space to put them there.  I lust after the that new mark III    But can I justify 7k on a body?  Not now.  Need to sell MANY more prints for that 

/rambling.  Coffee is good, fresh snow on the ground, time to go out and shoot.