DSLR Camera Question

[captsparrowslady]

I posted this over on the budget board, but somebody told me there was a photography board and suggested I post here...

So I'm a Theatre Student (I want to be a lighting designer) and I'm thinking about investing in a DSLR camera to take photos of my work for my theatre portfolio. I need a camera that can deal with theatre lighting (low light). The cameras that I own currently don't take the best pictures for portfolio purposes. I need something that will capture my lighting as true to life as possible.

I know Nikons are a good brand, but they can be very very expensive. I'm on a budget (poor broke college student living on grants & student loans) but as I said, I want to invest in a quality camera that I can use throughout my college career and into my professional life as well.

So I need to find a balance between quality and cost. I think in terms of budget I want to try and keep it to about $300.00 or less. I know more expensive does not necessarily translate into better quality (sometimes you're just paying for the name brand, not the quality)... so if I could get some advice from those of you who own DSLR cameras (maybe share some of your photos you've taken with your camera, especially low light photos)

Thanks in Advance!

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

Look for an old used Pentax Kx and a fast "A" Lens, or get a kit lens and a tripod with any old body.

 

[zackiedawg]

Do not worry about the brand...worry about features and price. Any DSLR, even ones from a few years ago, will be significantly better in low light, with fast action, and more - and all have interchangeable lenses so you can add the lens you need for the situation. Look at Sony's SLTs and if shopping used, DSLRs...Pentax's DSLRs, Canon's DSLRs, and Nikon's DSLRs. Also consider mirrorless cameras, which are much more compact, yet still have large sensors and interchangeable lenses - they can shoot just as well as DSLRs in low light conditions, with the only area they aren't quite as good at being fast action tracking, which it doesn't sound like you need. Mirrorless cameras can be less than half the weight and size of DSLRs, but can have sensors exactly as large. Look at Sony's NEX series (APS-C sensors are the same as in DSLRs) or Panasonic/Olympus M4:3 cameras (sensor is a little bit smaller than DSLR, but much larger than P&S)...and Samsung & Canon also both make APS-C sensor mirrorless camera options too.

If looking used, any of these can fit your budget...if looking new, most of the above options have a discount body which can squeeze into your price range, but you may have to skimp along with just one lens for a little while until you can afford another. Something also worth consideration with mirrorless cameras - you can buy cheap adapters allowing them to be used with any lens mount ever made...for the cost of a $25-30 adapter, you can attach old manual focus lenses that sell cheap on eBay and Craigslist, which will allow you to pick up some fast prime lenses for next-to-no money - something that might be worthwhile for a college budget...some of the old defunct lens mounts are unbelievably cheap and yet very good glass - you can pick up an F1.8 lens for $5. Manual focusing isn't that hard, especially for still scene work like indoor lighting and stage/theater setups. Going the mirrorless route will let you build up a collection of manual lenses for different focal lengths as needed for very cheap, and when you do have the budget, you can always switch to nice dedicated new autofocus lenses for that camera.

 

[hakepb]

Low light is one of the most technically demanding types of photography.....and usually results in photographers spending thousands on DSLr body's and fast (low f/ ) lenses...and that's why good studio photographers first spend a lot on good studio lighting

As mentioned, the tripod may be a key for you. With a tripod, you can take longer exposures at lower ISO and higher f/ ...that helps hold the camera steady, but may not be enough if you have people in motion.

And $300???? There are not many used kits (probably with slow lenses) in that range, and one of the biggest advances in new DSLr body's are sensors with better high ISO capability.

If your budget is inflexible, you might want to look into some enthuiast point and shoots like the Canon s100, s/110 or Panasonic LX7 they have fast lenses and Ok high ISO (but nothing will match a new $2500+ full frame DSLr body)

 

[wiigirl]

Look for an old used Pentax Kx and a fast "A" Lens, or get a kit lens and a tripod with any old body.

 

[havoc315]

When it comes to low-light dSLR ---
You are talking about the sensor and the lens.
And especially when it comes to low light -- More expensive often does mean better. (though it depends on exactly where the money is being spent). Low-light is the most demanding on the equipment... It's hard to get a low-light lens for under $300.

So you need to capture low-light without a flash. At your price range, you need to look used.

I'd strongly suggest looking at used Sony Alphas. They have the advantage of compatibility with old used Minolta lenses ---and because they have in-camera image stabilization, those cheap old Minolta lenses presto --- become image stabilized, which is important for low-light.

Looking at Ebay, some cameras to consider:
I see you can get the Sony A390 for under $300.
If you can stretch your budget a bit more, I'd say the Sony A55 for a tad under $400.
The A55 really isn't too old, it's got a pretty good sensor.

Then I'd pair that with a Minolta 50mm/1.7 lens. It's a very affordable low-light lens -- The going price for a high quality copy is about $70. You won't find a cheaper low-light lens. And the similarly priced lenses on Canon and Nikon won't be image stabilized.

For low-light examples, how about the Museum of Natural History at night?

All shot with the A55, and a couple different lenses. I think they were all taken with 2.8 lenses, so the lens I recommended is actually a bit better in low light.


museumnight-63.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


museumnight-40.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


museumnight-42.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


museumnight-51.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

And here is candle-light (birthday candles) taken with the Minolta 50/1.7 lens:


bensbirthday-76.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[cobright]

You'll be upgrading to a DSLR from a point&shoot, so ... just about anything is going to impress you. Sorry, but that's just science. It's actually a great place to be.

Go to B&H Photo in NYC (or on their great website) and look at their used department. Stick to condition ratings of 8+ and up.

The Canon Digital Rebel or Nikon D100 they sell for $150 will knock your socks off. Keeping the camera body under $200, you can get a D70, D3000, or a Rebel XTi. This leaves you $100 for a lens and I have had great luck with used lenses from B&H.

Remember; in a DSLR more than any other kind of camera, optics trumps megapixels. A great lens on a 6.3mp D100 will blow you away, While a 24mp P&S will just make you feel sad.

The Four/Thirds cameras are attractive but I'm not sold on them. They have a noticeably deeper depth of field and one of the best parts of a DSLR is getting those pics where just the subject is in focus.

 

[havoc315]

The Canon Digital Rebel or Nikon D100 they sell for $150 will knock your socks off. Keeping the camera body under $200, you can get a D70, D3000, or a Rebel XTi. This leaves you $100 for a lens and I have had great luck with used lenses from B&H.

Remember; in a DSLR more than any other kind of camera, optics trumps megapixels. A great lens on a 6.3mp D100 will blow you away, While a 24mp P&S will just make you feel sad.

That's all partially true. The problem with dSLRs that are more than a couple years old -- The older sensor technology still wasn't quite as sensitive. I had a Sony A100, which is comparable to the cameras you are talking about. Anything above ISO800 really suffered. With newer cameras, you can get away with ISO 1600-3200 or higher.

Now I'm not knocking Canon or Nikon. They are both fantastic camera makers, and much better than Sony in some ways. But on a tight budget for low light, I'd go with the Sony, because of the in-camera image stabilization.

For $70.. you can get a used Minolta 50mm/1.7. Understand that if you slow down the shutter speed, you get more light, which is important for low light. But low shutter speed also creates a danger for blur from normal camera shake. As a rule of thumb, if a 50mm lens is NOT stabilized, you shouldn't shoot slower than 1/70 or so.

With Canon/Nikon, you can buy a 50mm/1.8 for around $100 or less.. but it won't be stabilized.

So you can shoot at ISO800 on the Sony, with a shutter speed of about 1/15 --- To get the same shot on the Nikon or Canon, you would need to shoot at about 1/60, and ISO3200. And especially on an older camera, ISO3200 would be a mess (not even possible on some older cameras).

Where budget isn't a big concern, I think Nikon is the best for low light. But if you want to go on a budget, I'd go with the Sonys thanks to the image stabilization.

As an example, the elephant picture above was taken at 1/10 shutter speed and ISO of 1600. That same shot would be nearly impossible with a Canon/Nikon and non-stabilized lens. (Would need ISO of 6400 or 12800, which isn't even possible on older cameras).

 

[cobright]

That's all partially true. The problem with dSLRs that are more than a couple years old -- The older sensor technology still wasn't quite as sensitive. I had a Sony A100, which is comparable to the cameras you are talking about. Anything above ISO800 really suffered. With newer cameras, you can get away with ISO 1600-3200 or higher.

I'm of two minds. I meant to mention the Sony Alpha, Even back to the A100 it was a solid camera and a very 'modern' one. Even so, in a sub $200 camera body you can still get a D3000 or a D80 (which is what I ended up going with.

I shot a week in WDW last September with a D3000 and was very impressed. I ended up going with a D80 for the in-body autofocus servo.

I will dig up some pics, they are all raw at the moment.

 

[zackiedawg]

The Four/Thirds cameras are attractive but I'm not sold on them. They have a noticeably deeper depth of field and one of the best parts of a DSLR is getting those pics where just the subject is in focus.

They do indeed have a larger crop factor (2x) compared to most DSLRs (1.5x or 1.6x), and indeed do have larger depth of field. But this can also work in reverse - though subject isolation is desirable for skilled photographers, for newbies and people used to P&S they can find DSLRs, especially with fast lenses, to be a bit of a learning curve because of how shallow the DOF can be, often mistaking the blur OOF area to be a camera or lens problem. So sometimes larger depth of field is advantageous for new shooters or P&S converts who aren't ready to shoot with 3" wide DOF at 15 feet!

Also of note: Only the Panny and Oly mirrorless cameras are Micro4:3...the other offerings by Sony, Samsung, and Canon are all APS-C sensors, and so the same size as DSLR sensors with the same DOF properties in a much smaller body. Just FYI!

 

[havoc315]

I shot a week in WDW last September with a D3000 and was very impressed. I ended up going with a D80 for the in-body autofocus servo.

I will dig up some pics, they are all raw at the moment.

Good example. The D80 is still an excellent camera, and I agree that it will out perform a "new" point and shoot in most circumstances.

But it's old enough, that the D80 struggles in low light. It has a maximum regular ISO of 1600, and it starts to struggle at ISO 800 and above. It would likely be impossible to capture photographs of Peter Pan or Pirate of the Caribbean as some examples of demanding low-light photography.

The newer cameras (the last 3-4 years), will have a massive advantage over the older cameras when it comes to low light.

Among used Nikons, for under $300, you can get a Nikon D5000 body. It's recent enough to give you good low light performance. (But will still lack the image stabilization of Sony). You can also look at the SOny A35 for around $300.

 

[photo_chick]

I posted this over on the budget board, but somebody told me there was a photography board and suggested I post here...

So I'm a Theatre Student (I want to be a lighting designer) and I'm thinking about investing in a DSLR camera to take photos of my work for my theatre portfolio. I need a camera that can deal with theatre lighting (low light). The cameras that I own currently don't take the best pictures for portfolio purposes. I need something that will capture my lighting as true to life as possible.

I know Nikons are a good brand, but they can be very very expensive. I'm on a budget (poor broke college student living on grants & student loans) but as I said, I want to invest in a quality camera that I can use throughout my college career and into my professional life as well.

So I need to find a balance between quality and cost. I think in terms of budget I want to try and keep it to about $300.00 or less. I know more expensive does not necessarily translate into better quality (sometimes you're just paying for the name brand, not the quality)... so if I could get some advice from those of you who own DSLR cameras (maybe share some of your photos you've taken with your camera, especially low light photos)

Thanks in Advance!

An old DSLR and a fast prime will get you the exposure but you're going to run into problems if you're trying to shoot on stage that way. With the low cost primes in your budget you're going to be too wide for individual shots and too long for full stage shots, especially if you shoot at all in a small black box theater. Now if you stick to static shots with a tripod you're good, even a point and shoot can pull those off nicely for you. Just get an older DSLR and an 18-55 range zoom. But if you want portfolio worthy action on stage shots you may need to invest a little more. At least in lenses. But the lighting conditions play a huge part in what you're going to get. You can pull shots off from a well lit venue with a lot less than what you'd need for a poorly lit venue. I say all of this having spent the last 7 years shooting a lot of dance on stage in a variety of lighting conditions.

Canon 50D (runs $400 used) and Canon 70-210 f/4 (runs under $200 used and you'd want to be wider for whole stage shots) on a well lit stage.


Same camera, same lens, not as much light. It starts to get pretty noisy and details are lost.


Same camera, same lens, poorly lit stage. This was pushing it for the camera and lens. Any time the dancers moved I had motion blur issues.


Just for fun, because this camera is well out of your budget range, 6D with a 24-105 f/4 L on there. Even lower light (for some reason they dropped it on the solos), this is probably a good stop brighter than what it looked like in person. ISO 12800 with no noise reduction run yet.



Find a broke photo student. Pay them to shoot your work. It will be cheaper for you, help them out, and you should end up with better shots in the end. (I'm a BFA photo major)

 

[havoc315]

Just for fun, because this camera is well out of your budget range, 6D with a 24-105 f/4 L on there. Even lower light (for some reason they dropped it on the solos), this is probably a good stop brighter than what it looked like in person. ISO 12800 with no noise reduction run yet.

Wow.... You're not kidding, the 6D really does great at high ISO. You can't do that with a 7-year-old crop camera, lol.

 

[photo_chick]

Wow.... You're not kidding, the 6D really does great at high ISO. You can't do that with a 7-year-old crop camera, lol.

I said I'd never go full frame, I didn't want the larger size, but the 6D really made my jaw drop when I first played with it and it's almost the same size as my 50D. I'm shooting in places I just couldn't with a crop body, even with a fast prime.

 

[havoc315]

I said I'd never go full frame, I didn't want the larger size, but the 6D really made my jaw drop when I first played with it and it's almost the same size as my 50D. I'm shooting in places I just couldn't with a crop body, even with a fast prime.

And that's with F4? So not really even that fast of a lens. I've never shot with FF... Know they are better in high ISO, but always thought 1-2 stops faster. That looks a good 3-4 stops faster than I'm used to. For me, once my ISO goes over 800-100 range, I need to start applying noise reduction.... and pretty heavy in some 1600-3200 shots.

Being I didn't want to invest in a 70-200/f2.8... For much less, I just got a 135/2.8... looking forward to trying it in those types of indoor settings.

 

[photo_chick]

Yeah, it's an f/4. I haven't broken down and gotten a faster zoom because I didn't want to add the weight (I have rheumatoid arthritis) and my medium fast f/4 lenses give me more on the 6D than an f/2.8 would have on my crop body. And when you put a fast prime on the 6D it gets real fun in the dark. To me it's not so much the lower noise at 3200 and 6400 that gives it the advantage but the fact that you get very useable images up to 25600.

 

[havoc315]

Yeah, it's an f/4. I haven't broken down and gotten a faster zoom because I didn't want to add the weight (I have rheumatoid arthritis) and my medium fast f/4 lenses give me more on the 6D than an f/2.8 would have on my crop body. And when you put a fast prime on the 6D it gets real fun in the dark. To me it's not so much the lower noise at 3200 and 6400 that gives it the advantage but the fact that you get very useable images up to 25600.

Enbrel is my best friend.

For me, 6400 images are only really useable under nearly ideal circumstances.

As FF gets cheaper, I could see myself making the jump some day. Rumor is that Sony is going to make a big FF push next year.

 

[SplashMo]

Look for a used or re-furbished Nikon D5100. It is a low light champ at the price and also look for a used 50mm f1.8 lens. Cheapest option to go low light.

 

[bob100]

You'll be upgrading to a DSLR from a point&shoot, so ... just about anything is going to impress you. Sorry, but that's just science. It's actually a great place to be.

The Canon Digital Rebel or Nikon D100 they sell for $150 will knock your socks off.

I agree, it's about image quality. Even those old DSLR's produce great "theatre" pics --- at ISO 3200 !

with a $300 budget look at the older Canon and Nikon models and 50mm 1.8 lens

Canon Rebel XSi (450D) - 6 years old?
with ($50 !) 50mm 1.8 lens
ISO 3200 - f2.0

 

[cobright]

Look for a used or re-furbished Nikon D5100. It is a low light champ at the price and also look for a used 50mm f1.8 lens. Cheapest option to go low light.

I almost went with a D5000 but the lack of autofocus motor in the camera body pushed me back a few generations to keep me in my price range.