Any photographers? I need camera advice.

[Kitkumi]

I've been debating getting a new camera for awhile, but have no idea where to even start, so I was hoping that I could get some advice from around here

I'm looking for something that is great with low-light situations and lots of movement and that has a good zoom feature. I've always been big into photography so I would like to find something a little more professional grade than just your typical point-and-shoot camera.

[MidnightMocha]

In my 8 years of photography, I think the biggest thing I've learned is that it doesn't matter what camera you have if you truly understand light and dark and composition, which is the essence of photography. Photos that I've taken with 'your average point and shoot' have won competitions simply because I told the camera what to do.

That said, I understand the need for more options. I have a DSLR and I guess what you'd call a more 'advanced' point and shoot simply because I prefer spontaneity in picture taking over the professional gear. I have a Nikon D5000 and 2-3 lenses, but the point and shoot is a Lumix DMC-ZS19. I cannot sing high enough praises about the Lumix- through the years, it's pretty much consistently the best compact camera you can get. It has a Leica lens, from the Leica cameras which are thousands of dollars and up, and it shows. It has 12X zoom, and about 3258748 different light modes, the low light works quite well in my experience. If you like, I can show you actual photos I've taken with it.

[Kitkumi]

I would love to see some of the pictures you've taken with the Lumix DMC-ZS19. I had been looking at the Nikon D3100 or the Cannon T3 for some of their features since I like to photograph things that move quickly (we have owls near us that typically scoff at my photograpy attempts lol) but I also do a lot of spontanious shots. I'm realativly amature-ish with an intent to get better. Are there any downsides you would list for the D5000 or the Lumix?

[kaoskat]

Looks like you've gotten some good suggestions so far! Best of luck with your camera hunt!

[DoctorMowinckel]

Most of what I shoot is low light, really low light. If you're into low light photography the two most important things to you are going to be ISO, and aperture. ISO refers to how light sensitive the films sensor is, and aperture refers to how wide the opening is at the end of the lens.

Let's start with aperture, the how wide open, or narrow the opening of the lens is. A picture is a better description;

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Apertures are measured by the f#. F1.8, F5.6, F16, and so on. Apertures go higher and lower and several 'stops' in between. In photography, a 'stop' is a measure of of light. If you stop the lens down two stops, it's going to be letting in twice as much as light. Stops also apply to ISOs, but we'll get there later. For low light photography, you're going to need something with a wide aperture, if you're going to be shooting movement, unless you have one of the newest flagships that can shoot usable pictures at 25,600 ISO, you're not going to be shooting above f4.0. The reason for is because a wider aperture, something like 1.8, will let in more light than a narrower aperture, something like F11.

ISO is the measure of how light sensitive a cameras film, or sensor is. ISO is measured in number, and an ISO that's twice as high as the prior number is twice as light sensitive. So 1600 ISO is twice as light sensitive as 800 ISO, and four times as light sensitive as 400 ISO. So at 400 ISO, if you're shutter speed is one second, it will be half a second at 800, and a quarter of a second at 1600. It's easy to think 'so I'll just crank the ISO!', doesn't work like that, unfortunately. Digital cameras adjust ISO by adjust the signal gain to the sensor. Some cameras are better at adjusting the signal gain then others, and thus they look better that the same ISO then other cameras. The Canon 6D can make workable pictures at 25,600 ISO, whereas an older digital body won't even look good at 3,200 ISO, if they even go that high.

I still shoot a lot of film, so have a demo, using the same person!

This is Ilford 3200, it's 3200 ISO film and I developed it at 3200 ISO;

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


And this is Ilford HP5+ developed at 3200 ISO;

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


You'll notice on the first one it's much grainier, 3200 ISO has the same light sensitivity, but it's not equal in terms of how fine the image looks.

Now, let's look at digital. Here are the full size images from my digital camera, no post. They're RAW images converted to Jpegs, not even white balancing; http://www.doctormowinckel.com/?p=705

And here's a Canon 6D at 1600 ISO; http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g/8267423629/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Same light sensitivity, but they handle ISO differently. One looks better than the other.

So, you're going to be looking for a camera that preforms well at high ISOs, and lenses with wide apertures. I'd have more advice to offer if I knew what you wanted to shoot, and what your budget is.

[MyLittleLambie]

I would love to see some of the pictures you've taken with the Lumix DMC-ZS19.

Oh, I think that Lumix was marked down at my Target for a very reasonable price.  I only remember because I've been wanting a new camera and I was looking at the Lumix.

I do agree that taking good pictures does depend on technique, rather than the camera exactly.  I had a friend looking at the higher end dslr, but I don't think her issue will be solved by an expensive camera.

[Kitkumi]

@DoctorMowinckel- Wow, thank you so much for all the info! It is really nice to see examples along with the explinations. I keep doing research but it seems like everything I come across is comlexly worded and gives no "this compaired to that" examples to look at. As for what I want to shoot, I'm mostly interested in nature shots and birds, as we have a congrigation of owls and hawks in my area, as well as indoor events (such as ice skating and concerts). Since I'm just starting out I want to keep my budget no higher than $500 and plan to upgrade sometime in the distant future lol.

@MyLittleLambie- I know how that goes, lol. I've taken some photography classes over the years and I got to play around with one of the high end dslr cameras once. My shots came out worse than with my little easy to use camera just because there was a button and setting for everything on the dslr and i had no idea what i was doing

[DoctorMowinckel]

Doing wildlife photography at night is going to be really, really difficult without a super high ISO, 3200 at least, more like you'd need 6,400. If you want a digital camera that performs well at 6,400 ISO, you're going to be spending a heck of a lot more than $500. Like, three or four times that. Same for figure skating, that is not a luminous environment. For figure skating you'd either need a photography pass, or a lens with a high focal length to make it work.

Before I start talking about focal lengths a lot, have a picture;

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


If you're using a lens with a long focal length (think of focal length as the zoom, the higher the focal length, the more 'zoom' it has), you're going to need high ISOs for what you want to shoot. Lenses with long focal lengths usually have a narrower aperture (a higher f/#) than lenses with a lower focal length. This is because of something called 'depth of field'. Depth of field refers to how much of the image is in focus. Depth of field is calculated by the focal length, focus distance, and the aperture. The wider the lens is open (the lower the aperture setting), the more shallow the depth of field will be, less of the image will be in focus. This effect is exaggerated by focal length. Something like 300mm at f/4.0 will have a super narrow depth of field, much more narrow than something like a 50mm lens at f/4.0. As well, the focus distance will also have an effect on the depth of field. The closer you are to something, the shallower the depth of field. The farther away you are, the wider the depth of field.

Here's something I shot at f/1.8 with a 50mm lens that was about two feet away;

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


See how little is in focus? The head of her lapsteel guitar is out of focus, part of the neck is in focus, and so is her hand. Once you get to the body of the lapsteel guitar, the focus drops off. That's about six or seven inches of the image that was in focus.

Here's something else I shot with a shallow depth of field. This was f/5.6 at 47mm, but I was about two, three inches away? When you focus on something that close, even with a higher aperture, the depth of field is going to be wicked shallow, check it out;

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Notice how quickly the focus falls off.

Here's f/14 at 50mm, the focus was pretty far, I think I focused on where the bridge meets the abutment;

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


With a higher focal length and focusing on something far away, a lot of the image is in focus.

This is f/1.8 at 50mm, with the focus set to as far as will go, set to 'infinity', which reaches the 'hyperfocal distance'. The hyperfocal distance refers to a point of focus where everything from that point onward is in focus. The narrower the aperture (higher the f/number), the farther away the point of focus where everything in focus will be. With a 50mm lens at 1.8, which is how this was shot, the hyperfocal distance will start pretty far out, but with something like 300mm at f/22, the hyperfocal distance will start closer. Anyway, here's the shot at 50mm f/1.8 set to infinity, with  the hyperfocal distance causing everything from that point to be in focus;

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


As you can see, the distance has a really, really big impact on focus.

I don't really shoot long lenses, so I don't have a lot of examples of that.

That's a lot of words and pictures, but what I'm saying is; you're always going to be fighting with what light is available when shooting in low light situations. Figure skating will be tough, if you have a 300mm lens, unless you buy a really nice one, the widest aperture you'll get is f/5.6, you'd be far away, and you'd also need a fast autofocus, or be really awesome at manual focusing to make it work. Despite the hyperfocal distance being a factor, I doubt you'd be meeting it when doing figure skating shooting.

Concert photography is mah thang, I'm good at it. Here's something I shot recently. This was done with film and a 50mm lens. The film was developed to 3200 ISO. If you want to get good concert shots, you'll want to get close. If you're shooting in a crowd with a long lens, you're going to have to be really creative to get good shots. If you want to shoot small venues, then get a 50mm lens, and get in close.

All is not lost! Buy used, buy used every day of the week. KEH is a used camera retailer who pretty much sets the market for used cameras. My digital body is a Canon XTi, it can be had for $140 from KEH. You can see some of my digital work here, all of it is 1600 ISO, and shot with the XTi.

Here's a 75-300mm lens for $80, and the good ol' EF 50mm 1.8, goes for about $120.

I know some of the items I linked you to say 'BGN', which stands for 'bargain', but KEH is really good about quality. Everything I've bought from them that was listed as 'bargain', would be 'mint', 'good condition' or 'LIKE NEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' on eBay or Craigslist.

And, something that's important about that camera body I linked to, it has what's called a '1.6x crop factor', which means that the focal length will be multiplied by 1.6 (unless you buy a special type of lens called Canon EF-S). So the 50mm would perform like an 80mm, and the 75-300mm, is more like 120mm-480mm. The latter would be great for wildlife and nature photography. 480mm is a really high focal length, and I'm sure you'd find a lot of use for it.

I'm aware I have said a lot, and if anything's confusing or if you need something explained better.