Photography Advice

[Mercutio]

There are a number of people here who take photography very, very seriously so...

Last August I went an, um, outdoor festival. Some of you might remember me posting about it ("More than Corn in Indiana", in the Pub).
I had a camera - not the Canon G2 that belonged to me, but my brother's point-and-shoot Digital Elph (I don't remember the model number, but it was 2MP job with a 2x zoom).

As it happens I gave the G2 to someone who has a more-than-bi-monthly need to do something with it. I probably won't get it back.

But I just had the interesting thought that I might, possibly, go to that festival again, and that would be a case for needing a camera. And I also need one to do the odd shot of computer equipment (e.g. for insurance purposes or for on-site documentation).

So rather than blithely ordering something - my first impulse is just to get a Canon G5 or Digital Rebel (i.e. possibly more camera than I need) that would sit in a bag 360 days out of a year - I thought I'd throw this to LunarMist and Tannin and Splash and the rest of you:

I'd like to get a camera that is well suited to broad-daylight photography, that can be used to shoot very quickly and that has a very good optical zoom. CF is almost a requirement - I have several high-capacity CF cards and a couple of microdrives already, but it's not like I can't afford to buy into something different instead.

My ex- was a professional photographer (she did photos at reunions and weddings and the like), so for her the manual settings on the G2 are very important, which is in large part why I bought it. I have some understanding of those settings, but I can't say that I changed them that often, and I'm not so sure that any change I ever made actually helped in my photos, so part of this question is: Would I be just as well-served with a $200 point-and-shoot given my needs?

The other half of my thought process is this: What the heck can I do to take better pictures in the setting I'll be working in (crowded, daylight, subjects 2 - 30 meters away)? As a general rule those aren't conditions I can simulate, since for the most part I don't really like being outside (bad allergies) or near other people (multiple bad neuroses).

Advice or suggestions of books on how to improve photos in general would probably be appreciated. I have some art training but I find it very difficult to translate between a media where I have total control - pen and ink, for example - to a photo, where I can only capture what's in the lens.

 

[Will Rickards WT]

Sounds like you should just get a point and shoot canon... mabe the A70 or A80. I have the A60 -2MP. I just take pictures with it, lots of them. Most of my son or my cat. Only 3x optical zoom on the A60.

But take this with a huge grain of salt... I don't know anything about photography.

 

[Howell]

I can second the A80. Is was a definate step up from the A20 I had. It does have a manual mode and even semi-manual modes (ie. you set one option manually and it auto sets the rest. It has the flip-out LCD of the Gx.
I really like that it takes AAs and that it takes 4 for longer shoots between changes. It turns on quickly and turns off quickly. 4MP.

It's the last camera I would want before I can afford the Digital Rebel.

I'm preparing to sell my old one on ebay. One of the reasons I bought it was that it was cheap, but also so that I could see what features were missing from the lesser expensive cameras that I wished I had.


As far as picture improvement, three very important things to learn about:
Depth of field
Shot framing
Magic hours.

I have more specific links I'll post when I get home.

 

[Tea]

"Shoot very quickly"? Are you meaning shutter delay here? I.e., you don't want to press the sutter release and then wait 3/4 of a second the way tou have to with my Nikons? Or something else, such as the ability to bang off quite a few snaps on the fly?

 

[Mercutio]

Candid photography is a lot easier without the ~1 second delay between shots a lot of digitals seem to have, even with, say, "48x" CF media. Some cameras can do burst photos (3 pictures in a second), and some seem to be faster than others (Minolta > Canon, at least). So, yes, that's something I'm looking at.

Don't get me wrong: I can afford a Rebel. And even a big, expensive lens. And I'm inclined in such a way that I'd probably at least learn what all its settings can do. But learning to use both those things effectively is another matter.

I've felt unsatisfied with the Point and Shoot cameras I've tried. Canon Elphs and Minolta Dimages and, er, all things Kodak (e.g. my now-dead DC290).

 

[Bung]

The worst delay on non-slrs is getting focus. With the A80 there would be no guilt from money sitting in the cupboard and you could use the same user custom preset method described for G3 here http://www.marcjutras.com/ehyperfocal.html

 

[Pradeep]

I guess the thing with candid shots is that you may get a negative reaction if you have a hulking digital SLR on your chest. But IIRC there were plenty of SLRs at that event you went to last year anyway. Right now I''ve found that 3.3MP isn't enough to give me sufficient rez for letter size prints, so I'll prob go for a Nikon DSLR in a few months (from my Coolpix 995).

 

[Howell]

Don't get me wrong: I can afford a Rebel. And even a big, expensive lens. And I'm inclined in such a way that I'd probably at least learn what all its settings can do. But learning to use both those things effectively is another matter.

If I got a Rebel it would be for the large megepixel ccd and ability to use multiple lenses with it. The biggest limitations I have with the A80 is related to the optical zoom (not enough without an add-on) and the flash (a common problem unless you have a dedicated flash).

In order to make it worth it to me I'd have to spend a lot more time actually doing photography.

The links I promised:
http://www.photo.net/learn/
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/nikon.html
http://www.ezlearnphotography.com/modules.php?name=Top

 

[LunarMist]

Merc,

You are asking several different questions. Candid photography is one of the most difficult types especially for a relative novice. Usually one will use a range of focal lengths, from wides to capture environmental portraits and groups to medium and even long teles to capture head shots, portraits, details of hands, etc. A zoom is probably mandatory in your case, though an experienced photographer may go with a few fast single focal length lenses. The type of equipment may vary depending on how cooperative the subjects are, and how obtrusive you can afford to be. The long lag time of a PS camera could be a real killer of some good opportunities.

I can not offer any advice on specific PS digicams, not having found any of personal interest yet. Maybe if there were a 5 megapixel PS with a 28-70 or 28-105 mm equivalent supporting RAW files, it would be a different story.

Digital PS cameras are unlike their film counterparts. Whereas a PS film camera can use the same format as an SLR, but with a slow lens, a digital PS has a very small sensor in comparison to an SLR or even digital SLR. The small sensor means more noise at higher ISO equivalents and inherently more DOF due to the relative magnification. The excessive DOF problem is exacerbated by the limited range of apertures. Most of the PS zooms have lenses that are on the soft side wide open and only stop down to about f/8 to prevent diffraction. That makes them not conducive to isolating the subject from distracting backgrounds often present in candid situations. It works fine for the wider shots though.

There are many books available to learn basic and advanced photography, but there is no substitute for hands on experience. I suggest that you read some basics and then attend a short workshop or two. It is amazing how much even a complete novice can learn in a couple of days with a good instructor.

 

[Pradeep]

If you are looking at the Rebel, then also look at the Nikon D70. It is a far faster camera.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond70/page4.asp

3FPS for 17 frames, compared to 2.5FPS for 4 frames.

 

[LunarMist]

The D70 is a bit of an oddity. Although it is being sold as a bottom of the barrel DSLR, in many ways it is more capable than the D100 and of course more fully featured than the DRebel. This may be due to the slow Nikon development cycle. (I would not recommend a DRebel to other than a PS user with no future plans, those on a tight budget, or as a cheap backup body. The DRebel control options are deliberately crippled and AF has a mind of its own. :roll: For Canon users, the 10D is far more capable.)

BTW, both the DRebel and D70 have a very sucky 4 frame buffer. However, the D70 has a more intelligent buffer system that immediately clears the RAW (NEF) data to allow for buffering more processed files if jpgs are the output. Ironically, it is more difficult to obtain quality jpg images since settings such as exposure, WB, sharpness and curves/contrast (tonal range) must be dead on at the time of shooting (not so easy for a novice). Post processing is extremely limited with jpg files and they should be used only when absolutely necessary.

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, I'm asking a lot of divergent questions here.

And I've been trying to read up where I can, online. Any suggestions for books that might be helpful?

Thanks for the heads up on the Nikon, Pradeep. I've pretty much been looking at Canons up to now, given past experience and preferences. The 10D is a little too rich for my blood.

Of course, moving to an SLR means making investments in lenses, too.
The point-and-shoot guys really lose a lot with their weak builtin optical zoom. I know I can get a lens adaptor and at least a couple of different lenses for the G5, but once I'm to that point, it's a short step to just buying a digital SLR. The thing I'm worried about is getting locked in to a single company. If I bought a Nikon and a couple lenses, would I be willing to buy a Canon at some point in the future, knowing my lenses wouldn't mount on it?

 

[LunarMist]

The thing I'm worried about is getting locked in to a single company. If I bought a Nikon and a couple lenses, would I be willing to buy a Canon at some point in the future, knowing my lenses wouldn't mount on it?

Not likely, which is why Canon pushed so hard for the DRebel and made the claim that is was the most important advance for them in 20-something years. Conversion is expensive and can have a painful learning curve. Independent of the brand, the value of a digital body will slide rapidly because the technology is still improving. Canon, Nikon and others will leapfrog over each other for some years to come, depending on the development cycles of digital bodies.

You should put at least as much effort into deciding which lenses to use. Consider that a $1000 lens today will still fetch at least $500 in three years and may be usable for many more. A $3000 low end digital camera from 3 years ago is now also worth about $500 and buyers can be hard to find.

 

[Santilli]

LM: When did the D70 come out, and between the D70 and D 100
which would you take, and why?

Value is a big deal to me.

I was also the founder and president of my high school photography club, so I know a bit about cameras, albeit not very much about current high end digitals.

s

 

[LunarMist]

Greg,

The D70 started shipping the week of March 22 so you have not missed much. It is not a high-end camera by any stretch. Think of it as a digital equivalent to the N70. I would wait a little while in case any serious flaws or bugs are uncovered. Somethimes these can be fixed with firmware updates similar to a BIOS flash.

I can not give any specific model advice other than to visit an appropriate forum and evaluate what other Nikon users are doing. Beware that DPReview forums are a zoo, full of clueless users and trolls.

 

[Santilli]

LM:

Only thing about canon stuff is it seems cheaply constructed, or designed to fail, sort of.

I have a Canon Rebel, and it's fine, but it was about 300 dollars, WITH a very nice zoom lense.

Currently I'm working on a Canon N1220U scanner. The connector on the back is pretty weak, and all it took was one knock off the desk by the cat for it to come loose.

It bugs me since every once in awhile it doesn't want to work.

Can't complete task due to interface problem.

It just feels really cheaply made, and it wasn't real cheap at the time.


I get the same feeling from the Digital Rebel. Nice, but cheap housing,
and your comment about the auto focus is not something I'm real happy about.


Also, the Digital Rebel is BIG.

Just my observations after handling a couple of em.

s

 

[Tea]

One thing you might consider, Merc, is the Leica range. Leica's digital units are a little odd-ball, but they are designed around the idea of high speed and ease of use. Don't just buy one! Look carefully and work out if it's the right answer for you.

 

[Santilli]

Leica? Poor optics, right? :wink:

s

 

[Tea]

Well, Leica make optics that make you poor if you buy them, so I guess so.

 

[Santilli]

What I remember of Leica is they were in the Zeiss, Hasselblad, range, and cost, well above anything Nikon put out, and, the quality was far above Nikon, as well.

Still the case?

s

 

[LunarMist]

The Leica PS digital is still too expensive for the money. For ~$1800 one should have better than an EVF and zero buffer when shooting in the RAW mode. I was recently looking for a nice PS body with a wide-angle to use when a 3lb body is too much. Read this comparison to a typical DSLR.

 

[Mercutio]

Canon's horrible abortion of a web site now lists a "Pro 1", an 8MP camera with a 7x optical zoom. Its price is certainly reasonable - $1000 (probably $900 retail, I'd imagine). Anyone have any thoughts? 'cause I certainly hadn't heard of this one, and it seems like a happy medium between the DSLRs and "normal" digital cameras.

From what I've read, I'd be best served with a 200 - 300mm lens, which would enable me to stand a reasonable distance from shooting subjects and still get decent pictures. If I'm buying one that's not integrated in my camera, what else am I looking for?

I went and played with several demo cameras at Circuit City. Mostly, they didn't seem all that great to me - I couldn't get a white balance I was satisfied with on any of the cameras I tried, something I'm used to tinkering with. Of course, I was looking at output on their LCDs, not printed or on a monitor. Pretty much everything I looked at had a 2x or 3x optical zoom. I guess that's great if you're taking pictures of your kid's birthday party but I can't say I'm impressed by that, either.

So what are the compelling arguments for point and shoot here?

 

[Will Rickards WT]

Yes the 3x optical zoom sucks.
Even pictures at birthday parties need more.
I was just at one and taking pictures of the kids playing outside.

 

[Pradeep]

Canon's horrible abortion of a web site now lists a "Pro 1", an 8MP camera with a 7x optical zoom. Its price is certainly reasonable - $1000 (probably $900 retail, I'd imagine). Anyone have any thoughts? 'cause I certainly hadn't heard of this one, and it seems like a happy medium between the DSLRs and "normal" digital cameras.

The only problem I can see with this camera is that the Sony 828 with almost identical imaging chip has pretty ordinary results. Apparently due to the very small pixel pitch. I would at least wait till they review a production model with pictures, before buying. Also the fact that you are paying as much as a Nikon or Canon DSLR, and have none of the lens changing ability seems a bit of a downer.

 

[bahngeist]

,,,From what I've read, I'd be best served with a 200 - 300mm lens, which would enable me to stand a reasonable distance from shooting subjects and still get decent pictures. If I'm buying one that's not integrated in my camera, what else am I looking for? ...

If you go with such a long lens, you will need a fairly good tripod (or monopod) to avoid camera shake. You will also have to deal with a very narrow depth of field and very tight focusing parameters. Telephoto lens also tend to be slow and not very good for available light situations; fast ones tend to be very bulky and very expensive. Lenses longer than the 200 mm. range tend to be used most often by sports and wildlife photographers, and otherwise have limited practicality that generally doesn't warrant their expense.

Zoom lenses have their obvious advantages, but fixed focal length lenses generally have better optics and thus tend to provide sharper images. Zoom lenses also tend to be somewhat slower. Whatever you choose depends on what you intend to do -- if you aren't overly concerned about sharpness or enlarging your shots, a zoom would be fine.

If you go the digital SLR route, you may want to consider a wide and a short telephoto for starters -- 35 mm. film camera equivalents would be a a 28 or 35 mm. on the short side; and a 90 mm. on the long side. This is a fairly classic combination, and is the mainstay combination of many professional photographers. Learn to use these properly, and then branch out to other lenses when you find the need -- avoid lens adapters because they tend to degrade the optical quality of a lens.

If you go the SLR route, consider the lenses as being long term investments since manufacturers tend not to modify their mounts. Bodies are of course a concern, but they tend to be shorter term investments -- consider buying a used one with the understanding that it may be replaced a couple years down the road with one that is more top-notch. Having a second camera body comes in handy anyway.

When considering your purchase, find out who actually produces the optics. Schneider and Zeiss make lenses for a variety of companies, and they are as good -- and sometimes better -- than Leica lenses. You may be surprised that some point-and-shoot cameras not made by Canon and Nikon often have very good optics -- it pays to shop around. The real important thing is to buy a camera that you are comfortable with, since fighting with one can detract and isn't much fun (I myself couldn't abide a camera that has any form of shutter delay -- ich!)

Depending on how serious you are, consider acquiring both a digital SLR and a cheaper point-and-shoot. When I was shooting professionally I often carried a Minox 35 mm. that was smaller than a package of cigarettes, and it was great for impromtu candid shots. In this instance I am talking about film cameras -- my street photo mainstay was a Leica rangerfinder and a fast 35 mm. and 90 mm. combination.

 

[LunarMist]

Merc,

Can you give us a better idea of what you are specifically trying to accomplish in this case and also your long term plans? For starters, I would not usually shoot candids with a 300 mm lens. The big glass, especially the white Canon stuff, tends to overwhelm some subjects. OTOH the smaller zoom lenses tend to be soft and slow at the long end. Image stabilization can help somewhat depending on subject movement.

bahngeist,

Unfortunately there are no digitals comparable to the Leica M. Oh I wish, I dream there could be a digital M8 with a FF sensor. 21/2.8 Elmarit aspheric, yum!

 

[bahngeist]

... For starters, I would not usually shoot candids with a 300 mm lens. The big glass, especially the white Canon stuff, tends to overwhelm some subjects.

Unfortunately there are no digitals comparable to the Leica M. Oh I wish, I dream there could be a digital M8 with a FF sensor. 21/2.8 Elmarit aspheric, yum!

I mentioned that just to give an indication that I have some background relevant to the topic. A digital Leica M would be quite sweet, particularly if it remained purely manual. And I once owned the 21/2.8 -- not the aspheric one though -- it was amazing what you could do with that lens since it was a true wide-angle and hence had absolutely no barrel distortion. Could wax more but have no desire to hijack Mercutio's thread.

 

[Mercutio]

Here are my thoughts to this moment:

1. I need to do something in my life that involves, at least occasionally, going out of doors and moving around a bit. I don't do that right now. Particularly the moving part. I do very little of that. Outside for me is the place between my car and a building.

2. I live in a setting with LOTS of interesting things to shoot with a camera. There's downtown Chicago (the buildings and great outdoor art), the lake with its ships, the lakeshore with its beaches, the cool, rusty industrial wasteland that surrounds all of the above...

3. Most motivating of all: Stripperpalooza.
Last year my brothers dragged me off to an event in Roselawn, Indiana, which is pretty much an open-air stripping convention. It's really hard to explain unless you've been there (it's actually fairly wholesome. I'm serious), but you can wander around this resort area and basically take pictures of hundreds of very attractive women in various states of dress.
The performers work some distance from the crowd - usually about 50 feet away, if you can muscle through the throng. If you can't, there's enough going on with the crowd itself that's worthy of photography. Photography is actually EXPECTED - I saw Joe Schmoes walking around with camera rigs that I now realize must've cost $20k... and they weren't in the "professional" area. The big, important thing that comforts me here is that I'm not going to be the mutant walking around with some giant, expensive camera. I'll be a basically normal person in that crowd.

So: This event is outdoors, with no shade anywhere near the performing area. You're a considerable distance from the main focus of most photography (usually 50 feet), but sometimes, the performers will come close (~5 - 10 feet) to say "Hi". Other times, there will be something interesting in the crowd (LOTS of flashing, interesting tatoos and piercings, cops wailing on somebody for being drunk, rude and stupid), which could be happening at pretty much any range.
Fixed focal length ANYTHING isn't gonna cut it.

The end result is something that is between sports photography and candid photography. There really isn't any other decent way to explain it.

Before you dismiss this as a wholly prurient thing, understand that I don't function in public very well, but that I did very well that day taking pictures with my brother's crappy digital camera. One of the treatments for the sorts of mental defects I have is "acclimation": Basically, doing the thing you don't like. Since I was able to go there and function reasonably well, I'm thinking it was a positive thing for me to do. Maybe even something I ought to do.

Now, in the meantime, I plan to try to take some time away from working to go out and practice using my camera, in the hopes that I become technically good at it. Not necessarily because I want to take fantastic pictures of the dancing ladies, but because photography is inherently an art form, and my attitude is that one should strive to perfect one's art.
I don't like being outside. I don't like being in public, but hopefully doing this would be a decent reason to do both.

If it isn't, the final consolation is that I can probably sell anything I buy in doing this for something approximating the price I pay for it, which is more than I can say for anything else I might try to help myself (eg exercise gear, medicine, therapy).

If you'd like to see specific examples, even fairly inoffensive ones, I do have them.

 

[Mercutio]

Oh yeah. Feel free to hijack. It won't stop me from posting.

 

[Tea]

OK, I'm getting the picture. You are going to be frustrated with any of the non-SLR digitals, Merc. There seem to be only two questions.

(1) Which digital SLR is the right one for you?

(2) Would you do better to buy a relatively inexpensive non-SLR camera to start with, master that, have time to get hooked (and you will get hooked), and then get an SLR? The logic here is that there is something to be said for starting with something relatively simple: it will give you a chance to get into things now and learn for yourself what SLR to buy (rather than spend big dollars only to look back and wish you'd bought a different brand or model - we will try to advise you well, but the final decision is best if you can make it from your own hands-on knowledge), and ... well ... because it gives you something to look forward to. Note that this is probably a zero-cost option. It's reasonable to expect that over 6 to 12 months, the US500 to $1000 you'd spend on a nice point & shoot digital unit will be more than compensated for by the price drop on the DSLR.

I'm thinking that a Canon 10D would be excellent, though rather large, and a 300D ("Digital Rebel" in that appalling US-only marketingspeak) would do at a pinch. (Equally large and almost equally heavy, I think.)

But there are smaller digitals around now. Tannin's father (who is nobody's fool when it comes to cameras - been at it since box brownie days in the 1940s) is thinking about buying the new ... er ... can't remember the brand now. Small, digital, one of the second-tier names. He's always stuck to Canon SLRs and Nikon digitals up till now.

 

[Tea]

I remembered. Pentax. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/istd.html

 

[LunarMist]

Tony,

Would you really buy the *ist D now considering the limited Pentax lens selection and other 6 megapixel SLRs available? Last I looked, the Pentax lenses still did not have USM AF or image stabilization. It's like using a Nikon from a dozen years ago.

 

[Tea]

But do you have to buy Pentax lenses for them?

 

[P5-133XL]

From Merc's description of use I agree that SLR is the way to go: He demands too much lens flexibility. That being said the Pro 1 is a good choice for a point and shoot. The 28-200mm 2.4f-3.5f is about as flexible lens as a point and shoot ever has. Its lens should cover the vast majority of hand-held shots and normally anything above 200mm typically needs a tripod. At 2.4f - 3.5f it also is a reasonablely fast lens (corrects the biggest flaw that point and shoots universally have). Canon L-series lenses typically are quite good quality wise though without independant testing one can't guarentee that. The 8-mega pixel ccd is at the high end so reasonable enlargements shouldn't be a problem.

Off hand, I don't think he can do better unless he goes SLR and that will be more cumbersome anbd cost far more.

 

[Stereodude]

Sounds like you need a Sigma F4 100-300 lens for a DSLR. They're about $900.

 

[Mercutio]

If I did an SLR, I'd pretty much require something that could do image stabilizing, probably something like this. Sounds like it would slow, but in trade I might be able to get away w/o a tripod.

RAW mode isn't essential to my needs, given my understanding of its nature (pure CCD info without adjustments to contrast etc). From what I've read it seems to transfer to media very slowly. Is that a correct assessment?

In practical terms, is there anything a non-pro will miss in going with the DRebel (dumb name, I agree)?

 

[Tea]

For me, the main reason I don't want a 300D (damned if I'll use that stupid America-only name for it) is that it's crippled in multishot mode. I forget the exact figures now, but with the 300D you get less than half as many shots in a continuous sequence. (As compared with the 10D.) For wildlife, you cannot predict the exact time the creature will do something interesting (bird takes off, swallows the mouse, feeds youngster, whatever) and you generally can't expect a second chance, so you have to get as many shots as you can within a short period. Hell, with many species, you are lucky to see the creature at all, and you might only have 5 seconds to get your best shot.

I'm more-or-less hoping that Canon will replace the 10D sometime reasonably soon and that I'll be able to afford the new model. I don't know how likely this is though.

 

[Mercutio]

Things I've seen in the last few days suggest Q3/04 for an update on the 10D. I don't have any basis for determining if this is true or not.

I found this to be an interesting and useful source of information.

 

[Santilli]

You guys are great. Learned quite a bit from that article on the evolution of digital cameras, and the same things that have been Nikon's strength still are.

Pentax has NEVER, at least to my way of thinking, been a second level company. My experience was they made smaller, usually, and just as good bodies, but without the many features that Nikon has.

Their size is always a major advantage. However, with everything being made in China, I wonder how that's changed the quality accross the board.

Tony, the 300D is anything but minature. I guess this is a good time to wait another year. I suspect around this time next year, you may have 4-5 companies in the under 1000 dollar SLR market.

For Merc, bit the bullet, and get a 10D or the Pentax.
Looks like the 10d is the way for you to go.

Get one of those stabilized up to 300mm zooms, and catch those bouncing breasts in mulitple shots.

I guess each to their own kind of bird watching.
Anything to get you outdoors...

s

 

[time]

From what I've read so far, I think the Nikon D70 is going to be a killer camera, and I think I'd feel pretty foolish if I'd just bought a 300D Rebel, given Canon's blatant attempt at castration.

Here's an interesting review, made more so by his constant disparaging references to "measurebators" (clearly aimed at DPreview in particular):

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70.htm