Digital Cameras?

Gato_Solo said:
:eek2: You're kidding, right? 3 to 5 megapixels are rather common. I'd suggest going with any of the Canon Powershot models.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, I should be up on this stuff but I've slacked on keeping up with some technologies. My 35mm camera is fine with me so I never looked into the things.

Thanks for all the advice, guys and dolls. I think I will look at some Canon models. I'm debating staying up all night and looking at Best Buy at 5am, fighting off the crazies. My Grandpa told me if I need to get at something and people are in the way, target the old ladies since they are easy to knock over.
 
I haven't read all these but if it hasn't been mentioned, there's one incredibly simple but crucial part of this. How does it feel? In your hand. Up to your eye. Can you reach everything easily & quickly?

I bought my wife a relatively (at the time) decent digital & she hates it. The shots are fine. It's the feel. She uses it but Miss I've taken forty bazillion SLR shots probably hasn't hit 500 with this camera. She says it's simply not comfortable.

Reviews
 
Mirlyn said:
Using autofocus or manual? The Canon's speedshot setting constantly adjusts the AF points when the trigger is at midpoint, so the camera is always ready to take the shot (thus lowering the response time). Using manual would fix that. Also, as GF said, check aperature/fstop....could be insufficient lighting in that setting.
Click to expand...
I never let the camera make any of its own shutter speed and F-stop settings because it's too stupid. It will always get them wrong. I set them manually and then take a test shot to see how it looks on the screen.

I also hold down the button halfway for it to autofucus while I'm framing the shot. The Tamron lens is auto-only, there's no manual at all, but even on the stock Nikon it would have the problems as well. Even if I manual-focused it, I doubt I could focus it as fast as the auto-focus is supposed to be able to.

The lowest F-stop the Tamron will go to is 4.5, and if I zoom it to 300mm it will only go to 6.0 at that point. The stock Nikon will only go to 3.5 or so. Thing is, the Nikon is a 24-85 and that's not a far enough zoom at a football game. Also, when zoomed in all the way it won't go to as low a F-stop either. I try not to put the shutter speed below 250 in a football game because that's when pictures get blurry.

When I have it on rapid-fire mode it will take 3 shots a second... usually. But the flash (Nikon speedlight... I forget the model, although I did find I get the best response time out of it if I charge the batteries right before the game) often only illuminates the first shot of the series and the third or fourth is usually the best action... and trying to fix that in Photoshop is more of a bitch than I'd like. The shots the flash fires for come out nice and bright (although I have to crank the brightness up 10-15 above what looks good on the iMac CRT screen in photoshop because the press runs dark) but the other ones are dark. Football stadium lighting sucks.

Although I'd venture to guess if there had been a budget to get me a real quality lens instead of the cheap Tamron (it's plastic, has no manual focus, etc.) tyen I might get better shots because not only could it go to a lower f-stop, it would also have bigger optics meaning it could gather more light, mich as a larger telescope can gather more light. The Tamron was $129 on eBay, and apparently that's pretty close to its regular retail price, while a good quality 70-300 lens will cost more than the camera.
 
I found an interesting control on the front of it in looking at a review (it didn't have a manual when I got hired), the M/S/C switch on the front. Methinks I'll move it to C and see if that helps... although of course now football season's over.

The review also showed me how to zoom in on the image when it's played back on screen beyond the real little bit of zoom. That will come in handy.
 
Looks like the D100 manuals aren't available to download from Nikon's site any longer. But I did find this that should help: http://web.mit.edu/6.163/www/pdf/D100Guide.pdf
Regarding the blue lines, those are called halos. I've seen it from over-sharpening in post processing, using maximum zoom & severely cropping a small subject in the frame. It's not something that is specific to Nikon. The Cooper's Hawk is an example of over-sharpening and using maximum zoom.

Until you use two comparable cameras/lenses from Nikon and Canon, you can't say with any certainty that these problems are all inherent in Nikon. I have used both and most issues are the result of what settings you use on the camera, not the camera itself.

If you're shooting outside football games, you shouldn't need a 4.5 f-stop unless it's a night game. The more light you have, the higher the f-stop generally. And the more depth of field you want (more focus in the entire frame instead of your one subject) the higher it should be also.

If you are shooting in low light situations, you really should be using a tripod. If the shutter is staying open longer and you're holding it in your hand, you will have blurry shots.

I use the "crappy" Tamron lens you describe (70-300 w/macro for $130.) and don't have these same issues. While some lenses do have a manual or auto override on the lens, this is generally set from the camera, not the lens.

I have shot my niece's cheerleading competitions which are indoors and are always a photographic challenge. I get there as early as possible to get the best seat, flash set on "rear" and redeye, always use the tripod, manual focus, manual f-stop and shutter and I STILL have to do a lot of post-processing. Mostly due to the white balance and the affect of those orangey indoor lights. It's just crappy conditions but there are ways around it.

Mirlyn has great suggestions, you really need to use the camera in more situations and play with all the settings to get a feel for what you need. Even with the manual, the photographic forums I post on, the photography magazines, and taking about 300-400 photos per week (sometimes more), I'm still learning and experimenting all the time. But I would never go back to film; it gets pretty expensive to shoot the same subject 20 times with different f-stops, shutter speeds, white balance, ISO...
 
I notice the halos more with the kit lens (Canon 18-55) than I do with the others (Tamron 70-300 and Canon IS 28-135). I don't have a polarizer for the Tamron...maybe it would it help soften the contrast on the outdoor shots to carry through postprocessing?
 
I don't have a polarizing filter for the Tamron either but I've used it on my wide angle Nikon lens and found it to be too dark. It's only really useful on really bright days when the sky is washed out.
 
greenfreak said:
If you're shooting outside football games, you shouldn't need a 4.5 f-stop unless it's a night game. The more light you have, the higher the f-stop generally. And the more depth of field you want (more focus in the entire frame instead of your one subject) the higher it should be also.
Click to expand...
A day game in high school varsity football is exceedingly rare in California.

As for the tripod (or monopod) and the slow shutter speed... that would keep the background stable but the subjects are running as fast as they can. They would still come out blurry.
 
Inkara1 said:
As for the tripod (or monopod) and the slow shutter speed... that would keep the background stable but the subjects are running as fast as they can. They would still come out blurry.
Click to expand...
You still should be able to stop them with a tripod. Try the ISO?
 
Inkara1 said:
Looks like I'll need a Minolta then. ;)
Click to expand...

What? A Dimage, or their SLR digicams?

Anywho...While I think those LCD screens are nice, I prefer TTL viewing to frame shots. Much greater chance for a great pic, and none of that 'TV' stare. It's hard to explain, but staring at a mini-tv is too distracting...
 
Just got a Canon Powershot A520 (4.0 megapixel). Nice camera, sweet looking shots, and a good price, but one serious drawback. The wait time between shots with the flash activated is way too long. 3-4 seconds.
 
I had a Canon PowerShot S30 (3 megapixel) that was a kick-ass camera up until it developed an aversion to light. My Sony CyberShot W1 has been a good camera thus far (I especially like the 2.5" screen and the exceptionally quick power-up time), although I'm not sure what the wait time between flash shots is.
 
HomeLAN said:
Just got a Canon Powershot A520 (4.0 megapixel). Nice camera, sweet looking shots, and a good price, but one serious drawback. The wait time between shots with the flash activated is way too long. 3-4 seconds.
Click to expand...

My A70 is the same way. I still carry my 35mm because of that, with the digital as a backup in case I run out of film...
 
The bf and I just bought the Canon A520. So far so good. We got a larger capacity memory card as well. We've taken a few shot having fun with it and all and getting to know all that it does. It's got some fun features and easy to use from what I've tried doing so far.
 
Digicams are a great companion when having sex, just make sure the flash is powerful enough ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top