Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with DSLR and resolved

Looking for a great travel camera.

BungaDunga — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:10:53 -0800

Looking for a compacter-than-DSLR camera to take traveling for a couple of months. I really like my Nikon D90 for its low-light and manual capabilities, but I don't think I'll enjoy bringing it around with me the whole time. I really want a camera that can handle low light and takes good video, without being as bulky as an SLR. I think the NEX-6 satisfies these requirements pretty well. Do I want a NEX-6? Or something else? I like the idea of a NEX-6 with the pancake 16mm prime; it would almost be pocketable. I've been shooting on my D90 with a 35mm prime and love it- but I have a feeling it would get to feel like a yoke around my neck after a while. I want to sacrifice at little as I can while still having something light enough to tote around at all times.

Should I sacrifice sensor space and get an RX100, instead? Or do something else entirely?

Five days with a DSLR. What to shoot?

cribcage — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 10:14:34 -0800

I am renting a DSLR camera for five days. If you were doing this, what would you shoot? I will have the camera for five days along with a 50mm lens and an intervalometer. Unfortunately, I won't have access to other lenses. I am located in Boston but can travel to Rhode Island, southern New Hampshire, and Cape Cod. I have limited ability to bother my family members, but the rental will include a weekend.

I am not a brand-new photographer. I am not concerned about issues like learning my way around the menus, nor with pixel-peeping or staging comparisons to equipment I already own. I'm looking at this as a "photographic vacation." Imagine you're a millionaire shopping for a summer home, so you rent a cottage somewhere to try out the area. What sort of things would you do, to get a feel for the area? That's how I'm thinking about this.

Thanks in advance for your ideas!

Help me use my DSLR to shoot auto races

desjardins — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:15:25 -0800

I am a rank beginner at photography. Last night I took my DSLR to an auto race and most of my pictures turned out blurry or under/overexposed or otherwise sucky. Occasionally I got lucky. What am I most likely doing wrong, and how can I get better at shooting cars in motion? I'd appreciate your tips or links to online tutorials. The camera is a Canon EOS Rebel XS. I only have an 18 -55 mm image stabilizer lens at the moment (that came with the camera) and only the built-in flash. I have a tripod but given the height of the fence and barriers it would have been useless.

I experimented with different modes and shutter speeds and stuff but frankly I was overwhelmed with all the options on the camera. Still shots looked awesome but once anything moved it got frustrating. I'd love to be able to take a shot where the car is in focus but the background is blurred, like this.

This was mr. desjardins' first race, so I'd like to get some better pictures next week.

this seems too good to be true

Snarl Furillo — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:59:25 -0800

Can you tell me if the camera packages at this discount online storefront are good value for money? This place offers packages with DSLR body + lenses and accessories. I'm mostly looking at the Canon 60D, although they have 7D and Nikon D7000 packages, too. But the prices are so low that I'm skeptical that it's actually a good deal.

I'm trying to replace my outdated company-issued kit with my own stuff that I can very lightly freelance with. My original plan was to buy a used Canon body and a couple new lenses. My budget is between $1200 and $1600. Thanks everyone!

DSLR filter: Help me pick my first non-kit lens!

divisjm — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:46:07 -0800

Several years ago, I purchased a Canon Digital Rebel XT (EOS 350D) with the kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm). I've gotten a bit better since the early days, and I have a good eye, but I'm still not well-versed in the really technical stuff. In any case, I'll be taking a trip to Scotland later this year, and I'd really like to use my first overseas trip in over ten years as an excuse to upgrade my lens to something nicer. Complications: I'm also getting married soon and of course paying for said overseas trip, so my budget is pretty low, at least in terms of lenses—no more than $500, and preferably below $400. I tend to take a fairly even mix of macro, portrait, and landscape/architecture shots, so I'm essentially looking for a solid, general-purpose lens upgrade. (I'm usually not shooting action, so that's lower priority.) I'm guessing that all of this means I should only be looking at zoom lenses, but if I'm being an idiot, please feel free to (gently!) let me know.

Note: I'd prefer not to bring the kit lens along with me on my vacation (the less I have to carry with me when I'm walking around all day, the better), so recommendations should be limited to true replacement lenses rather than supplements. I can supplement with niche lenses a few years down the line, when I'm more skilled than I am now.

So far, after some research, the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is at the top of my list. Is this a good choice? Is it wide enough for a decent landscape shot, considering the 350D's sensor? Or is there something else in the same price range that I should consider instead? The review I've linked suggests that background burring might leave a bit to be desired, so if there's something else in this range that improves in this area without sacrificing elsewhere, I'd be interested to know what it is. (Or, perhaps the reviewer is being picky enough that at my skill level I'll never know the difference. Fine with me!)

Bokeh (foreground and background blur quality) is fine, but the 6-blade aperture is not going to deliver excellence with OOF (out-of-focus) highlights when stopped down. And, creating a diffusely-blurred background is not one of this lens' specialties due to an only moderately wide aperture. At 135mm, the background is magnified/compressed enough to create some blur if the subject is relatively close and/or the background is distant from the subject.

As a side note, before my trip I'll also be getting Custom SLR's C-Loop mount and Glide Strap (comfort ahoy!), and I plan on purchasing the recommended hood for whatever lens I end up with (let's skip the hood vs. UV-filter debate). But, if you have any other off-hand camera/photography travel tips/suggestions you'd like to share, please do!

A DSLR that shoots good video

OmieWise — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:25:49 -0800

My wife and I would like to get a digital camera, probably a DSLR, that will take good video as well as stills. We will be using it to shoot pictures of a baby...ok, our baby. I am having trouble navigating all the options, or even really fully understanding all the vocabulary, so please gently guide me toward a good decision. I have experience using an old Nikon F film SLR, and expect to relearn some rusty photography skills.

1) What camera would you recommend?

2) Is it foolish to want to get one camera that handles both stills and video?

3) What other accessories (e.g., other lenses) seem necessary?

4) What is the used DSLR market like? What is the lifespan of these cameras, and how repairable are they? Where is the reputable market located online?

Thanks.

Canon 60D versus Nikon D5100

midmarch snowman — Mon, 14 May 2012 00:16:15 -0800

Another newbie dSLR question: First time buyer trying to decide between a Canon 60D versus Nikon D5100. I hope you guys aren't getting annoyed with these yet. While the Canon 60D and Nikon D5100 are not normally in the same product class they've approached similar price points for the body only (760 for the Canon mid level and 600 for the Nikon upper entry level) that its making the choice difficult for my first dSLR.

I have spent the last week cruising dpreview.com, cnet, AskMeFi and DxOMark.com and have held both of them in my hand. From what I understand, here are some relative pros and cons:

Canon: Better for video, better feel and layout, older, less powerful sensor, marginally more high ISO noise, heavier.

Nikon: More powerful sensor, newer, built in intervalometer, better live view auto-focusing, lighter, other clever features like 'night vision' 128k ISO setting and built in HDR, but clunky video, poor control layout, more time in menus, advantage in sensor largely disappears in JPEG format.

My use? I am most interested in portraiture, low light photography of night life, travel photography of the outdoors and I have a bug to try out some time lapse photography. I love taking videos but I don't think I could come up with any video project I'd want to "show off," probably just clips of friends and travel and relatives etc. But then again, I've never had a nice video taking option.

So my buying decision has become an echo chamber of doubt: Is the marginal low light performance worth giving up video performance? Is it going to be trouble to hack together a cheap Canon intervalometer? Are gimmicky features like 'night vision' ever of any use to anyone? Is a slight but significant improvement in button layout worth 100-170 dollars? Should I just flip a coin and pick one?

Looking for Versatile Camera Recommendations

syzygy — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:06:10 -0800

What's the best micro 4/3 (or similar format) camera for my needs on the market right now (or soon-to-be-released)? I've been looking at the micro 4/3 models, as well as Canon's similar G1 X. The Canon looks amazing on paper, but I'm not sure I'd be all that happy with a single objective, and the f-numbers aren't that great for low-light photography.

I've had a number of point-and-shoot digitals, as well as one of the original EOS 300D models. I generally take a lot of landscape, travel and architecture photography.

I'd like to get into more people-photography - parties, candid portraits, even street shots. I've been asked a number of times to photograph parties or events for people who like my landscape and travel photos, but I don't really have the gear to do a great job (I'm thinking fast glass, fast autofocus and low-light capabilities are at the top of the list here). I've agreed to photograph a few events, but I've been disappointed with the results, so far (as have, I imagine, the friends who've asked me to shoot them).

I'd like to continue taking travel, landscape and architecture photos - it'd be great to have something small to tote around, but which still delivers high quality shots.

Say my budget is ~$1000 for a micro 4/3 camera. $3000+ for a DSLR, if that's the way I need to go, but I really like the idea of the rangefinder form-factor and the portability of the micro 4/3 models.

What is a good entry-level DSLR camera model in 2012?

remi — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:57:12 -0800

I used Canon point-and-shoot cameras before my first DSLR camera, a Nikon D80, which just broke down. I'm interested in getting a new DSLR camera. Hi,

As I gradually stepped up in my hobby of photography, so did my camera models. I started with a Canon point-and-shoot. After my Canon PowerShot G10 (which was recommended to me by the readers here), I moved up to my first DSLR: a second-hand Nikon D80 I bought from a more-experienced photographer friend of mine.

I have asked for recommendations for a DSLR camera two years ago. But when I did, my life plans changed abruptly and couldn't purchase one right away, like I wanted to. I wonder if the advice given to me on that page still hold up today.

I took a break from amateur photography for a while as I settled with my iPhone for the casual photos. Although recently, I've been attending events which gradually pushed me to bring out my D80. Sadly, just two weeks ago, my camera broke down. The battery is charged, but one of the mirrors got really foggy, and the camera won't turn on anymore.

In no way I am a professional. My photo practice have been rusty as I got myself back into it. I still struggle with the manual settings (in other words, no more "P" mode), post-processing, and I lack in equipment (only one lens, no reflector, no flash). There are still times I get the technical terms mixed up. Likely, I didn't even know how to give good care to my DSLR camera.

I loved the Canon cameras I've used over the years, and my G10 is still working perfectly. Even if the Nikon navigation system can get me confused, it's still not a big problem, and I already have a lens for Nikon cameras anyway. Many things were told to me about Nikon vs. Canon, but I'm thinking it's mostly brand loyalty. I even heard some good things about Pentax and Sony (Minolta) cameras.

My budget isn't the biggest, but I know around how much I'll have to pay for a new entry-level DSLR body. I'm also aware that once I get into photography with a DSLR camera, money will easily be spent on maintenance, bags, equipment, lenses, etc.

So, today, I'm asking, what do you recommend for an entry-level DSLR camera nowadays? Should I stick with Nikon, go back to Canon, or consider other brands? Also, should I even bother trying to get my D80 repaired at a Nikon repair centre?

In advance, thank you for all your advice.

Lights, Camera, Action

theobserver — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 21:03:48 -0800

Help me buy Canon lenses without breaking the bank. I finally decided to take plunge and buy the Canon T3i with a couple of lenses. I responded to the question asked before very recently here, but after reading the responses there, I am not sure myself, so asking this again in a different way. Also, some of the recommended lens are beyond my current budget.

What I need from the lenses:

1. A "everyday" lens - portraits if family inside and outside the house, but not just static in-the-face "passport" photos. I would like to take photos when people are doing something interesting, so there should not be any blur. I will have an extra Flash unit, but would prefer to minimize its use. I may want to use the video capabilities of the T3i to record some videos, but not looking to shoot movies...

2. A travel lens - portraits, landscapes and buildings. Nothing too fancy, just touristy pics. If the lens works inside dark buildings without blur or grainy noise, that would be awesome, but I understand such lenses cost a lot. I would settle for using the Flash in such cases

3. A wildlife lens - No, I am not aiming to sell pictures to National Geographic, but I go on occasional wildlife trips, especially outside the US (no, not African safaris). Again, no great expectations, but good low-light performance is a plus. Think early morning in Summer

Now for the questions:

1. Amazon sells the T3i+the 18-55 kit lens for 799, but individually they sell for ~740. Of course, the lens is sold by a 3rd party, but the seller seems reliable and Amazon is backing it up. Are there any hidden things I am missing by going the separate pieces route?

2. Given the 3 requirements above, what couple of lenses would work? I cannot afford the L-series lenses, but I am confused between Canon's other lenses. The post I referenced above mentions the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, but that has a $500+ price tag.

I am searching on Craigslist in Portland (working there temporarily), Chicago (friends) and Denver for used lenses, but not much luck (I may not be searching well, though).

Suggestions please people?

Nikon vs Cannon DSLR Kits

ibakecake — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:47:50 -0800

Buying a Nikon or Cannon DSLR, package details inside please help me I have been flip flopping over the two I have done the googling..... I have handled both, I like the Cannon maybe a tad better but I keep hearing about the Nikkor lenses being oh so awesome. But not enough to tip the scales.

I plan on doing a bit of nature photography and playing with the manual settings. I have narrowed the search down to these two options.

Please help me solve this I would love to go and buy one!

Nikon Black D5100 16.2MP Camera,
18-55 VR lens
55-300mmVR lens
4GB 30MB/s SD Card+backpack
$999.99

Or

Canon EOS Rebel T3i 18.0MP DSLR C
18.0-megapixel
18-55mm lens
Canon 55-250mm Telephoto Zoom Lens
8GB SD+ backpack
1,069.96

In search of an inexpensive, solid performing Canon DSLR. <$200 budget

pilibeen — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:43:09 -0800

Options for a decent, inexpensive second-hand Canon DSLR? I'm trying to find a decent, inexpensive, used Canon DSLR body to make use of the lenses and accessories I have from my older Canon SLR. Ideally I'm looking to spend under $200 on the body.

What are the best options in this price range on the used market?

Also, I'd like to pick up a relatively inexpensive, fixed wide-angle lens as well. It doesn't need to be terribly fast (that would be nice), but just something which takes great pictures for the money. Any suggestions?

Thanks for the help!

Large Sensor DSLR with great video

qwip — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 01:46:31 -0800

[DSLR Filter] What are the best options for a digital SLR or Mirrorless SLR style with the following features: APS-C or larger size sensor, ability to autofocus during video, and silent lens operation (for video)? Asking for a friend. He's seen my SONY NEX-3 which seems to fit most of the bill, but he's keen to have a viewfinder and more camera body to hold onto. The NEX-5 with electronic viewfinder may be an option, but we're looking for suggestions on other digital cameras that will meet the above criteria.

For those of you who have used and enjoy other camera options, we'd love to hear your thoughts.

Key is low-light performance, great photos, and the ability to make great looking and sounding videos.

He'd like to keep the cost of camera and lens below $1,000 if possible, $1,200 at a maximum.

P.s. Have looked at review sites such as dpreview.com, but the options are overwhelming. Looking for recommendations based on personal experience.

What's going on with my camera? :(

revikim — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:25:32 -0800

What's going on with my camera? I have a Nikon D80 that's served me well for about 3 years. I turned it on half an hour ago to take a photo, but the bit on the small LCD screen that shows shutter speed had err on it instead. I tried changing shutter speeds and shooting modes, everytime i clicked the shutter, it made the sound of taking a photo, but it didn't take a photo. Tried a different lens, no change.

I googled a bit and took the advice to take off the lens and then try to take a photo in manual (and bulb) mode. When i held the shutter down for a few seconds, a few times the mirror didn't come back down after i took my finger off the shutter button.

I've definitely taken over 100,000 photos with the camera, so it might possibly mean i need to replace the shutter... Any other ideas?

DESIRED: Fast, wide, compact? cameras.

pmv — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:25:51 -0800

I want a camera that a) is decent in low light, b) has or can be equipped with a fast, wideish lens and focus and take pictures quickly and c) ideally is smaller than most DSLRs. Hi!

Over the years I've developed a certain "style" of spontaneous portraiture. In practice this means I sit around with friends or family and if the lighting is good I will take pictures of them. I am okay at this.

I currently own a Canon G9 which is useless in low light and an entry level Rebel that is too bulky for me to carry often. While I love the speed of my plastic 50mm 1.8 lens, the crop factor on the entry level Canon means it's narrow and more in the 70mm range.

I've decided that an ideal setup involves a lens that is about as wide as my own sight and is fast enough to take pictures in a reasonably lit room. In theory, something less than 50mm and f/1.8ish.

In practice this means I've been shooting a lot with my iPhone which leaves something to be desired.

I could just buy another lens, but putting a $400-800 lens on a $250 body seems like a bit of a waste. Do you have any recommendations?

I've looked at stuff like the GF-1 in the past, but I'm out of the loop and would appreciate some pointers in the right way.

Many thanks,

Got baby, got DSLR. Now what?

CrazyGabby — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:27:41 -0800

I'm a newbie to the world of photography, although it's something I've wanted to learn for awhile. Now that I have my first baby, it seems like a good time to get on the stick and try to figure out what I'm doing. I'm not sure where to start. I have a Nikon D40 and have played with it, although mostly in auto mode, or with the flash off whenever possible. I did just get a spiffy little bounce flash that I really like, though. :-) I've read the basics on aperture, shutter speed, focal length, and how they work together, and I *think* I understand it. I've played with it some on my camera, though, and it only seems to work sometimes. The auto mode always seems to give me better pictures, but that seems like a waste.

I also have a three-month-old little guy who is changing by the day. There is SO much information out on the web that I have no idea where to begin learning what I need to know to capture a wiggly baby. The best thing to do is just dig in and start taking pictures, which I'm doing, but I'd like to be a little more focused in my efforts.

So, I would love any input, advice, links - whatever the mefi hive mind has up its collective sleeve. And I promise not to make you look at pictures of my baby. (Unless, y'know, you want to. He is super cute.) ;-)

tl;dr: What are the most important things to know to take great pictures of babies and kids?

Help me buy a camera?

mewohu — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:54:52 -0800

I want a digital SLR. Which one and what accessories? I have about $750 in amazon.com credit and have been wanting a digital SLR for years. I still have a film Canon EOS Rebel G and the 28-80mm lens it came with (though it could use a cleaning) so I want a dslr that the lens would work with. I'm looking for gear that is appropriate for an advanced amateur or beginning professional. Specifically, I am interested in gear that would be useful for portraits, macro shots, and/or landscapes.

I want a camera body (obviously), but also lens, protective gear, and accessories recommendations. (And anything else you can think of.) Because of the $750 limit, does that mean I should be looking at used gear? I would definitely sacrifice newness if that means I can buy higher quality equipment.

So far, I have looked at Canon T1i, T2i, and XSi cameras and a 50mm f/1.8 lens.

Ultimately, anything you recommend must satisfy two conditions: able to be found on amazon.com and compatible with Canon.

News at 6!

MansRiot — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:57:01 -0800

DSLR Filter- Narrowed my choices down, need an outside opinion on a couple details. After reading the various MF threads and taking notes, I'm able to narrow down my question to a much finer point. This thread in particular helped.

I am a sports/news videographer and reporter for my local TV News station who also houses the college newspaper. They provide me with video equipment but have absolutely no DSLR's for me to use and quite often I'm the only one on scene or at an event. This means no stills for the news website or for the paper. I'm not entirely ignorant of the art of framing, lighting, etc so I'm going to buy a DSLR and start using it at sports games and the other random events/festivals/what-have-you that I get assigned to. Because I'm paying for it myself I have a relatively crappy budget to work within.

I can afford a used Canon 1D Mark II (it comes with an OK lens, I can save up for a nice piece of glass) and I know it is awesome for sports, but at 8mp perhaps not so awesome for the other half of my work, especially if it's going to be blown up past 8x10. On the other hand I thought perhaps a compromise from the 8/fps of the mark II to the 5/fps on the Canon EOS 20D would lend itself to allowing me more 'all around' shooting. But I've been advised that at this point, even Canon's cheapest new gear is beyond the 20D. Finally, the Nikon D3100 seems to have great reviews, good ISO options for the lower lighting part of my job, good for the outdoor events I'm always going to and also fits nicely into my budget. The one i spotted comes with an AF-S 18-55mm VR Zoom Lens for $400.

So my question is this: I need to shoot sports in the afternoons/evenings (Domed football to regular soccer fields) and sunny, all day outdoor events alike (not to mention taking it with me hiking/vacationing.) I have a budget of $600 and could eventually afford a really nice lens. Which body & acceptable lens should I be looking for that can accomplish great shots in both of these settings? Is the Mark II only good for half of my requirements? Is the D3100 fast enough for sports? I'm truly looking to be better at my job and get those great shots that I'm missing out on. (I taped Wayne Newton singing Happy Birthday to Arizona last weekend, would have loved to been able to do more than film a wide shot of him and the crowd.)

Thanks for your time.

Friday Night Lights are not, it turns out, that bright.

Snarl Furillo — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:13:32 -0800

PhotographyFilter: Teach me how to shoot outside at night under stadium lighting. Football season is upon us, and I'm making my rounds of night-time games. My photos are way, way, way too underexposed. I'm thinking I need either a new lens or a new camera body, or hopefully just a nice tricky new technique, but I don't really know much about photography. I am hoping the answer is "new lens" and that you can point me towards one.

My current gear is:
-Canon Rebel XT camera body. Max ISO is 1600, and the grain is unbearable at that rate.
-Canon 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 (I think that's right? Will answer questions in comments) lens. My primary sports lens, awesome in the day, not so much at night.
-18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. I almost never use this one, but if it would help, I'm game. I have side-line access, so proximity isn't an issue.

Recommendations for specific lenses super-welcome!

Mark-II be or not Mark-II?

IAmBroom — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:53:50 -0800

Trying to decide on a DSLR. The deciding factor is low-light performance... but I'm not sure how good is "good enough." Principally, I'm waffling between the Canon 5D and the Canon 5D Mark-II, which seem to vary almost exclusively in their low-light performance. However, since the "Mark I" 5D has a full-frame sensor (and therefore should have much better low-light performance than any smaller sensor out there, based merely on quantum light noise)... is it good enough for flashless inside photography? The price difference is basically 100%, since I can bet a "Mark I" for $1k used. Personal experiences, please?

Advice on Professional Cleaning of a DSLR Sensor

samoa — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:04:28 -0800

I've had a Canon 5D Mark II for about 2.5 years, and I've recently noticed some bad dust particle issues that are on the sensor or mirror, not the lens. Can someone recommend a good camera store in New York City that could do a good professional job of cleaning my sensor (and an idea of how much this will cost)? I've looked into cleaning kits, and I think I would rather have a professional do it. Thanks! I would also prefer to take the camera to a local professional camera store rather than ship it off to Canon.

Home movies: will a DSLR work for me?

any portmanteau in a storm — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:58:19 -0800

I'm considering upgrading my DSLR to one with video capabilities. What will my experience be like for making home videos (babies doing baby stuff, cats playing, family parties)? I'm a long-time SLR user and like taking pictures. We'll be having a baby soon enough and would like to shoot a lot of video of him/her. I could either go camcorder or upgrade my current camera (Nikon D70) to a new one (Nikon D7000) which can shoot video. While there are a lot of reasons for going the upgrade route I have some concerns too:

Am I going to get comparable or better video with a DSLR as I would with a camcorder under the same conditions: me walking around with the camera making use of ambient light.

Does the distortion happen where the picture waves back and forth when you pan with the camera or was that limited to the D90?

How quickly does shooting video drain the battery? Am I going to be carrying spares with me? I've never had to worry about batteries with previous cameras but I sense that shooting continuous video will be slightly more power intensive than just taking pictures.

Built in mics: how good are they at picking up people talking? If I can hear the subject talking will the mic pick it up as well? Will there be too much other noise? No intention of getting a separate mic so I want to know how the sound off a DSLR mic (particularly the D7000) would compare to the sound off a camcorder mic. I know the built-in is only mono, but we're talking home movies here, am I going to want stereo sound?

Will I be able to transcode my video in linux or does it have some weird format that will force me to use their own software? The Windows computer we have is sloooooow and steals a bit of my life-force each time I use it.

Those are the concerns I can think of. I am sure I am overlooking many things. But knowing these concerns, my main purpose and how I plan on shooting what will my experience be like? If my experience won't be good, how could I make it better?

Flex your video-out, baby!

IAmBroom — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:49:07 -0800

My choices for cameras have been limited by my requirement that it has to have a flexible display, such as the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50, or the newly released Canon 60D. But maybe I'm thinking the wrong way... Is there a way to plug a portable video screen into my camera, and achieve the same viewing flexibility? My principal reason is mushroom photography: when photographing something that only rises 1 cm out of the muck, I'm not too keen on lying down to see my shot. However, I also use the screen a lot for candid photography (street, events, and capturing smiles on shy friends).

The 60D is the first SLR I'm aware of that incorporates such a screen, BTW; I assume (if it's successful) that more will follow. However, I'd really prefer an EVIL to a DSLR (weight & noise considerations). An EVIL with a full-frame detector and flexible LCD screen... now that would excite me - but I can't hold my breath that long.

So... external viewer, or built-in flexible LCD screen? If external, what are my choices? Obviously, I carry around an LCD tablet, but that's not really practical. Can camera video outputs feed live to IPOD/Android smartphones? Something else entirely, dedicated to my camera use?

Any other ideas, hive mind?

Which camera should I buy?

Gringos Without Borders — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:57:33 -0800

Movin' on up filter: Nikon D3100 or Panasonic DMC-G2? For several years I have been using a Panasonic DMC-TZ1 point and shoot as my only camera. The TZ1 has been good for daytime shooting and for general snapshots but I'm looking to move up to either a DSLR or Four Thirds format.

I travel a lot and I'd like to be able to take better pictures of buildings, statues, landscapes, people, and night/low light shots. I don't do much action photography and I don't anticipate doing so in the future. I have a camcorder so I don't really care about the ability to take video.

I have narrowed my search down to the Nikon D3100 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2. Right now I can get the D3100 for $579 or the G2 for $499.

Money is less of an issue than quality. I don't mind paying more if I get more value from it.

On the other hand, I need a fairly portable camera that is suitable for carrying around all day.

Photographers, if you were in my shoes, which camera would you buy and why?

P.S. Please for the sake of my sanity don't recommend any other camera.

Looking for good (small?) cameras for dark concert photos

filthy light thief — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:57:27 -0800

DSLR vs Pro-Sumer camera quandary, live performance variation. I'm looking at upgrading to a better camera (specifically because my Point-n-Shoot does poorly capturing live shows in dark venues), but I'm not sure if I am ready for a DSLR. Details inside. The long: this is something of a tangent from bristolcat's earlier question in looking for a small DSLR(like) camera, I'd like something better than my Canon PowerShot SD850 IS. Most of my shots are taken in full auto mode, or by modifying the exposure time. My night pictures come out blurry or grainy. I can fix the blur by using my tripod, but as I understand it, the graininess is inherent in smaller sensors.

I like the idea of Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, but don't know if I'd really swap out lenses enough. I often get annoyed by the fact that my dinky camera has such a meager optical zoom, but that's often outweighed by the fact I can stick it into a slim case and carry it in my pocket. My prior cameras were older Pro-Sumer Canon PowerShot G series (G1 and G5), which were great when I had them, but not convenient for carrying on my person.

But I really want to be able to take better quality pictures in dark conditions, and hand-held if possible. And I'd love some control over the built-in (or the option for an auxiliary) flash, when I want to provide some extra light in those dark conditions.

I went to a local camera shop, and mentioned an interest in DSLR and a desire to take pictures in dark concert conditions, and the shop rep focused on the Olympus Digital PEN, specifically the E-PL1. He said that the PowerShot G12 flopped in comparison based on their in-house high ISO comparison shots.

Looking at AskMe posts, I've seen the Lumix GF1 recommended, and this comparison between GF1 and E-P1 show that the earlier Olympus model tends to overexpose shots, and the GF2 is coming soon, though no US price mentioned yet. And if I'm nudging the pricepoint up, why not get an entry-level DSLR? Or shifting down, the Canon S95 looks fantastic for an easy pocket camera, but is rather noisy and the JPG setting blurs details. Will I be looking that closely? I don't know!

In short: what are my best options for shooting dark situations, by hand? Is a Micro four-thirds the best bet between Pro-sumer and full DSLR? But are the micros necessary for what I want to do?