Forums >Gears and Wears>Point and Shoot w/ good night pics
GreyBeard
Anyone recommend an instant camera that has a good mode for taking pictures in low light / dark conditions? Thx
2020
rectumdamnnearkilledem
Something with the ability to adjust shutter speed and/or aperture and ISO would work. And a tripod. I have an older Canon SX110 IS that works really well for just about all conditions. I think they might be up to the SX170 IS, at this point.
Getting the wind knocked out of you is the only way to
remind your lungs how much they like the taste of air.
~ Sarah Kay
Susan
+1 on the Canon. I have an SX230HS that does well in low light. Newer models will come out in February, I believe, so now is probably a good time to get a deal on current/older models. I took the deer picture at 14X zoom, 1600ISO, in very late evening. It was so dark that I was surprised to be able to make out the deer when I saw the picture on the camera. Not the best picture ever, but for the conditions, I was pleased.
Newer models will come out in February, I believe, so now is probably a good time to get a deal on current/older models.
I wonder if that is company-wide..? I've been waiting to pull the trigger on a G16. Perhaps I should wait a bit longer. But then what if the G17 is even more amazing…?
I'm guessing it will be a few more months before the G16 is replaced. So far there have only been smaller P&S's announced for this year. New Canons If you ask on the Canon forums at http://dpreview.com , someone there may know. The G16 looks like a nice camera. I had a G3 years ago and loved it.
The G16 looks like a nice camera. I had a G3 years ago and loved it.
I've been debating whether to buy a new lens for my 20D or spend similar money on a pro-sumer point-n-shoot -- my current Canon point-n-shoot is getting on in years and my kid really likes to play with it, so it would be nice for him to have. The fact that the G16 has pretty much exactly the zoom range I want (and can't really afford in a comparable Canon SLR lens, since I'd need to go "L" to get the same max aperture), is fast, AND has video is tipping my interest heavily towards it. Plus it would be less to tote-around than the 20D w/battery grip and heavy lenses.
That's quite a dilemma. It probably depends on what you're shooting and where. Personally, I would like the portability of the G16 and be more likely to carry it than a DSLR with necessary accessories. Having it with you and being able to access it quickly when a good shot presents itself is key. The DSLR is almost definitely going to take a better picture, but is it enough of a difference to warrant the extra weight and inconvenience of changing and carrying heavy lenses? The only thing I would look at with the G16, and Canon may have fixed it by now, are the purple edges that seem to turn up around tree leaves and other greenery, especially with the zoomed in shots. I haven't looked at the samples to see if that's been improved on newer models. It was an issue with the G3 in larger prints. I'm sure it can be fixed with editing if you're good at that. I never have been.
Interesting…I get a weird pink halo on the border of white areas with my 20D. I always figured it was due to it having a relatively old digital sensor. I wonder if this is the same sort of thing. Here's a shot where you can see what my camera does. Perhaps it's a lens issue, but I think I've noticed it with different lenses (I have 2 Canon primes and a Tokina zoom).
It seems to be a spectral thing, since it doesn't happen to white areas under overcast skies, just when there's really reflective surfaces.
Yes. That's similar to what I'm talking about with the purplish "shadows", for lack of a better word, that appear around leaves. I'm not sure what causes it or if it's only Canons that do it or if other digitals have the same issue.
I suspect it's a digital thing...a limitation of digital has long been highlight overexposure. Opposite of negative film.
running metalhead
Instant?
If you are talking about film then any will do, if you scan the negatives with a good scanner and software you will be able to compensate for the excess/lack of exposure, if you are able to set the time a bot higher.
If what you mean is a flim point and shoot where you can change the film search for 400 ASA film, it is still widely available and works quite nicely at low logith condition (and you can "push" it), vai interenet you can find higher ASA film from Ilford or Fujifilm... or even in the Lomography website (www.lomography.com).
If you are talking about digital:
the ability of a digital camera to shoot in low light depens on the size of the sensor. All digital cameras, no matter what brand or what they promise can be divided by the size of the sensor. The pocket cameras use small ones and are thus not too good in low light conditions, and the same goes for mobile lenses... not even this Nokia that promises 40K megapixels, that's just marketing gimmick.
If you want an easy to use digital go for a system camera, some of these are at the same price level than many compact and are as compact as these. System cameras have to sensor sizes: 4/3 and APS-C, both are good, being the APS-C bigger and thus better.The lenses can also have an influence. I am not informed right now, but I think that the standard kit lenses are f/2.6 or f/2.8 up to f/5.x (they are zoom lenses). The lower this f-number is the better it will perform at low light... at the price of higher depth of field... but you don't have to bother about this in automatic mode, just check out if your subject is visble. Image stabilisation may play a role if your lens is relatively big, but it's in most cases another gimmick as the motion of the lens depends on the speed and the focal lenght, and if we are talking about anything faster than 1/50s (easy) it's so fast that stabilisation makes just no sense. finally, ISO value does matter and a lot. Here any camera will do; remember that no matter what the makers of the cameras promise, there are only two or three manufacturers of sensores and they are all pretty much the same AND what matters is (again) the size: the bigger the sensor the more photons can be caught in it's surface. Another consideration regarding ISO is that the higher the value the more noise you will get on the image, thus try keeping it at 3200 max or ideally 800, modern cameras will deliver pretty nice images at this setting. Note that most instant / compact cameras allow for the setting of ISO value.Thus my recommendation: Go for any system camera, Olympus Pen, Samsung, etc, preferring the latter because these use the APS-C and the Pens the 4/3, Nikon has models with both and the same goes for Sony and Canon.(if you are curious: yes, I am a photographer )
- Egmond ( 14 januari ) : 1:41:40 (21K)- Vondelparkloop ( 20 januari ) : 0:58.1 (10K but did 13.44!!!)- Twiskemolenloop ( 4 maart ) : 1:35:19 (3th M45!)
- Ekiden Zwolle (10K) ( 25 maart )- Rotterdam Marathon ( 8 april )- Leiden Marathon Halve ( 27 mei )- Marathon Amersfoort ( 10 juni)
Chromatic aberrations. It's a lens issue. Not all wavelengths of light are being brought to the same point. Software can easily fix this.
Hey, you guys who know what you're talking about, zoom, Tim, etc., I have a question related to both photography AND running. :-)
I have what I think is a pretty nice digital Nikon D60 camera that allows for full control over exposure and f-stop and seemingly a thousand other variables. Last spring I did some basic research, all of which I've now forgotten, but when I tried to follow all the recommendations for low-light action shooting, I never got very good results. The trouble is that my oldest son is a 2-mile runner, and around these parts that race is almost always the second-to-last event so it's always after dark under the lights. Below is one of the best shots I've ever managed I took this a couple of years ago (and I think ironically this shot was just using the little green "automatic" setting). Last year I don't think I got ANY pics that were worth anything at all.
So what do you think my settings should be to take a decent action picture under stadium lights, and what else should I keep in mind?
(Mine is the kid in the blue and red jersey, btw. )
- Joe
We are fragile creatures on collision with our judgment day.
So what do you think my settings should be to take a decent action picture under stadium lights, and what else should I keep in mind? (Mine is the kid in the blue and red jersey, btw. )
Go for a higher ISO…1600 might be good. Assuming you don't want the subject blurred, also go for a faster shutter speed. Open the aperture as wide as possible (smaller f/stop #…though this is a definite limitation with cheaper lenses. Sometimes the widest aperture is only something like 5.6. Using aperture priority might be useful. Set your aperture full open and let the camera adjust the shutter speed accordingly), then shoot the fastest shutter speed possible. Also, track the camera to follow the runners -- don't just freeze the camera in one spot. This will blur the background, but keep the runners in relatively sharp focus.
Investing in a faster lens might be an option, too, if the above doesn't work. But you'll pay for that faster max aperture setting. Granted, you'll likely end up with better glass and perhaps a faster focusing mechanism (my Canon lenses definitely focus MUCH faster than my Tokina. The Tokina is wonderful for still subjects, but worthless for movement). That's key, too. Look in your manual to find the focus setting recommended for sports/movement. On the Canon this is AI Servo. Not sure if Nikon uses different terminology.
Awesome! Thanks a ton for the tips. After my multiple failures last year I had almost given up on even trying this season.