Newbie needs advice Re: DSLR vs SLR-like

[Carskick]

JimC wrote:

Carskick wrote:

That would be too slow. You'll get lots of blurry photos from subject movement trying to take photos of a dance recital at 1/40th or 1/60th second, unless you can catch the participants motionless.

In addition to blur from subject movement, most shooters would also have blur from camera shake trying to zoom in and take photos at 1/40 second without a tripod. The "rule of thumb" is that shutter speeds should be 1/focal length. IOW, if you're zoomed in to 100mm, use 1/100 second or faster.

For rapidly moving subjects, to get rid of most (but, not necessarily all) blur from subject movement, it's a good idea to get shutter speeds up to around 1/250 second or faster. But, with most camera/lens combinations, you're not going to achieve that indoors.

The best solution for this kind of photography is a DSLR shooting at ISO 1600 or 3200 with a bright prime (even an f/2.8 zoom may not be bright enough).

Can you get any usable images at slower shutter speeds? Sure. If you take enough photos and catch your subjects abosolutely still, being very careful to avoid camera shake. But, a DSLR would be the preferred solution for a higher percentage of keeprs.

Yes, it is true that at shutter speeds of 1/60 or 1/40 at 100mm zoom, camera shake and freezing motion would be more of an issue, but if you use a dSLR like camera or a dSLR and actually prop the camera against your face, you can get photos at the speeds mentioned above with little shake and maybe a little blur when they are moving. I for one do not mind a little blur when they are moving, because it shows they were moving. Esspecially if it is just arms or legs, and not whole body movements. Incidently, my point was just to compare the Fuji superzoom situation vs a normal compact, which would not have high sensativity low noise and a lower aperture at a 100mm zoom on it's side. Yes, a dSLR with a lower than F2.8 100mm prime lens would be much better, but you lose the capability to change zoom as desired, and a zoomable dSLR lens has similar apertures to the Fuji unless you spend a good deal of money. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have yet to see a dSLR lens with the range and speed of even the S6000(9000) lens.

The S6000 could be put at ISO1600 or even 3200 at the expense of image quality and detail, but it would prevent blurring almost completely. I personally rather have a cleaner image with a little motion blur than a noisier image which nearly eliminates the blur. The choice is up to the user.

If money and carrying weight is not a factor, the dSLR is a far better choice. But if you want to minimize that which you carry with you, and still get a good range lens with good sensativities for low light, I see little reason why the Fuji is not a good idea.

[JimC]

Carskick wrote:

The S6000 could be put at ISO1600 or even 3200 at the expense of image quality and detail, but it would prevent blurring almost completely. I personally rather have a cleaner image with a little motion blur than a noisier image which nearly eliminates the blur. The choice is up to the user.

Actually, it's a relatively slow lens (it's down to about f/4.9 on it's long end, letting only about 1/3 light through that you get on it's wide end).

It's a shame that Fuji hasn't taken more advantage of it's sensor (and in camera noise reduction) technology yet, putting a brighter lens on models with a good sensor.

But, as of right this minute, I'd be inclined to get the older Fuji 5200 over the newer 6000/6500 models, if I planned on zooming in much. That's because the lens on the older model is more than twice as bright on it's long end, allowing shutter speeds more than twice as fast for the same ISO speed and lighting.

So, I could shoot at ISO 800 with a Fuji 5200 and get shuttter speeds faster than I could shooting at ISO 1600 the newer models if zooming in much, with more room left for noise reduction using software, since a lot of the characteristics you see from newer Fuji models is relatively aggresive (and very good) in camera noise reduction. If you look at raw files from these models, you can see that it's not only the sensor giving lower noise levels. Fuji is using very aggresive (and very good) in camera noise reduction.

In any event, a DSLR shooting at ISO 1600 with a a lens like a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 (giving you a 35mm equivalent focal range of around 105-300mm on most DSLR models) would get shutter speeds about 3 times as fast as a Fuji S6000 shooting on it's long end at ISO 1600 (since it's widest aperture with the Fuji is down to around f/4.9 on it's long end, which is only letting about 1/3 the light through compared to an f/2.8 zoom).

A prime (although less flexible) would be even better, since you can get a prime that's sharper, brighter, smaller, lower weight and lower cost compared to an f/2.8 zoom.

Sure, you can get by with a non-DSLR model if you take enough photos, so that you can catch the performers relatively still. I've managed to get usable images at ridiculously slow shutter speeds. That was the point of my photo posted earlier. It can be done. ;-)

Personally, if I can get shutter speeds up to around 1/50 or 1/60 second (no problem with some non-DSLR models like the newer Fujis), I'm happy. I'll get lots of blurry photos and need to keep camera shake in mind when squeezing the shutter button. But, I'll get enough "keepers" when the performers are relatively still that I won't mind the high percentage of blurry photos too much. YMMV (I'm a patient guy).

But, for a higher percentage of keepers, a DSLR is a much better solution.

To put it a different way....

If you must get a specific shot (daughter in the middle of a solo dance routine, etc.), would you rather be using a camera with shutter speeds that would virtually guarantee some motion blur if the subject is moving much, or a camera that would be far more likely to freeze the action and give you a sharp photo)?

If budget permits, go with the DSLR (and bright lenses to compliment it).

[Carskick]

I agree, except that to get a lens for a dSLR like that sigma will cost a pretty penny. A more affordable lens that performs a similar duty, such as the Nikon 28-200mm, about 42-300mm equiv, has an aperture range of F/3.5-5.6, costs about $400, while the lenses you mention, such as the sigma, run over $800. There is also a version that is 18-200mm, about 27-300mm equiv, which is also F/3.5-5.6, and it is about $800 as well. So to get the range of the Fuji in a high speed affordable lens is not too easy.

The lens is slowish in the telephoto compared to medium-end SLR lenses and some other superzooms, but compared to most compacts and affordable dSLR lenses, it is quick. The aperture range is akin to most compacts which have a range of 35-105mm equiv, but the S6000 is 28mm-300mm equiv, meaning you get a lot more zoom for the aperture, except in the 35-50mm area.

The S5200 is a little bit different of a story. My grandmother's friend owns one, and the fast aperture at high zoom is fantastic, but the lack of wide angle and a slower wide angle prevents it from being my first choice, in addition to the smallish sensor.

You make a very good point that with a prime lens or a pricey zoom lens, you could be many stops ahead the Fuji, and all other non-dSLRs for that matter, but it comes down to budget and what you are willing to carry around. If I had a D80, the Sigma you mention, and then a wide angle lens, I have quite a bit more to carry around, and the cost is a magnitude higher, but low light shots will be easier to catch, and overall photos should be better.

We really are on the same page, just looking at it from different perspectives.

Cheers

[JimC]

You really don't have to spend a small fortune to get usable lenses.

Up until about a year ago, I used a Nikkor 85mm f/2 for most similar events, and I only paid about $50 for it from a local pawn shop.

That's one of the nice things about most DSLR models -- lens availablity (millions of them on the used market).

Now, I'm shooting with a Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D for the most part.

Yes, you do need more than one lens if you want brighter lenses (versus the 18-200mm or 28-300mm "all in one" type zooms). It's all a matter of quality. As a general rule, the greater the difference between wide and long, the more compromises a manufacturer makes. Depending on the print sizes needed, these can be just fine for many users.

Primes (non-zoom) lenses can be very inexpensive, too. Right now, with my KM 5D, I've got a 28mm f/2, 50mm f/1.7, 100mm f/2 and 135mm f/2.8 I use with it, and all of them were under $300 each used. Heck, the 50mm f/1.7 was only $49 including a working Maxxum 7000 SLR. ;-)

I've also got a Tamron 35-105mm f/2.8 I bought for only $119.00 used.

My newest lens is a Vivitar 70-210mm f/2.8-4 (still brighter than the lens on the new Fuji S6000) for only $79.95 new in the box from CametaAuctions, and I've even got anti-shake to help out (thanks to the Konica Minolta 5D's CCD shift technology).

Even better, lenses become an investment with a DSLR. If you sell the camera body later to upgrade, you can usually take the lenses with you (within the same manufacturer). With a non-DSLR model, your entire investment depreciates.

There are pros and cons to either solution.

[Carskick]

Wow, sounds like there are some good deals around. And those are some good points about it being an investment with reusing lenses when you change bodies. Of course, that also can discourage the switching of body manufacturers if you want to. There are always pros and cons.

[JimC]

Don't get me wrong... given a choice, a higher quality lens is your best bet (even if you pay a *lot* more for it). The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 I mentioned is a good quality lens for what it costs (around $800).

For example, the $79.95 Vivitar I just bought would not be my first choice for low light events, because most lenses are not as sharp at wide open apertures, including this one.

That's a nice thing about a DSLR -- lots of lens choices to meet your needs and budget.

You can see some snapshots I took with my new $79.95 Vivitar in this recent thread:

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...amp;forum_id=5

But, I would have gotten sharper photos using one of my primes instead. You've got lots of choices with a DSLR, versus being locked into the lens the manufacturer included with a non-DSLR model.

[BenjaminXYZ]

JimC, WOW! You got all those (fast)lenses for just $300??? Heck, if I have to buy a Canon 50 mm F/1.4 USM today, it would easily cost me $350!! (And that is just ONElens!)

I though that dSLR hobby are expensive (If not the most expensive)?The 18 - 70 mm Nikkor zoomin the Nikon D70s kit cost about $300 as well!

Maybe my country is not like your country, where there are "porn" shops selling really cheap second hand lens stuffs...

In Malaysia here, lenses are sold at photography specialty shops behind glass and locks. Looking at one of the 50 mm prime glasses through the glasses will reveal price tagsfrom $300+ and above at cheapest!

Maybe that is why I am the only one in here today thinking very differently. (BTW, I am from K.L.Malaysia, unlike most of you in here perhaps) Photography here may not be as saturated as in your countries. (I think I am the most interested in photographyin my area!:-) )

[JimC]

BenjaminXYZ wrote:

JimC, WOW! You got all those (fast)lenses for just $300???

Don't forget the "each" part, and the "used" part. . ;-) They were under $300 each used, although some were not much under ($299 each for some of them like my 100mm f/2 and 28mm f/2).

Heck, if I have to buy a Canon 50 mm F/1.4 USM today, it would easily cost me $350!! (And that is just ONElens!)

A Canon 50mm f/1.4 is almost twice as bright as a 50mm f/1.8, with better build quality.

The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is only about $100 brand new here from most vendors. But, a 50mm f/1.4 is over $300 from most vendors. So, your $350 is about right for one.

[BenjaminXYZ]

OOPS Jim, I have missed all that! :shock:

So life is fair after all! :-)

[JimC]

The brightest and highest quality lenses will demand a premium.

An extra stop of brightness can easily cause a lens price to triple, and in the case of some lenses, the cost may be ten times as much as another similar lens in that focal length that's not as bright.

The brightest primes from each manufacturer are usually of higher build quality, too (construction, iris design, coatings, etc.).

Most manufacturers make more than one version of a given focal length lens. For example, a 35mm f/1.4 (more expensive) and a 35mm f/2 (less expensive), a 50mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.2 (more expensive) and a 50mm f/1.7 or f/1.8 (less expensive), etc.

The less expensive versions of most primes are still going to be brighter and sharper than most zooms (not to mention smaller and lighter compared to a bright zoom).

Don't automatically assume that the brighter and more expensive version is any sharper either. Sometimes, compromises are made to get the extra stop or so of brightness, and a less expensive lens can perform just as good or better at apertures they have in common. You really need to take each lens on a case by case basis, and some users may value things like color and bokeh more than sharpness or contrast or AF Speed, etc.

I'm a pretty good shopper, and there are lots of bargains to be found if you look around for them (being patient, waiting for a good deal to show up in a vendor's listings). My favorite vendors for used gear:

http://www.keh.com

http://www.bhphotovideo.com

http://www.adorama.com

Ebay, local camera stores, pawn shops.