Night Events, DSLR?

[TheMachine]

We're not that different here over the pond :lol:

We have Asda;

Many years ago a group of farmers got together to form a conglomorate to sell food to the public. This developed over time into one of the largest supermarket chains in England. It was called Asda.
Recently Asda has been taken over by Wallmart. At the moment the stores in England are still called Asda but that may change in the future. Many new stores are now being built to the new (to us) Wallmart standards.

[1eyedeer]

I have both a superzoom and an entry level DSLR. I've used the superzoom quite a bit at sensitivities up to ISO400 indoors at shows without flash, but it is hard to keep the camera steady to get sharp pictures. Using the timer and/or burst mode helps. The DSLR is great indoors at up ISO1600 and will certainly be better. Unfortunately the combination of camera body and the right lens(es) is quite a bit more expensive than the fixed lens camera solution.

My experience is that its much easier with an entry level DSLR in the situations you describe, but it will cost more. From your comments, I think that you may have some success but will be frustrated with cameras with small sensors indoors - the only ones with good reviews at low light are the Fuji models such as the compact F30 or the larger 6000.

[ansdguy]

Well Machine, Having Wamart, AKA Asda, marks the beginning of the end for small buisness and good paying jobs. Even though I referred you to Walmart, I won't shop there myself. Except to get electric shaver replacement screens and heads as they are my only resort for my model. I know I can buy then on line, but that take several days. When I'm shaving my bald head and the screen tears, it's an emergency. Ouch! I'm just mentioning this because someone will probably take exception with my selling out.

[Corpsy]

TheMachine wrote:

I agree with that, but he's said that he has no understanding of DSLR, and no interest in using the camera in any way other than point-and-shoot. I personally can't see how buying a DSLR and expensive lens will benefit his photography.

Surely a good quality SLR-like prosumer would be the best option.

5 points:

1. A typical DSLR has the same auto functions that a p&s camera has, only they tend to be quicker and more responsive.

2. Just about any entry level DSLR with a basic kit lens will outperform any p&s camera.

3. Even with no understanding of how to properly operate a DSLR, just using the auto settings will indeed produce better quality photos than a p&s.

4. With a DSLR, if you want to improve your photos you have the option of buying additional lenses for that purpose. Lenses retain their value over time and can be used on new cameras in the future or sold for a fair amount. With a p&s, if it's not good enough you have to replace it and p&s cameras do not retain much value.

5. A 50mm f/1.8 lens, an ideal lens for shooting indoors with poor light, is available for Canon cameras for $75.

[TheMachine]

I'm not going to argue this, I actually agree with you. As I said I've used most of the best compacts and fixed-lens SLR-style cameras but would never go back to them having bought DSLR.

I've already discovered that DSLR are a costly exercise. I'm now spending £49 on a lens cleaning kit and I've only had the camera five minutes.

Anyway, I'm sure he will make the decision which is right for him.

[kenbalbari]

5. A 50mm f/1.8 lens, an ideal lens for shooting indoors with poor light, is available for Canon cameras for $75.

And a similar lens on Nikon for about $110. But it sounds like he's also likely to need some zoom.

Something like a Sigma 50-150 f2.8 might fit. That lens is very good in the 50-135mm range especially from about f4 to f11. A bit soft wide open, and needs to be stopped down a bit further on the long end. But, importantly, it also weighs about a pound less than a 70-200 f2.8. Available on both Nikon and Canon for about $590.

Maybe he would want something with more reach than that. But I'm picturing a novice trying ot handhold one of those big fast lenses. If these are events where he is able to move around, he might be better off not going overboard on the zoom and getting a good lens like the above. But I'm not really clear on how much reach he needs. If he really needs to do stage shots of a big event from far away, he might need a tripod or monopod and maybe even one of those big fast 300mm lenses used for sports.

The thing with a digicam is, it does give more flexibility. It will be tough to find one all around lens that will do all of the things described on a dslr. Or maybe he needs both. He might want the convenience of a digicam for those long shots when he can get them in good light, and the DSLR for when he's within the range of a lens that can be shot conveniently handheld.

I'm not really clear on what the primary use would really be. Shooting all night from one spot at a stage? Moving around and shooting handheld closeups? Both with the same camera, without changing lenses? Or both on different nights with ability to change lenses?

[Corpsy]

TheMachine wrote:

I've already discovered that DSLR are a costly exercise. I'm now spending £49 on a lens cleaning kit and I've only had the camera five minutes.

I realize a lot of things cost more in Europe, but my lens cleaning kit cost $5 and included a bulb blower I use for clearing dust off the sensor.

[TheMachine]

I've opted for the Arctic Butterfly SD800 kit from Visible Dust. Rave reviews on another forum. I've had enough sensor problems to avoid cost-cutting lol