Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 29, 2006, 8:22 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1
Default

I'm looking for the best camera for taking pictures indoors without a flash.

Price and form factor do not matter. However if the best is an expensive SLR feel free to also recommend your best choice for a mid-priced model. Please do let me know if I really just need to buy a very expensive digital SLR. I'd like to not spend the money but if that is what is needed I'll just have to spend the extra money.

My goal is to be able to take pictures without using flash. I realize that this will add some noise to the pictures. My main problem is that all the pictures are blurry if my subject is moving at all. I mainly want to take pictures of my son quickly as he moves and not wait for him to hold still, etc.

I would use flash but I hate the shadows and poor picture quality it gives (oily skin on subjects, etc.). I also find the flash disrupts the "moment".

I currently have a Fuji V10 and find it to still be very blurry despite claims otherwise.

Please recommend what camera you think would be best or why other method I could use to improve the pictures. I do not believe it is a shaky hand on my part.

Also, any good choices for noise filters to remove the noise later on?

All advice is very appreciated.

Thank you.

whenimold is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 29, 2006, 10:29 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

whenimold-

Fuji dominates the point and shoot low light level shooting field with their F-20 and F-30 models. However, they will not take photos in total darkness, or near total darkness, so there are some limits. The F-20 and F-30 can take photos when the V-10 is unable to do so.

If you need more zoom take a look at the Fuji S-600fd.

I have attached a photo that was taken inside with my S-6000fd. It was handheld/ISO 800/ and used a 1/100th shutter speed. The reason you photos are blurry is that the shutter speed is too low, and it will not stop the action. You have to keep track of the shutter speed your camera is going to use to take your photo.

MT/Sarah
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 4:42 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,870
Default

whenimold,

Post a couple of your unsatisfactory pics...maybe we can help you out ...make sure EXIF data is intact.

the Hun

rinniethehun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 5:55 AM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Whenimold,

For your situation, you actually have 2 issues working against you:

1. shutter speed, as Sarah mentioned

2. Shutter lag - the amount of time that passes from when you press the button to when the shutter fires. If that time is long, your subject has moved - and while you may still retrain focus your subject (your child) is no longer in the position you wanted to capture.

The tough part with providing a solution for you is: every house is different. In Sarah's example she was able to get a 1/100 shutter speed at ISO 800 with her camera (which I'm assuming is using a 2.8 or slower lens since it's a digicam).

Now, I just took a picture of my son the other night in my living room - I had a 2.0 lens and a shutter speed of 1/60 or so at ISO 1600. So, in that lighting, even my DSLR wouldn't be capable of freezing motion (even ifI went to a 1.4 lens and bumped ISO to 3200 which gould give me a 1/250 shutter speed - still not enough)- if I wanted to freeze motion I would have had to add more light or use a flash.

In general to freeze motion without flash you want shutter speeds of at least 1/400. At that speed you'll freeze most head/body movements and have sliight motion blur in hands if they're moving fast. Of course if your subject is moving slower you can use a slower shutter speed. But even if your child is slow now, they'll pick up speed quickly.

So, the first part in figuring out what would TECHNICALLY be required from a camera is to see what your lighting situation is. So, post a picture taken in your typical environmment with your typical lighting and post the EXIF info with it (ISO, shutterspeed, aperture). This will help us determine how far away you are from getting the necessary shutter speeds you need. From there, one of three things will happen: we'll determine that one of the fuji digicams can get you the shutter speeds you need, we'll determine only a DSLR with fast prime lens can get you the shutter speeds you need or we'll determine that NO camera solution will get you the shutter speeds you need with that amount of light and without flash (in which case your options are to use flash or add more light to the room).

Shutter lag is a tougher nut to crack for me. Not having used any of the fujis, I can't speak to the real-world affect of their shutter lag. I will say one thing though: shutter lag is most noted when you're shooting action - just like you're trying to do. You notice it because of the frustration of your subject moving out of position. When you tend to shoot still shots it isn't as noticable. So, what seems like perfectly acceptable shutter lag to a person shooting stills is not acceptable to someone who wants to capture their swiftly moving child. Hopefully Sarah or someone else with one of the fujis uses the camera for something similar to your needs and can speak to how the shutter lag affects their ability to capture moving subjects.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 6:20 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

I like this topic, partly also because I am in this situation. :-)

Basically I would look at dSLR camera(s) with FULLY usable and worry free ISO 100/200 to ISO 1600. There are also ISO 3200 available on some dSLR cameras, but I don't think that they cut it for me. I would then look for high quality prime lenses that gives good optical quality from at least F/2 on wards to F/2.8 max. (I definitely won't want one that would only provide me good optical quality from F/4 on wards! :shock It would defeat the purpose. (Then I might as well look for a good zoom...)

Generally, some fast prime lensesin the F/1.4 range are more or less un-usable wide open (For critical optical quality). Usually those primes needs to be stopped down to about F/2or F/2.8 before opticalquality becomes sweet. (Often better than the optical quality of good zoom lenses already) But keep in mind one important thing as well: If youhave to decide between an F/2 prime vs an F/1.4 prime, the F/1.4 one would certainly look nicer for the criteria; but sometimes the F/1.4 prime may not even be as good (optically) than the F/2 prime even when it's stopped down to F/2 - compared to the F/2 prime wide open. (So this is something you need to be aware of; if you are concerned about getting better optical quality)

That isme of course. :-)
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 6:53 AM   #6
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

I'll put this as nice as possible - Ben, just so the OP has an understanding of where you're basing you advice on whether to buy a 1.4 lens or a 2.0 lens - have you ever used either? If not, how can you say so decisivly that

Quote:
some fast prime lensesin the F/1.4 range are more or less un-usable wide open (For critical optical quality). Usually those primes needs to be stopped down to about F/2or F/2.8 before opticalquality becomes sweet.
that is pure giberish.

There are plenty of portrait photographers making very large sums of money using their 1.4 lenses and I can assure you they are not stopping the lenses down to 2.8.

And, again, why jump immediately to the conclusion that a perfect DSLR and a 2.0 or 1.4 lens will solve the problem? The problem may very well be solved with a much less expensive digicam. Or the problem may be there is just too little light for ANY camera to stop the action. Or should the poster just rush out and buy a DSLR and 2.0 lens?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 8:11 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:

I'll put this as nice as possible - Ben, just so the OP has an understanding of where you're basing you advice on whether to buy a 1.4 lens or a 2.0 lens - have you ever used either? If not, how can you say so decisivly that
For Gawd sake!! :XGo and read reviews out there! Compare the MTF charts! Read photozone's reviews! If you think you are smarter than those reviews, go ahead and prove that you can do a better job!! :angry::roll:

Quote:

that is pure giberish.
Before you get too quickly into your conclusions, you obviously need to learn more about the advantages of stopping down a lens, and READ more REAL user opinions! :angry:

Quote:

There are plenty of portrait photographers making very large sums of money using their 1.4 lenses and I can assure you they are not stopping the lenses down to 2.8.
So portraits are everything??? Thank God, if my lens can capture good portraits, so can it capture great landscape & architecture photos at F/1.4!! :?

Quote:

And, again, why jump immediately to the conclusion that a perfect DSLR and a 2.0 or 1.4 lens will solve the problem? The problem may very well be solved with a much less expensive digicam. Or the problem may be there is just too little light for ANY camera to stop the action. Or should the poster just rush out and buy a DSLR and 2.0 lens?
Did I say thatit would definitely solve the problem for the O.P.??? I only said that it would be the most likely combination to satisfy my criteria(s). (That was my OPINION)

---
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 8:18 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Let's just attempt to solve the OP's question if we can please. Benjamin, this is where hands on experience really counts for a lot rather than just reading.

SL/Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 8:21 AM   #9
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
For Gawd sake!! :XGo and read reviews out there! Compare the MTF charts! Read photozone's reviews! If you think you are smarter than those reviews, go ahead and prove that you can do a better job!! :angry::roll:


Before you get too quickly into your conclusions, you obviously need to learn more about the advantages of stopping down a lens, and READ more REAL user opinions! So portraits are everything??? Thank God, if my lens can capture good portraits, so can it capture great landscape & architecture photos at F/1.4!! :?


---
Ben,

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"so in answer to my qeustion are you saying you've never used one of these lenses, you've only read other peoples opinions and reviews? I would be very skeptical regarding an opinion from someon who tried to shoot landscapes at 1.4 and wondered why they didin't work - it isn't because the lens is bad it's because they don't understand the tools and how to use them.

JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 8:55 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

JohnG, I am very sorry about the arguments.

I apologize about it.

Regards.

---

***Back to the thread's title.****
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 AM.