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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 20, 2007, 8:54 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8
Default

Hello all!
I have been researching buying a camera for quite a while but I just cannot seem to settle on the right choice.
Basically the top 4 I am considering are: Sony DSLR-A100, FUJI FinePix S9600, Canon 400D and the FUJI FinePix S6500fd.
I will be shooting Rock Bands of various different sizes in a Live Setting On-stage. This means low, unpredictable lighting, NO FLASH ALLOWED and a lot of movement.
I need a fast camera that can keep up with the action and never miss a beat but at the same time produce sharp, exciting images with no blur and no graininess in these conditions without using a flash of any sort (it is not allowed)
Please can you offer me some advice and recommendations on the above Cameras and any others you believe suitable?
Thanks!
Liam
liamthomson is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 20, 2007, 9:18 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

OK in this case I won't get mad at the guys who automatically recommend a DSLR.

Why…

Fast lenses ie. large apertures that let in a lot of light. (This does not apply to the kit lens that comes with many DSLR's)

Bright viewfinders

If you cannot afford a DSLR I understand the S6500fd works well in low light.

tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2007, 9:22 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8
Default

is there an DSLR that would do this job the best?
liamthomson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2007, 1:33 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Corpsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
Default

Of the cameras you listed the Canon 400D would be the best, but in the entry-level price range I think the Pentax K100D is the best because of it's high ISO performance and built-in stabilization, and then either the Canon 350D or one of the 6 megapixel Nikons. I say 6 megapixel because in low light shooting, lower megapixel cameras tend to produce cleaner images. For Nikon, I guess the obvious choice would be the Nikon D40, but I'm not sure there are any lenses available for it now that are appropriate for this kind of shooting (appropriate lenses would probably mean fast primes).
Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2007, 1:38 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Corpsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
Default

(double post (I've never had one before... is the site getting worse or does running Firefox in Linux have issues?))
Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2007, 2:20 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Reanimator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huddersfield
Posts: 1,347
Default

your stuck between a rock and a hard place with this request, unless your doing it legaly from press arean and u can use a tripod

from experiance shooting at concerts, i ifnd sometihing i can lean against, i set speed to 1/15th second and apperture as low as itll go, or it they use lots of birght lights use lowest f stop and let camrea sort speed

if u use high iso you will get noise ie grainy images, using zoom means more glass in bigger lens what means less light getting in, so getting close and using no zoom is best, butif you are in the crowd your gonna get nocked about.

Gary
Reanimator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2007, 2:37 PM   #7
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

A couple important points have been made:

1. A DSLR is definitely going to get much better results than a digicam for 2 reasons: a) better high ISO performance and b) wider aperture values.

Of the DSLRs on the market, the Canon 350D, 400D, Pentax K100D are probably the best bets for entry level DSLRs. The Nikon D40 won't autofocus with fast prime lenses and those lenses will be very beneficial to your success.

Furthermore, I tend to agree with Corpsy that the in-body anti-shake of the Pentax gives that camera the edge.

Sony alpha has poor high ISO performance and the new releases from Olympus have much improved high ISO performance but it's still not as good (according to the published reviews I've seen) as the others above. The gap is closer but still not there.

2) Gary's comments are very important here. Unless you're close to the stage and relatively free of jostling, it is going to be tough to get good photos even with a good DSLR. There are 2 parts to this - a) distance - if you're not within say 30 feet then using 'fast prime' lenses - like an 85mm, 100mm or 135mm 2.0 or 1.8 or 1.4 lens won't give you enough reach. So if your further away you'll likely have to use a zoom (which you may not be allowed to bring in - heck, you may not be allowed to bring a DSLR AT ALL depending on the venue) - and b) stability - even with image stabilization if you've got someone jostling you the photos will not be good.

So, before you plan on spending $700-$1000 on a camera and lens, it's critical to know some things:

1. Will you even be allowed to bring a DSLR?

2. What will your distance be? Are you shooting in an official capacity and can thus get up to the stage or are you just a fan and could be 5 feet or 100 feet away?


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2007, 2:52 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8
Default

Thanks you for the help so far! Don't worry I will be be granted full press photography area access and be at the front of the stage in between it and the crowd at the larger events. That is not a problem
liamthomson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2007, 3:03 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

What type of bands and venues? Do you have decent stage lighting (from your description, I'd guess not)?

Some venues have *very* low light, and there is no way that you're going to get a high percentage of shots that can do what you want:

Quote:
I need a fast camera that can keep up with the action and never miss a beat but at the same time produce sharp, exciting images with no blur and no graininess in these conditions without using a flash of any sort (it is not allowed)
Forget it unless your print sizes are reasonable. But, there are some solutions that are better than others. You're going to want a dSLR with a very usable high ISO speed for starters.

Don't just go by available ISO speed. You need to know what is going to be usable after noise reduction at a given print size. ;-) Web use is easier if photos are only for that purpose.

You're also going to need bright lenses (note the plural there) for maximum flexibility in more conditions. Primes (fixed focal length, non-zoom lenses) are going to be necessary to have any chances of keepers in some conditions.

It's also going to take some practice and lots of photos to get what you want. Even the best dSLR camera/lens combinations are not going to allow you to get a high percentage of keepers when light gets very low and performers are moving a lot.

What's your budget?

What are the photos going to be used for? If print, what size (for web you can get away with a bit more)?



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2007, 3:11 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8
Default

initial budget is about £600 - mainly for web but some print A4 and A3 possibly...so a Canon 400D?
liamthomson 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 6:54 AM.