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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 6, 2008, 6:48 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

Those pictures look a bit dark, but that last one at ISO 3200 f/2.5, 1/20s is nice. I've always had good results hand-holding 1/30s shots without stabilization, so I guess when I stick a f/1.4 lens on there I probably won't have a problem with the Sony or the Canon.

So ... I guess I'm not too much closer to deciding between the A300 or the Rebel XSi. Maybe I'll just wait for my tax return and get a Nikon D90. :-)
Tostada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2008, 8:20 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

I would pick the Canon XSi because of it's great high ISO performance.

You could go with a 50mm F/1.8 lens or even the 80mm F/1.8 lens and be able to take great low light shots.

I'm not sure it's worth the extra bucks to buy an F/1.4 lens. Your depth of field at that aperture would be pretty woeful anyways.

They say image stabilization can buy you an extra couple of stops of light.

If your only doing night club gigs you get the XSi with the Canon 18-55 IS kit lens. Probably serve you well. The F/3.5 maximum aperture would give you decent depth of field, plus, with the IS you could handhold down to about 1/15 or 1/10th of a second.

I would try handheld shots at about 1/15th, and then crank the ISO up to 1600 or 3200 and see how much noise I could live with. I would probably shoot the 18-55 wide open at F/3.5. I would shoot at the lowest ISO I could manage and still get a decent shot.

Shoot RAW format and you can always crank up the exposure after the fact using software by about one stop and not totally hose image quality.



terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2008, 4:17 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

The XSi does look really good at ISO 1600 -- almost as good as the Nikon D90, but it doesn't support ISO 3200. Not that it's such a big deal. I would certainly try to avoid ISO 3200.

Speaking of the D90, I actually went and played with one today. I really wanted to go ahead and wait a couple months and get a D90 instead of debating with cheaper cameras, but I just don't like the feel of the thing. I want a small camera, but the D90 is pretty unwieldy being so heavy with such a small grip -- at least it was with the big lens they had on it at the store.

If I was going to get the XSi, I think I'd save the money and get the body only. Looking at JimC's pictures at ISO 3200 f/2.5 1/20s, I don't want to get performance worse than that. I know the Canon looks good at higher ISOs, but ISO 1600 f/3.5 is a full stop worse on both sensitivity and aperture.

I probably don't need f/1.4, but I do want a lens that is close to normal, and don't see any of the cheaper f/1.8 lenses that are under 50mm.

When I think about it, I thought IS would be a huge deal, but I really do have pretty steady hands, and one nice thing about shooting without a flash is that even if I'm shooting a 1/10s exposure, I can fire off a burst of 4 or 5 shots and one of them's going to come out sharp.
Tostada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2008, 9:28 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

I don't think it' worth paying twice as much for the D90 as the XSi, to be honest.

It's not worth an extra $500 US to get ISO3200. ISO3200 isn't going to look that good anyway.

Generally speaking the D90 isn't as good a general photographic tool as the XSi in my opinion. The D90 photos look nice, but there's a lot of "blown highlights". To me, the photo quality looks only slightly better than a budget DSLR.

I don't see why your fixated on a prime lens. A good wide angle zoom that has F/2.8 as a maximum aperture should stead you well.

Maybe look at the Sigma 10-20mm? Much better for in close people scenes.

The other thing you have to ask yourself: Are you a professional? Are you getting paid for these gigs? If not, why spend a lot of money on a camera?

Here's an Olympus E-420 with a 25mm F/2.8 lens for $575. It's small, light, unobtrusive, goes to ISO 1600 and has a very cool pancake lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...al_Camera.html

If I were going to clubs and not interested in lugging around a "rig", I'd look into the E-420 setup.

Also, will the doorman allow you to bring in a DSLR? If you show up with a pocket camera, you look like your taking a few birthday party pics. If you show up with a big camera, the venue owners might think your making money at their bar - not something they had in mind.

Anyways, you don't have to spend a lot of money to get much better results than the F30. You could probably get some great results from the E-420 and the pancake lens, but your going to have to be creative to ring out the best photos you can from that rig.

So save yourself some cash and look at the E-420, or step up to a little more money, size and weight and look at the XSi. However, I'd look at the light, small little E-420 and see if you can slip in under the radar screen of the bouncers.
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2008, 9:36 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Tostada wrote:
Quote:
I probably don't need f/1.4, but I do want a lens that is close to normal, and don't see any of the cheaper f/1.8 lenses that are under 50mm. [emphasis mine - TCav]
How about the Sigma 28mm f/1.8 EX DG? It's over $100 cheaper than the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. As you've already pointed out, it's 2/3 stop slower, but it gives you more depth of field. It's a trade-off, but for over $100, it's worthy of considering.

There's also the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX that's still cheaper than the 30/1.4.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2008, 10:20 AM   #16
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Tostada wrote:
Quote:
I don't currently have access to 99% of my pictures, and I haven't taken many because I recently moved and didn't find the charger to my F30 until Halloween, but here are some crappy pictures from Halloween:

http://picasaweb.google.com/brettlan...28511985399778

The "more info" button on the right shows the EXIF data.
That was taken at ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/4 second

So, at f/1.4 and ISO 3200, that would only be around 1/15 second

It's bit overexposed. With White Balance set properly and exposure adjusted a tad, I'd expect to get around 1/30 second at ISO 3200 and f/1.4, or a bit slower if stopping down the aperture some for better sharpness and DOF.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2008, 10:30 AM   #17
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

IOW, you're probably going to need ISO 3200 in that lighting. ;-)

If budget permits, I'd get a model with the newer Sony 12MP CMOS Sensor (used by the Nikon D90, D300 and Sony A700).

Or, consider a Canon EOS-30D or 40D. In a smaller body with ISO 3200, I'd also look at the Nikon D60. It's using a Sony 10MP CCD sensor. But, Nikon's noise reduction in their newer bodies is pretty good if you're shooting jpeg. The D60 won't Autofocus with lenses that don't have a built in focus motor. But, that Sigma 30mm f/1.4 will Autofocus on a D60 (since that Sigma has HSM).


JimC 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 6:49 AM.