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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 2, 2006, 4:19 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2
Default

Any help would be greatly appreciated - I need to purchase a camera to take pictures of events (most evenings and weddings, so very low light) at the hotel I work for - prefer the following features:

$200 or under, would like compact but am flexible, needs to be pretty easy to use (lots of the managers arent too tech savy), would prefer a decent zoom, will not really be taking pictures of people so I dont care about red eye reduction or anything along those lines, but most importantly NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO TAKE GOOD LOW LIGHT STILL PICS!!!!!

I have been looking at Canon's and Sony's mainly because those are what I use for personal pics but of course am open to other brands if they will take good pics in the dark

Thanks for any help!!!
mmrichardson is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 2, 2006, 4:48 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

For $300 you could get the Fuji F-30 which is ranked at the current low light champ.

MT
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2006, 10:26 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Default

Any camera can take low light still pics. You need a tripod. A camera that lets you operate it without touching it (a timer for instance) is about the only requirement.
jacks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2006, 10:58 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Or, Jacks-

You can use a Fuji F-30 which has a setable ISO 3200 stting.

MT
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2006, 5:47 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Default

A setable ISO3200 and a usable ISO3200 are entirely different things. With a tripod you can take excellent pictures in low light with even the cheapest of point and shoots. Much better than a handheld shot at iso3200.
jacks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2006, 11:16 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

An F-30 AND a tripod would be ideal.

Or to keep it around the $200 requested, you might be better off with the F10, or better yet it's replacement the F20 (if you can find one yet.) These wouldn't have the degree of manual controls available on the F30, but for the use you're suggesting, there aren't going to be that many users who would be taking advantage of manual settings anyway, so you could save a few bucks and keep it simple; just tell those managers to use natural light mode and point and shoot. The F20 would be pretty much ideal, as it's basically an F-30 without the manual options, and with a weaker, but still decent, battery.

My second choice in that price range would be one of the Cannon A series, the A530, A540, or A620. These are some of the best all-around cameras at that price, and will do a bit better than the Fuji F series in outdoor shots with bright sunlight. They also have several other minor advantages in overall design. But the Fuji's are easily the best for indoor shots, and especially shooting lowlight without a flash.

Keep an eye out for the F20; it should be released this month.

kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2006, 11:42 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Well there you have it. The Fuji F-10 is out of production, the F-20 not on the market yet, so it looks like the F-30 or one of the Canon A- series, like the 540.

MT
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2006, 11:55 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 245
Default

jacks wrote:
Quote:
With a tripod you can take excellent pictures in low light with even the cheapest of point and shoots. Much better than a handheld shot at iso3200.
You must be talking about low light shots of static objects. What about low light shots taken of people? Of events? Of everything else in life? Not everything stands still for the camera.
swgod98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2006, 9:40 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Default

" You must be talking about low light shots of static objects. What about low light shots taken of people?"

If you read the original post you will find that we are indeed not taking pictures of people.
jacks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2006, 9:51 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

jacks wrote:
Quote:
" You must be talking about low light shots of static objects. What about low light shots taken of people?"

If you read the original post you will find that we are indeed not taking pictures of people.
I read the OP, and am far from convinced that that is true. Yes, he says that he's not taking pictures of people, but he also says he's taking pictures of events like weddings. At least in the US, most weddings are still between people.

My suspicion is that what he meant was that it was not individuals up close -- the red eye issue was specifically inidcated as of no concern. I could be wrong, as the OP is less than clear to me. But it sure appears that he needs to take pictures of groups of people, in which case motion is an issue.
tclune 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 8:35 PM.