Digital Camera suggestions?

[yojetak]

So I have a shitty 50 dollar digital camera that is not cutting it for what I need. I take a lot of pictures indoors or in low lighting situations and it's near impossible for me to get not only a properly lit/colored photo, but also to make sure it's not blurry.

I need suggestions on what to look for or if someone has an awesome camera under 1k that they can recommend? I've been saving up a little money here and there. What should I look for?

[Dan]

It depends what king of photography you want to do. If it's point-and-shoot, then a decent compact should be sufficient. They all have built-in flash these days, which should take care of your low-light problems.

At the other end of the scale the all-singing, all-dancing DSLR camera has a larger aperture which will let in more light, and better sensors and image processing software too. So if you want to take photos in low light without using a flash, this is the way to go. (Canon DSLRs are particularly well-regarded by astronomers, even older models like the 350D.)

If you want a compromise between the convenience of a compact and the versatility of a DSLR, there are so-called "bridge" cameras that offer most of the features of a DSLR but without the removeable lenses.

Another way to improve low-light images without a flash is to get a tripod. Very few cameras of any type do not have a tripod bush.


You'll find this site invaluable: dpreview.com/
There are also some camera reviews at www.reghardware.co.uk/photo/

[Neutral Guy]

I'll assume that you are from the USA. I strongly recommend the Canon EOS Digital Rebel T2i. If you were referring to 1,000 dollars, this baby is only $899. Just under your price range.


18.0 Megapixel CMOS (APS-C) sensor and DIGIC 4 Image Processor for high image quality and speed.

ISO 100-6400 (expandable to 12800) for shooting from bright to dim light.

Improved EOS Movie mode with manual exposure control, expanded recording, new Movie Crop recording in 640 x 480 and external microphone IN terminal for access to improved sound quality.

Enhanced iFCL 63-zone, Dual-layer metering system; and 9-point AF system utilizing a high-precision, f/2.8 cross-type center point.

Wide 3.0-inch (3:2 aspect ratio) Clear View LCD monitor (1.04 million dots) for improved viewing.

New Quick Control Screen button for easy access to frequently used settings.

Improved layout with dedicated Live View/Movie shooting button.

New compatibility with SDXC memory cards, plus new menu status indicator for Eye-Fi* support.

3.7 fps continuous shooting up to approximately 34 JPEGs or approximately 6 RAW.

Compatible with the full line of Canon EF and EF-S lenses.


www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=19943#ModelFeaturesAct

[yojetak]

i was actually looking at that model nuetral guy. I'm also being told that nikon is superior to canon. Is that true? I'm new to the expensive camera photography deal.

And <3 Dan but what I have is a point and shoot. I'm wanting to take photos sans flash at the field museum. Flash would sort of ruin the photo as everything is behind glass. Also, fuck flash. Makes the colors come out all weird and gives weird highlights to your subject. And I've tried the tripod thing to no avail. I just get get the angles I want.

Here's some of the photos I took this week. These are some of the better ones. Everything else is blurry.

[Dan]

DPReview has a very detailed review of Neutral Guy's Canon here: www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/

They have reviews for a similar-spec Nikon too, which I haven't looked at.

Last time I did any side-by-side comparison of DSLRs it looked like Olympus cameras are less expensive than comparable Nikons or Canons.

The big advantage for Nikon is the lenses: their bayonet mount has not changed with the switch from film to digital, so any Nikon-fit lens will work with any Nikon camera. That means you'll have a huge range of second-hand lenses to choose from, dating back to the 1940s. (You'd lose the auto-focus and auto-aperture capability with older lenses.)

Phorographing in low light without flash is always going to be a difficult compromise. Thee are three things you can do: lengthen the exposure time, increase the lens aperture, or increase the sensor ISO.

But:
Lengthening the exposure time makes it harder to avoid blurring, especially when the camera is hand-held.
Increasing the aperture decreases the depth of field (so you'd have a smaller range of distances in focus).
Increasing the ISO adds noise to the resulting image (there are examples of this in the review of the Canon).

Most lenses these days have zoom. The quality is generally pretty good (regardless of brand), but the maximum aperture is generally less than for a non-zoom lens. In your situation I think I'd be inclined to go that route: find a DSLR with decent low-light/high-ISO performance and then look for a "prime" lens for it with a good aperture.