Digital Camera for lighting work

[Hambone]

I just bought a Nikon Coolpix S2 for my VJ/DJ setup. It's got Wifi built in, so I can run around and take snaps of partygoers, and they're loaded instantly on my Mac. Then I just need to drag them onto an Arkaos patch, and when I launch the song that recalls that patch, instant party slide show!

[frazer]

Apologise if this has already been covered, but did a search and couldnt find anything.

 

Im a freelance lighting designer/technician and I am very interested in buying a decent camera to photograph my work so that I could build a portfolio.

 

I currently have a Samsung Digimax A7 which is ok for taking pictures, but any type of movement on stage and the picture will blur - moving lights are a nightmare.

 

I have been recommended the Canon EOS 300D as a reasonably priced upgrade. It is an SLR so has all the advantages of interchangable lenses, but is only 6 megapixel compared to my 7 megapixel I currently own. I was wandering if anyone had any comments about this and whether they could suggest a camera which they believe would be ideal.

 

Frazer

[Chris_R]

This came up a couple of years back. Technologies moved on so some may not be that helpful (or it might....I dunno, I know nothing about cameras!!) but it may help in some way!!

[gareth]

Much earlier this year I bought a new camera particularly with photograhping shows in mind (the Canon Ixus compact that I have for 'everyday' use, while a great little camera, is hopeless in a theatre!). Despite initially focussing on the 'prosumer' route (Fuji S9500 was the one that I originally had my eye on), I ended up getting a digital SLR - specifically, a Minolta Dynax 5D, which has turned out to be a thoroughly excellent piece of kit. I now also have a 75-300 lens to go with the 18-70 'kit' lens that came with the body, and even after many months I'm still finding useful and interesting things that I can do with the camera.

 

 

Oh, and on the subject of megapixels - don't be taken in by the 'sales talk' of how many pixels a camera can shoot. Too many pixels on too small a sensor can sometimes actually be a detrimental thing to have rather than something advantageous (due to increased noise caused by packing so many pixels into such a small space). My Dynax has 6.1 megapixels, and unless you want to start printing out your photos at huge paper sizes you won't miss the extra image size that an 8 or 9 megapixel camera can deliver.

[pritch]

I have been recommended the Canon EOS 300D as a reasonably priced upgrade. It is an SLR so has all the advantages of interchangable lenses, but is only 6 megapixel compared to my 7 megapixel I currently own. I was wandering if anyone had any comments about this and whether they could suggest a camera which they believe would be ideal.

 

I'm not even sure if you can get an EOS 300D any longer - it is a fairly old camera now. The EOS 400D is the current model, and comes in at 10.1 megapixel.

 

Alternatively in a (teeny bit more expensive) price bracket is the new Nikon D80 and, frankly, there seems to be little in it.

 

Alternatively, for something a fair bit cheaper, there's the Nikon D40. "Only" six megapixel, but to be honest, megapixels isn't everything, and you may find that a six megapixel DSLR will out perform your seven megapixel compact camera any day.

[frazer]

I'm not even sure if you can get an EOS 300D any longer - it is a fairly old camera now. The EOS 400D is the current model, and comes in at 10.1 megapixel.

if I was going to buy a EOS 300D I would try and pick it up second hand, you're right, they dont make them anymore. There is however the 350D, any thoughts on that?

Alternatively in a (teeny bit more expensive) price bracket is the new Nikon D80 and, frankly, there seems to be little in it.

 

Alternatively, for something a fair bit cheaper, there's the Nikon D40. "Only" six megapixel, but to be honest, megapixels isn't everything, and you may find that a six megapixel DSLR will out perform your seven megapixel compact camera any day.

the D80 is a little out of my budget - I have about £500 to spend.

Im really new to the DSLR photography thing. What advantages are there of buying more expensive cameras apart from the increase in pixels (Which I agree arent terribly important)??

[Roderick]

After years of documenting my productions on tungsten slide film, I finally succumbed to the digital era and bought a Canon 350D last year. You have to get used to the smaller viewfinder and the autofocus (manual focus is really difficult with these new lenses) the picture quality is really good. Get yourself a serious memory card (1Gb+) and you're away. I have printed pictures up to A4 without any problems or loss of clarity.

 

HTH

[Bobbsy]

The things you need most for a THEATRE camera would be:

 

-flash that's easy to over-ride

-ability to work well in low light

-ability to handle contrast

-speed of use (i.e. no long pauses while the autofocus works)

 

Not personal experience (my own digital camera is ancient but still works despite liberal applications of gaffer tape to hold the battery case closed!) but I happened to catch a "camera comparison" on the gadget show last week. Obviously they didn't worry about turning off the flash but on the other three, I seem to recall they gave best marks to a Fujinon model.

 

If it was me, I'd go to a shop with a decent selection and ask to handle a number of different cameras, trying some pics in the dark corners of the room and/or out the window to check contrast. Once you get above a certain number of pixels (people argue about what that number is but most modern cameras are fine) resolution isn't the be all and end all. It's the items above plus, as important, how the camera feels in your hands.

 

Bob

[Tomo]

The main advantages DSLR gives you are:

 

1) Interchangeable lenses with much better glass than compacts.

 

2) EXTREMELY fast zoom - a manual mechanically-linked zoom ring means that (with practise) you can zoom to frame your image almost instantly, rather than waiting for the motor to catch up.

 

3) Much more control over settings - sensitivity (ISO equivalence), shutter speed, aperture, focus (auto or ring manual), white balance (important!), flash timing (although you probably want this OFF!)

 

4) Fast boot time - my Nikon D100 is ready before I have time to move my finger from the on switch to the shutter release.

 

And the really huge one:

5) BIG sensor, which means BIG pixel detectors, thus very little noise.

My D100 will go up to ISO1000 before there is any visible noise, and at ISO800 and below the prints are indistinguishable from a film camera.

 

However, DSLRs are big and heavy beasties.

The best advice I can give you is to go to a shop and try a few out.

 

They all balance slightly differently, which can make some of them uncomfortable for you to hold - I like mine, but my fiancee doesn't because it's too big for her hands.

The Canon EOS are a little smaller than the Nikon, so they would probably suit people with smaller hands - suck it and see, basically.

 

On the megapixel front - 6MP is plenty. Seriously.

6MP blows up to A3 without obvious pixellation (6.7 pixels per mm)

 

If you want to go bigger, you probably want a large-format camera - you'd start to see very small optical aberrations, so you'd want extremely good glass!

[Simon Lewis]

Frazer,

 

I have the 350D, and it is a considerable improvement over the 300. It's faster to boot and wake up, and can take continuous shots quite quickly. The 400D has some improvements (larger LCD, CCD etc.).

 

Apart from the CCD size, you should pay considerable attention to the lens. The standard lens supplied with the Canon (or any other DSLR) will be OK, but will typically stop down as you zoom. To get a decent zoom with a wide aperture costs money - for example Canon's 24-70 2.8L USM costs about £850 in the shops.

 

You can use the 350D at 1600ASA in non flash mode and get some reasonable pics, but a tripod becomes increasing important. The results will be more grainy, so getting as much light into the camera is important.

 

The Canon 350D seems to cope quite well with artificial lighting, and adjusts its white balance suitably.

 

Regards,

 

Simon

[Andrew C]

The main difference as I see it between a compact and an SLR of equivalent technical spec is down to ergonomics. The SLR will have all the important controls under your fingers, whereas with the compact you will probably need to look at the menu or the fiddly little buttons. Much like dedicated LX control surfaces, it should be faster and easier to use.

[gareth]

There is however the 350D, any thoughts on that?

That was one of the cameras on my shortlist when I decided to go down the DSLR route rather than the prosumer route (the othere being the Minolta Dynax 5D and the Nikon D50). I did extensive research into the three of them, and the Canon was the first one to get scrubbed from the list. It was a very close call between the Nikon and the Minolta in the end, and in the end the only things that swung it towards the Minolta were that I found an excellent deal at a good online camera store, the online reviews seemed to give it a very slight edge over the Nikon, and it has an excellent image stabilisation fucntion built into the camera body (rather than built into the lens like other DSLRs do, meaning that any Dynax-compatible lens will work with the camera and there's no need to buy expensive lenses in order to retain IS functionality).

 

What advantages are there of buying more expensive cameras apart from the increase in pixels (Which I agree arent terribly important)??

To be honest, unless you're really, really serious about photography and already have considerable SLR experience, none. The camera I have is very much an entry-level DSLR model, and it does far more stuff than I'll ever need it to do (and does it extremely well!). (I used the fact that I'd bought a low-priced entry-level camera body and 'kit' lens to justify the purchase of the other lens that I bought shortly afterwards. :()

[pritch]

if I was going to buy a EOS 300D I would try and pick it up second hand, you're right, they dont make them anymore. There is however the 350D, any thoughts on that?

 

The 350D is a nice enough camera. I personally wouldn't use one, but that's just down to personal preference.

 

It again has been superceded by the 400D, but only fairly recently, so you should be able to pick up some bargain old-stock 350Ds.

[goochr96]

I will put my vote in for the Nikon D50, an excellent piece of kit, and should be with in your £500 budget. Its small (but not too small) and is heavy enough to know that you have it in your hand, without breaking your arm, whereas I found the cannons too small, and too light. It felt far to plasticy for my liking.

 

Go with Nikon, you wont regret it!

[mac.calder]

DPReview is a good place to compare cameras side by side.