| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/15/2002 10:54:43 AM · #1 |
Hey guys, I am looking for a little bit of help. I work in advertising and we have been allotted $2000 to get a good quality digital camera for shooting photos that will eventually appear on posters (22x28) and maybe even larger. One of the main requirements for this camera is that it MUST excel at low light photography (such as a live concert, etc) with as few digital artifacts as possible. My first choice was a Nikon D-100, as we already have another Nikon camera that can use the same batteries and memory cards. I have looked at various cameras on dpreview.com, but I was wondering if someone here could post first hand accounts concerning any cameras in this price range. Help is appriciated, because I dont want to get stuck with something that isn’t up to par.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
11/15/2002 11:30:31 AM · #2 |
| If you already have a Nikon you must go for the D100 because you can use your old lenses. If you want a camera good at low light photographing you can choose the Canon EOS D60 but than you have to buy new lenses. |
|
|
|
11/15/2002 12:31:18 PM · #3 |
The problem is, if you are buying an SLR system, $2000 won't get
you very far. The body is the cheap part.
You either probably want to re-think your budget, look at second hand,
or consider a high-end fixed lens camera, like the E-20 |
|
|
|
11/15/2002 12:33:38 PM · #4 |
you could also get a Fuji S1. Those are under $2000 now. I use that in my job and it's an excellent camera.
It takes Nikon lenses.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2002 01:37:16 PM · #5 |
Low light photography like a concert requires a pro body camera.
I work in advertising myself and have begun to shoot for the newspaper sports section in my spare time(Highschool football at night).
I use their Nikon D1H and we can blow a photo up to about 8 x 10 but most of our stuff is 5x7 or smaller at 200 dpi.
Nikon D100 and Canon D60 don't cut it. The focus hunts too much in anything that is dusk or darker. Flash systems help a bit but not to the level of professional reliability (advertising or news work).
$2,000 won't get it and I think you will be sorely disappointed with a Nikon D100 or Canon D60.
In addition, low light photography in concert settings requires at least an F2.8 (or faster) and those lens are at least $1,000, regardless of the camera body.
My rig I use (a Nikon D1H and an f2.8 80-200mm and a 300mm F2.8 prime) goes for about $6,500 not including the flash, extra battery packs and 512 memory. |
|
|
|
11/15/2002 02:03:34 PM · #6 |
dusk handheld moving (in a moving car) shots from an S1 pro.
check the 4 shots out on the right hand side of this page
high ISO's go a long way towards making these things useable in low light : ) ..
|
|
|
|
11/15/2002 02:24:06 PM · #7 |
Those are cool shots, especially the one with the highway sign in it.
By upping the ISO, doesn’t that create more artifacts (grain) in the photos?
As for the D-100, I wasn't aware that it was packaged as a body only. I would imagine then that the Canon and Fuji are packaged the same. I am also checking out the Sony DSC-F717, but I heard that it is no good in dusk like lighting conditions.
I guess I should rephrase what the camera is being used for. It’s mainly for still life photos that go into our mail package and on postcards / invites. Our current camera (Nikon 995) is used for this, but we would like to start shooting our own photography for posters (which are mainly around 22 by 28 inches). This type of task is at the limits of the 995, so we would like to get a higher resolution camera.
The reason I mentioned low light, is because I sometimes photograph events that take place in a nightclub like atmosphere, or possibly a concert. I guess mainly though, the focus for the new camera would be for high-res photos, and the ability to reproduce them reliably on a larger (22 x 28) format.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2002 02:33:31 PM · #8 |
| After consulting dpreview.com again, maybe the Nikon Coolpix 5700 would fit the bill (with mucho accessories of course :) |
|
|
|
11/15/2002 03:28:07 PM · #9 |
| I sometimes use a D60 with a 1.0 50mm lens or a 1.2 85mm lens. they work VERY well in low light. the D100 can go up to ISO 1600 and still be usable with a 1.4 85mm lens i believe. i would say d100 if you already have nikon lenses, atleast if you have something with a big apeture (X<2.0) |
|
|
|
11/15/2002 05:32:43 PM · #10 |
When I spoke about the low light capabilities of the Nikon D100 and Canon D60 I was describing their ability in low light regarding professional work.
Obviosly they are very fine cameras and anyone using them for personal photographs or light duty will be more than happy.
BUT....they are very limiting when you are trying to shoot digital low light like you shoot film low light for focus in action (like concerts or sports).
I am only speaking from personal experience and this is the main reason I have put off buying a Canon D60. I tried using a D60 to shoot an X-Games style motocross competition and indoors from a distance it hunts too slow with too much pre-focusing required.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2002 06:07:32 PM · #11 |
I'd agree on the D60 - even with a fast lens, its not going to be a whole
lot of use for concert/ party photography in low light. You can do it, it'll just be a pain. The main issue is the auto-focus, which is pretty poor in low light, though a external flash can help.
Its not really designed to be a sports/ action camera, so it isn't too surprising that it doesn't excel in that area. It'll work, but there are
much better solutions (that cost more...) |
|
|
|
11/15/2002 06:45:16 PM · #12 |
the fujis have a focus assist lamp
when it's too dark the lamp comes on for a split sec to let the camera 'see'.
dont know if that helps you.... |
|
|
|
11/26/2002 09:30:48 PM · #13 |
| I think a D-100 will do all right. it wont hunt too much if you had AFS lenes like the 80-200 f-2.8 AFS and the 28-80 f-2.8 AFS or the 17-35 F-2.8 AFS lenses. you can print a killer 13x19 with that camera |
|
|
|
11/26/2002 10:00:28 PM · #14 |
you are going to want a lot faster of a lens than 2.8... if you can... but then you are looking at a lot of money.. the d60 is pretty bad for auto focus in low light, but you can simply manually focus... the d100 can shoot fairly well in high iso speeds. the 717 isnt too bad in low light.. 2.0 lens, 2.4 at full tele, is very respectable for a fixed lens digital... especialy for the length.. my 707 does fairly well in low light, the iso400 is as high as i would shoot. there is a program that i use to take out the noise in high iso shots, that is called Adobe PhotoSuite. it helps take out most of the grain without degrading the picture quality very much, which i would like to see this feature in photoshop... but oh well.. photodeluxe is discontinued, but you can find it on Kazaa or at some stores if you are lucky..
good luck
i would go for the d100.. if you can afford to get lenses afterward.. |
|
|
|
12/02/2002 06:44:33 PM · #15 |
| they dont make faster lenses than f-2.8 in the telephoto or 24mm and wider lenses and for sure in the zooms for SLRs maby some point & shoots are brighter at some focal lengths. I mean you can get brighter lenses like the 85mm F-1.8 and 50mm F-1.2 and F-1.8 and a few others but there isn't a whole lot of them. I never seen an SLR zoom that is brighter than F-2.8 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 06:36:12 PM EDT.
