What camera and accessories do I need for taking photos of paintings made with acrylics?

Question

I currently have a 2 year old digital camera and am looking into taking professional photos of my artwork, mainly acrylic paintings. I was wondering, starting out, what is the best kind of camera and accessories that are required and which items might be a good idea to have. Would any digital camera work, or would a film camera be better?

I realize that if you take a picture with a film camera you can better guarantee the number of prints made; yet I want a digital copy of the final print (to do different things with) so that is not brought into account.

Asked by Kyra

Answer

Digital is better than film:

1. easier
2. film processing requires a pro lab.
3. if using film, you should shoot on transparency which requires an accuracy of 1/3 of a stop.

Raw files have +/- 1 stop flexibility. Raw files have colour temp flexibility. Digital is more sensitive to subtle variations in tone ~ therefore You should mix daylight and flash lighting balanced across the exposure area. That's the best solution for paintings.

Answered by Ian Hobbs

Check more discussion of this question.

Shift bellow for (canon) DSLR

Question

I would like to know if there is any (reasonably priced) bellow to shift lenses for DSLR (preferably canon) using the same brand lenses.

It seems something hard to find, even if I guess it would be nice to have for many enthusiasts (I guess pros still go with medium/large format). Is there any technical reason for this the lack of such an accessory or just maybe it is impractical not so useful?

Asked by Paolo

Answer

First of all, you probably do not want to use a bellows with your Canon EF lenses. The reason for this is simply that the lenses are all-electronic so you cannot change the aperture once the lens is on the bellows... unless the bellows are electronically compatible with the EF mount and I seriously doubt that such an animal exists.

However: The nice thing about Canons is that the mount flange distance is smaller than most other brands, so adapters to other mounts are easily available. My suggestion would be to get a Nikon adapter, for example, with a Nikon-compatible bellows of some kind (I say Nikon because it was the go-to brand in the seventies and eighties for most pro photograpers, so this kind of very-special-purpose gizmo is more probably available for Nikon than for others) and then hang an old, all-manual Nikon lens off the front of it. Such lenses are available for little money, and you will be able to change the all-important aperture manually at need.

As for why such bellows are not readily available, I'd suggest that since Canon has had a trio of very good EF-mount tilt-shift lenses available for ages now they cover the needs of most of the potential bellows users, and so remove the market for one.

Answered by Staale S

Check more discussion of this question.

Cannon EOS 550D, Which lens should I purchase [closed]

Question

Possible Duplicate:
Which would be more suitable lens in terms of utility, weight, price: 18-135 or 18-55 + 55-200?

I am going to purchase my first DSLR which is Cannon EOS 550D. The seller says it comes with 18-135 mm lens and price is around 922$ and also he offer me same camera with 18-55mm lens for 650$. I prefer people, street, nature, indoor, wildlife, and night landscape photography. If I purchase 18-55 lens I will purchase some telephoto zoom lens later. Which lens set should I select with the camera. Appreciate your help on this selection.

Asked by Prasad Rajapaksha

Answer

When I was in your exact situation I've bought the 18-135 and I'm very happy with that choice.

The extra zoom is extremely useful for photographing people - both for portraits (people look better with longer lenses) and candids (it let me take picture from a non disturbing distance) - the extra zoom is even more useful for photographing kids because they tend to move a lot and the 18-135 range will get you tight or wide framing at any reasonable parent-kid distance.

55mm is way too short for wildlife (I've tried once to use a 50mm lens to photograph animals in a zoo - and I couldn't get any picture that didn't require a lot of cropping), 135mm is actually also too short in my opinion but it will work well in a zoo or if you can get animals to come to you - if you are serious about wildlife you will have to get a longer lens eventually.

Also, the 18-135 is slightly better built, for example it has a non-rotating front element (very useful if you ever use a polarizing filter, commonly used for nature and landscape photos)

Answered by Nir

Check more discussion of this question.

Which image sensor format for photographing oil on panel?

Question

My wife wants to make 38"x28.5" prints from her oil on panel paintings that are 16"x12". I have enough experience with non-digital SLR photography to know that the hardest part of photographing these works will be the lighting - however, that's not my question.

As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) image sensor format (Medium Format, ASP-H, ASP-C, Four-Thirds System, not number of megapixels) greatly affects price point, noise level, lens distortion, and lens price.

She's going to buy a camera to document her oil-on-panel work and to make prints. The camera isn't going to be used for anything else. She would like to know what is the most efficient use of money for her problem space, assuming she only needs a camera and a lens? What image sensor format should she consider / avoid given this problem space? Should she spend more money on the camera or on the lens - or are they equally important given this problem space?

Asked by Peter Nore

Answer

Consideration of dimensions of input art work and the likly dpi required in the final image and the available resolution of current cameras it seems that an A3 scanner with 600 dpi or better resolution would be a superior solution to using a camera in this application.

---

A recent stack exchange question discussed requisite scanning and print resolutions for various applications. I'd guesstimate that 100 dpi would be on the low side of what you'd want, that 200 dpi would probably be adequate and 300 dpi very good.

To achieve a ~= 40" x 30" print at even 200 dpi you will need a 40 x 30 x 200^2 = 48 megapixel image. If you are intending to acquire this in a single photograph then no 35mm camera available has enough resolution.

At 100 dpi you need about 12 mp and suddenly most DSLR's and a number of prosumer cameras have notionally high enough resolution. A good 12mp plus prosumer camera with non removable lens and lots of light would nominally meet this requirement, but you are at the lower end of the specification.

The 16 x 12 image is about 2.5 x smaller linearly than the output print so to achieve an output resolution of 100 dpi you'd need a 250 dpi minimum scan and for 200 dpi out you'd need a 500 dpi+ scan. If you want 300 dpi in the final image - which would be liable to be the upper limit of what you'd want - you'd need around 900 dpi from the scanner.

16 x 12 is larger than A4's 10" x 8" so you'd want an A3 scanner or at least one comfortably larger than A4. Good quality A3 scanners with X and Y direction scan resolutions are available. Fully professional versions sell for thousands of dollars but an eg Brother MFCJ6510DW A3 Multifunction Printer is under $300 and MAY suffice.

Answered by Russell McMahon

Check more discussion of this question.

Lens selection for a trip to Scotland?

Question

In a few months I'll be going to Scotland for a holiday (highlands and so on). So far, along with my 550D I have the standard kit lens 18-55mm, and I have recently bought the 55-250mm II. I am planning to buy an other lens, either the canon 50mm f1.4 or the canon 10-22mm.

I like the 50mm because it lets a lot of light in and it can be used in the evenings without using much flash in low-light conditions, not to mention the delicious bokeh!. However I have always liked the effects of the 10-22mm as well. And I understand that it's more creatively versatile and I can use it for Scotland highlands and castles

Eventually i'll be buying both, but I am stuck over which one should I get before the holiday. Which lens would you get if you were faced with the same dilemma? Budget not an issue, preferably I just want to get one of those only before august!.

Thanks Luke

Asked by The Alchemist

Answer

I'm trying to think of the usual subjects that you might encounter on a trip to Scotland.

1. The landscape
2. Ancient and modern architecture
3. Details - a glass of whisky, gargoyles, moss, cobbled streets, and so forth
4. Wildlife

For landscape photos I would suggest you can get away with your kit lens, but the 10-22 is a great option here.

For architecture the 10-22mm also works well, although you might need a tripod for darker shots as the aperture doesn't open up as much.

The detail shots is where the 50mm 1.4 would work reasonably well, especially as you suggest for the bokeh. However, you can get good macro and reasonable bokeh with the kit lens, and the image stabilisation on there will also help in darker conditions.

Finally, you have the wildlife aspect reasonably well covered by the 55-250mm, although I would recommend a tripod or preferably monopod for a long shot on a gloomy day.

Overall I would probably recommend the 10-22mm as it's a great lens that gives you a lot more options. You can always get the 50mm 1.8 instead of the 1.4 if you've a spare £90 lying around.

Answered by Maynard Case

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the tradeoffs when replacing two zoom lenses with a superzoom?

Question

I have two lens currently for my camera. An AF-S DX VR NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G (kit lens) and a AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED lens. I have found that there are cases when the 18-55mm is too short and the 55-200 is too long. I have looked at a 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II Nikkor Telephoto Zoom Lens but I cannot currently afford to pay 1300 (USD) right now. I have also looked at cheaper options like a Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 for $300 but then I get concerned about the quality. (Note: I am not printing my photos)

So my questions are this: First are lenses like the Tamron really worth anything? And if I was to purchase a lens with the range of 18-200mm why/when would I use the other lenses? Or does it come down to I should learn to switch my lens faster?

Asked by Lynda

Answer

It sounds like you don't like having to switch between two lenses, so you believe having a single lens would be a better solution, right?

I would encourage you to keep working with the two lenses you have. With more experience you'll have an easier time switching lenses quickly, and you'll have an easier time recognizing which lens will be most useful for a given shot. Also having a two-lens kit gives you the opportunity to only take one lens for a smaller kit when you know you don't need the full range. For example, shooting indoors with family I bet the 18-55 will be often used and the 55-200 almost never. Save some weight and size and take just the 18-55. If you were to get a bigger and heavier 18-200 you'll always have to carry it with no easy way to lighten the load, should you want to.

The lenses you have are actually very good, optically. Learn to use them well and you'll get fantastic results -- better than the Tamron, I bet. And as Pat also wrote, a lens with a larger the zoom range will have more compromises.

Answered by Dan Wolfgang

Check more discussion of this question.

Should I buy an everyday use lens 18-200mm to avoid changing lenses frequently?

Question

I have two lens currently for my camera. An AF-S DX VR NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G (kit lens) and a AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED lens. I have found that there are cases when the 18-55mm is too short and the 55-200 is too long. I have looked at a 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II Nikkor Telephoto Zoom Lens but I cannot currently afford to pay 1300 (USD) right now. I have also looked at cheaper options like a Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 for $300 but then I get concerned about the quality. (Note: I am not printing my photos)

So my questions are this: First are lenses like the Tamron really worth anything? And if I was to purchase a lens with the range of 18-200mm why/when would I use the other lenses? Or does it come down to I should learn to switch my lens faster?

Asked by Lynda

Answer

It sounds like you don't like having to switch between two lenses, so you believe having a single lens would be a better solution, right?

I would encourage you to keep working with the two lenses you have. With more experience you'll have an easier time switching lenses quickly, and you'll have an easier time recognizing which lens will be most useful for a given shot. Also having a two-lens kit gives you the opportunity to only take one lens for a smaller kit when you know you don't need the full range. For example, shooting indoors with family I bet the 18-55 will be often used and the 55-200 almost never. Save some weight and size and take just the 18-55. If you were to get a bigger and heavier 18-200 you'll always have to carry it with no easy way to lighten the load, should you want to.

The lenses you have are actually very good, optically. Learn to use them well and you'll get fantastic results -- better than the Tamron, I bet. And as Pat also wrote, a lens with a larger the zoom range will have more compromises.

Answered by Dan Wolfgang

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it necessary to use a full-frame camera to get the best out of my Canon EF 180mm f3.5 L?

Question

I do mostly handheld macro photography and I currently own a Canon 40D. I want to buy a new camera and I don't know what is the best choice.

My goal is to get the best of my lens. So I'm not sure if full-frame 21mpx 5D MkII or III will give better results than the 18mpx 1.6-crop canon 7D. (Also taking in to account the ISO quality for faster shutter speed pixel density and the resolution of the 180mm.)

Can the 5D get better details then the 1.6 crop?

Asked by Daniel

Answer

Yes

The 5D will get better details than the 1.6 crop. A macro lens will resolve a certain number of line pairs per millimetre. Image sharpness is measured in line pairs per picture height, by using the same lens but with physically bigger sensor you will get more line pairs per picture height, hence more detail in your image.

Another way to look at it is that using a smaller sensor is like making an enlargement, or viewing a portion of an image close up - it's never going to look as sharp under those circumstances.

Now on some lenses corner performance can drop off to the extent that you get better average sharpness (but lower peak sharpness) by using a crop sensor and simply avoiding the extreme corners. Here is an example of such a lens, the Canon 35mm f/2.0:

APS-C corners occur at 13.5mm, where sharpness at f/8.0 (fine blue line) remains above 0.8. On full frame sharpness takes a nose dive starting at 18mm, which corresponds to middle of the left or right edge of the frame. Now compare that to the Canon 180mm f/3.5L Macro:

Sharpness is extremely high right across the frame, there is no notable drop off, meaning your full frame image will be sharper everywhere, even in the extreme corners.

However if both cameras have a similar same number of megapixels then a crop sensor can be very useful for macro photography as it allows you to photograph smaller objects. A true macro lens on full frame will let you fill the frame with an object only 36mm across, whearas with a crop camera you can fill the [1.6x smaller] frame with an object only 22.5mm across. This can be very useful for um, photographing really small things!

Answered by Matt Grum

Check more discussion of this question.

Would these lenses fit my future Nikon D7000?

Question

I am in the progress of choosing my new equipment. First of all I have picked the Nikon D7000, it seems like a very nice camera, and it is not that expensive. I could go Full-Frame but seeing the price-tag that might be a little too much, and I would rather like some nice lenses.

Right now I got my eyes on these two:

• Nikon Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4G
• Nikon Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Micro

I feel this should cover, a lot of the photos I would like to be taking. The 105mm could be replaced with a Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX Micro 85mm f/3.5G ED VR, but I am hearing that the 105mm will give a little extra.

I would like to know, does these lenses fit the Nikon D7000? Would they still be nice if I in some years upgrade to FX?

Would you recommend some other lenses? And in time what lens would you recommend as the third lens.

Also feel free to comment on the choice of the Nikon D7000, I have been looking at cameras like Canon D7, but I feel the Nikon is a little better.

I have used a Canon 450D and a Canon 600D before, also a little bit of Nikon... mostly rented by friends.

Thanks for reading, I hope you got some input!

Asked by Allan Kimmer Jensen

Answer

Both those lenses are compatible with the D7000 and that should also be the case with any FX camera you buy further down the line. A 50mm lens is an excellent choice for a starter lens, and the 1.4 is an excellent example of one. The 105mm will be very good for portraits, and of course macro photography.

Your choice for a third lens will be determined by what kind of photography you want to do. If you feel you want to try landscape photography, you may want to invest in a wider angle lens. If you want to try wildlife or sports photography, you will want something longer. I would concentrate on learning the camera and photography in general before even thinking about a third lens, however. A good tripod is arguably more important anyway.

The D7000 is by all accounts an excellent camera and is a great choice. Happy photographing!

Answered by ElendilTheTall

Check more discussion of this question.

Considerations when purchasing a prime lens?

Question

What should I be aware of when buying a prime lens (other than that it will fit my camera)? What specs should I pay close attention to?

Asked by Dan Seaver

Answer

Aside from focal length, the most important thing to consider is the maximum aperture of the lens. That's what people are often looking for when they buy primes. The max aperture is usually part of the lens description such as: 50mm f/1.8 where 50mm is the focal length and f/1.8 is the maximum aperture. The lower that "f/" number is, the better low-light performance the lens will have and the more shallow the depth of field you can get out of the lens.

Other considerations are the same as any other lens: autofocus quality, whether it has IS or can do macro (if you want/need it), if it has a rotating front element (if you plan to use a circular polarizer with it), etc.

Besides those things, there's not much else to look into regarding specs. You can get sharpness test results along with data on distortion, CA, etc on http://photozone.de and search for other reviews on Google. Flickr and it's groups can also help, people often have test data or sample photos you can view large to get an idea of the image quality you can expect -just make sure you get a large sampling of data since poor test conditions or methods can make a lens look worse than it really is.

Answered by Erica Marshall

Check more discussion of this question.

What type of camera can work in extreme weather conditions?

Question

Are there camera out there that are capable to withstand at least some of the following type of weather conditions and are able to take good quality photos (not necessarily the most high quality photos)?

1. Hot weather where temperature might hit at least 50 degree Celsius
2. Underwater condition in a swimming pool (able to take good photo during day / night)
3. Sandstorms condition
4. Thunderstorm condition
5. Earthquake condition
6. Underwater condition in sea
7. Able to withstand hard knocks
8. Snowing condition
9. During nuclear meltdown or post nuclear conditions

Asked by Jack

Answer

Yes — at least on the more realistic side of each extreme situation. There are many ruggedized cameras, almost any of which will cover some degree of each item on your whole list — although none will take being actually hit by lightning. A sandstorm is a tall order and you may want additional protection, if you're really out in it. Likewise, these will handle snorkeling, but if you're going down where there is significant pressure you probably need additional precautions.

For nuclear disaster, assuming your own safety is either adequately dealt with or that you are past caring, no off-the-shelf camera will help. Radiation will fog film and can destroy digital sensors (and flip bits on memory cards). When photographer Igor Kostin illegally went into the Chernobyl site days after the explosion, he wore a lead suit and protected his camera gear with lead boxes — something similar would be recommended were you in a similar situation. Years later, a Chernobyl tour site notes that putting camera equipment on the ground is forbidden as it risks contamination, but doesn't offer further words of warning on protecting camera gear; presumably the tour is short enough and stays far enough away from high radiation areas as to minimize the risk.

For the more realistic scenarios, though, a camera feature search at Digital Photography Review turns up almost two dozen shockproof cameras, and I believe all of these results happen to be waterproof as well — which also means sealed against dust. You can narrow down the search from there.

Answered by mattdm

Check more discussion of this question.

Would a camcorder be a better choice than a superzoom?

Question

A friend told me that since I could not decide whether to choose a superzoom or a DSLR, I might as well choose a camcorder. He also mentions that modern camcorders have nice features and fit in just between a superzoom and a DSLR.

So, I would like to ask the community experts in photography whether a camcorder is really that good in terms of quality of image/video, good or even great zooming capabilities, and also at producing good video/image at night.

Asked by Jack

Answer

A camcorder does not "fit between super zoom and DSLR" - a camcorder is a device to make home videos that can also take low quality photos.

A camcorder is better designed to shoot video than any still camera (easier to hold and use) but they usually have crappy optics (because video is low res anyway) and are generally bad at taking photos.

Also a camcorder does not shoot pro level video, pro video gear is expensive (so expensive it makes top of the line DSLR look cheap).

If you want a device that shoot both photos and videos and fits in your pocket get a point and shoot.

If you want image quality and control get a DSLR.

If you want something in the middle you can get a mirror less interchangeable lens camera.

If all you want is low quality video than a camcorder is just for you.

obviously I'm talking about consumer level camcorders here (point and shoot price range) , I don't think anyone will call a pro video camera a "camcorder"

Answered by Nir

Check more discussion of this question.

Beginner lenses for Canon T2i

Question

What are the best lenses for starting out with a Canon T2i while still covering a whole bunch of creative techniques / teaching photography (and also theory) to beginners

Asked by Harsh

Answer

Assuming that your T2i has some lens, that is the best one to start. Learn how to use the camera. Once you have taken a few thousand photos, you will know what kinds of shots you like, what your needs are, and then it will be obvious to you what types of lenses you should get as a second, or third lens.

The "kit lens" on the T2i was the 18-55. Its a cheap lens, but will do the job. Many folks like the Canon EFS 50mm F1.8 as a second lens, its a much faster prime. But if you like to take sports or wildlife photos, you will want a longer telephoto zoom.

Don't hang around photography forums, go shoot photos.

And get a decent post processing software package, such as Aperture, Lightroom or Photoshop Elements. Even beginners can do amazing stuff with these packages, an they are all under $200.

Answered by Pat Farrell

Check more discussion of this question.

Would camcorder be a better choice than a Superzoom?

Question

A friend told me that since I could not decide whether to choose a superzoom or a DSLR, might as well choose a camcorder. He also mention that modern camcorder have nice feature and fit in just between a superzoom and a DSLR.

So, I would like to ask the community experts in photography whether a camcorder is really that good in terms of quality of image/video, good or even good zooming capabilities and also produce good video/image at night.

(Would appreciate if expert can recommend some of the camcorder that is really "must-have")

Thank you.

Asked by Jack

Answer

A camcorder does not "fit between super zoom and DSLR" - a camcorder is a device to make home videos that can also take low quality photos.

A camcorder is better designed to shoot video than any still camera (easier to hold and use) but they usually have crappy optics (because video is low res anyway) and are generally bad at taking photos.

Also a camcorder does not shoot pro level video, pro video gear is expensive (so expensive it makes top of the line DSLR look cheap).

If you want a device that shoot both photos and videos and fits in your pocket get a point and shoot.

If you want image quality and control get a DSLR.

If you want something in the middle you can get a mirror less interchangeable lens camera.

If all you want is low quality video than a camcorder is just for you.

obviously I'm talking about consumer level camcorders here (point and shoot price range) , I don't think anyone will call a pro video camera a "camcorder"

Answered by Nir

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I decide on a camera/lens with high zoom range?

Question

I need a camera that is not so bulky (even though additional lens is fine with me — not more than one extra lens). Also, I am not looking at those high-end camera such as Nikon or Canon Mark III.

Plus, I need to take photo of animals that might be a at least 1 metre to 300 or 500 metre away from me. It should also be able to take macro photo and able to take HD movie too.

The picture quality need not be very good but definitely should not be less than average. The camera should not make unnecessary or loud noise when taking photo too.

I am looking right now at few Superzoom and DSLR cameras and I have a headache over which to choose since a DSLR would give me quality images and allow me to take good-to-great shots at night. However, a Superzoom would allow me to take photos of far away objects and those are not as bulky since no additional lens is needed. (Sometimes, I wonder why we can't get a camera that contain all the great features of all type of camera — also known as The Perfect Camera. Sigh.)

Asked by Jack

Answer

Consider a micro 4/3rds (several manufacturers) with near APSC size sensor.
Or a Sony NEX-xxx series with 'full' APSC sensor size.

Checklist based on your requirements:

Not so bulky (even though additional lens is fine with me - not more than 1 extra lens).

Reasonable match.

Plus, I need to take photo of animals that might be a at least 1 metre to 300 or 500 metre away from me. It should also be able to take macro photo and able to take HD movie too.

1 meter no problem. NOTHING works really well at 500 metres for animals BUT you can add as long a lens as meets your spec. A teleconverter would help & still keep quality wll above a point-and-shoot. Most of the ~= APSC sensor compacts now have HD vodeo.

The picture quality need not be very good but definitely should not be less than average. The camera should not make unnecessary or loud noise when taking photo too.

Picture quality may be too good for you ! :-).
If you REALLY don't care then an ultrazoom may be better. Mirrorless cameras are "quiet enough". When it really really really matters you can "muffle" a mirrorless camera and get near perfect quiet. (My A77 Sony can be muffled to concert hall acceptable level if needed. Looks bad though :-).

I am looking right now a few Superzoom and DSLR and I have a headache on which to choose since DSLR give me quality images and allow me to take good to great shot at night. However, Superzoom allow me to take photo of far away objects and are not bulky since no additional lens is needed.

hese cameras are definitely larger than compacts - but smaller than any DSLR. Well worth a look. Quality of the eg NEX7 is better than the A77 DSLR as they share the same sensor but NEX7 does not have part silvered mirror "in the way".

---

EXAMPLE:

eg Sony NEX-7, 24 mp, APSC, mirrorless, external lenses.
This camera will 'photographically' outperform almost and APSC DSLR on the market.
For less $ and less specs and less size and weight you get the NEX3 and NEX5 which are still "reasonably good".

The NEX-7 has 1080p video and the 3 & 5 have 720p AFAIR. (Maybe 1080i)

It's not an SLR. But it does much the same job. That's an 18-55 lens in the picture.
Or 27 - 82mm 35mm equivalent.
If desired, with an adaptor you cn add any Minolta or Sony AF A mount lens.

As it's a 24 megapixel camera you can crop the middle of the image down to 6mp and call it an 27 - 164mm equivalent.
ie 27 mm/24 mp down to 164mm / 6 mp.
Plus variants in between.
So say 164/27 = 6:1 optical zoom. Lower than most SZs but sill very useful.

Using 1/4 of the sensor it still has more sensor area than any superzoom
Typically MORE than 3 x as much area at 6 MP and 20x as much area at full frame!.

NEX7 120 x 67 x 43mm
BUT this is body only

353 grams with battery and card = 54% heavier than Pansonic SZ below 23.5 x 15.6mm sensor - area = 367 mm^2 24.3 mp

Sony NEX-7 review

Answered by Russell McMahon

Check more discussion of this question.

Are there cameras that can take photos at night or in near complete darkness?

Question

Just wondering if there are any cameras that are specifically used for taking photos at night or in near complete darkness?

Asked by Jack

Answer

Modern full-frame sensor cameras are pretty amazing at this. The Nikon D4 for example can shoot at up to ISO 204000, yes 204 thousands! One reviewer said he was shooting subjects which he could not see with his own eyes, yet the camera focused and exposed properly. The key is that those cameras, like the Canon 1D X and Nikon D3S have big pixels which are extremely sensitive to light.

All cameras require some amount of light, after all the word photography comes from Greek and means drawing with light. A handful of cameras cheat by adding their own infrared light to the scene and measuring that. The result is a grainy monochrome image. All such cameras that I know are made by Sony and that feature is called NightShot but I have not seen one of these for a few years. It is much more common in camcorders than still cameras.

Answered by Itai

Check more discussion of this question.

What would be a good all-round lens for the London Olympics 2012?

Question

I was lucky enough to get London Olympics 2012 tickets to the Volleyball, Hockey and Table Tennis

The Hockey and Volleyball will be outdoors and the Table tennis will be indoors. I have seen the camera bag specification which are a bag no bigger than 30cm * 20cm * 20cm so it's a modest size - I have also heard that flash is banned.

My cam is a D7000 - realistically I think I could take 2 lenses

I have 18-270 Tamron
90mm Macro Tamron
50mm Nikon
10-20 Sigma

This is a once in a lifetime experience and would love to get the best shots I can, also want to capture the atmosphere of Olympic park to.

Renting is on the cards, so if someone could recommend a lens that would be great!

Asked by Rob

Answer

Once in a lifetime!
Remember that.

The following goes beyond what you asked as there are more factors than 'best lens' - it's also WHY this lens and what else that interacts matters. (Evrything interacs :-) ).

(1) Hire a D3s (world's best) or a D700 (superb but not as good) and lens. Or buy a used D700 :-). If you do get a D700 or even with your D7000, look at shots per second and buffer depth. Note that quality used may effect this. RAW, which is what purists will insist you use, will be slowest. Whether this influences choice is up to you. (Note that as D700 and D3s are full frame you can only use your X lenses in 6MP crop mode). Do NOT be put off by D700 12 mp resolution.

When comparing what you can expect to see with each camera at high ISO lean toward looking at real pictures and not just sensor comparisons. Decide how high and ISO you can go to get an acceptable shot compared to getting a noise free blur.

(2) CRUCIAL: *Whatever you take, practice in advance for the sort of shot you expect to be able to take.*

This can make a vast difference.

It's not just motion blue but which sorts of shots in a given sport look good or best afterwards.
I've taken numerous volleyball and table tennis shots. No hockey.

With TT and VB what you get can vary widely from what you expect until you have had some experience.
When somebody is setting up the ball to spike it in VB when do you take the shot? What looks best?
What difficulties are caused by ball speed or person speed and what looks most interesting.

In TT when do you shoot?
Where is the ball? How does this affect what you see?
Do you want the ball blurred or crisp. How much difference does this make.
What shutter speeds work.
Without flash, what shutter speeds MUST you have for any sort of quality?
What does that do to the types of shot you can take?
How much must you put up the ISO to get a minimum acceptable shot? What is the noise/blur tradeoff?

(3) Decide if the Tamron 18-270 will take the sort of photos you want. If so, take that.

Issues are

• Absolute quality - it's a very good lens but not as good as the 50mm and you can certainly higher better lenses IF IT MATTERS. (I suggest that in the context it probably doesn't - other facors are liable to make the Tamron absolute quality good enough).

  • Aperture. Something like 1/3.5 - 6.3 with a strong bias towards 1/6.3 for many shots you'd take, probably. Decide is a fixed 1/2.8 is worth what it will cost to hire AND the reduced zoom range. Light difference from 1/2.8 to 1/6.2 is 5:1 [= (6.3/2.8)^2]. That means that wide open you can get 5 x more shutter speed. eg 1/200s at f/6.3 on the Tamron and 1/1000s at f/2.8 on a fixed 2.8 lens. Whether the reduced depth of field on the 1/2.8 is an issues is something you need to consider.

  • Focusing speed and focusing ability. You own the Tamron. You know if it will do what you want in action shots. If you don't know that already, go and find some games of VB and TT and Hockey and find out. Now ! :-). If you want better find out if a hired lens + your camera will do better focus wise.

The 50mm is superb for interest and low depth of field. At any distance you get no detail and focusing is generally harder.

A prime or short range zoom will restrict the range of shots you can do well. The 10 - 20 is very short range and he 50 and 90 too short for 'action way over there'. Again, practice will show you if this is true (it is :-) ) and how much you care.

If you don't mind cropping the results then a relatively narrow zoom range image then hiring something like the 70-200 etc may improve IQ enough to matter. I'd seriously suggest that you take your 18-270, go out and find some fastish action of the type you expect at the range you expect and ask yourself "what does this lens not do that I must have" and "what would I lose by using a "better" lense with less or far less zoom range. Then for outdoors take the Tamron :-). Indoors MAYBE something faster - but note that depth of field also falls and that's a small & fast moving ball that you want to be sharp.

Answered by Russell McMahon

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the best Nikon DSLR to start out with?

Question

I'm thinking about starting real photography using a DSLR; I had been using point-and-shooters before and had been dismayed by the quality of the photo that was produced.

I'm thinking about buying a DSLR but don't know where to start from. A photographer friend of mine had suggested a Nikon D3000 but I'm not sure if it is the right one for me.

Asked by JFW

Answer

There is not the true answer, but I think you could be happy with a D5000 ... very simply to use, quite good for beginners and not much expensive.

Of course you can invest in some good optic in the next feature and retain them when you decide to pass to a more professional device. You will loose them when you'll fall in love with FX cameras :)

Answered by AlberT

Check more discussion of this question.

Is there an alternative to AA cells for the Fujifilm HS20?

Question

After getting into a choice between two super zooms, the Canon SX30IS or Fujifilm HS10 / HS20, I have chosen Fuji. However, it uses AA batteries. When on tour it's so painful if AA batteries go out or low.

Is it possible to have an additional good battery source (lithium, etc.) which can last a long time and can connect to tye Fujifilm HS10 / HS20 using a cable or something, so that even if the camera does not have AA cells it will still work?

Perhaps something which is there for old SLR cameras, or flashes that professional photographer use on wedding photography, or outdoors.

Asked by Anil Namde

Answer

As I understand it, the OP is asking for an external battery pack to power his Fuji HS 10 / HS 20 so that he can get extended battery life.

To do this you need the following
1. AC-5VX power adapter from Fujifilm and third parties.
2. CP-04 DC coupler from Fujifilm and third parties.
3. Duracell PowerSource Mobile 100 External battery pack + DC to AC power inverter - Lithium ion 4 Ah

The Duracell PowerSource has an AC power outlet(as well as two USB outlets!). Connect the AC-5VX power adapter to this. Then use the CP-04 DC coupler to connect the power adapter to the camera. One end slots into the camera's battery compartment.

Now you have in effect an external 4 Ah battery which should keep you going for a good while, to say nothing of the benefits for your other devices.

The downside is that you will have a bit of a cable tangle to manage.

There are other external power supplies to be had. I merely use the Duracell one as a good example of the genre.

Answered by labnut

Check more discussion of this question.

Is waist level photography with a digital camera practical?

Question

My Yashicaflex twin lens reflex camera has reached the end of the road now that the shutter release has failed. Given the problems of film availability and processing it hardly seems worthwhile fixing.

But I am in love with the waist level style of photography that the twin lens reflex made possible. I have always thought this was ideal for candid street photography. I have searched for digital equivalents and there seem to be none.

However a number of compact cameras have flip out LCD screens that can tilt into the horizontal position.

So I want to know whether anybody has used this feature to practice waist level photography and whether this is really a practical alternative to the twin lens reflex cameras of yesteryear.

Asked by labnut

Answer

I use the flip out screen and Live View mode on my Nikon D5000 all the time for just this purpose. Autofocus isn't quite as effective in Live View so I usually use manual, but it works just fine.

Answered by ElendilTheTall

Check more discussion of this question.