A&P New camera or do i just suck at pictars?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by negative zero, Feb 11, 2010.

  1. negative zero

    negative zero New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    6,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    the Watchtower
    I don't know if the camera is the issue or if it's me. I have an older canon s3is point and shoot. Definitely not dslr quality but got pretty decent reviews at the time I purchased it. It takes so-so pictures. Most of the time, outside shots look good enough for me but I almost can never get a good inside shot. Case in point, last night.

    My son got his orange belt in karate. I took a few shots during the belt test and some were OK. The most important one looked like crap. :mad: Here it is.

    [​IMG]

    The place would be considered low light I guess but I wouldn't have thought it was bad enough to get as horrible of a picture.

    Here's one I took a few minutes later that looks better but then again they were alot closer.

    [​IMG]

    Now, I'm know I'm no expert and I don't intend to be but I am pissed i missed this shot (as well as others of my kids) :wtc: .

    Was it me or the camera or a combination of both?

    I don't think I want to delve into the dslr world because I just don't have the $$ for the glass but I need to get better shots.

    If there is a decent point and shoot for ~$500, that's about all I can afford (and that's stretching it).

    Any ideas? :sadwavey:
     
  2. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    The flash didn't fire in the first pic. That's why it's so dark.
     
  3. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    Canon s90 or g11 are your top p&s cameras

    I had the canon s5 is. Nice camera but they can't touch dslr capability
     
  4. SkiMax

    SkiMax OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    26,738
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Chicago
    time for a D3 and a 200mm f2...
     
  5. EWhytsell

    EWhytsell New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah flash didn't seem to fire. Also FYI if you use the camera's live view to frame the subject and snap the shot then your much more likely to get camera shake even with the built in IS system. You should use it like a DSLR and look through the eyepiece. I have an S2IS and its a great camera as well.

    Another tip, your S3 is capable of lots of the same manual and creative modes as a DSLR plus more. Some of my favorite shots to this day were taken on my S2. I even have a 16x20 of a waterfall hanging in my house. So... Learn to use your modes. In Karate class situations you could use Tv mode to keep the shutter speed high enough to freeze movements and limit camera shake.

    If you want to know anything else ask away, lots of great info here. Especially if you read the sticky for beginners.
     
  6. Sympathy

    Sympathy OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    31,011
    Likes Received:
    79
    [​IMG]

    the exif data suggests that your flashed fired. the reason why the pic came out dark was b/c onboard camera flashes only light up things 7-8feet in front of the camera. how far away was your kid?
     
  7. Sympathy

    Sympathy OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    31,011
    Likes Received:
    79
    the reason why the 2nd pic came out brighter than the first pic is b/c:
    1. your kid was closer to the camera when the flash fired.
    2. your camera's lens has a variable aperture that depends on your zoom. in the first pic, i assume you were using your zoom (16.4mm focal length), thus your aperture was smaller (f3.5). in the second pic, i don't think you zoomed in on your kid (6.7 focal length), and you had a wider aperture (f2.7). b/c you had a wider aperture while having the same shutter speed + the same iso, more light was able to enter your camera, and that's why your 2nd photo came out brighter.

    if you bought an entry level dslr, you will mostlikely have the same result unless you bought a nicer lens (and maybe a flash). only difference is that you will able to control iso w/ the dslr.
     
  8. cantankerously

    cantankerously Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    61,519
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Yeah - definitely too far away. Would have been a much better photo if you got up close and filled the frame.
     
  9. negative zero

    negative zero New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    6,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    the Watchtower
    Thanks for all the info. Yeah, I thought I remembered the flash going off.

    I was maybe 25 ft or so away so definitely zoomed in a bit. I couldn't get on the mat because no shoes are allowed.


    When we go back in tomorrow night I'm gonna ask the instructor if He can let me take a quick picture of them again. They actually sent the wrong belt in anyways. Was supposed to be a orange junior belt (has a white stripe) instead of the regular orange. So, that seems like a decent photo op.

    Thanks for the info/tips everyone. So, i wouldn't benefit from a DSLR in this situation unless I spent a good bit for a lens? Roughly how much are we talking?
     
  10. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    i've only been in the DSLR world for 7 months, but you can accomplish these pictures with a DSLR and no flash, using the right lens.

    you would use what is called a "prime" lens. you can't zoom in or out with it. it's fixed. you have to move your feet to go in and out.

    [​IMG]


    this is an extreme example. this was in a museum with terribly low lighting.
    this is iso 1600 / f/1.8 / 1/30 shutter

    this was done with a $200 lens. when you shoot a lens wide open in low light, your depth of field is narrow. notice how the bottom of the picture is blurry?

    but yeah on camera flash blows. most dslr folks try to shoot without flash, or with flash off the camera fired remotely
     
  11. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    Flash looks like it did fire (red eyes), but wasn't powerful enough to cover that distance. it also looks like you zoomed in a lot, possibly into the digital-zoom region (bad)
     
  12. wrong1

    wrong1 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    socal
    I was thinking the same thing. Either digital zoom or heavily cropped.
     
  13. bobasaur

    bobasaur New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Taipei
    didnt know there was an exif add-on. Sucks it doesnt work for firefox 3.6. QQ
     
  14. negative zero

    negative zero New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    6,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    the Watchtower
    Nope, no digital zoom. I might suck at pictures but I never go into the zoom that far. :mamoru:
     
  15. Drunken Karnie Midget

    Drunken Karnie Midget In Yeo We Trust, All Others Pay Cash OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    39,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty Canada
    That was my only regret in switching to chrome. No exif viewer :wtc:
     
  16. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest


    and not being able to surf the internet [​IMG]
     
  17. negative zero

    negative zero New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    6,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    the Watchtower
    Just curious about this. I brought my S3 to work today to mess round with. I took a picture looking through the eyepiece and one with the lcd. Both are of the same object and they look identical to me. I guess you just mean, in general, when using the LCD, it might be prone to shake??


    I've seen some great shots with the S3, I just can't seem to master it.

    That's why I'm skeptical of stepping up to a DSLR. I feel I may have to cross the same hurdles with a steep learning curve. My son starts tball mid march and I was really hoping to get some good shots of him there as well.

    Another thing I don't like about the S3 is the time it takes to focus. I actually had time to take another shot right after the first pic I posted but the damn thing wouldn't focus (the green boxes that appear on the screen). So, since I had pre-focused on the first one I figured I was good.

    Am I crazy to think I could do a better job with a better camera, be it DSLR or a newer P&S?
     
  18. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    you might be more inspired to learn/practice/do better with a dslr

    i feel like a kid on christmas when i use mine. it's a real camera. i like to pretend i'm a photographer, thus i read books and practice a lot.

    everytime i pick up a P&S i have 0 ambition to frame it properly or do anything creative.


    also about holding it up... when i hold a camera in front of me, it allows your hands to shake more. holding it up against your face is a bracer
     
  19. aCab

    aCab New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    18,292
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicaaago
    It's you. The camera is perfectly capable.
     
  20. negative zero

    negative zero New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    6,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    the Watchtower

    Are you talking about in general or the issue with the first picture? In general, I am sure you are right. In the first picture I think I did everything I could have done besides walk out onto the mat. That's what I am trying to decide. If I could get an entry level dslr and get shots like this (zoomed in a bit, not super zoomed) that are not blurry then I may consider it.

    I will gladly accept any tips anyone cares to give. And I have read the sticky on photography. It's just that most of it is over my head.
     
  21. aCab

    aCab New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    18,292
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicaaago
    I'll tell you what I tell all of the photographers that I lead on my Campus Newspaper - yes, a camera can help you get better pictures, but unless you know how to operate it very well, then you're not going to be able to get awesome pictures, even with a nice camera.

    think about it this way - a ferrari is an awesome car, but is only as fast as its driver. Similarly, on a technical road, in a slower car, a great driver could beat a shitty driver in a fast car.

    You said that everything in the photography sticky was pretty much over your head - you need to fix that. In photography, gear is only a small portion of the equation - your technical knowledge will get you a lot farther and is usually a better investment than new gear. You can buy new gear, but if you don't know how to use it, you're still going to take shitty pictures.
     
  22. EWhytsell

    EWhytsell New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most of the time the image stabilizer in the camera will reduce shake, but in general you'll be much steadier putting the camera up to your eye for the shot. It puts your arms closer to your body, rests the camera against your cheek, and if you do get a DSLR you'll be using the eyepiece anyway so you might as well get used to it :)


    I guess the newest DSLR's (having really high ISO capability) and then buying a decent lens would enable you to take better pictures than your S3 can. The newer ones might have a shorter learning curve to at least get properly exposed photos IDK.

    You might even seriously consider the canon G10 or G11 (whatever the new one is.) You can put a bigger flash on it for those dim indoor shots and you won't be into nearly as much money as DSLR setup.


     
  23. Drunken Karnie Midget

    Drunken Karnie Midget In Yeo We Trust, All Others Pay Cash OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    39,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty Canada
    haven't had any problems at all :dunno:
     
  24. Drunken Karnie Midget

    Drunken Karnie Midget In Yeo We Trust, All Others Pay Cash OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    39,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty Canada
    this man speaks the truth.

    aCab seems to have missed the part where you're not looking to be a photographer, only that you seem to get into situations that your camera simply cannot compensate for. The canon G10/11 will help, or an entry-level DSLR w/ a decent (not pro, just better than kit) lens.
     
  25. negative zero

    negative zero New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    6,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    the Watchtower
    Thanks again.

    Exactly right, Midget. Of course I would love to be able to get shots like some of you guys do but I'm not opening up a studio nor planning to get into wedding photography. If I can just get some decent, clear shots of the kids every now and then I'm fine with that.

    So, what would an entry level dslr cost that would take clear pictures in environments as I posted above? I have heard the kit lenses aren't very good but buying a $600 - $700 camera would not leave any room for an additional lens for quite some time.
    Would the entry level dslr have a much better flash then the S3 I have or would I have to immediately get a separate flash?

    Is there a preferred "all around" lens that isn't a fortune? how about a zoom lens for sports, etc. ?
     

Share This Page