Hi All,
Looking at this http://www.harveynorman.com.au/canon-eos-1100d-dslr-camera-w… unless someone can convince me there is a better option?
Needs to be easyish to operate and not looking to spend much more than this
Thanks!
Looking for a Camera to take low-light action shots
bravyboy on 30/08/2013 - 00:20
Comments
Eww gross
have a look at a panasonic fz200 or leica v-lux 4.
they only have the smaller sensor but they have a 20x optical with 2.8f the whole zoom.
i got a 600d and am a little bit gutted i didn't buy one.The lens of the Canon 1100 kit you mention is f3.5-5.6. It is not a fast lens. Have a look at the table at the bottom of this document. http://club.starvalleyphoto.com/Exposure%20Tutorial.pdf
I suspect you may need to spend more, as suggests, but more information is needed to suggest a good solution.
What is the distance to your subject when taking your low light photos, and what are the lighting conditions? What 'action' or movement are you photographing?Thanks for your responses.
I am not looking for 'amazing' quality, just needs to decent enough to not be blurry.
I will be taking shots of a soccer match, which will mainly be played under floodlightsI recently bought a Canon Ixus 500 for $60 at Dick Smith.
It has what they call
"The Handheld Night Scene mode combines several shots into one sharp and optimally-exposed image."And it actually works and its the flick of a switch to activate so no dicking around with menus and buttons.
My father in law was a professional photographer his entire life and he was gobsmacked at pictures I took of him in a darkened room and outside in the evening just to prove the point.
Not as good as $1000 camera and 10 minutes of setup with a tripod but good none the less.
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_ixus_500_hs_rev…add: just noticed you want Action shots
They may be blurry due to the "several shots into one"At your price point you don't have much in the way of options. Go with the 1100d and not with a compact as you will be able to upgrade the lens to a better zoom. I have over the years tried to take photos of my son's sporting efforts - afl, water polo and most recently ice hockey with a variety of cameras (I worked at a camera shop for a while and had access to demo equipment). The problems you have will be the distance to your subject and the light available. If you can stretch your budget a bit and get a twin lens kit with a better zoom that will at least help you get closer to your subject and hopefully there will be enough light from the floodlights so that you can use faster shutter speeds to capture the action.
Sports and low light is a tough cookie. You'll need a fast lens that takes in a lot of light (a low fstop number). To be honest, id go with a second hand/cheaper body and pour most of the money into a decent quick lens.
Precisely
Ideally something with a full frame sensor, but you'd have to be incredibly lucky.
Have a look at this info. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200 Says that under floodlights you need a lens that offers at least a 4.0 and probably a 2.8 aperature at the distance to subject. I have been researching cameras for low light wildlife photos at dusk and the only reasonably priced option I could find is the Panasonic fz-200 mentioned above. It is $USD459 in the USA. It gets top reviews at the top camera website here. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200 I fear you will be disappointed or pay much more if you choose anything else.
Sorry posted wrong link. The first link should have been http://www.ehow.com/how_7695016_photos-floodlights.html
I used to shoot soccer for the Brisbane soccer comp many years ago (I'm talking film) but that was always in the afternoon. Night presents even greater challenges. +1 to all the previous comments. But here's how I'd approach it. I'd give highest priority to get fast glass over camera features. Definitely make sure that the camera is compatible with manual lens - because if you find the autofocus is not up to the task you can still pull great shots by focusing manually - but that will take practise. It would be best to buy an interchangable lens camera - even the most basic - so that you have a bigger choice of lenses. Kogan has some awesome deals on older generation cameras like canons and nikons.
However good skills are equally important as good equipment - maybe more!
Improving your photography skills costs nothing except practice time. You have to get practise at following the action with your lens. Start by standing beside the road and follow the cars as they go by - from in front of you till its way past you - you actually don't even need a camera for this practse session. Then go to an "unimportant" soccer match and get practice following players in the same way.
Tips:
Don't always rely on the camera to freeze the action - capturing it on the move at a lower shutter speeds, in B&W, can look really arty! This works well when pushing the iso to 3200-6400.
It is easier to photograph somebody moving past the lens than it is when they are running towards the lens - this is because the focus distance is rapidly changing as they get closer.
Capture portraits of players while they are waiting for penalty kicks.
Anticipate the point at which your subject will be moving slowly - you have more chance of a clean snap.
And, no matter what camera you buy, practise pratise practise BEFORE the match so that YOU are in form for the big game.I agree with most of what RustyStainless said, with one proviso; can anyone suggest a new 600mm lens at 2.8 aperature of decent quality for less than the <$800 price of the whole fz200 camera? That was the issue I faced. A Panasonic fz200 is a fraction of the price of an equivalent f2.8 at 600mm DSLR lens. If there is a cost limit, then a used lens or lens plus camera kit, is maybe the way to go, even a film camera maybe. Or as RustyStainless suggested reduce the movement in your action shots, changing them to more or less static shots, thereby reducing the needed lens qualty and cost.
Couldn't agree more about the fz200, and now only $585 at Digital Camera Warehouse it is seriously good value - AT THAT PRICE. However the OP's suggested camera is $348, and we really don't know what their budget is. I actually considered getting the FZ200 for myself but that kind of camera is not for people addicted to lens collecting ;). I have a bit more budget so I've got a hacked GH2 and now I'm hunting for a G6 as my back up camera. If I was into sports I'd buy a F2.8 200mm for the GH2.
We need to know the budget - then the prioritising and compromising can begin.
If you are on tight buget, and want to freeze action, maybe have the 1100d and kit lens for wide and get a really cheap good quality 50 f1.8. It doesn't zoom, but can take good photos if got good skills. And you could always crop the photo if needed for those far shots. It is excellent low light lens, fast.
agree, never go wrong with the nifty fifty. Cheap and reliable. It's like KFCs original recipe chicken.
Nikon 1 v1 with 32mm 1.2 seems to be a good choice if you need to track objects, otherwise a dslr the best if you can manage the heavy weight of fast glass and got money to spend. Not that Nikon 1 with fast glass is any cheap by any means, but it's a really good family camera imo. I've tried it and I like the feel of it and how responsive it is but couldn't justify the price when it first came out.
Check out this review:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/08/27/the-nikon-v1-shoots…
Low light action shots are incredibly difficult technically.
To take a picture you need light to enter the camera. To 'freeze' action without blurring you need that light to enter in a split second (say 1/125th or faster). This is fine on a sunny day, but in low light it takes longer for enough light to produce the photo to enter the camera, risking blur.
You can counter this in a few ways:
- get a higher ISO. This terminology is held over from film days, but basically the bigger the number, the less light is required to make an image. The downside is that pictures look grainy, and more grainy the higher the ISO.
- get a wide lens that lets lots of light in. This is measured in F stops. Counter-intuitively, the smaller the number, the bigger the window to let light in. The linked camera has a lens with a maximum F stop (called aperture) of 3.5. You can buy lenses that go much lower. I have one that is f/1.4 that lets me reliably take pics indoors with no flash. But even it will stuggle with fast action.
- add more light. This is what the flash is for. Consider also that you can set up stand alone flashes that are linked to your camera to throw light about.
If I look at pros who work on indoor sport events, they tend to use all three. They will set up flashes around the arena, use big aperture lenses (those $10000 white telephoto lenses you see at the cricket have an aperture around f/2) and shoot at an ISO of 1000 or sometimes more.
What does all this mean?
If you are getting poor results from a pocket camera, certainly a DSLR like you linked will improve things dramatically, but to get top quality results you will need to follow the strategies above. There isn't an alternative. And that implies spending some more, although there are some ways to economise (e.g. cheap chinese flashes, old manual lens) but they have drawbacks.