Cameras ???
- Thread starter chipperd
- Start date
I'm partial towards Nikon cameras. Depending on how much you want to spend, a Nikon D40, D60 or D90 are very good entry level bodies. For low-light conditions, a fast f/2.8 lens will work well for you. For more detailed tips on choosing a camera, click the link below...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm
If you want something cheap and small, check out these pics I took with a $200 Panasonic camera 2 years ago at Derby 07. Most of the time the lighting condition was pretty dark. Not the best quality but it surely was easy to use. It is smaller a cigarette box and has this "High Sensitive" mode. I believe you can get a better Panasonic for under $150 now.
http://talk.cuetable.com/showthread.php?t=190
http://talk.cuetable.com/showthread.php?t=190
Attachments
Last edited:
no flash? you want something with low pixel density, big aperture setting, and big sensor. you can find stats at http://dpreview.com/ . Great reviews there. It translates to less noise at higher sensitivity / ISO settings, which is required for lower lighting areas without a flash. I remember all the rage a while ago was the cheaper compact Fujifilm F20 / F31.
Last edited:
the key part of 'without' a flash is the tricky peice ... all cameras are dependent on the light source in the area you are shooting in ... and most all require a flash of some sort as compensation ...
the only 'real' answer would be to shoot film ... but since digital is a requirement for most ... then a camera with the largest sensor and manual controls for the ap and shutter are a must ...
most of those cameras are going to be in the 600 price range at a minimum ...
if you are going to be close to the subject you are taking the photo of ... that would be better ...
i would reccomend a decent nikon or canon dslr body .. and a lens with a f/Stop of 1.8 or lower (the lower the better because of the no flash requirement) ...
the lower number of the f/Stop will allow the shutter to be used at a little higher speed ... which will give you a chance of capturing some (but limited) action without a flash ... the photos will still be dark, but can be altered later to look better... (esp if you take them in the RAW format) ...
if the quality doesn't matter .. just get a good cell phone with a 2mp camera in it and go to town ...
the only 'real' answer would be to shoot film ... but since digital is a requirement for most ... then a camera with the largest sensor and manual controls for the ap and shutter are a must ...
most of those cameras are going to be in the 600 price range at a minimum ...
if you are going to be close to the subject you are taking the photo of ... that would be better ...
i would reccomend a decent nikon or canon dslr body .. and a lens with a f/Stop of 1.8 or lower (the lower the better because of the no flash requirement) ...
the lower number of the f/Stop will allow the shutter to be used at a little higher speed ... which will give you a chance of capturing some (but limited) action without a flash ... the photos will still be dark, but can be altered later to look better... (esp if you take them in the RAW format) ...
if the quality doesn't matter .. just get a good cell phone with a 2mp camera in it and go to town ...
I bought a Nikon CoolPix camera, and it is unbelievable. It cost about $110 and it takes better pictures than the $300-400 cameras. It takes great pics in bright light, low light, even no light. Try one out at Best Buy or Wal Mart, they have them on their display. Take a few zoomed in pics, they will look fuzzy when you aim the camera, but once you take the pic and the auto-focus does its majic, you will be impressed. Just my opinion.....
Cool pics.
Does it take pics as soon as you press the snap button or does it stall like some cameras do. And I need it to take in low light, because Im not allowed to take pics with a flash during matches,where most of the best pics are found. Sound like the right camera for the job? Thanks for the info, love this site.
Does it take pics as soon as you press the snap button or does it stall like some cameras do. And I need it to take in low light, because Im not allowed to take pics with a flash during matches,where most of the best pics are found. Sound like the right camera for the job? Thanks for the info, love this site.
sorry
No such animal exists.
Technology has improved considerably, but you are asking for the impossible with a point and shoot.
Problem is the sensor (or brain) of the camera just isn't large enough on those cameras for a good low light shot without blurring, or adding tons of noise.
Biggest hold back is the 'lag' with the shutter. You'll never be able to get the shot you want. Most have a 1/2 to 1 second delay after snapping the shutter, till the camera actually fires. (Which usually means whatever shot you saw and wanted, is now gone.)
Don't waste your $$$ on a point and shoot if you are serious about action shots. The only way you'll get a good shot is if they pose for you before-after a match. And they must hold very still, even then.
DSLR is the only way, believe me. Been there, done that.
You can pick up a used DSLR and use a 50 1.4, or 1.8 and get out cheaply. (400-500) BUT, you'll be limited without a zoom. A good, fast zoom lens will cost at least that much, used.
Professional photographers literally have multi thousands invested in equipment, and even then, it's not easy. Low light photography is one of the hardest, and most expensive.
Good luck
No such animal exists.
Technology has improved considerably, but you are asking for the impossible with a point and shoot.
Problem is the sensor (or brain) of the camera just isn't large enough on those cameras for a good low light shot without blurring, or adding tons of noise.
Biggest hold back is the 'lag' with the shutter. You'll never be able to get the shot you want. Most have a 1/2 to 1 second delay after snapping the shutter, till the camera actually fires. (Which usually means whatever shot you saw and wanted, is now gone.)
Don't waste your $$$ on a point and shoot if you are serious about action shots. The only way you'll get a good shot is if they pose for you before-after a match. And they must hold very still, even then.
DSLR is the only way, believe me. Been there, done that.
You can pick up a used DSLR and use a 50 1.4, or 1.8 and get out cheaply. (400-500) BUT, you'll be limited without a zoom. A good, fast zoom lens will cost at least that much, used.
Professional photographers literally have multi thousands invested in equipment, and even then, it's not easy. Low light photography is one of the hardest, and most expensive.
Good luck
Olympus Stylus 850sw ... takes photos instantly instead of the pause like most cheaper digital cameras .. plus has low light setting .. and stability settings ...
is also water proof / shock proof and a few other things ... with the right memory card can take videos that are as long as you want them to be (till you run out of memory)
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8696128&type=product&id=1198888711940
plenty of cameras can take non action shots in dim rooms and them still turn out decently ... (but the price is higher for them of course)
same with the no lag on a point and shoot camera ... they are out there .. but tricky to find ...
i have about 9,000 in Dslr bodies and lens's ... but still most often times grab one of my PnS when i am heading out the door .. less i am being paid for the shoot .. even then i use my PnS for candid shots.
compact cameras with low pixel density are the best you can do in that regard, and are significantly better than other cameras in the price range with high pixel density.
Rick KNOWS what he is talking about. You would faint at the price of the lense you need to get quality pics in the pool environment...forget about the camera body!
tap tap tap!
I just got into more serious billiards photography and went out and sprung on the Canon f2.8ISL 70-200mm...unbelievable lense at an unbelieveable price as well...I couldn't believe how expensive it was at the time. Seeing what it can do vs. my other lense though, (a Sigma f2.8 24-70 Macro), it seems worth the cost. (the L lense cost as much as my camera body, a Canon D50, and Sigma lense together).
There are plenty of people on this forum who are very adept at professional photography. Rick S is one of those that I would listen to.
Dags
BTW, here are some pics that I have take so far...just a couple.
Sarah Rousey
Shane Van Boening
David Gutierrez
That particular Fast Eddies location had alot of red neon lighting in there, so it gave all the photos a reddish tint. It was the first tournament I'd used my equipment at and didn't know better to use a filter to get the red out. Most of these were taken at 2000 ISO, f/2.8, at about 1/20-1/50 shutter speed.
you're not going to get as good low light pictures with 36 MP/cm^2 as the fujifilm f20 at 14 MP/cm^2. In addition, it has f2.8 vs f3.1 and is a little cheaper, but I hope it works out well.
Dagwoodz said:
Thanks for the recommendation!
If I may offer some advice.....
Forget the filter!! Shoot using the RAW format, then you may tweak it using Photoshop. It's easy to do, with much better results.
I haven't used a filter (on camera) in a long, long time.
Using a filter on the camera will also reduce the amount of light entering the camera. (most filters) Light you really need. The more light, the better off you'll be.
nice to hear another reccomend RAW format ... i enjoy shooting with it ... i can take a photo that looks solid black and after a little work in photo shop make it look like it was broad daylight when it was taken ... (my ancient Nikon D1X helps with that to tho) ...
Camera's
I shoot with a Pentax DSLR for a couple of reasons. The biggest is that you can pick up old fast glass for cheap. My newest lens is 30 years old and my oldest is 50. 50mm are great, they are roughly 75mm in the film realm. My 50mm f1.4 I picked up at goodwill for under $20. My 200mm f4 was $4 at goodwill and takes amazing photos. Would need a tripod. I will try and post a photo I took of a rack breaking at a poolhall at night handheld.
This is with a 200 @ F4. I turned around while sitting at the bar. A little blurry. Manual focusing at night on the fly is something that I still need to work on.
I shoot with a Pentax DSLR for a couple of reasons. The biggest is that you can pick up old fast glass for cheap. My newest lens is 30 years old and my oldest is 50. 50mm are great, they are roughly 75mm in the film realm. My 50mm f1.4 I picked up at goodwill for under $20. My 200mm f4 was $4 at goodwill and takes amazing photos. Would need a tripod. I will try and post a photo I took of a rack breaking at a poolhall at night handheld.
This is with a 200 @ F4. I turned around while sitting at the bar. A little blurry. Manual focusing at night on the fly is something that I still need to work on.
Last edited:
I'll work on that...havne't been shooting in RAW format, but in JPEG. I'll shoot the next tournament in RAW and do the touchups from there. Hopefully there won't be as much red neon. lol. Thanks for the advice Rick!
Josh