Cameras ???

[jcrack_corn]

this is terrible advice

d40 is only marginally terrible,

d90 is ridiculously terrible. thats a 1200 dollar kit with a crappy zoom lens.

he will need the 750 dollar 18-200mm VR lens to match with it, and the 50mm 1.8 (115 bucks) and will have to learn to shoot a prime lens.

those cameras are ENTRY LEVEL PRO-SUMER/advanced amature. D90 takes better pictures than any camera in existence 2 years ago! Might as well just get the cannon 5dmk2 and call it a day.

---------rant done-----------------

any 200 dollar range point and shoot should get the job done, but you will likely have to use a flash indoors or at least bring a small monopod if you are going flashless to get good shots.

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

 

[Thunder Thighs]

 

[Rick S.]

this is terrible advice

d40 is only marginally terrible,

d90 is ridiculously terrible. thats a 1200 dollar kit with a crappy zoom lens.

he will need the 750 dollar 18-200mm VR lens to match with it, and the 50mm 1.8 (115 bucks) and will have to learn to shoot a prime lens.

those cameras are ENTRY LEVEL PRO-SUMER/advanced amature. D90 takes better pictures than any camera in existence 2 years ago! Might as well just get the cannon 5dmk2 and call it a day.

---------rant done-----------------

any 200 dollar range point and shoot should get the job done, but you will likely have to use a flash indoors or at least bring a small monopod if you are going flashless to get good shots.

I beg to differ....

the 18-200 is too slow at 3.5 to use. I know, I went that route and ordered one with my first camera. Had to sell it immediately, and buy the 80-200 2.8
And I lost 100.00 in less than 24 hrs.

The Nikon cameras you mentioned will all work D 40, 50, 60, and 90 are all good cameras for the cash.

I started out with the D 70 as my first DSLR, and it's not as good as any of the other cameras mentioned above.

 

[Alabanger]

The advice about looking at dpreview.com is good advice.

In general, you need a camera with a lens with as much light gathering ability as possible. For digital cameras, it's tough to find much below f2.8 but go as low as you can.

Many digital lenses have vibration reduction and if you want to shoot in low light without a flash, it's a good option because shutter speeds are often in the neighborhood of 1/30 second. You can get a good image with vibration reduction but will have some blur without.

And then some cameras allow shooting at high ISO levels without getting into problems with noise. Some have problems. Figure on shooting at 800 or 1600 ISO even with a good lens and vibration reduction. Some cameras can use higher ISO levels and still give you good images.

I do industrial photography and flash photography is not allowed in many industrial settings (think natural gas facilities and the like). The light is often poor also. I use a Canon D20. Not cheap but a great camera (no lag). I also have a Sony 717. It's an older digital camera but has a good lens and does good in low light too. The new Nikons are good but also run up there in cost. Nikon (and Canon) offer cameras with a less expensive lens as part of the package but the lens you really want (and need) costs more.

Last, using a program like Photoshop is good because you can alter image highlights, dark areas, and mid-tones. A lot of low light photos come out dark regardless of what you do but can be fixed with the right software.

Good luck

 

[Thunder Thighs]

I beg to differ....

the 18-200 is too slow at 3.5 to use. I know, I went that route and ordered one with my first camera. Had to sell it immediately, and buy the 80-200 2.8
And I lost 100.00 in less than 24 hrs.

The Nikon cameras you mentioned will all work D 40, 50, 60, and 90 are all good cameras for the cash.

I started out with the D 70 as my first DSLR, and it's not as good as any of the other cameras mentioned above.

Thank you Rick. It's nice to hear comments from a fellow photographer. Your choice of the 80-200 f/2.8 is excellent. That's what I have on my D3 when I need the reach. Much better than the 70-200 (vignettes) also when used on a full frame body. Since the poster that started the thread seems to be new to photography, a D40 or D60 with a f/2.8 Tokina zoom or a Nikon f/1.8 50mm normal lens will suit his purposes for low light photography without flash. That DSLR set up won't break the bank account also.

 

[Rick S.]

Thank you Rick. It's nice to hear comments from a fellow photographer. Your choice of the 80-200 f/2.8 is excellent. That's what I have on my D3 when I need the reach. Much better than the 70-200 (vignettes) also when used on a full frame body. Since the poster that started the thread seems to be new to photography, a D40 or D60 with a f/2.8 Tokina zoom or a Nikon f/1.8 50mm normal lens will suit his purposes for low light photography without flash. That DSLR set up won't break the bank account also.

You're more than welcome.

It's a long EXPENSIVE winding road trying to find out what will work-won't work. Between bodies-lenses they are many, many variables. Some good, some bad.

I just wish I had someone point me in the right direction right out of the gate. I could have saved many a buck, as I'm sure you could have. I wasted a lot of time, and money figuring it out.

Another good recommendation (I can't live without...) is a good monopod. Worth it's weight in gold, in poolroom situations.

 

[Dagwoodz]

You're more than welcome.

It's a long EXPENSIVE winding road trying to find out what will work-won't work. Between bodies-lenses they are many, many variables. Some good, some bad.

I just wish I had someone point me in the right direction right out of the gate. I could have saved many a buck, as I'm sure you could have. I wasted a lot of time, and money figuring it out.

Another good recommendation (I can't live without...) is a good monopod. Worth it's weight in gold, in poolroom situations.

There's enough collective knowledge on this subject here on the forum that someone, (like I was/am), who is looking to get into photography should be able to find out what he/she needs in order to take correct photos in the low light / no flash environment of a pool hall. There are more inexpensive ways to go about it, for sure. Going with a PnS camera, you are getting something that is almost dummy proof. After buying mine, I could not imagine not having a DLSR though. The quality of images and the options you have to create the type of photograph you want is amazing. But, you do not have to get the top of the line lenses or camera bodies either. Canon's XT and XSi are both less expensive Digital SLR cameras. (If you can't tell, I'm a fan of Canon) As far as lenses go, Sigma makes a 70-200 f/2.8 lense, though it does not have the Image Stability (Vibration Stability I think for Nikon), which would make getting a very good monopod a MUST. Whereas the Canon version without the IS runs about $1,000 ballpark, the Sigma version only runs roughly $600, and gets very good reviews. As long as you do your research, and make an informed purchase, knowing the capabilities and LIMITS of the equipment you're buying, you can't go wrong listening to the advice given here.

 

[Thunder Thighs]

Sigma makes a 70-200 f/2.8 lense, though it does not have the Image Stability (Vibration Stability I think for Nikon), which would make getting a very good monopod a MUST.

Some of Nikon's lenses have VR (vibration reduction). Sigma's equivalent is called OS or optical stabilizer. Although Sigma's 70-200 does not have OS, they have several models in the 18-250mm range that do have it. Nice post Dagwoodz :thumbup:

 

[PDX]

cameras

Pentax has it in the body, which allows you to use older lenses and still get image stabilization. Nikon and Canon lenses are not cheap in any way. I would suggest that you figure out what type of photography you will be doing and work backwards. The body is just an small cost compared to the amount you will spend on lenses.

 

[Rick S.]

your right

Pentax has it in the body, which allows you to use older lenses and still get image stabilization. Nikon and Canon lenses are not cheap in any way. I would suggest that you figure out what type of photography you will be doing and work backwards. The body is just an small cost compared to the amount you will spend on lenses.

Nikon glass is expensive for a reason!! It's been the world's best for over 50 yrs and running. Nikon-Nikkor lenses hold there value exceptionally well.

Glass is forever (Nikon anyway) bodies are outdated in 6 months.

You can still use a 50 yr old lens with a Nikon.

 

[Dagwoodz]

Although Sigma's 70-200 does not have OS, they have several models in the 18-250mm range that do have it. Nice post Dagwoodz :thumbup:

very true, however, Sigma does NOT make an f/2.8 lense with the OS. At least I was not able to find one, there very well might be. For anything outside of a PH where light is not an issue though, those are very realizstic possibilities. BTW, I was mistaken on the price of the Sigma f/2.8 70-200mm lense. It starts new at around $700. Still though, it is much less expensive than it's Canon counterpart.

Rick, have a question for you in regards to lense selection...primarily in reference to prime lenses. Looking to pick up a prime lense, but not sure what I should go for. What would you say is going to get me the most use, as far as what size lense? Right now I'm shooting with the Canon 50D, f/2.8L IS 70-200mm, and a Sigma 24-70mm Macro. Just asking opinion on what lense might complement what I already have....(i.e., should I go with a wide angle, or something closer to like an 85mm prime...)

Thanks!

Josh

Here's another picture, (just cause I like sharing). It was taken with the 24-70mm f/2.8 Sigma at 24mm, flash and 1/100 shutter, hand held. (Not sure what the ISO setting was) Was experimenting a little with the monochrome setting on the camera. Came out pretty good. No touch-ups done.

 

[Nostroke]

Just went out and bought a Nikon "Cool Pix L20" thanks guys, now maybe we can get some good pics.

I just got the Coolpix L-18-It's great but i dont understand why it came with an 8 picture storage maximum-this is my first and im taking pretty good pics I think.

 

[Rick S.]

Rick, have a question for you in regards to lense selection...primarily in reference to prime lenses. Looking to pick up a prime lense, but not sure what I should go for. What would you say is going to get me the most use, as far as what size lense? Right now I'm shooting with the Canon 50D, f/2.8L IS 70-200mm, and a Sigma 24-70mm Macro. Just asking opinion on what lense might complement what I already have....(i.e., should I go with a wide angle, or something closer to like an 85mm prime...)

Thanks!

Josh

I'm assuming you're talking about shooting pool...?

I'd have to go with the 85 1.8 Unless you have a ton of cash laying around, then go for the 85 1.2 ($$$$$$$)

You have the field covered there with your two zooms. Don't think you'll really need anything wider than a 24 mm for shooting pool.

With the 1.8 you can get away with hand holding quite easily. And, you can also use a tele-extender on it (losing 1 F stop) and still be alright, if you need some 'reach'.

If you go that route w/extender...Kenko is producing the best for Nikon use. (even better than Nikon's own) All feature's work with it. I use the Teleplus Pro 300 DG 1.4. It's handy, and can be very useful. And not break the bank!!

I even sometimes use it with a 50 1.4 with good results.

 

[Rick S.]

I just got the Coolpix L-18-It's great but i dont understand why it came with an 8 picture storage maximum-this is my first and im taking pretty good pics I think.

You mean a memory card that will only hold 8 photos? If so, that's pretty standard. They supply just enough to let you know the camera will work.

Check with Newegg.com for a larger capacity card. Best prices anywhere, and excellent return policy.

I use 16 Gb cards....which would hold about 20,000 photos w/your camera. They sell for 76.00. Can't be beat anywhere.