experienced photographers about?

toasterman

Hi everyone,
Thought I'd carry on this thread...

Anyway, bought this camera, few months back, I was loving it during the washed out summer, when I was taking pictures with this camera that were bright and looked they were taken somewhere sunnier.
I'd say they looked brighter on picture than they did in real life.

But now I thought I'd see if I could take some photos at night.
The moon looks nice and bright tonight, so thought I'd try out some night photography.
I've got a tripod for it, and aimed it upwards, but the pictures I'm getting are useless.

I've tried the starry sky, fireworks, and night scenery modes, but in all of them, it seems to try and overcompensate for the darkness, and makes it far too bright. The moon comes out looking bright yellow (more like the sun) and everything is out of focus.

Any photographers out there who has this camera (or similar) and can tell me what I'm doing wrong?
Maybe the camera isn't good enough to get a good clear shot of the moon?
I've tried fiddling with loads of settings on the camera, but I mostly seem to get a slightly darker out of focus image, or maybe a greyer out of focus image.

Any help much appreciated

isofa

This has been recently covered on this thread:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=552130

Good quality compacts can take excellent photos, the Canon PowerShot range is superb, I used many early versions of these whilst switching from film SLRs to digital (before DSLRs became remotely affordable). But low-end compacts won't offer you anything worth having.

But for ultimatum flexibility and to "learn photography" then a DSLR, as most agree, is the way to go. I've been using SLRs for about 20 years and DSLRs since the Canon D300 was released. You can't go wrong with the starter options from Canon or Nikon, but once you buy into one of their technologies the lens fits are different, so you'll end up sticking with it for a long time if you start buying different lenses ranging from £50 to £5000 and above!

The "kit" lens on the Canon 350D and 400D is quite soft, but fine to learn with, however you'll soon want to upgrade, there are so many options I could spend all day talking about it! However it's worth buying it with the camera to get used to the controls. There are several good upgrade lenses ranging from £200 to about £800, for a general purpose zoom. Although a fixed "prime" lens will be better value, you won't get the flexibility of a standard zoom, and if you are starting out, a zoom is what you need.

Re Toasterman and night shots, does the camera have a full manual mode? If so set a longer exposure and vary the aperture and see what happens, the best night shots (other than for fireworks) are taking over a long period of many seconds, and some even minutes.

Some links for you.

A good price comparison site for camera gear is:
https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk

Review site for cameras:
https://www.dpreview.com

Review site of lenses (mainly Canon/Canon fit):
https://www.the-digital-picture.com

General camera review site with articles and videos:
https://www.cameralabs.com

And a good friendly forum:
https://www.tifp.org.uk

nearlyrich

To take good night shots you need a staedy camera, using atripod is the best way to acheive this, and a long shutter time, turn off the flash completely and I use the self timer on the camera so you don't get that momentary judder as you press the button.

I have had some good pics of night scenes using this method.

The good thing about photography is you don't have to have the most expensive camera on the planet to get some really nice shots, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if it makes you smile it's a good result.

I am trying to decide whether to invest in a more technical camera but I get good results with my compact digital on manual settings and the more there is to mess with the less likely I am to get pictures I like!

darich

nearlyrich wrote: »

To take good night shots you need a staedy camera, using atripod is the best way to acheive this, and a long shutter time, turn off the flash completely and I use the self timer on the camera so you don't get that momentary judder as you press the button.

I have had some good pics of night scenes using this method.

The good thing about photography is you don't have to have the most expensive camera on the planet to get some really nice shots, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if it makes you smile it's a good result.

I am trying to decide whether to invest in a more technical camera but I get good results with my compact digital on manual settings and the more there is to mess with the less likely I am to get pictures I like!

I'd agree up to a point about night shots requiring long exposures - shots of the moon should be exposed as if for daylight eg 1/100 at f16. Any longer and the moon looks like the sun and is burned out.

I'd be wary about recommending a DSLR to a novice who's starting out - too much too soon could put them off. With so many variables to be manually adjusted, it's very easy to get one wrong and ruin a shot - that can really discourage someone who's learning and looking for good results.

Many good compacts have full manual options giving you almost the same level of flexibility. Compacts are way cheaper but the pay off is being unable to change lenses and poorer quality shots due to camera limitations.

steveeeee

Picking up a cheap older 35mm SLR might be an interesting experiment for you. The cost of having to get the photos developed will make you think very hard about each shot you take. I inherited a Pentax ME Super with a couple of Tamron lenses from my wife's grandfather and though I only tend to get maybe 2 or 3 really good photos per film, I love using it.

For digital I recently upgraded from a Nikon Coolpix 5200 to the Panasonic Lumix TZ3 with a Sandisk Extreme III 2GB card. I love the extended zoom, the huge bright screen, and the 16:9 aspect ratio option that makes every shot come out looking like a movie still, but the low light performance is hardly better than the Nikon with noticeable noise above ISO 200. Not that this is necessarily a fault of the Panasonic in particular - the CCDs on compact cameras are physically smaller than those on dSLRs and are just noisier. Whether that will be a problem for you depends on what you're going to do with the resulting photos. If you're resizing them to 800x600 for the web, it's not a big deal at all. I'm still getting used to it, though, and haven't got close to exploring all the modes etc. Kicking myself cos there were some lovely opportunities for photos of the full moon but I was too lazy to get the tripod out.

Currys have a 28 or 30 day (can't remember which) no questions money back guarantee which you could take advantage of to get an extended test drive of one of the cameras. Dunno how they'd feel about you trying several out this way, though. And I picked up my TZ3 in-store for only £10 more than the best online price that I found. Also, if you're looking seriously at the TZ3, you might want to check out the Canon Powershot G7. A friend of mine bought one and he adores it.

HTH!

f1charlie

toasterman wrote: »

Hi everyone,
Any photographers out there who has this camera (or similar) and can tell me what I'm doing wrong?
Maybe the camera isn't good enough to get a good clear shot of the moon?
I've tried fiddling with loads of settings on the camera, but I mostly seem to get a slightly darker out of focus image, or maybe a greyer out of focus image.

Have you tried using manual focus? Also use manual exposure and experiment, starting with the settings as recommended by darich.
Also anti-shake stabilisation should be switched off when using a tripod.

isofa

All consumer/pro-sumer DSLRs have a full auto mode for beginners, so you can just point and shoot just, as with a compact, so I hardly think that would scare someone off.

If you are planning on making photography a hobby and learning about it, then DSLRs are definitely better than compacts, as you can slowly move into learning about the effects of aperture, depth-of-field, sensitivity (speed) in the standard modes and then if you want ultimate control override into full manual... Most also have creative modes, just like compacts for portraits, landscapes etc.

If you just want to take pictures with the minimal hassle, and aren't interesting in learning photographic techniques then compacts are fine. Some of the good compacts are excellent. (The Powershot G7 as mentioned by steveeeee is an excellent camera.)

If you want to expand into the area of photography, learn techniques etc, then DSLRs just can't be beaten, nothing offers the same flexibility.

darich

i realise that DSLRs all have full auto mode....but why buy a camera like that for several hundred pounds when you could do the exact same thing with a compact?
DSLRs are without a doubt better than compacts - i learned more in a my first few months with my first one than i did in several years with a 35mm SLR.

it's also worth pointing out that DSLRs typically only come with an 18-55 lens (or similar) - adding further lenses to expand the focal range or include macro lenses costs lots of money and for someone just starting, and not sure if it's a hobby for them, may not be the most sensible choice.

I'd advise buying a good compact to start and it would allow the user to decide if they enjoy photography or if they just take pictures. If they enjoy photography, then a sensible move would be to upgrade to a DSLR.

Obviously there are a few keen photographers posting here but try to remember this is for someone who doesn't have a camera and is thinking of starting - so a DSLR, no matter how simple for an experienced user to use, may be scary for a complete novice who doesn't know their neutral density from their flash sync!

PS - I am in no way suggesting the OP doesn't know the difference - it was an example!

ormus

http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html

prob the best and most famous digital camera website, for info and reviews.

cowbutt

toasterman wrote: »

As I'm not the sporty type, I'm wondering about photography. I've wanted to be able to take better pictures for years, and when I looked at the sub £400 market for digital cameras, I noticed they've all fallen through the floor in price. You can get digital cameras with 12x optical zoom and good reviews for under £200.

Don't just go on the zoom rating and the resolution (i.e. megapixels). There's a lot more to a decent camera than just those two attributes (though I suspect from your questions you already appreciate that). Also consider the quality of the optics, the creative controls available, the sensitivity range (i.e. ISO range), the level of compression used, the weight/bulk and the usability of the controls and the menu system.

Should I buy a high-end bridge camera?
I'm thinking probably a Panasonic Lumix one as they have mostly superb reviews, and the 12x optical zoom with image stabiliser good enough to actually use it (a friend bought one) is very exciting.

I bought an Olympus C-750 about three years ago, and it's been a superb buy. If I was replacing it, I'd be looking at a similar model from Olympus' ZLR range (e.g. the SP-550/SP-560), the Panasonic Lumix range and Canon and Nikon DSLRs.

Bear in mind that anything over about 6x zoom will require a very steady hand, a tripod or other support, or a very fast shutter speed (and therefore high sensitivity) to get a well-focussed picture. Some image stabilization techniques may work, but I wouldn't bank on them until I'd had some experience with them when used in anger.

OR

Should I look into a low-end DSLR?
I'm obviously looking at the Canon EOS.
I've seen pictures taken with both on various non-manufacturer-owned websites, but the ones on the EOS blew me away totally.

Try flickr's camera model search - http://www.flickr.com/cameras/brands/

They have shots taken at night with apparently the standard lense that came with it, and everything that should be in focus, is in focus. Considering its night too, theres a shocking amount visible - a lot more like I'd imagine seeing it myself to be like.

DSLRs will probably have better sensitivity than your average compact or ZLR. I'd suggest at least ISO 1600 as being a good target to aim for.