 SHARON M. DOYLE |
BEST CAMERA FOR DUSK/DAWN PICTURES HELLO FOLKS, I do a lot of animal photography at dusk and dawn, fox, coyotes, owls, etc., and would like to know what camera would be best for this type of photography. Is an SLR the ultimate? I have head that mirror lock up can be a problem in causing camera shake, is this true? Thank you, Sharon
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
This is a complex set of problems centering around low light. You need a camera with a VERY bright viewfinder, such as a top-of-the-line SLR. Sometimes automatic focus does not cope well with low light and low contrast conditions. While it is true that mirror lock-up on an SLR eliminates some vibration, it is hardly practiclal with moving subjects, as you'd want to catch them at the decisive instant. A tele with Image Stabilization would help, but they're expensive. For economic reasons, you might consider a top-of-the-line manual focus SLR such as the Canon F-1 or Nikon F3, choose a very bright focusing screen, and a Speed Finder (Canon), and any of the very reasonably priced manual focus long teles. Manual f2.8 lenses are STILL expensive, but an f4 may do the job and be a lot cheaper. Of course, manual focus means introducing the problem of converting film images to digital, another can of worms.
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Sharon, Doug's points are good ones; here's a bit more to chew on: While the FZ20 (which I used to have) has a relatively fast telephoto lens (f2.8 throughout the zoom range), it uses a CCD that is smaller than the ones used in the DSLRs. Compared to a DSLR chip of the same pixel count, the smaller CCD in more prone to noise (sort of like grain, caused by random heat photons being read as if they were part of the light from an image). So, if you want to stay in the digital realm, you should consider a DSLR. You should be able to get reasonable shots as ISO800 or maybe 1600, effectively 2 stops faster than ISO 400. As Doug stated, a fast lens is necessary as well, since you are dealing with a very limited amount of light. The combination of the fast lens and high ISO would mean that you can achieve a faster shutter speed - meaning that you will better freeze motion as well as not have to worry about mirror slap. The downside of most DSLRs is that their viewfinders are small and dark relative to film SLRs. Even the Nikon D200's viewfinder, nice as it is, is not a big and bright as its F100 film camera brother. So to Doug's point, perhaps a film camera would be a better alternative. Also, since (especially nowadays) you can get one for much less than a digital SLR, you could spend the extra money on a fast lens. So, in short, yes - you should consider an SLR type camera. Depending on your budget, that could mean either a digital or film model.
|
|
|
|
||
|
SHARON M. DOYLE |
Thank you Doug and Bob for your input. I had not thought of a film camera for low light situations. I am very spoiled by using digital because of the ability to touch up the photos and get instant pictures. I have read that Sony is the leader in low light digital cameras, is this correct in your opinion? I would like to buy a DSLR and would consider either a Canon or Nikon if Sony is not as good. Do you have any thoughts on this? Thank you again,
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
I'm concerned with how close you can physically get to your critters. A problem with a DSLR or film camera is that you would need a considerably long lens, assuming your subjects are not tame. And long lenses don't come that fast. And those that do - say a 300/f2.8 is going to be big, heavy, and expensive. Interchangeable zoom lenses simply do not have the 20X zoom extension ranges that you will find on many P&S digital cameras. Upgrading to a quality DSLR and top drawer f2.8 telephoto lens would certainly improve your image quality, but I believe the mere bulk, weight, and cost would be more than you would want to endure. Michael H. Cothran PS - If you could get by with something in the 200mm range, which would translate to about 300mm on many DSLR's, both Nikon and Canon manufacture as-good-as-it-gets 70-200/f2.8 zooms, which are easier to handle. Canon even makes one with an Internal Stabilizer to help with the handshakes, but this costs you a little on the image quality side, as this zoom does not perform quite as well as its twin brother without the IS.
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Sharon, I can't speak for the Sony (though the Nikon's use CCDs made by Sony), but I have seen other commentary on various sites that some of the Canon models are good for low light. Still, you should really handle the cameras you are considering, because you could well find one much more or less comfortable than another as far as balance, viewfinder, etc.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Chance |
Sharon: I can't say that I have much experience in dawn & dusk shooting of wildlife, but two things DSLR has over film is a higher ISO and the ability to change ISO in the middle of a shoot. Bob
|
|
|
|
||
|
SHARON M. DOYLE |
Thank you all for your first-rate information. I don’t need a long lens as the “wild ones” come within 10-15 feet of me and the FZ20 has a 12 optical zoom. There are hundreds of acres undeveloped as yet and I just sit at the back of the barn and wait. They view me as part of the scenery! I just need light and a DSLR sounds like the way to go. Thank you again for taking the time to answer my questions. Sharon
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||