vigants
07-05-2005, 12:23 AM
Preface – I am an amateur, but with 10 years experience and quite a few decent shots under my belt. That means that I know enough to be dangerous and invite the senior members to correct any erroneous statements that I may make. I am hoping to get some sage advice, not just to ‘spew what I think I know’.
So - it is time to go completely digital and I am having a hard time sorting through the 'facts' - or perhaps it is more accurate to say that I am having a hard time deciding which ‘facts’ really matter.
My photography generally falls into one of four categories:
1) Vacation shots (mostly outdoors, daylight, static subjects)
2) 'Christmas' shots (indoor, wide angle, low light, moving targets)
3) Swimming shots (indoor pools w/ bright artificial light, zoom, fast action)
4) Soccer shots (outdoor, long zoom, daylight, fast action).
Which probably means I am a fairly typical 'Dad Photographer'. My experience is that category #1 shots are easy – every camera I’ve ever used does these well. Category #3 and #4 shots need decent zoom capabilities and the ability to ‘burst’ a bunch of shots. For category #2 it is all about how 'light hungry' the lens is and what ISO options you have. Right?
For the past 10 years I have been using an SLR film camera (Canon EOS Elan) with a 28-70 f/2.8 zoom (which I tended to have on the camera for indoor work since it was not so light hungry and I never liked the results I got when using a flash) and a 28-200 (slower lens, but longer zoom) for outdoor work, plus an 85 f/1.8 for portraits.
I was quite happy with the results, but found that I was shooting less and less over time because of the cost/hassle associated with film.
At the same time that I started taking fewer film shots, I simultaneously started carrying around a Canon S100 digital (2.1MP, 2 x optical zoom) that my boss gave me to use. I loved that it was so small that I could (and did) take it everywhere. However, since there is so little zoom and so much shutter lag it never produced many worthwhile shots at sporting events. Come to think of it, it never produced many good 'Christmas' shots either because the flash really seems to wash out images and without flash it was too slow (lots of camera shake and no chance at all with a moving subject - like a child). But we did get a lot of good shots while on vacation (outside, full light, posed shots - no movement).
Reading over the last paragraph, I'm at a loss as to how I should explain that last December I 'upgraded' to a Canon S500. Still no great zoom (3x), still lots of shutter lag, still slow for low light shots - but 5MP! So now I have far more detailed blurry 'Christmas' pictures and really vivid shots of the soccer field (except that the little people in the images are too far away to know which one is mine . . .). Not a great photographer’s camera, but so small that it still does come everywhere with us.
Now to the point: I'm trying to decide whether to buy:
Panasonic FZ20/FZ5 (around $450 at time of writing)
or whether to mortgage the house and buy
Rebel XT body (around $750 at time of writing) plus two IS lenses
EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM (around $600 at time of writing)
and EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (around $400 at time of writing)
Now, before everyone jumps down my throat about comparing apples to oranges, I already know that the XT will be better, more versatile, etc., etc., etc.. BUT, for 3x as much money I need to understand how the performance will affect my use of the camera.
I am not trying to freeze an Indy car going 200 mph though a dark tunnel – I’m trying to freeze children at play.
I am not trying to freeze an acrobat whirling on a stage in a pitch black theater – but I do want to be able to freeze a child’s hands tearing through wrapping paper on Christmas morning.
At this point I expect some people to respond that since I am not a pro I should be fine with the limitations of the cheaper solution – and I tend to agree. BUT, I have too often felt the frustration of a missed (sports) shot because of shutter lag or a missed moment (under the tree) because there was not enough light to take a decent shot.
I am trying to find out if others, using their cameras for BOTH of the specific situations that I describe, are happy. And also to get whatever advice the pros have for getting those shots better.
On paper, the Lumix seems a great bargain (for what it is and will theoretically do).
Between a fast lens and IS I should LOVE this camera for indoor, low light photography – right?! I hate using flash because the tones are always harsh and off (in my experience). I’m not talking candle-lit rooms (I know that I’d need a tripod for that) but just being able to take good Christmas morning shots hand held would be nice! Life with children moves too fast to use a tripod all the time. I just want to be able to simultaneously have a high enough shutter speed to stop the motion of excited children and a wide enough aperture to ‘expose the chip’.
I am really interested to hear from people using the Lumix camera indoors with no flash.
For sports the 12x zoom (and again the IS and big aperture) should also suit, right?! Even without IS I should be happy with the long, fast lens (especially since I’m content to use a monopod at sports events) but my main concern about the Lumix is that in burst mode it apparently focuses just once (at the beginning of the burst) so that if the object is moving away or coming towards the camera, most of the shots in the burst will be out of focus.
Is this really the case in practice? I would have figured that at 20 – 75 meters distance (my estimate for average swimming and soccer shots), 'sports' mode would lean towards a high shutter speed and larger aperture, which should give enough depth of field to keep a child in focus for the few seconds duration of a burst. Maybe not a race car (moving maybe as fast as 100 m/s) but certainly a child soccer star or swimmer (moving probably only a few m/s). Am I wrong?
So I am also really interested to hear from people using the Lumix camera for sports.
I know that I would be happy with the Rebel and the lenses that I described, but if I can get very good results with the Lumix I’d probably be wiser to put the difference away for college tuition. I just don’t want to spend the money on the Lumix, then hate it and have to spend the money on the DSLR anyway.
Final question (for the experts):
When I look at lenses recommended for the Rebel and D20 (i.e. http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html) it seems that they are all pretty slow compared to the lenses I had for my film camera. With the exception of prime lenses, they are all 3.5 or 4 to 5.6 it seems. My Sigma lens for the Elan was 28-70 with a constant f/2.8. Even the expensive lenses seem slow. What am I missing here?
So - it is time to go completely digital and I am having a hard time sorting through the 'facts' - or perhaps it is more accurate to say that I am having a hard time deciding which ‘facts’ really matter.
My photography generally falls into one of four categories:
1) Vacation shots (mostly outdoors, daylight, static subjects)
2) 'Christmas' shots (indoor, wide angle, low light, moving targets)
3) Swimming shots (indoor pools w/ bright artificial light, zoom, fast action)
4) Soccer shots (outdoor, long zoom, daylight, fast action).
Which probably means I am a fairly typical 'Dad Photographer'. My experience is that category #1 shots are easy – every camera I’ve ever used does these well. Category #3 and #4 shots need decent zoom capabilities and the ability to ‘burst’ a bunch of shots. For category #2 it is all about how 'light hungry' the lens is and what ISO options you have. Right?
For the past 10 years I have been using an SLR film camera (Canon EOS Elan) with a 28-70 f/2.8 zoom (which I tended to have on the camera for indoor work since it was not so light hungry and I never liked the results I got when using a flash) and a 28-200 (slower lens, but longer zoom) for outdoor work, plus an 85 f/1.8 for portraits.
I was quite happy with the results, but found that I was shooting less and less over time because of the cost/hassle associated with film.
At the same time that I started taking fewer film shots, I simultaneously started carrying around a Canon S100 digital (2.1MP, 2 x optical zoom) that my boss gave me to use. I loved that it was so small that I could (and did) take it everywhere. However, since there is so little zoom and so much shutter lag it never produced many worthwhile shots at sporting events. Come to think of it, it never produced many good 'Christmas' shots either because the flash really seems to wash out images and without flash it was too slow (lots of camera shake and no chance at all with a moving subject - like a child). But we did get a lot of good shots while on vacation (outside, full light, posed shots - no movement).
Reading over the last paragraph, I'm at a loss as to how I should explain that last December I 'upgraded' to a Canon S500. Still no great zoom (3x), still lots of shutter lag, still slow for low light shots - but 5MP! So now I have far more detailed blurry 'Christmas' pictures and really vivid shots of the soccer field (except that the little people in the images are too far away to know which one is mine . . .). Not a great photographer’s camera, but so small that it still does come everywhere with us.
Now to the point: I'm trying to decide whether to buy:
Panasonic FZ20/FZ5 (around $450 at time of writing)
or whether to mortgage the house and buy
Rebel XT body (around $750 at time of writing) plus two IS lenses
EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM (around $600 at time of writing)
and EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (around $400 at time of writing)
Now, before everyone jumps down my throat about comparing apples to oranges, I already know that the XT will be better, more versatile, etc., etc., etc.. BUT, for 3x as much money I need to understand how the performance will affect my use of the camera.
I am not trying to freeze an Indy car going 200 mph though a dark tunnel – I’m trying to freeze children at play.
I am not trying to freeze an acrobat whirling on a stage in a pitch black theater – but I do want to be able to freeze a child’s hands tearing through wrapping paper on Christmas morning.
At this point I expect some people to respond that since I am not a pro I should be fine with the limitations of the cheaper solution – and I tend to agree. BUT, I have too often felt the frustration of a missed (sports) shot because of shutter lag or a missed moment (under the tree) because there was not enough light to take a decent shot.
I am trying to find out if others, using their cameras for BOTH of the specific situations that I describe, are happy. And also to get whatever advice the pros have for getting those shots better.
On paper, the Lumix seems a great bargain (for what it is and will theoretically do).
Between a fast lens and IS I should LOVE this camera for indoor, low light photography – right?! I hate using flash because the tones are always harsh and off (in my experience). I’m not talking candle-lit rooms (I know that I’d need a tripod for that) but just being able to take good Christmas morning shots hand held would be nice! Life with children moves too fast to use a tripod all the time. I just want to be able to simultaneously have a high enough shutter speed to stop the motion of excited children and a wide enough aperture to ‘expose the chip’.
I am really interested to hear from people using the Lumix camera indoors with no flash.
For sports the 12x zoom (and again the IS and big aperture) should also suit, right?! Even without IS I should be happy with the long, fast lens (especially since I’m content to use a monopod at sports events) but my main concern about the Lumix is that in burst mode it apparently focuses just once (at the beginning of the burst) so that if the object is moving away or coming towards the camera, most of the shots in the burst will be out of focus.
Is this really the case in practice? I would have figured that at 20 – 75 meters distance (my estimate for average swimming and soccer shots), 'sports' mode would lean towards a high shutter speed and larger aperture, which should give enough depth of field to keep a child in focus for the few seconds duration of a burst. Maybe not a race car (moving maybe as fast as 100 m/s) but certainly a child soccer star or swimmer (moving probably only a few m/s). Am I wrong?
So I am also really interested to hear from people using the Lumix camera for sports.
I know that I would be happy with the Rebel and the lenses that I described, but if I can get very good results with the Lumix I’d probably be wiser to put the difference away for college tuition. I just don’t want to spend the money on the Lumix, then hate it and have to spend the money on the DSLR anyway.
Final question (for the experts):
When I look at lenses recommended for the Rebel and D20 (i.e. http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html) it seems that they are all pretty slow compared to the lenses I had for my film camera. With the exception of prime lenses, they are all 3.5 or 4 to 5.6 it seems. My Sigma lens for the Elan was 28-70 with a constant f/2.8. Even the expensive lenses seem slow. What am I missing here?