First dSLR (D50) -- Question about indoor pics

[maxintosh]

Hey everyone :) I just joined the dSLR club and I am really excited to learn more about photography. I used to have an old Canon Rebel (35mm) back in the day but I moved onto "prosumer" digicams later. However I wanted to get a bit more serious about hobbyist photography!

I'm still learning the technical aspects of photography. One area that the D50 has kind of disappointed me is in its ability to take pictures indoors without flash (kit lens 18-55 f/3.5). Usually if it's pretty bright artificial lighting (in my mind) I can get away with some pictures at 18mm and ISO 800-1600. Otherwise the subject is blurry from motion blur and the shutter speed sets itself to <1/30 (in Program Auto mode)--too slow for human subjects. I would use the flash except I don't like the harsh lighting and flat look it produces, especially the loss of background detail. I tried forcing the shutter speed to be longer, but subjects get a funny "halo" around them.

I am amazed by how much brighter it is outside, according to the camera, even at dusk. In indoor situations that seem bright to me, the camera doesn't think so, and outdoors the camera finds it to be much brighter than my eyes tell me. Hmmm...

Doing a bit of research on the subject tells me the problem is probably the lens not being "fast" enough -- ie, the biggest aperture is f/3.5, and only at 18mm which is very wide for many situations. By comparison, my old Panasonic FZ5 had a f/2.8 aperture at the wide end, which made for easier indoor shooting (although the pictures were often grainy). One camera that has actually really impressed me in these situations is the Fuji F10 P&S, but it seems they invented a small sensor that can do ISO 1600 with little noise.

I was wondering if (a) this is normal behavior for dSLRs in this price range and (b) if there are any "tricks" to make indoor pictures look more natural (more background light in particular) even when use of the flash is entirely necessary. I've tried throttling down the flash, but I'm not sure if the camera automatically compensates for this (ie, longer shutter speeds). Is there any sort of homemade hack for "diffusing" the flash? I want to invest in more lenses/flashes eventually but I'm a college student and money isn't exactly pouring in.

I really appreciate your input!

[maxintosh]

Also, how is the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 for indoor photography? It looks extremely fast, and is pretty cheap (~$100) but it might not be very good for group shots.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/B00005LEN4/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-0668066-3835801?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=502394

[erichlund]

Hey everyone :) I just joined the dSLR club and I am really excited to learn more about photography. I used to have an old Canon Rebel (35mm) back in the day but I moved onto "prosumer" digicams later. However I wanted to get a bit more serious about hobbyist photography!

I'm still learning the technical aspects of photography. One area that the D50 has kind of disappointed me is in its ability to take pictures indoors without flash (kit lens 18-55 f/3.5). Usually if it's pretty bright artificial lighting (in my mind) I can get away with some pictures at 18mm and ISO 800-1600. Otherwise the subject is blurry from motion blur and the shutter speed sets itself to <1/30 (in Program Auto mode)--too slow for human subjects. I would use the flash except I don't like the harsh lighting and flat look it produces, especially the loss of background detail. I tried forcing the shutter speed to be longer, but subjects get a funny "halo" around them.

I am amazed by how much brighter it is outside, according to the camera, even at dusk. In indoor situations that seem bright to me, the camera doesn't think so, and outdoors the camera finds it to be much brighter than my eyes tell me. Hmmm...

Doing a bit of research on the subject tells me the problem is probably the lens not being "fast" enough -- ie, the biggest aperture is f/3.5, and only at 18mm which is very wide for many situations. By comparison, my old Panasonic FZ5 had a f/2.8 aperture at the wide end, which made for easier indoor shooting (although the pictures were often grainy). One camera that has actually really impressed me in these situations is the Fuji F10 P&S, but it seems they invented a small sensor that can do ISO 1600 with little noise.

I was wondering if (a) this is normal behavior for dSLRs in this price range and (b) if there are any "tricks" to make indoor pictures look more natural (more background light in particular) even when use of the flash is entirely necessary. I've tried throttling down the flash, but I'm not sure if the camera automatically compensates for this (ie, longer shutter speeds). Is there any sort of homemade hack for "diffusing" the flash? I want to invest in more lenses/flashes eventually but I'm a college student and money isn't exactly pouring in.

I really appreciate your input!
Indoor photography without flash requires stationary targets and a tripod (or hands of steel), or fast lenses. The recommendation of the 50mm f1.8 is a good one. The 50mm f1.4 is a little nicer but lots more expensive. Of course, any fast lens will be an improvement, but most fast glass is significantly more expensive. Still, even with a fast lens, don't expect to stop rambunctious motion without flash, unless you have a very bright room.

To get a more natural appearance to your flash, you need to diffuse the light. One method is to bounce it, but this is not easily done with the built in pop gun on the camera, so an SB600 or SB800 flash will definitely give more opportunity here.

Another way to diffuse the light is to flash through some sort of diffusion material. There is a commercial product sold at camera shops, usually in the same location where you find other flash accessories. You can also make your own, and this allows you to experiment a bit. Some people will shoot through a layer of tissue paper (single layer, I'd guess, but you can experiment). You could try some other household products like wax paper, plastic wrap (I doubt this will be much use, but I've never tried it), and making a reflector of thin cardboard and the shiny side of aluminum (aluminium for those of you with closer ties to the Queen) foil. Still, I'm not sure the camera's pop gun has enough power for all but the shortest of bounce flashes.

I'm too lazy for all that ... stuff, so I bought an SB800, which has a tilt and swivel head and comes with a packet of gels and a diffusion dome.

[maxintosh]

Thanks for the info. I will probably end up getting the lens for now as I am going to be in Europe all summer and don't want to lug the speedlight around. I just worry that 50mm will be too narrow. I might try leaving my kit lens on 50mm and walk around to see how bad it really is :) However the f/1.8 aperture is very enticing. :o

[erichlund]

Thanks for the info. I will probably end up getting the lens for now as I am going to be in Europe all summer and don't want to lug the speedlight around. I just worry that 50mm will be too narrow. I might try leaving my kit lens on 50mm and walk around to see how bad it really is :) However the f/1.8 aperture is very enticing. :o
Well, you could always search around for the discontinued 28mm f/1.4. If you do, I recommend you develop a close personal relationship with your banker. The first one I came across online was $2,379.00.

[maxintosh]

Holy good lord. Why are wide-angle large-aperture lenses sooo expensive?

[fedo]

Holy good lord. Why are wide-angle large-aperture lenses sooo expensive?

because it requires very good and/or larger glasses which make them more expensive.

in order to obtain more neutral results, you should play with bracketing and exposure compensation and white balance.

[tekriter]

Well, you could always search around for the discontinued 28mm f/1.4. If you do, I recommend you develop a close personal relationship with your banker. The first one I came across online was $2,379.00.


But there is an alternative - the Sigma 30mm f1.4, which goes for $430 at B&H...it had a very good review in a magazine which I can't recall right now.