Damn i just bought the S3 IS and now i want a DSLR

[The Stigenator]

i have been doing concert photography and lately it seems the lighting has been a bitch! Yes i know going in with an S3 IS compared to the DSLRs is kinda stupid but i like having teh zoom available. But i miss having the full manual control (it has it but they move way too fast to do a quick manual zoom for a change in subject focus). Anyway the big thing is that off late the lighting sucks. I must say no 2 concerts are the same. Some concerts i can get awesome pics because lighting is in plenty and abundant (like when tegan and sara) but then i run into concerts where i cant shoot jack because lighting sucks (el gran sliencio). Yeah each time its a challenge and i am no pro, but my shots are pretty nice.. but i hate teh grain.. i have to run ISO 400 or maybe even ISO 800.. grain sucks..

I hear DSLR's with higher ISO ratings (like 1600 / 3200) have lesser grain at the 400 and 800 level compared to what my camera does.

THe thing is that i noticed at the last concert there was this gal there with a Rebel XT and she was new into this stuff, she kept firing her flash, ugh! At concerts flash is a No-No. I rarely use flash, but if i do its for a particular reason (side shot to light an area of the face)

Anyway i want to use faster shutter speeds (presently running 1/20-1/40 on ISO 400-800 and F3.5) and still get the sensitivity for low light under a bright glass. The S3IS glass isnt bad 2.8-3.5 (W-T) but it could be better. Since i use 3.5 at most times (it rarely goes to 2.8 unless i am in full wide)

So yeah what do you guys suggest. The S3IS otherwise is a great camera for creative work and stuff, and i love it. But i think its once again time to upgrade to a DSLR. Problem is then i got to switch lenses all the time unless i can find a 50-300mm zoom lense or something
i know the 70-200 is too narrow, i would have to switch, something with a wider angle and longer telephoto and bright lens would be awesome and within my price range.. but damn.. i think i am going to have to get a 2nd job or take out a loan to get all the fancy stuff.. what do you say?

PS: image stablization rocks, which makes life so much easier! now only if the subject stopped moving.

CLIFFS:

Bought S3IS (upgraded from old S1IS) for concert photography. Works good but grain sucks. Wondering if should go DSLR but what is out there. I need ISO 800, fast shutter speeds and low grain!

 

[The Stigenator]

ttt

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Well, Canon DSLRs will give you the least noise at high ISOs, but none of them have in-camera IS. If you want to go the DSLR route you could pick up a XTi, or a used 20D or XT for cheap. As for lens choice, that's kind of a toughie. The closest lens with the range you're looking for is either the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro Super, or the Canon 70-300mm, with the Sigma being better. They're both around $200, BUT they are not particularly bright lenses. I think your S3 is even brighter than these two lenses. With this in mind, since these lenses are so dark they'd actually be "making up" for the extra speed that you get from a higher ISO, and you'd probably end up with a wash. At ISO 800 you'd still be getting around 1/20-1/40, and with ISO1600 you'd be getting around 1/40-1/80. Better, but with noise definitely apparent.

Keep in mind that DSLRs like the Rebel, 20D, 30D, D50, D80, Pentax stuff, have a crop factor of either 1.5x or 1.6x. This means a 70-200mm mounted on a 1.6x crop factor Rebel would be equivalent to a 112-320mm lens. A 70-300mm would be equivalent to a 112-480mm lens (The S3 is 36-432mm equivalent). I'm not too sure what to do. I've done a little concert photography before and I've found that a 70-200mm f/4 on a XT is often too slow. The 70-300mm lenses I mentioned above would be worse. The 70-200mm f/2.8 lense from Sigma would be better, but you're sacrificing the reach of a 300mm, and taking a hit of about $500.

What you CAN do with a DSLR though is push your pictures later in RAW software or photoshop. Basically set the camera to the minimum shutter speed you need to take the picture, and take the picture. It'll be underexposed, perhaps severly in some cases, but later you can increase the exposure value in RAW software and bring out a lot of detail in the image. For example, you need 1/30s at ISO1600 and f/4 to get a properly exposed shot. But to get a shot with no motion blur, you need a shutter speed of at least 1/80s. Simply switch the camera to manual or drop your exposure compensation so that your shutter speed is now at 1/80s, and shoot at that. Later on in the computer, you'll see that all the images are dark, but because of the flexibility of RAW and DSLR sensors, you can increase the exposure value to bring out lots of details in the shadows.

There is a limit to how much detail you can bring out though. Push the picture too far and you'll get blotchy details.

 

[jamesbond007]

I shoot a Canon 300D Digital Rebel (original) and it's a great starter camera. The stuff I've been doing lately is a lot more advanced and I feel greatly limited by the 300D in many ways. Enough about me, let's move on to you.

Yes, IS is great. Just remember it won't stop the action, but it'll stop you from jittery hands as the source of a blurry picture.

The SLR world can be quite expensive, as you already know. I just purchased the 135 f/2L recently and it was a hefty chunk of change. Though, the 35L is on the way and my copy of the 85L MK2 will be right around the corner with a new body upgrade. Before you start plunking down the coin, you have to understand what focal lengths are right for you. If you plan to shoot in low-light conditions, be sure the lenses you buy have a low f-stop or aperature number. (f1.2-2.8 are ideal for most low-light photography)

Before I start suggesting equipment, what do you plan to shoot and what budget are you working with?

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Well, Canon DSLRs will give you the least noise at high ISOs, but none of them have in-camera IS. If you want to go the DSLR route you could pick up a XTi, or a used 20D or XT for cheap. As for lens choice, that's kind of a toughie. The closest lens with the range you're looking for is either the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro Super, or the Canon 70-300mm, with the Sigma being better. They're both around $200, BUT they are not particularly bright lenses. I think your S3 is even brighter than these two lenses. With this in mind, since these lenses are so dark they'd actually be "making up" for the extra speed that you get from a higher ISO, and you'd probably end up with a wash. At ISO 800 you'd still be getting around 1/20-1/40, and with ISO1600 you'd be getting around 1/40-1/80. Better, but with noise definitely apparent.

Keep in mind that DSLRs like the Rebel, 20D, 30D, D50, D80, Pentax stuff, have a crop factor of either 1.5x or 1.6x. This means a 70-200mm mounted on a 1.6x crop factor Rebel would be equivalent to a 112-320mm lens. A 70-300mm would be equivalent to a 112-480mm lens (The S3 is 36-432mm equivalent). I'm not too sure what to do. I've done a little concert photography before and I've found that a 70-200mm f/4 on a XT is often too slow. The 70-300mm lenses I mentioned above would be worse. The 70-200mm f/2.8 lense from Sigma would be better, but you're sacrificing the reach of a 300mm, and taking a hit of about $500.

What you CAN do with a DSLR though is push your pictures later in RAW software or photoshop. Basically set the camera to the minimum shutter speed you need to take the picture, and take the picture. It'll be underexposed, perhaps severly in some cases, but later you can increase the exposure value in RAW software and bring out a lot of detail in the image. For example, you need 1/30s at ISO1600 and f/4 to get a properly exposed shot. But to get a shot with no motion blur, you need a shutter speed of at least 1/80s. Simply switch the camera to manual or drop your exposure compensation so that your shutter speed is now at 1/80s, and shoot at that. Later on in the computer, you'll see that all the images are dark, but because of the flexibility of RAW and DSLR sensors, you can increase the exposure value to bring out lots of details in the shadows.

There is a limit to how much detail you can bring out though. Push the picture too far and you'll get blotchy details.

Can you post without whoring Canon out to people? It's strange that the professional camera world manages to take perfectly good photos using Nikon and Canon, and plenty of other brands, but to hear a little ATOT kid talk, Canon is the ONLY option :roll:

Take your fanboyism elsewhere.

 

[dxkj]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Well, Canon DSLRs will give you the least noise at high ISOs, but none of them have in-camera IS. If you want to go the DSLR route you could pick up a XTi, or a used 20D or XT for cheap. As for lens choice, that's kind of a toughie. The closest lens with the range you're looking for is either the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro Super, or the Canon 70-300mm, with the Sigma being better. They're both around $200, BUT they are not particularly bright lenses. I think your S3 is even brighter than these two lenses. With this in mind, since these lenses are so dark they'd actually be "making up" for the extra speed that you get from a higher ISO, and you'd probably end up with a wash. At ISO 800 you'd still be getting around 1/20-1/40, and with ISO1600 you'd be getting around 1/40-1/80. Better, but with noise definitely apparent.

Keep in mind that DSLRs like the Rebel, 20D, 30D, D50, D80, Pentax stuff, have a crop factor of either 1.5x or 1.6x. This means a 70-200mm mounted on a 1.6x crop factor Rebel would be equivalent to a 112-320mm lens. A 70-300mm would be equivalent to a 112-480mm lens (The S3 is 36-432mm equivalent). I'm not too sure what to do. I've done a little concert photography before and I've found that a 70-200mm f/4 on a XT is often too slow. The 70-300mm lenses I mentioned above would be worse. The 70-200mm f/2.8 lense from Sigma would be better, but you're sacrificing the reach of a 300mm, and taking a hit of about $500.

What you CAN do with a DSLR though is push your pictures later in RAW software or photoshop. Basically set the camera to the minimum shutter speed you need to take the picture, and take the picture. It'll be underexposed, perhaps severly in some cases, but later you can increase the exposure value in RAW software and bring out a lot of detail in the image. For example, you need 1/30s at ISO1600 and f/4 to get a properly exposed shot. But to get a shot with no motion blur, you need a shutter speed of at least 1/80s. Simply switch the camera to manual or drop your exposure compensation so that your shutter speed is now at 1/80s, and shoot at that. Later on in the computer, you'll see that all the images are dark, but because of the flexibility of RAW and DSLR sensors, you can increase the exposure value to bring out lots of details in the shadows.

There is a limit to how much detail you can bring out though. Push the picture too far and you'll get blotchy details.

Can you post without whoring Canon out to people? It's strange that the professional camera world manages to take perfectly good photos using Nikon and Canon, and plenty of other brands, but to hear a little ATOT kid talk, Canon is the ONLY option :roll:

Take your fanboyism elsewhere.

Extrapolated from your post.

If Amateurs can take great photos with Canon, and Professionals can take great photos with Canon and Nikon, then both brands are good, but Canons are easier to take great photos with.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Well, Canon DSLRs will give you the least noise at high ISOs, but none of them have in-camera IS. If you want to go the DSLR route you could pick up a XTi, or a used 20D or XT for cheap. As for lens choice, that's kind of a toughie. The closest lens with the range you're looking for is either the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro Super, or the Canon 70-300mm, with the Sigma being better. They're both around $200, BUT they are not particularly bright lenses. I think your S3 is even brighter than these two lenses. With this in mind, since these lenses are so dark they'd actually be "making up" for the extra speed that you get from a higher ISO, and you'd probably end up with a wash. At ISO 800 you'd still be getting around 1/20-1/40, and with ISO1600 you'd be getting around 1/40-1/80. Better, but with noise definitely apparent.

Keep in mind that DSLRs like the Rebel, 20D, 30D, D50, D80, Pentax stuff, have a crop factor of either 1.5x or 1.6x. This means a 70-200mm mounted on a 1.6x crop factor Rebel would be equivalent to a 112-320mm lens. A 70-300mm would be equivalent to a 112-480mm lens (The S3 is 36-432mm equivalent). I'm not too sure what to do. I've done a little concert photography before and I've found that a 70-200mm f/4 on a XT is often too slow. The 70-300mm lenses I mentioned above would be worse. The 70-200mm f/2.8 lense from Sigma would be better, but you're sacrificing the reach of a 300mm, and taking a hit of about $500.

What you CAN do with a DSLR though is push your pictures later in RAW software or photoshop. Basically set the camera to the minimum shutter speed you need to take the picture, and take the picture. It'll be underexposed, perhaps severly in some cases, but later you can increase the exposure value in RAW software and bring out a lot of detail in the image. For example, you need 1/30s at ISO1600 and f/4 to get a properly exposed shot. But to get a shot with no motion blur, you need a shutter speed of at least 1/80s. Simply switch the camera to manual or drop your exposure compensation so that your shutter speed is now at 1/80s, and shoot at that. Later on in the computer, you'll see that all the images are dark, but because of the flexibility of RAW and DSLR sensors, you can increase the exposure value to bring out lots of details in the shadows.

There is a limit to how much detail you can bring out though. Push the picture too far and you'll get blotchy details.

Can you post without whoring Canon out to people? It's strange that the professional camera world manages to take perfectly good photos using Nikon and Canon, and plenty of other brands, but to hear a little ATOT kid talk, Canon is the ONLY option :roll:

Take your fanboyism elsewhere.

I believe all my statements are fair... TGG stated that high ISO is a big priority. Nikon and Canon people will both tend to agree that Canon has the best high-ISO performance, therefore my recommendation that he go for Canon. If he'd wanted ergonomics and high-ISO performance weren't paramount, I'd probably suggest a cheaper Pentax or something. It's mostly about the glass anyway.

Not to mention my post IMO was quite informative apart from what you'd call "brand whoring."

 

[Baked]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Hooray bunny!

Can you post without whoring Canon out to people? It's strange that the professional camera world manages to take perfectly good photos using Nikon and Canon, and plenty of other brands, but to hear a little ATOT kid talk, Canon is the ONLY option :roll:

Take your fanboyism elsewhere.

If you have another brand of DSLR to whore out, I'm all ears, if not, shove it. :disgust::roll::thumbsdown:

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Well, Canon DSLRs will give you the least noise at high ISOs, but none of them have in-camera IS. If you want to go the DSLR route you could pick up a XTi, or a used 20D or XT for cheap. As for lens choice, that's kind of a toughie. The closest lens with the range you're looking for is either the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro Super, or the Canon 70-300mm, with the Sigma being better. They're both around $200, BUT they are not particularly bright lenses. I think your S3 is even brighter than these two lenses. With this in mind, since these lenses are so dark they'd actually be "making up" for the extra speed that you get from a higher ISO, and you'd probably end up with a wash. At ISO 800 you'd still be getting around 1/20-1/40, and with ISO1600 you'd be getting around 1/40-1/80. Better, but with noise definitely apparent.

Keep in mind that DSLRs like the Rebel, 20D, 30D, D50, D80, Pentax stuff, have a crop factor of either 1.5x or 1.6x. This means a 70-200mm mounted on a 1.6x crop factor Rebel would be equivalent to a 112-320mm lens. A 70-300mm would be equivalent to a 112-480mm lens (The S3 is 36-432mm equivalent). I'm not too sure what to do. I've done a little concert photography before and I've found that a 70-200mm f/4 on a XT is often too slow. The 70-300mm lenses I mentioned above would be worse. The 70-200mm f/2.8 lense from Sigma would be better, but you're sacrificing the reach of a 300mm, and taking a hit of about $500.

What you CAN do with a DSLR though is push your pictures later in RAW software or photoshop. Basically set the camera to the minimum shutter speed you need to take the picture, and take the picture. It'll be underexposed, perhaps severly in some cases, but later you can increase the exposure value in RAW software and bring out a lot of detail in the image. For example, you need 1/30s at ISO1600 and f/4 to get a properly exposed shot. But to get a shot with no motion blur, you need a shutter speed of at least 1/80s. Simply switch the camera to manual or drop your exposure compensation so that your shutter speed is now at 1/80s, and shoot at that. Later on in the computer, you'll see that all the images are dark, but because of the flexibility of RAW and DSLR sensors, you can increase the exposure value to bring out lots of details in the shadows.

There is a limit to how much detail you can bring out though. Push the picture too far and you'll get blotchy details.

Can you post without whoring Canon out to people? It's strange that the professional camera world manages to take perfectly good photos using Nikon and Canon, and plenty of other brands, but to hear a little ATOT kid talk, Canon is the ONLY option :roll:

Take your fanboyism elsewhere.

I believe all my statements are fair... TGG stated that high ISO is a big priority. Nikon and Canon people will both tend to agree that Canon has the best high-ISO performance, therefore my recommendation that he go for Canon. If he'd wanted ergonomics and high-ISO performance weren't paramount, I'd probably suggest a cheaper Pentax or something.

Not to mention my post IMO was quite informative apart from what you'd call "brand whoring."

It was, i'm just cranky and seeing the millionth post where you're pushing Canon made me snappy

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Baked

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Hooray bunny!

Can you post without whoring Canon out to people? It's strange that the professional camera world manages to take perfectly good photos using Nikon and Canon, and plenty of other brands, but to hear a little ATOT kid talk, Canon is the ONLY option :roll:

Take your fanboyism elsewhere.

If you have another brand of DSLR to whore out, I'm all ears, if not, shove it. :disgust::roll::thumbsdown:

 

[The Stigenator]

well my budget if i had to put it would be a grand max.. initally to start with and then start getting the lenses. Dont get me wrong the pictures i do on the S3IS have rivaled those guys on DSLR infact its sometimes better. I have had people take my pictures to print rather than the guy with teh fancy camera. My big thing at this point is cost. If i want to get a decent reproduceable picture on the camera that i got, i will need like a 2K budget minimum and right now that's tight. I think i should start charging for some of my shoots when they take prints.

fuzzybabybunny> i know exactly what you are talking about with the lens, i used a DSLR one day and gave up. The thing is this concert photography is not like normal photography. Sometimes you luck out and get a barricade between you and the stage and audience, but most small places have no barricade so trying to get that money shot is impossible unless you push and shove and aim and then ofcourse they keep moving around. Also most concerts the lights are NEVER on solid, they are on a pattern. So i have to keep track of pattern before i start shooting so i know what to expect on the next frame.

i am going to upload some of my 'better' work to one of the atot hosts and lets see how it goes. i shoot in general about 100-500 pics and if i am lucky about 10-20% are keepers. Some concerts i can only do the first 10 minutes, so man those are hard as ****** since they are a band with a lot of energy on stage and trying to keep them in the frame long enough while tracking is nuts. But i have gotten some amazing pics if lighting was enough.

 

[The Stigenator]

hey hey.. now kids.. its not brand pushing.. trust me i have used nikon, minolta, sony (the new sony's are konica/minolta but the old ones suck) and frankly nikon is just as good as canon, but i agree the canon sensor is far superior for most cases. Even in the P&S realm, canon's color quality and sensitivity is better than SONY or KODAK. Nikon is a close second. I have been using digitals since like 1999 with teh early kodaks and i swear they are getting better, but tehy arent there yet. If i had the option i would go back to film but i like the convience of seeing how the shot came out right away.

and fuzzybabybunny> your post was informative.. it wasnt brand pushing.. trust me.. some ppl say i shoudlnt be considered amature, but whatever.. i still call myself amature.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny



I believe all my statements are fair... TGG stated that high ISO is a big priority. Nikon and Canon people will both tend to agree that Canon has the best high-ISO performance, therefore my recommendation that he go for Canon. If he'd wanted ergonomics and high-ISO performance weren't paramount, I'd probably suggest a cheaper Pentax or something.

Not to mention my post IMO was quite informative apart from what you'd call "brand whoring."

It was, i'm just cranky and seeing the millionth post where you're pushing Canon made me snappy

<3 teh dug dug!

It's ok. I do tend to talk about Canon a lot because really, that's what I have experience in, and often I do feel that Canon may be the best choice for someone. Canon's lower end DSLRs are all at great price points and offer a lot for the money (although not as much as the new up and coming Pentax). Compared to equivalent Nikon offerings, the Canons offer better high-ISO performance, higher sensor resolution, as well as a couple of other features I think. But if these are not your priorities then Canon certainly doesn't have to be the only brand to think of. Plop good glass in front of just about any current DSLR, and you're bound to get great pictures if you know how to work the camera. After that, it's basically about which "features" you prefer between brands, and your budget, which is a biggie for a lot of people.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: TheGoodGuy
well my budget if i had to put it would be a grand max.. initally to start with and then start getting the lenses.

Well... you could get a used XT body and a used Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for about $1100. If you can live with the 200mm end it'd be a great combo.

If you have to have at least 300mm... I really don't think there are any bright lenses in the 300mm area that are relatively affordable.

 

[Oblivionaire]

Canon 400D or Nikon D80 with a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 lens for low light work ~70-200 2.8 for a zoom. The 400D if budget is tight (its a couple of hundred less for the body).

 

[jamesbond007]

If a grand is all you have to spare, I suggest a used 20D/30D...but a grand would probably get you the body, a good-sized CF card, and you will probably be stuck shooting the kit 18-55mm lens. The 400D is OK, but only if you have small hands. Holding a 20D/30D in your hands is a great thing - it feels (and is) a far more professional camera than the 350XT/400D.

I am suggesting Canon because that's what I use and that's what I know.

 

[The Stigenator]

i dont CF cards and stuff, i dont need tripods and other pro equipment, i have it all. I have about 2+gb of CF cards and same with SD cards. So that's not a problem.

Anyway i am off to school.. damn sacramento air quality.. my nose hurts.

 

[vi edit]

FWIW, Best Buy has the 20D kit (18-55 lens) on clearance for $799. That's is a SMOKING deal on a very good camera.

 

[tfinch2]

Get a KM 7D. In body IS and very good high ISO performance. That camera is a beast, and the viewfinder is nice too. Tons of lenses as well.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Get a KM 7D. In body IS and very good high ISO performance. That camera is a beast, and the viewfinder is nice too. Tons of lenses as well.

are they good tho? how do the lenses compare to say a canon 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, or 70-200 f/4L? That's a serious question... looking for something for my sister possibly that won't break the bank.... and those lenses are my reference points, heh.

*edit* hrmm.. 7D is not what I thought it was... pricer than I had expected.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Get a KM 7D. In body IS and very good high ISO performance. That camera is a beast, and the viewfinder is nice too. Tons of lenses as well.

are they good tho? how do the lenses compare to say a canon 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, or 70-200 f/4L? That's a serious question... looking for something for my sister possibly that won't break the bank.... and those lenses are my reference points, heh.

*edit* hrmm.. 7D is not what I thought it was... pricer than I had expected.

Minolta makes very good lenses, plus you can get just about all of the third party stuff from Sigma/Tamron/Tokina that C&N gets. You can find a 7D body for 600-700. I'd say it's comparable to a 20D/30D, and built like a tank.

 

[blurredvision]

Wait a second guys.....we're talking about DSLR's and low noise at high ISO's, and nobody has mentioned the Nikon D50? To the OP, try to get a bit of this Canon nonsense out of your head for a second, and check out the D50. Widely considered THE best DSLR when it comes to low noise at high ISO.

Want proof? I'll send you a couple of pics later tonight to prove myself (after I get home from work). Plus, the D50 kit is as cheap as all the other prices listed here, and you'll have plenty of money left for a very decent telephoto to compliment the kit lens.

Just keep in mind that in the DSLR world, you won't always get better looking pictures just by spending more money.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
FWIW, Best Buy has the 20D kit (18-55 lens) on clearance for $799. That's is a SMOKING deal on a very good camera.

They have a pricing error at your local store... I would snatch it up. The 20D kit at BB is usually 1399 or something like that. The XT is 799.99. Which is still a great deal, but everyone is selling it for that now.. and we all know bestbuysux.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: vi_edit
FWIW, Best Buy has the 20D kit (18-55 lens) on clearance for $799. That's is a SMOKING deal on a very good camera.

They have a pricing error at your local store... I would snatch it up. The 20D kit at BB is usually 1399 or something like that. The XT is 799.99. Which is still a great deal, but everyone is selling it for that now.. and we all know bestbuysux.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=40&threadid=1932102&enterthread=y

 

[Reggae4k]

Not a pricing error, as i picked up a NIB with the kit lens this past friday. 799 Clearance price, 855 out the door (7% tax).