New digital camera

[atomic_punk]

I'm in the market for a new digital camera to take to gigs and take band pics with.

Now, before I get started, let me say this. ANY camera I have will have to be pretty much AUTO, no setting aperatures and ISO's, has to work in low light (NO FLASH) and pretty much idiot-proof.

Before I was using a Sony Cyber-Shot 3.2 MP camera, DSC-P71, but it seems I pretty much wore it out. Still working, but need an upgrade. Any ideas / recommendations? Oh, and no SLR's with changing lenses and stuff.

[gibsonlp]

On one hand - you want low light shooting with no flash and on the other - you don't want a dslr... it is like saying - I want a Rickenbacker, but not a good looking one
I am a dslr photographer, but I do track some P&S cameras for some of my friends, and I can tell you this:
At this moment, there is NO P&S camera that will provide you with good results in low light shooting without a flash. period.

A DSLR which provides good image quality in ISO 1600/3200 + a wide aperture lens is your best option.

I personally use Canon DSLRs (I have 3: 350D, 40D and 1DMKiiN), but here is a small comparison between Canon G9 (canon's most expensive P&S) to Nikon D300, a pretty expensive DSLR, I'll explain why I chose the D300 later)

Canon G9 in ISO 200:


Nikon D300 in ISO 200:


Up until this point the P&S is still okay, But when the ISO goes high, things are getting messier:

Canon G9 in ISO 1600 (highest ISO for this camera):


Nikon D300 in ISO 1600:


Nikon D300 in ISO 3200:



The reason I chose to compare the G9 with the Nikon D300 is that the Nikon D90 (the cheaper DXX series) has been announced, it carries the same sensor and image processor as its big brother - the D300, so the image quality will be the same but in a smaller, less robust body and it will cost half.
Don't think high ISO capabilities is the only good thing about DSLRs - you can buy a cheap 50mm 1.8 lens and grab LOTS of light so you won't even need to use high iso to get good shots...

Just my 2 agorot...

Images courtesy of http://www.dcresource.com

[gibsonlp]

Oh, almost forgot, the D90 is the first DSLR to offer video mode!
You can record half-hi-def (720p) movies with it using SLR lenses:

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imagi ... n/d-movie/

[admin]

Gil: It is hard for me to see the difference between the X's you photographed.

[gibsonlp]

Well, to be honest - I didn't take these pictures, I just linked some images from dcresource.com's reviews.

[jps]

Two of the best review sites for digital cameras are:

http://www.dpreview.com

http://www.imaging-resource.com

You will have a hard time, I think, finding all you want in a PNS, especially regarding no flash low light situations; you should consider a SLR.

[gibsonlp]

Peter: now I understand what you meant...
It worked fine for me, but for some reason dcresource blocked the requests for the images... I uploaded them to my own site, I hope now my comparison is clearer

[jingle_jangle]

At this moment, there is NO P&S camera that will provide you with good results in low light shooting without a flash. period.

So I thought, too..only makes sense.

Three years ago, I bought my Sony DSC-F717, having owned a 707 previously.

I've never seen such an incredibly flexible camera, that could be used for P&S, blur-free closeups without any electronic jitter management, and was still reasonably programmable for studio work on a tripod.

It's sort of an in-between item--the wonderful Zeiss lens makes it a bit bulky to haul around, and the balance takes getting used to, but I've seldom had a blurred shot from it, and I shoot in daylight or low light 90% of the time. Virtually all my hunderds of photobucket guitar shots and all of my documentation was done with it for almost three years.

Then it ******* out on me, and though I had it apart several times and fixed it each time, the chip contacts finally wore out, and Sony wanted too much to repair it. I replaced it with a DCS-F828 (top of the line until about a year ago, and my dream camera from reading reviews and knowing how good my 717 was). The F828 is, put succinctly, a waste of money for me. It has a smaller sensor chip, which means that it takes longer to register light input, which means that virtually anything in less than outdoor sunlight not taken with flash, comes out blurred without a tripod.

So, I highly recommend the 717, although it has been out of production for awhile now. There are mint examples still turning up on Ebay in the $150-200 range (original list was $1100.00), and I plan on buying another one and either selling the 828, or relegating it to studio use.

[gibsonlp]

Paul: the F717 was released in 2002, the digital photography world progressed so much ever since, I don't see the point in even looking for it.
It was, indeed a good camera for the time and it might even still give a good fight for some P&S cameras today mainly due to the great optics and the smaller resolution (less noise due to larger photoelectric cells).

The high iso performance of this camera, however, along with other P&S cameras is not that good, checkout this image:


This is ISO 800, not bad for a P&S, but miles away from a modern DSLR.

Physics is physics:
It all comes out to how large is each photoelectric cell.
The larger the sensor, the more light it can gather (bigger cells) and the less signal to noise ratio it has, most P&S cameras have a 2/3" sensor which is tiny compared to most DSLRs today, not to mention the "full frame" DSLRs (Canon 5D, 1Ds and Nikon D3 and D700).

The F717 is not a tiny camera either...

[jps]

Have we thoroughly confused Steve yet?

He might even return to FILM!!!

[atomic_punk]

Let me clarify. Low Light for ME = photographing a band under about 10-15 stage lights. Not outdoors at night taking pictures of a cave. My Sony did this quite well. The flash just washes out all of the pretty colors.

[jingle_jangle]

Agreed, Gil. I understand all the points you raise, and raise you a few more. No question that the 717 is ancient history. 5MP? Ain't nuthin' these days! And all Sonys right up to the latest have trouble with that sort of low-light performance, as evidenced by every single review I've managed to read on both the 717 and the 828.

I was speaking from my own practical experience with "available light" indoor photography; the review sites seem to use night cityscapes as their test for ISO "push" performance, which doesn't really apply to my own indoor, available-light use, which is not pushing the envelope. I suggest reviewing my [hotobucket albums, as well as nearly all the photos I've posted of my own work on this Forum, which were mostly taken with available light and the 717.

My own happiness with the now-budget-priced but obsolete (in terms of "state of the art") F717 speaks volumes, though it wouldn't satisfy a gotta-have-the-latest camera tech junkie. And my own disappointment with its supposed (in 2005) state-of-the-art TOL big brother, is the other side of the coin.

Briefly put, and ignoring the early-adopter mantra, the 717 worked for me (and is available now for $200). The 828 does not work despite accolades in the review press. For a Sony PAS compact, I'd suggest the W300, for about $300.00; I bought one for my wife in an open box sale for about $250.00, and it's real fine.

[gibsonlp]

Paul:
I am not arguing with your own experience, the main reason the 717 was better in indoor photography in terms of light gathering is the "low" resolution (5mp is more than enough unless you plan on printing it on a large canvas or something) compared to the 828,
Checkout this review: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... y828.shtml, it speaks exactly about the smaller photoelectric cells in the 828.

Having said that, I took hundreds of pictures in live concerts, some of the venues were really dark, some had plenty of light I was actually able to use my main zoom lens (24-105L f4), but in most cases, I had to use my 50mm f1.4 in aperture of 1.8 to 2.5.
or my 85mm f1.8 in f2.0-2.5. All this while pushing the ISO high as 1600 (I didn't have my 40D then, I used my old 350D which isn't a star in terms of low noise high iso shooting).

What I am saying is that light is light is light, if I had to bump the ISO to 1600 and open the aperture to 1.8 it means that there was not enough light for any other camera to shoot it at f2.8 with ISO 400 because this is 3.3 stops less than what I had to use.
Not to mention the fact that in the same aparture and the same ISO sensitivity and the same exposure - a P&S will have a darker image due to the smaller sensor.

Indoor photography != live shows photography as the latter offers more challenges in terms of available light

[gibsonlp]

Let me clarify. Low Light for ME = photographing a band under about 10-15 stage lights. Not outdoors at night taking pictures of a cave. My Sony did this quite well. The flash just washes out all of the pretty colors.

The real question is what are you looking to get from these images? are they for PR purposes? artistic? or just documentary?
I feel I am not stressing this enough: most live concerts have some very low light situations.
In order to be able to capture these moments you need a wide aperture and a high iso capabilities (at least a decent iso 1600 option, most cameras give decent iso 3200 and 6400 today!), no P&S camera will give you this at the moment. Some, like the 717 will be able to give you decent iso 800 performance, but with a smaller aperture (f2.0 in the wide angle, and 2.4 in the tele) and the darker image, this will not be enough imho.

I have uploaded some of my very early photos taken in a really really dark venue to show you how well, even my really old 350D which is an old amateur SLR camera did there (not my best pictures out there, but definitely enough to show you what I mean)

[jingle_jangle]

Thanks, Gil, for sharing your wealth of camera experience. This goes a long way toward explaining why my 828 hasn't served me as well as I'd hoped. It's a great outdoor camera, though.

Time to start taking some shots of my collection and recent work at the new house!