best camera for evening sports and no-flash dance competitions

Just wanted to post a few pictures to show you what I was talking about with the blurry, grainy, color problems I am having.<div></div>

the other problem with my photos<div></div>

another problem with my photos<div></div>

Wendy - you'll get much lower noise with a D40. With the right lens nightime football shots can be done. Just be aware that the best lenses for sports are very expensive. But rest assured that you will get much better results than in your first attachment.

The superzoom cameras will do worse low light than cheaper cameras with shorter zoom range. This is because superzooms tend to have smaller sensor sizes.

 

If you are having problems with flash recharging I would actually look into getting Canon S5 as it has an external hot shoe and an external flash which will put your budget at around 450 or so.

 

Or I might look into getting a Canon G9/G7, the zoom range isn't that great but since it uses a larger sensor and more megapixel you should be able to crop more without substantial loss in quality. It also features an external hot shoe to attach an external flash.

The D40 looks great, however it says it doesn't have image stabilization. I really need that---I tend to get over excited when that "really great shot" of my kids come up----for example that graduation picture. Every other picture that night came out fine--the most important one I ruined. The Canon G9 looks like it might be what I am looking for----how does it differ from the Powershot S3/S5 and the Sony Cybershot h7/h9?

I also should ask----I have read where more megapixels is not always a good thing, especially if you load the phots onto your computer. I always load my photos onto my laptop and organize, crop, etc on there. I put some on CD's to send to relatives---do I need a smaller megapixel to do that and if so, what size is best?

The G9 has less zoom, is smaller than the S3/S5 and is more of an advanced pocket point and shoot camera. The S and H series are designed to be DSLR replacements covering a 12x zoom range.

 

More megapixels is especially better if you tend to crop your images. The G9 uses a 1.7 sensor whereas the H and S series uses a 2.5 sensor. 1.7 being bigger than 2.5.

 

You are better off getting a DSLR like the Pentax K100, It's a little bit above your budget and it only has 6 megapixels but it has built in shake reduction.

 

Nice thing about Pentax is that shake reduction and autofocus will work with third party lenses.

 

However, any camera you get aside from expensive pro cameras costing thousands of dollars will not likely meet your expectations of similar picture quality outside.

YAY! another vote for Pentax! ;)

 

Wendy, a couple notes that will help you avoid confusion:

 

1) shutter speed refers to how long the shutter remains open. the time interval from when you actually push the button to the time the shutter fires is called "shutter lag" --shutter lag is a problem on all point and shoot cameras (although, to their credit, sony cameras tend to have incredibly short shutter lags). shutter lag on a DSLR is effectively zero unless your autofocus is having trouble.

 

2) Unless you're planning on making prints bigger than 8X10", the Pentax K100D's 6.1 megapixels is more than you need. More megapixels might be handy if you plan on cropping more than half of your picture away to get the frame you want, but whatever you read that says more megapixels isn't always better is absolutely right.

 

The more pixels you cram into a given amount of space, the worse the noise is going to be. That's why so many of us are telling you to get a DSLR. The sensor on a DSLR is about 9 times larger than the sensor on the Canon G9 and roughly 16 times larger than the sensor on the Canon S5. bigger sensor = bigger pixels = less noise = better pictures.

 

And just for the record, the K100D, the D40, and the D70 (a higher-end Nikon DSLR) use the same 6.1 MP sensor, and for good reason--It's probably the best sensor ever produced in it's price range, and I've even seen reviews that rate it among the likes of the sensor found in the Canon 5D (a $2,400 professional DSLR).

 

3) the shake reduction feature on the Pentax K100D is outstanding. It will allow you to take better pictures in lower light than you'd ever dream of taking with a Nikon D40 (without an expensive stabilized lens), much less ANY point and shoot camera. Keep in mind, though, that shake reduction will not allow you to freeze fast-moving objects or people. What I mean is, the stage or field and background might be tack-sharp, but if your subject is moving, it might come out blurred.

 

4) a DSLR will fix all of your color problems, because if you shoot in RAW format (as opposed to JPEG format, which is the only option in every point and shoot that I'm aware of), you'll be able to adjust the white balance (which is the biggest factor in getting accurate colors) on your computer after the fact.

another thing to consider: the Canon G9 is just as if not more expensive than the Pentax K100D

Canon G9 will let you shoot raw.

 

I haven't really used the H7. But I have used the H5, and the shutter lag and flash recharging on that is pretty bad. The upside on the H series is that their Zeiss branded lenses are really good and take excellent pictures when there is light out.

"Canon G9 will let you shoot raw."

 

wow. didn't know that. props to canon.

Well, I certainly have learned a lot here so far----you are all amazing people! Let me see if I can put this in a nutshell. If I get a camera with a longer zoom and more megapixels, I can do a lot of cropping with my photos and also take out "noise" with a noise removal software? Or, I can get get less megapixels and a shorter zoom but have less "noise" in my photos. Also, if I go with the DSLR, I may have to give up image stabilization and also carry different lenses around? In other words, I am going to have to compromise no matter what. I would rather have stabile images that I can crop and print up as 4x6's, 5x7's and an occasional 8x10 and give to family members. If I can reduce the grainy look and enhance/change colors with software I think I would rather do that than give up image stabilization. Can I use the longer zoom, more megapixels for the dance photos and then use the noise reduction software to clean up noise---and if I can, what type of software, how much and where do I get it? I think what I'll do with football is take most of my photos at the very first games of the season---that way there is still a lot of natural lighting on the field for the first 30 minutes of the game. Did I understand all this correctly? I'm not sure about shooting in RAW, either, I don't even have any idea what that means! Thanks so much!

Wendy, when shooting in "RAW" format, the camera quite literally records onto the memory card exactly what the sensor received. This means that you can then use software (plenty available free) to apply white balance correction, sharpness adjustment, contrast and brightness or exposure adjustment to the image before you convert it to a JPEG or whatever. That image you took of your daughter dancing - the one that came out all red - came out like that because of incorrect white balance. In brief, white balance adjustment will make sure your white come out white (a bit like a decent washing powder!) and the other colours will come out correct too.

 

The issue about number of pixels is quite important. Small point and shoot (and plenty of larger ones too) have a very small sensor. You can have, say, 6 million pixels crammed onto a tiny sensor, or 6 million pixels on a larger sensor such as in a DSLR. By having the pixels on a larger sensor, the amount of "noise" is reduced. This leads to better quality images than those taken with same number of pixels on a tiny sensor. It's all very well believing that software can remove noise, but in reality, the noise is there on the image and all the software can do is use mathematics to calculate what should be in place where the noise is. Software can do a pretty good job of it, but it's better to start with a good image not requiring so much noise reduction, than it is to start with a noisy image and trying to clean it up.

 

Ooops...better go....need to let a dog out!

Glad to pass on a little knowledge ;). Come to think of it, I'm fairly confident that I've learned 90% of what I know about cameras from the people on this board.

 

Anyway, a few things: (there are always a few.)

 

noise = graininess, but the more noise you have, the more your colors will be muted as well. Also, noise is a result of sensor construction only--it has nothing to do with the lens. So the zoom ratio (3x, 6x, 12x zooms, etc.) has no effect on the noise performance of the camera.

Typically, so called "super zooms" have smaller sensors built, and therefore more noise than other cameras, but this is not always the case. In other words, a camera with a 3x zoom and a camera with a 15x zoom will have equal noise performance if they have the same size sensor.

 

noise reduction software is nice, but it's a long way from being magic. the trouble is that the more you reduce the noise, the more detail you lose in the photo. for example, if you tried to get rid of all the noise in any of the photos you posted above, if you succeeded, you'd end up with a very unnatural-looking picture that you'd never want to print.

 

noise reduction software is usually only good for one ISO "stops." most cameras allow you to set your ISO at 64, 100, 200, 400, 800, or 1600 (some cameras go up to 3200). so getting one "stop" out of your noise reduction software means that you can make a picture taken at ISO 400 look like it was shot at ISO 200, or make one shot at 1600 look like it was shot at 800, but you'll never be able to make a picture shot at ISO 800 look like it was shot at ISO 100. (on DSLRs, any ISO below 400 is generally completely noise free, while ISO 800 and 1600 may look a little grainy, but are still usable. on most point and shoot cameras, anything over ISO 200 is unusable.)

 

For your interests and your budget, I wouldn't even consider a DSLR without shake reduction as an option. The Pentax K100D, Pentax K10D, and Sony alpha100 (all of which have SR) are the only real DSLR options for you as far as I can see. But yes, if you may have to carry different lenses around. It's possible to buy a "superzoom" lens that will cover everything from wide-angle to telephoto, but the optical quality of such lenses is usually poor. On the plus side, carrying lots of camera gear will frequently cause you to be mistaken for a pro photographer (this happens to me often. it's quite hilarious.) ;)

Pete (or anyone!)----Okay, so say I go with the Pentax K100---that doesn't have image stabilization and the shots of my kids in motion will be blurry---that doesn't solve my problem. If I go with the Nikon D40---that has image stabilization and has less noise in low light--same thing withe Canon G9. Now if I go with the Canon S3 or S5, I can get closer up to the action and get better quality when I crop---I won't lose picture quality when I crop the photos. Obviously there is not a win-win solution here, so what do you think is going to be the better choice----the majority of my shots are point and shoot---kids and dogs playing outside, flowers in my garden, vacations, granparents visiting, birthday parties, halloween, Christmas, etc. It's those several times a year when I need a camera that can go to dance dress rehearsals and competetions and shoot indoors. The birthday parties and Christmas indoors, I would imagine can be handled just fine with the Canon S3 or the S5, but can it do the dress rehearsals, with a flash and look better than the one shown above (even if I have to alter it with software)? My husband really likes the price of the Canon S3/S5 and I can get extra batteries,charger and memory cards and not break the bank. Do I really need a DSLR if most of my photos are the type I mentioned above? Also, how do you change a RAW file into a JPEG file? Thanks again!<div></div>

I misunderstood about the Pentax---it does have good image stabilization, but it can't stop a moving object? For example, my son running towards the ball to kick off---I won't be able to capture him doing that? I can do that with my Kodak, but only if it is daylight. Same thing with dance----I have plenty of great shots of them rehearsing outside (even on a cloudy day) and have stopped all the action, but the problem is indoors.<div></div>

Wendy, It's not so much the camera or lens but the situation, which is why people are telling you to get a DSLR. There is no point and shoot camera that will do what you want it to and for that matter no camera and or lens at all. The reason why that is has to do with the light. Not enough light the crappier the photo. That's as simple as one could put it. There is really only three things you have to know about camera setting's and all have to do with light. 1. Apeture - this is the pupil of the camera the wider it is the more light it lets in. 2. ISO - this is the sensitivity, more sensitive more light it let's in. 3. Shutter Speed - This is the eye lid and how fast it blinks the faster the blink the less light it lets in. That's it! In order to freeze a moving subject you need a very fast shutter speed so your camera needs to blink very quickly. When the shutter speed is fast this lets less light in, so your camera needs to compesate to get more light. It does this by raising the ISO and or Apeture. However both of these compesations can cause problems. By raising the ISO level you will get "noise" and with Apeture you get a shallower DOF. Image Stabilization has nothing to do with freezing a moving subject, only the shutter speed does. So you see the reason why it's easier to freeze moving subjects when there is more light available is because your camera needs less ISO, Apeture and Shutter speed. The darker the enviroment gets the harder it is for your or any other camera to achieve this and you end up with crappier shots.

I think we've confused you ;)

 

The K100D has image stabilization (pentax calls it "shake reduction"), the Nikon D40 does not have image stabilization.

 

Both the K100D and the D40 have almost identical noise performance, as they use the exact same sensor (not just the same type of sensor--i mean it's the same sensor.) The D40 employs a bit more noise reduction in camera, but not enough to merit buying it over the K100D.

 

Any DSLR will blow any point and shoot out of the water in terms of noise performance. Both the K100d and the D40 will have so much less noise than the G9 that you'll be amazed.

 

You always lose quality when you crop an image. With a 10+ megapixel sensor, you have more room to play, but you'll still be losing quality.

 

 

As I see it, the only downside to getting a DSLR is the physical size of the camera/lenses.

Sorry Wendy, we probably should have explained image stabilization a little better.

 

Image stabilization is designed to reduce overall blurriness in pictures due to the motion of the camera, not the motion of the subject. In the Pentax, for example, the sensor that captures the light is moved around by magnets in order to match the movement of your camera due to unstable hands. This allows you to use slower shutter speeds to capture more light without blurring the entire picture. It has the same effect as a tripod (except that a tripod will allow you to keep the shutter open for MUCH longer).

 

If your subject is in motion, though, the only answer is a fast shutter speed, which, as Shay pointed out, requires either a wider aperture or a higher ISO (or both). I use a Pentax *ist DL (similar to the k100d, just without the shake reduction) and an old manual focus 50mm f/1.7 lens to take low-light pictures at one of the campus ministries here in Auburn. The extremely wide aperture of that lens allows me to set my shutter to about 1/60 of a second at ISO 400--enough to keep my shaky hands from making my pictures blurry, but not enough to freeze subjects in motion. In order to get crystal clear shots of fast-moving objects, you need a shutter speed of less than 1/150 of a second--something you'll only be able to do in well-lit situations.

 

Short of blowing your kids' college fund on a $2400 full-frame DSLR that will let you shoot at ISO 6400, try to focus on picking the right moment to fire your shutter, i.e., when your subjects are relatively still.

an example of motion blur:

 

notice the football and the kicker's foot are blurry, while the rest of the shot is clear. (apologies, but apparently my computer ate the metadata on this file, so i don't know what ISO/aperture/shutter speed was used).<div></div>

low-light example shot:

 

shutter speed = 1/60 sec, aperture = f/2.8, ISO 400

 

this is what I mean when I say try to catch your subjects when they're not moving.<div></div>

fast shutter example:

 

shutter = 1/1500 sec, aperture = f/8.0, ISO 400

 

just because i'm proud of this one ;)<div></div>

Adam "You always lose quality when you crop an image. With a 10+ megapixel sensor, you have more room to play, but you'll still be losing quality. " - the loss of quality is likely to be neglible and insignificant from the point of view of printing images up to a fairly decent size. For example, I take my pictures using a 6.3MP Canon 10D (that cost me 200 quid second hand). I have just taken a crop of one of my images. The crop is just one quarter of the frame 0 so it only contains about 1.6 million pixels. I have blown is up on my screen to 20 inches across by 14 inches high - and there is not a single bit of pixellation to see - the image is spot on perfect.

Pete: a 10D for $200? lucky you!

 

and I've done similar things with my 6.1MP photos--I was just pointing out that it's impossible to crop an image without losing information. I said nothing about whether or not the information was needed ;)