AboutAkshay Singh Jamwal Expertise I can answer questions questions relating to SLRs (35mm or DSLRs) and general photographic technique. I have good knowledge and understanding of photographic principles (film or digital) and lighting.
Questions about studio lighting, studio flashes, and flashguns are also welcome. Questions about theory (e.g. colour theory, guidelines behind composition, depth of field, etc.) are welcome as well.
Digital photography also involves some amount of post-processing using an image editing application such as Adobe Photoshop; a program that I am proficient with.
I cannot answer typical generic questions, viz. "Which is the best camera?," as the short and sweet answer to questions such as those is "There is no such thing." Furthermore, there is a lot of literature available on the web pertaining to the same.
Experience I'm a professional commercial photographer and have been passionately taking photographs since I was 13 years old. In totality, I've been involved in photography in one way or another for over a decade. I've used various cameras (and lighting equipment) over the years, including but not limited to Minolta/Konica Minolta, Nikon, Canon, and Mamiya.
Question Your website asks for my experience. I'm not a total beginner. I used SLR's since 1984. Over the past few years my time available for photography has been minimal. But for a while I took some photos for a club I belong to using their digital camera (my first, and so far, only experience with digital.# I think it was a Canon A620. I had beginner's experience with editing digital photos, which I did mostly at MotoPhoto where I purchased prints. I didn't get to learn a lot to do at home on my computer. Now I would like to buy my first digital camera. There are SO many to choose from. My old SLR had a flash attachment with a range of 50 feet. Digital cameras seem to have small flash ranges. Do any of them have a larger flash range or would I need a separate flash unit with its own batteries? Considering the size of digital cameras, maybe the flash unit would be larger than the camera? Also, what kind of digital camera features would I look for if I want to maximize the way I could take indoor photos without a flash and possibly also without a tripod? I used a tripod with the A620. I have two examples of photos I like to take: quilts and dogs. The club I took photos for is a quilting club. It was important for the colors in the quilts to look as true as possible. I found that the colors were better when I used a tripod without a flash. This was possible to do when the quilts were displayed mounted on a stand. But other quilts were displayed by people holding them, and therefore they were never totally motionless and the photos would blur. Using the flash forced a faster shutter speed, but if the subjects were too far away #ex. on a stage#, the flash range was inadequate. Also I needed to zoom in to the stage to see the details of the quilts. Digital cameras are sometimes limited in their zoom features #ex. optical zoom is preferred but not often adequate.) The other type of photos I want to take are of my dog, often indoors. The best pet photos I took with the A620 were with no flash and a tripod, while hoping he didn't move. Flash creates an undesirable image of dogs' eyes. It's not red-eye. It's more of a whitish-green. So none of my indoor flash photos were good. Also the flash made my tan and brown dog look white and gray. What digital camera features would give me a better option for indoor, no-flash photos? Another issue with no-flash photos is that bulbs in lamps create a golden color. My old SLR had a filter to help correct the color caused by indoor lamps. Do digital cameras have a built-in feature for this so that a filter isn't needed? I've also noticed that a flash can create harsh shadows on objects near the subject. The only solution for that seems to be to have the subject be a large distance from surrounding objects when possible.
Answer Hello Vicki.
I share your sense of amazement at the unnecessarily numerous amount of camera models available in the market today. There indeed are way too many to choose from and just keeping up with new camera models is a challenge in itself.
Zeroing in on one particular consumer (or even what they call 'prosumer' these days) at first seems to be quite a daunting task.
However, two factors that will simplify your range of choices are your budget and how much you want to explore photography as an artform. A compact digital camera would be more suitable for a casual shooter, while a DSLR would be better suited for people looking to hone their photographic skills.
Re: 1, "My old SLR had a flash attachment with a range of 50 feet. Digital cameras seem to have small flash ranges. Do any of them have a larger flash range or would I need a separate flash unit with its own batteries?"
A flashgun for an SLR (film or digital) would indubitably have a much higher output than the small flashes that compact digital cameras come equipped with. And yes, some models have hotshoes to which you can attach external flashes. However, you wont see much of a difference in terms of quality of light with even a more powerful flash mounted ON the camera- the light is too flat. With small flashes that are close to the lens on compact cameras, it can be flat AND harsh.
Good for candid snapshots, not the best solution if you want a good photo of say, your dog.
The main problem with compact digitals is that their high ISO performance (say ISO 400 and above) is dismal in my experience. Noise ('grain', in film terms) at higher ISOs really messes with image quality. If you shoot indoors without flash and want to take better shots of quilts, dogs, or generally want to improve your photography, a DSLR is much better suited for you. Some consumer DSLR models are quite competitively priced. If you search for the Nikon D40 or D40X, or Canon's 1000D, you'll find plenty of good deals. "Consumer DSLR prices" wouldn't be a bad trio of keywords either.
Re: 2, "Also, what kind of digital camera features would I look for if I want to maximize the way I could take indoor photos without a flash and possibly also without a tripod?"
Limited choices here, but I'd advise a DSLR again for their excellent high ISO performance.
Human eyes are much better at compensating for low light than a camera is. Consequently, a lot of indoor scenes that our eyes might perceive to be 'well-lit' prove to push the very upper limits of a camera's abilities.
If you're indoors in a room with say a large window for sunlight , then practically any camera -DSLR or compact- will do. An auditorium (e.g.), however would prove to be problematic even for a DSLR. This of course also depends on how powerful the lights are indoors, but I'd say that you'd have a tough time without a flash and/or tripod in such an environment, regardless of what camera you use.
In regards to this, the only feature you need to check out is image quality at ISO 400 or above. You typically won't be shooting indoors at ISOs lower than that.
Take any picture on your potential camera of choice after changing ISO to 400 or above. Don't look at just the review image on the LCD of the camera, have someone at the store transfer it to a computer to view it.
As for the quilts, if you can, take 'em outdoors! Shoot them on those stands you have for them, in the shade, not direct sunlight. This will solve your slower shutter speed problem.
Works for dogs too! :)
Re: "Using the flash forced a faster shutter speed, but if the subjects were too far away #ex. on a stage#, the flash range was inadequate.
No solution for that other than moving closer towards what you're shooting, I'm afraid...
For event photography, I've had to literally run towards subjects on certain occasions myself.
As for red eye or related eye-reflections, again that's a problem when the flash is too close to the lens. This is a common problem with most compacts. An off-camera light source, whether a flash or table lamp, will be more effective.
The golden colour that you're describing is probably due to an undesirable White Balance setting.
With film, you'd use filters as film is typically balanced for daylight, or 5500K in terms of colour temperature. You'd need a blue filter to compensate for too much yellow light (indoors), or a magenta filter for fluorescent lights.
Today, you can do this in-camera. As you suspected, there's no need for filters, just the right white balance setting. Most digital cameras come equipped with presets for daylight, flash, shade or fluorescent light. All DSLRs that I know of allow you to manually set white balance as well.
The other solution for harsh shadows from an onboard flash again is to take your light source off-camera. There's more you can do with a flashgun that has a swivelling head, like bouncing light off a large white or light coloured wall/ceiling.
I have a couple of sites to share with you, they should help.
I've seen the following site grow from a small community to now what is one of the most popular sites on photographic equipment:-
I hope that helps. If you have any other questions, please feel free to post a follow-up or another question here- be happy to help someone taking the digital plunge.
