Camera advice from festival veterans

[mattgimmeshelter]

Okay so I'm hoping to invest in a camera for some festivals this year, but don't want to pay too much

Main thing i'm interested in is getting a camera which can capture good photos at night! It gets annoying that after a certain point in the day cameras just don't seem to work.

I know it's abit obscure but if anyone has any advice please let me know

Don't worry none of this camera action will be happening during any performances

[viberunner]

You didn't specify a price range?

Not a great camera expert, have a decade-old, but rocksteady reliable, Sony Cybershot, the partner a Panasonic Lumix. Both happy-snapper priced, i.e. under £100. Very slim too, they fit into a pocket without being too bulky. Work fine at night, but I think to get really good night photos you need light, and a non-professional flash will only go so far on any camera. Those pro cameras are blinding for a reason.

Also, there can be a huge amount of information in a photo that you can't see, get a photo adjuster (I use PaintShopPro v9, there are many) and you'll find their automatic contrast/colour adjustments are likely to be vastly superior to anything on a low-end snapper.

[mattgimmeshelter]

You didn't specify a price range?

Not a great camera expert, have a decade-old, but rocksteady reliable, Sony Cybershot, the partner a Panasonic Lumix. Both happy-snapper priced, i.e. under £100. Very slim too, they fit into a pocket without being too bulky. Work fine at night, but I think to get really good night photos you need light, and a non-professional flash will only go so far on any camera. Those pro cameras are blinding for a reason.

Also, there can be a huge amount of information in a photo that you can't see, get a photo adjuster (I use PaintShopPro v9, there are many) and you'll find their automatic contrast/colour adjustments are likely to be vastly superior to anything on a low-end snapper.

[Katster]

For decent night shots all you really need is a tripod or other flat steady surface to place your camera on, unless you are planning on playing with exposure time etc?

[Katster]

Ahhhh, unless what you want are shots of you and your mates at night? In which case yes, you need a decent flash. Or position them close to a light source

[thetime]

You want a camera for less than a hundred quid thats good in low light haha. I'm afraid you won't get it, even the expensive bridge cameras are pretty average in low light.

I have a Nikon d7000, Nikon 105mm 2.8 with a sb700 now that's good in low light.

Edited June 16, 2014 by thetime

[t8yman]

I agree with thetime, you simply wont get a standalone camera that will do good low-light photography. In order to get good lowlight, you need to use long exposures, which will be blurry unless you have a tripod or similar (as katster said), or you need a commercial flash. To be perfectly honest, you wont get much better than an iphone or a samsung galaxy camera without splashing £250+

Edited June 16, 2014 by t8yman

[viberunner]

My partner has a Galaxy. The pictures are awful compared to our happy snapper cameras.

[thetime]

The best compact I've used for picture quality is the Sony Hx20, very good picture quality and half decent low light and very good video. I currently have a Panasonic tz40 for weekends away where Dslr cameras are not allowed, average picture quality to say the least.

If your on a limited budget look at the second hand market to get the most out of your money.

[t8yman]

My partner has a Galaxy. The pictures are awful compared to our happy snapper cameras.

[eFestivals]

I've just bought myself something better, but you can't go very wrong buying a Panasonic Lumix LZ30 (or a similar model) - even an idiot like me can take great photos in just about any conditions.

£130.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-LZ30E-K-Bridge-Camera/dp/B00B1N4TS4/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1402910648&sr=1-7&keywords=lumix

Edited June 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

To be perfectly honest, you wont get much better than an iphone or a samsung galaxy camera without splashing £250+

Some people love to be marketed at, and others look at the market.

[t8yman]

well its a bit of a debatable issue really, depends what people consider "decent". My point was that a lot of people already have a fairly decent snapper in their pocket, I'm rarely in a position where my phone camera wont suffice, but we do have a reasonably good SLR for special occasions like weddings etc.

[viberunner]

As I'm sure many will know, its not the megapixel count that is the biggest factor, its the sensor quality, and as far as I know the 5s has one of the best sensors available. I'm prepared to be wrong on that, but I'm fairly sure its true.

Edited June 16, 2014 by viberunner

[thetime]

Lens is incredibly important too, the Cybershots uses Carl Zeiss.

It doesn't matter what the back-end tech is doing if the optics are inadequate.

Edited June 16, 2014 by thetime

[eFestivals]

You can get better images if you can get a compact/bridge that shoots in raw. Other than that it's only going to give you good images on a perfect sunny day.

that's not true.

There's defo bridge cameras out there which don't (have to be) use(ing?) RAW that can take very good low-light pics.

For example, the last Lumix I had (similar features to the LZ30 I mention above, but older than that, and older than the lz28) took very decent low-light pics.

As long as it's a camera that allows for fully manual operation then it should be possible to get decent pics in low light conditions (tho how low-light depends on how far the feature ranges go).

[thetime]

that's not true.

There's defo bridge cameras out there which don't (have to be) use(ing?) RAW that can take very good low-light pics.

For example, the last Lumix I had (similar features to the LZ30 I mention above, but older than that, and older than the lz28) took very decent low-light pics.

As long as it's a camera that allows for fully manual operation then it should be possible to get decent pics in low light conditions (tho how low-light depends on how far the feature ranges go).

[eFestivals]

Of course it depends what you mean by 'decent'.

more-than decent enough to be bought by and accepted for publication and print by major national daily newspapers, for example.

There's probably few people that study a photo to the depths that they go to, when you bear in mind that the huge majority only ever get looked at on a much lower res screen than is the quality of the pic.

[thetime]

more-than decent enough to be bought by and accepted for publication and print by major national daily newspapers, for example.

There's probably few people that study a photo to the depths that they go to, when you bear in mind that the huge majority only ever get looked at on a much lower res screen than is the quality of the pic.

[eFestivals]

Yes I'm a bit of a pixel peeper and a picture has to be perfect.

Far to fussy.

if you're taking photos of bands at festivals you'd have far too many of them to ever bother looking at them in such depth.

But, as I say, some of the major newspapers have bought them on occasion, so I reckon that says something positive about the quality.

I've just seen that the LZ30 is now £120 on amazon, bargain!

I've had my new camera arrive today, one of these sweeties:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-DMC-FZ72EB-K-Lumix-Camera-Telephoto/dp/B00E0YFOKI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1402926900&sr=8-1&keywords=panasonic+dmc-fz72

[thetime]

if you're taking photos of bands at festivals you'd have far too many of them to ever bother looking at them in such depth.

But, as I say, some of the major newspapers have bought them on occasion, so I reckon that says something positive about the quality.

I've just seen that the LZ30 is now £120 on amazon, bargain!

I've had my new camera arrive today, one of these sweeties:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-DMC-FZ72EB-K-Lumix-Camera-Telephoto/dp/B00E0YFOKI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1402926900&sr=8-1&keywords=panasonic+dmc-fz72

[viberunner]

Doesn't matter what type of lens you have on a non Dslr, y

[kerplunk]

I'm not familiar with the current crop of compact cameras in this price range but you might get better bangs per buck buying something secondhand like the Panasonic LX5 which has an f2.0 aperture lens (a feature you won't find new for that money)

eg.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Panasonic-LUMIX-DMC-LX5-10-1-MP-Digital-Camera-White-with-LVF1-viewfinder-/331234350764?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item4d1f1b16ac

That would have been a £300+ camera a couple of years ago (the current version is the LX7 which has an even better light-gathering f1.4 lens).

Edited June 18, 2014 by kerplunk