Digital Camera advice from some of you photogoonies

[Crushenator 500]

when ever u go for a didgital camera, don't ever run behind the mega pixel saga. i made a big mistake buying the 'Sony Cybershot T5' 7.1 mega pixel camera. but the truth is that there is hardly any quality difference between the 7.1 mega pixel and the 5.1 mega pixel. i could have save some buck by going for the 5.1 mega pixel. higher mega pixel count dont necessarily improve the quality of image taken.

It does improve the size it can be printed at though

 

[Maxi]

You're still going to get motion blur with a compact, as it will no doubt have quite a bit of shutter lag.

To get around this you'de need to buy an slr or a dslr that can take very high speed pictures that freeze the shot.

I'm guessing this would be important in a nightclub where you're going to be drunk and there will be lots of movement anyway.

No camera can handle a nightclub. There simply is no light there. You alyways need a flash.

 

[jondy]

It does improve the size it can be printed at though

Yeah, but anything above the 3MP range is fine for A4 shots unless you really need the fidelity, and anyone printing posters regularly is going to be using a DSLR. The current '8MP' standard is ridiculous; what compact digicam manufacturers should be doing is improving AF and prefocus lag times to make sure the correct picture is taken in the first place. Digital models costing 300+ sterling still aren't as responsive as point-and-click analogs costing a tenth of the price.

 

[sinkoman]

No camera can handle a nightclub. There simply is no light there. You alyways need a flash.

Not true.

You could use the bulb setting on any SLR, and, using a cable release, duct tape the shutter button in the open position.

Walk away and come back what, a minute later, and voila!

Although I doubt you'd be able to see anybody in the picture (well, they'd all be blurry).

 

[jondy]

Not true.

Yes, it is true... to capture anything meaningful you would need a flash, there's too much movement and not enough light, as you pointed out yourself. And of course you can bulb it, you can take a picture of most anything with a long enough exposure as long as there are photons flying around....

 

[sinkoman]

Yes, it is true... to capture anything meaningful you would need a flash, there's too much movement and not enough light, as you pointed out yourself. And of course you can bulb it, you can take a picture of most anything with a long enough exposure as long as there are photons flying around....

Which is exactly what I said...

Way to quote mine.

 

[jondy]

Which is exactly what I said...

Way to quote mine.

You said that you didn't need a flash to take pictures in a nightclub - what you said wasn't correct. Nope, no quote mining, I addressed the whole of your post.

My other point of contention was - why would you want an exposure minutes long in an enviroment full of moving lights and bodies? It's a silly idea. But it doesn't matter, the man has his new purchase, so there we are.

 

[Maxi]

Actually, you couldn't really bulb it either, because the lights never really light anything up(well ok, depending on the lighting of the venue). You'd have underexposed faces and overexposed highlights, which sounds awfully much like a photo taken midday

 

[sinkoman]

Actually, you couldn't really bulb it either, because the lights never really light anything up(well ok, depending on the lighting of the venue). You'd have underexposed faces and overexposed highlights, which sounds awfully much like a photo taken midday

Aaand...

It might look incorrect, but you can still see everybody in the photo.

I've taken pictures at like, 12 midnight, where I just set my camera on a trashcan on something, aimed it down the street, and I set the exposure to like, 8 seconds.

Pictures turned out perfectly fine.