Best Camera for NIght Shots?

The best that presently exists is the Fuji f31fd, if you can still find it,
in terms of shooting decent high ISO shots. The present model is the f50fd
which is twice the megapix (12 to the 6 of the 31) but with more somewhat
more noise at high ISOs.

Tobh

"Henry" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm mostly taking photos of people and backgrounds lit up by
artificial light. In the past, I've found that the photos are blurried
as the camera needs a couple seconds to process the photo. I know a
tripod would help, but I don't want to carry it wherever I go. I am
hoping there's a camera out there (preferably slim and compact) that
can adjust for lowlight.

Thanks

Glen Darlton wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:51:36 +0100, "Ali" wrote:

"Henry" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm mostly taking photos of people and backgrounds lit up by
artificial light. In the past, I've found that the photos are blurried
as the camera needs a couple seconds to process the photo. I know a
tripod would help, but I don't want to carry it wherever I go. I am
hoping there's a camera out there (preferably slim and compact) that
can adjust for lowlight.

Thanks

Sorry, not going to happen.

As Johnny said, an SLR with a fast lens. Tripod won't help.

Oh look, the uneducated and ignorant DSLR idiots are at it again. They do the
DSLR proud, proving that only idiots buy them.

Glen,
Ignore the troll. Many others have given good advice.
The key to low light performance in digital cameras is large
pixels. DSLRs currently have larger pixels than P&S cameras.
A low-end 6-megapixel DSLR generally has great low
light performance and you can probably buy one used
for a pretty low price. For more info, see:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter

(And stand back, the foul-mouthed troll will launch another
attack filed with lies and hate--ignore it.)

Roger

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:40:17 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

Glen Darlton wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:51:36 +0100, "Ali" wrote:

"Henry" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm mostly taking photos of people and backgrounds lit up by
artificial light. In the past, I've found that the photos are blurried
as the camera needs a couple seconds to process the photo. I know a
tripod would help, but I don't want to carry it wherever I go. I am
hoping there's a camera out there (preferably slim and compact) that
can adjust for lowlight.

Thanks

Sorry, not going to happen.

As Johnny said, an SLR with a fast lens. Tripod won't help.

Oh look, the uneducated and ignorant DSLR idiots are at it again. They do the
DSLR proud, proving that only idiots buy them.

Glen,
Ignore the troll. Many others have given good advice.
The key to low light performance in digital cameras is large
pixels. DSLRs currently have larger pixels than P&S cameras.
A low-end 6-megapixel DSLR generally has great low
light performance and you can probably buy one used
for a pretty low price. For more info, see:

SPAM LINK SNIPPED

What's the matter Roger? Not getting enough suckers to visit your misinformation
web-site and you're losing all that money trying to sell your tourist quality
photography? Photography taken with an $8,000 DSLR that was recently shown to
have HALF the image quality and resolution of a $400 P&S camera?

LOL!!!

That just bugs you to no end doesn't it. People are posting images taken with a
$400 P&S camera that beats any photography you have ever taken with the best
DSLRs and the best L-glass available.

Don't worry Roger, anyone would feel like a fool in your shoes, we understand
why you do too. You'll get over it.

wrote:

Pure magic for low-light or even no-light shots.


Can you please post links to samples of "no-light" shots you
have taken.
Mine lose too much detail when NR is applied:
http://i22.tinypic.com/bdk5dy.jpg

SPAM SPOTTER! wrote:

What's the matter Roger? Not getting enough suckers to visit your misinformation
web-site and you're losing all that money trying to sell your tourist quality
photography? Photography taken with an $8,000 DSLR that was recently shown to
have HALF the image quality and resolution of a $400 P&S camera?

See? It has so much hate it just can't stop.

LOL!!!

That just bugs you to no end doesn't it. People are posting images taken with a
$400 P&S camera that beats any photography you have ever taken with the best
DSLRs and the best L-glass available.

Since you asked, for all to see, visit my crappy pictures at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries

Roger

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:45:35 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

SPAM SPOTTER! wrote:

What's the matter Roger? Not getting enough suckers to visit your misinformation
web-site and you're losing all that money trying to sell your tourist quality
photography? Photography taken with an $8,000 DSLR that was recently shown to
have HALF the image quality and resolution of a $400 P&S camera?

See? It has so much hate it just can't stop.

LOL!!!

That just bugs you to no end doesn't it. People are posting images taken with a
$400 P&S camera that beats any photography you have ever taken with the best
DSLRs and the best L-glass available.

Since you asked, for all to see, visit my crappy pictures at:

SPAM LINK SNIPPED

LOL!

You walked right into that one you ****in' idiot. I knew you couldn't help but
use it to prove to everyone that you're nothing but a low-life spammer. Thanks
for playing!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now run along spammer, you've outted yourself ..... again.

SPAM SPOTTER! wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:45:35 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

SPAM SPOTTER! wrote:

What's the matter Roger? Not getting enough suckers to visit your misinformation
web-site and you're losing all that money trying to sell your tourist quality
photography? Photography taken with an $8,000 DSLR that was recently shown to
have HALF the image quality and resolution of a $400 P&S camera?
See? It has so much hate it just can't stop.
LOL!!!

That just bugs you to no end doesn't it. People are posting images taken with a
$400 P&S camera that beats any photography you have ever taken with the best
DSLRs and the best L-glass available.
Since you asked, for all to see, visit my crappy pictures at:

SPAM LINK SNIPPED

LOL!

You walked right into that one you ****in' idiot. I knew you couldn't help but
use it to prove to everyone that you're nothing but a low-life spammer. Thanks
for playing!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now run along spammer, you've outted yourself ..... again.

You sure did! The personal attacks show your desperation,
and hate.

Glen Darlton wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:51:36 +0100, "Ali" wrote:

"Henry" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm mostly taking photos of people and backgrounds lit up by
artificial light. In the past, I've found that the photos are
blurried as the camera needs a couple seconds to process the photo.
I know a tripod would help, but I don't want to carry it wherever I
go. I am hoping there's a camera out there (preferably slim and
compact) that can adjust for lowlight.

Thanks



Sorry, not going to happen.

As Johnny said, an SLR with a fast lens. Tripod won't help.



Oh look, the uneducated and ignorant DSLR idiots are at it again.
They do the DSLR proud, proving that only idiots buy them.

Yes, it is going to happen and not with a DSLR. It may not be one of
the ultra compact P&S cameras though.

For normal photography look into the Fujifilm FinePix S8000 fd,
Fujifilm Finepix F31fd, and many other of the Fuji line of cameras.
They sport high ISO sensitivity and low noise, equivalent to most
DSLRs but using smaller sensors. This allows you to use faster
shutter speeds in lower light conditions to cut down on that motion
blur.

You might also look into any of the Canon P&S cameras that have the
IS (image stabilization) in their name. You won't get as good
low-light performance due to more noise but it allows you to hold
your camera more steady. Many people finding they can easily use them
for hand-held shots up to 1 second shutter speeds. But you have to be
pretty steady for that or only use wider-angle zoom settings so the
camera shake isn't amplified so much (the more you zoom-in the more
it also magnifies any camera motion).

If you want to really do "Night Shot" photography, then the Sony H9
is capable of taking images in total darkness using nothing more than
infrared light, called its "Night Shot" mode. The only thing seen is
a small, dim, brownish-red light that's being emitted by the camera's
own built-in infrared LED illuminator. You can add accessory IR-LED
floods for about $40 each to increase the range to 20-80 feet or
more. Keep in mind that these Night Shot photos are true IR
photography. It's also possible to use its IR photo capability in
full daylight using the appropriate filters to reduce the level of IR
to within range of the Night Shot's f-stop and shutter speed limits
(a combo of an IR filter to block all visible light stacked with a
Wratten-green to reduce IR intensity works perfect for all daylight
situations). This also means that your "Night Shot" images are not in
full-color. Sony tints the B&W image from this mode in a greenish
color to emulate night-vision scopes, easily removed in post
processing. Though if there is some ambient light available at night
then the visible colors will be detected and recorded but not
strongly (the IR light superseding the full spectrum) The Night-Shot
mode also has a brother setting called the Night-Framing mode, this
allows you to focus and compose your shot by seeing the scene in your
viewfinder in TOTAL darkness (something that no DSLR on earth can do,
ever) using just the IR light, then the flash is used to expose the
scene normally. Yes, you can also shoot videos in total darkness
using the H9's Night Shot mode.


It's so refreshing to see these DSLR proponents prove to the world,
every chance they get, that only uneducated, inexperienced, and
ignorant dumb****s buy DSLRs. But then who else but a total dumb****
would buy one when today's P&S cameras for 1/3rd to 1/20th the price
(don't forget those overpriced lenses that you *must* buy) and 1/4th
the weight and size are every bit as good and in many ways even
better than DSLRs.

Ya troll that is why so many professionals at sporting events have a P$S
hidden in their bag and pull them out to get all the very best shots that
get them the big money.

Wahahahaha.....What a moron. Just because your mommy won't let you own a
real camera. Wahahaha............

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 03:48:20 -0400, "Jonathan" wrote:

Glen Darlton wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:51:36 +0100, "Ali" wrote:

"Henry" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm mostly taking photos of people and backgrounds lit up by
artificial light. In the past, I've found that the photos are
blurried as the camera needs a couple seconds to process the photo.
I know a tripod would help, but I don't want to carry it wherever I
go. I am hoping there's a camera out there (preferably slim and
compact) that can adjust for lowlight.

Thanks



Sorry, not going to happen.

As Johnny said, an SLR with a fast lens. Tripod won't help.



Oh look, the uneducated and ignorant DSLR idiots are at it again.
They do the DSLR proud, proving that only idiots buy them.

Yes, it is going to happen and not with a DSLR. It may not be one of
the ultra compact P&S cameras though.

For normal photography look into the Fujifilm FinePix S8000 fd,
Fujifilm Finepix F31fd, and many other of the Fuji line of cameras.
They sport high ISO sensitivity and low noise, equivalent to most
DSLRs but using smaller sensors. This allows you to use faster
shutter speeds in lower light conditions to cut down on that motion
blur.

You might also look into any of the Canon P&S cameras that have the
IS (image stabilization) in their name. You won't get as good
low-light performance due to more noise but it allows you to hold
your camera more steady. Many people finding they can easily use them
for hand-held shots up to 1 second shutter speeds. But you have to be
pretty steady for that or only use wider-angle zoom settings so the
camera shake isn't amplified so much (the more you zoom-in the more
it also magnifies any camera motion).

If you want to really do "Night Shot" photography, then the Sony H9
is capable of taking images in total darkness using nothing more than
infrared light, called its "Night Shot" mode. The only thing seen is
a small, dim, brownish-red light that's being emitted by the camera's
own built-in infrared LED illuminator. You can add accessory IR-LED
floods for about $40 each to increase the range to 20-80 feet or
more. Keep in mind that these Night Shot photos are true IR
photography. It's also possible to use its IR photo capability in
full daylight using the appropriate filters to reduce the level of IR
to within range of the Night Shot's f-stop and shutter speed limits
(a combo of an IR filter to block all visible light stacked with a
Wratten-green to reduce IR intensity works perfect for all daylight
situations). This also means that your "Night Shot" images are not in
full-color. Sony tints the B&W image from this mode in a greenish
color to emulate night-vision scopes, easily removed in post
processing. Though if there is some ambient light available at night
then the visible colors will be detected and recorded but not
strongly (the IR light superseding the full spectrum) The Night-Shot
mode also has a brother setting called the Night-Framing mode, this
allows you to focus and compose your shot by seeing the scene in your
viewfinder in TOTAL darkness (something that no DSLR on earth can do,
ever) using just the IR light, then the flash is used to expose the
scene normally. Yes, you can also shoot videos in total darkness
using the H9's Night Shot mode.


It's so refreshing to see these DSLR proponents prove to the world,
every chance they get, that only uneducated, inexperienced, and
ignorant dumb****s buy DSLRs. But then who else but a total dumb****
would buy one when today's P&S cameras for 1/3rd to 1/20th the price
(don't forget those overpriced lenses that you *must* buy) and 1/4th
the weight and size are every bit as good and in many ways even
better than DSLRs.

Ya troll that is why so many professionals at sporting events have a P$S
hidden in their bag and pull them out to get all the very best shots that
get them the big money.

Wahahahaha.....What a moron. Just because your mommy won't let you own a
real camera. Wahahaha............


If even 5 billion people are doing and saying a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing. The number of pro-idiots doesn't validate their choices, it only
amplifies the foolishness of their choices. I suppose if every Nazi was called a
pro sharp-shooter you'd have followed them too because of your need to blindly
follow the "pro" herd.

Another DSLR idiot proving that previously mentioned equation.

On 2007-10-02 21:45:35 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" said:

SPAM SPOTTER! wrote:

What's the matter Roger? Not getting enough suckers to visit your
misinformation
web-site and you're losing all that money trying to sell your tourist quality
photography? Photography taken with an $8,000 DSLR that was recently shown to
have HALF the image quality and resolution of a $400 P&S camera?

See? It has so much hate it just can't stop.

LOL!!!

That just bugs you to no end doesn't it. People are posting images taken with a
$400 P&S camera that beats any photography you have ever taken with the best
DSLRs and the best L-glass available.

Since you asked, for all to see, visit my crappy pictures at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries

Roger

I like your crappy pix, esp. this one:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...010.b-700.html
--

--
Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address
yourselves instead to the safety of the republic