HellToupee
Footballguy
Aperture is $79 but Mac only'ODoyleRules said:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
DSLR Camera Guys (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter sho nuff
- Start date
ODoyleRules
Footballguy
Aperture3 is $200 everywhere I see. I wouldn't doubt that early versions are available for less.
HellToupee
Footballguy
$79 on the mac app store & its the latest version
ODoyleRules
Footballguy
Thanks. I presumed that since we was using Windows Live, he's not using a Mac, but I could be wrong.
CrossEyed
Footballguy
Yeah, that could be an issue for him, but just wanted to point out that Aperture 3 is $79...full version.
Knocks
Footballguy
Hey. Novice here and my wife wants a nice camera. She will be the one investing time in learning the features and "how-to". I will take some shots but I am mostly a automatic point and shoot guy.
She has seem this and wants a Nikon. She has used a friends Nikon and liked it (not the same model):
Is it a good deal?
She has seem this and wants a Nikon. She has used a friends Nikon and liked it (not the same model):
Is it a good deal?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
I am not a fan of kits, get the body only for $650, research which lens YOU want, and get that lens. Most kit lenses suck and are there purely for profit to the store/manufacturer.
ETA: good site to review lenses:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/
Most photogs end up getting this lens and makes those 2 kit lenses obsolete.
ETA: good site to review lenses:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/
Most photogs end up getting this lens and makes those 2 kit lenses obsolete.
Last edited by a moderator:
CrossEyed
Footballguy
Actually, I think the 18-55 has always gotten pretty good reviews. Not sure about the 55-200.
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
I noticed that after I looked that 1 up, I added that once I got the 18-200mm I never used the kit lenses again and ended up selling them to Adorama.
ODoyleRules
Footballguy
Maybe you should look into Aperture. Apparently, it's $79 at the Apple app store.
CrossEyed
Footballguy
Yeah, I love the flexibility of my 18-200, but they're pretty expensive right now. I got mine when the price had slumped to about $650, but I think they're in the $900 range right now.I probably should sell my 18-55 and 70-300. The only other lens I tend to use is my 35mm 1.8 for inside portrait-type shots.
ditka...mike ditka
Footballguy
Hey Crosseyed,I am looking to buy an older camera as I am new to this, and I want to take it on snowboarding trips. Would the d50 be good for something like that? I saw them going for like $200 used (body only). So I am guessing I would just need to add one lense? Any advice?'CrossEyed said:
Knocks
Footballguy
Appreciate your feedback jojo...you too cross. That 18-200 is very expensive.
These came from the Rockwell site you referenced jojo..a review of the 55-200mm vr. Is my noviceness missing something?The Nikon 55-200mm VR is a superb lightweight, plastic-mount lens with outstanding performance. This is an extraordinary lens in every way...own the more expensive alternatives, and I usually use this 55-200mm VR instead. Sharpness and performance are extraordinary. A lens this inexpensive never used to have the right to be this embarrassingly good. VR (Vibration Reduction or image stabilization) works great; The 55-200mm VR zooms easily and precisely. The zoom range is well spaced, and VR works great. It focuses reasonably quickly, but not as fast as more expensive lenses. I have no problem tracking my 2-year-old in action with my D40. The 55-200mm VR doesn't offer instant manual focus override: you have to move a switch, but for the price, I'm not complaining.
CrossEyed
Footballguy
I love my D50, that's why I haven't upgraded. Assuming it's been taken care of, I think that's definitely a legitimate option.As for a lens, you just need to think about what shots you'll be taking most. I would think maybe the 70-300 would be a good option for snowboarding. The downside is that you can't be very close to your subject to shoot it.
CrossEyed
Footballguy
I think kit lenses sometimes get a bad rap. I think today's kit lenses are much better than they ever used to be. My 18-55 has always taken very sharp images. If Rockwell gives the 55-200 a glowing review I'd be comfortable purchasing it.Appreciate your feedback jojo...you too cross. That 18-200 is very expensive.
The Nikon 55-200mm VR is a superb lightweight, plastic-mount lens with outstanding performance. This is an extraordinary lens in every way...own the more expensive alternatives, and I usually use this 55-200mm VR instead. Sharpness and performance are extraordinary. A lens this inexpensive never used to have the right to be this embarrassingly good. VR (Vibration Reduction or image stabilization) works great; The 55-200mm VR zooms easily and precisely. The zoom range is well spaced, and VR works great. It focuses reasonably quickly, but not as fast as more expensive lenses. I have no problem tracking my 2-year-old in action with my D40. The 55-200mm VR doesn't offer instant manual focus override: you have to move a switch, but for the price, I'm not complaining.
ditka...mike ditka
Footballguy
Thanks Crosseyed,
Just poking around, I saw this for $348 with an 18-55MM lense. Sorry if these questions are dumb, but i am completely new. I am guessing those are for close ups only and probably woudlnt work for snowboarding (though I don't plan to be all that far, I have taken decent pictures with a point and shoot before while riding)
Just poking around, I saw this for $348 with an 18-55MM lense. Sorry if these questions are dumb, but i am completely new. I am guessing those are for close ups only and probably woudlnt work for snowboarding (though I don't plan to be all that far, I have taken decent pictures with a point and shoot before while riding)
Don Quixote
Footballguy
I have the 55-200; it works great for me. The three lenses that I have use and right now are the kit 18-55, the 55-200, and the 35/1.8. I think the only benefit to the 18-200 is not having to switch lenses as frequently.Appreciate your feedback jojo...you too cross. That 18-200 is very expensive.
The Nikon 55-200mm VR is a superb lightweight, plastic-mount lens with outstanding performance. This is an extraordinary lens in every way...own the more expensive alternatives, and I usually use this 55-200mm VR instead. Sharpness and performance are extraordinary. A lens this inexpensive never used to have the right to be this embarrassingly good. VR (Vibration Reduction or image stabilization) works great; The 55-200mm VR zooms easily and precisely. The zoom range is well spaced, and VR works great. It focuses reasonably quickly, but not as fast as more expensive lenses. I have no problem tracking my 2-year-old in action with my D40. The 55-200mm VR doesn't offer instant manual focus override: you have to move a switch, but for the price, I'm not complaining.
Last edited by a moderator:
Knocks
Footballguy
I have the 55-200; it works great for me. The three lenses that I have use and right now are the kit 18-55, the 55-200, and the 35/1.8. I think the only benefit to the 18-200 is not having to switch lenses as frequently.Appreciate your feedback jojo...you too cross. That 18-200 is very expensive.
The Nikon 55-200mm VR is a superb lightweight, plastic-mount lens with outstanding performance. This is an extraordinary lens in every way...own the more expensive alternatives, and I usually use this 55-200mm VR instead. Sharpness and performance are extraordinary. A lens this inexpensive never used to have the right to be this embarrassingly good. VR (Vibration Reduction or image stabilization) works great; The 55-200mm VR zooms easily and precisely. The zoom range is well spaced, and VR works great. It focuses reasonably quickly, but not as fast as more expensive lenses. I have no problem tracking my 2-year-old in action with my D40. The 55-200mm VR doesn't offer instant manual focus override: you have to move a switch, but for the price, I'm not complaining.
Thanks for your replies. Appreciate the feedback. 
CrossEyed
Footballguy
I might consider the 55-200 instead. Then again, that's a nice price for that body and lens, so maybe try it out and see. If you need more lens you can always add either the 55-200 or 70-300 later.
CrossEyed
Footballguy
Yeah, pretty much. The combo you have is almost exactly what I had (I have the 70-300) before I bought the 18-200, and it served me well. I invested in the 18-200 when we adopted our little boy knowing that we'd be going places and I would want to be able to go from wide shots to zoom without having to fumble around with changing lenses a bunch of times.I have the 55-200; it works great for me. The three lenses that I have use and right now are the kit 18-55, the 55-200, and the 35/1.8. I think the only benefit to the 18-200 is not having to switch lenses as frequently.Appreciate your feedback jojo...you too cross. That 18-200 is very expensive.
The Nikon 55-200mm VR is a superb lightweight, plastic-mount lens with outstanding performance. This is an extraordinary lens in every way...own the more expensive alternatives, and I usually use this 55-200mm VR instead. Sharpness and performance are extraordinary. A lens this inexpensive never used to have the right to be this embarrassingly good. VR (Vibration Reduction or image stabilization) works great; The 55-200mm VR zooms easily and precisely. The zoom range is well spaced, and VR works great. It focuses reasonably quickly, but not as fast as more expensive lenses. I have no problem tracking my 2-year-old in action with my D40. The 55-200mm VR doesn't offer instant manual focus override: you have to move a switch, but for the price, I'm not complaining.
RhymesMcJuice
Footballguy
Complete noob question - it's a lot cheaper to get an 18-55mm and 55-200mm, is the 18-200mm better than those two (other than convenience).Appreciate your feedback jojo...you too cross. That 18-200 is very expensive.
The Nikon 55-200mm VR is a superb lightweight, plastic-mount lens with outstanding performance. This is an extraordinary lens in every way...own the more expensive alternatives, and I usually use this 55-200mm VR instead. Sharpness and performance are extraordinary. A lens this inexpensive never used to have the right to be this embarrassingly good. VR (Vibration Reduction or image stabilization) works great; The 55-200mm VR zooms easily and precisely. The zoom range is well spaced, and VR works great. It focuses reasonably quickly, but not as fast as more expensive lenses. I have no problem tracking my 2-year-old in action with my D40. The 55-200mm VR doesn't offer instant manual focus override: you have to move a switch, but for the price, I'm not complaining.
jwb
Footballguy
I would agree here - don't worry about video. Buy a DSLR camera and concentrate on taking pictures. Good photos are FAR preferable to video (video that will almost never be watched). Don't even let one that does "both" sway you. Pictures are better. You could get some great, emotion-laden shots of your kid blowing out their birthday candles, or you can get "meh" video that's boring as heck.Then, buy the cheapest P&S you can find for the video - $129 will handle that part just fine. Give it to your wife to use.'CrossEyed said:
jwb
Footballguy
Depends on how much the wallet hit hurts. IMHO, the convenience is worth a lot. I like the 18-200.Complete noob question - it's a lot cheaper to get an 18-55mm and 55-200mm, is the 18-200mm better than those two (other than convenience).Appreciate your feedback jojo...you too cross. That 18-200 is very expensive.
The Nikon 55-200mm VR is a superb lightweight, plastic-mount lens with outstanding performance. This is an extraordinary lens in every way...own the more expensive alternatives, and I usually use this 55-200mm VR instead. Sharpness and performance are extraordinary. A lens this inexpensive never used to have the right to be this embarrassingly good. VR (Vibration Reduction or image stabilization) works great; The 55-200mm VR zooms easily and precisely. The zoom range is well spaced, and VR works great. It focuses reasonably quickly, but not as fast as more expensive lenses. I have no problem tracking my 2-year-old in action with my D40. The 55-200mm VR doesn't offer instant manual focus override: you have to move a switch, but for the price, I'm not complaining.
CrossEyed
Footballguy
No, it's not "better" as in you'll get better pictures with the 18-200 vs the other two lenses. Unless, of course, it allows you to get pictures that you might not get if you miss or skip pictures because you have the wrong lens on your camera. You have to answer the question of how serious you are about taking pictures and how long will you plan on doing it. Once you invest in the lenses, they should be with you through multiple camera bodies.Complete noob question - it's a lot cheaper to get an 18-55mm and 55-200mm, is the 18-200mm better than those two (other than convenience).Appreciate your feedback jojo...you too cross. That 18-200 is very expensive.
The Nikon 55-200mm VR is a superb lightweight, plastic-mount lens with outstanding performance. This is an extraordinary lens in every way...own the more expensive alternatives, and I usually use this 55-200mm VR instead. Sharpness and performance are extraordinary. A lens this inexpensive never used to have the right to be this embarrassingly good. VR (Vibration Reduction or image stabilization) works great; The 55-200mm VR zooms easily and precisely. The zoom range is well spaced, and VR works great. It focuses reasonably quickly, but not as fast as more expensive lenses. I have no problem tracking my 2-year-old in action with my D40. The 55-200mm VR doesn't offer instant manual focus override: you have to move a switch, but for the price, I'm not complaining.
I held off on the 18-200 until we had children. But now I just felt like it was worth the investment.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Also, keep in mind all those lenses are pretty slow so you'll likely be using them outdoors quite a bit and potentially changing lenses in conditions which could result in debris getting on the sensor.It "sounds" like you'll be covered with the two lenses but in reality you'll miss shots you would have gotten with the 18-200. Sometimes you simply don't have time to switch lenses and you missed the shot. Sometimes you simply get tired of changing back and forth and come home with fewer images of "what the heck shots" that can really come to life when you are able to play with them on the computer.If I'm going to carry two lenses I'd much prefer a fast/light prime for shots early in the day, indoors, and late in the day. Couple that prime with a single big zoom to use outdoors in the middle of the day when you have a lot of light to work with. That way you are covered for a wider range of lighting conditions and only have to change lenses 2 or 3 times over the course of an entire day.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
I would just add that for snowboarding in particular it's a good idea to purchase an extra battery or two and wear them close to your body to keep them warm. In cold conditions battery life is often diminished and extra batteries aren't that expensive. Full disclosure, I always recommend purchasing an extra battery when you are using portable electronics that require a proprietary battery. All batteries will fail eventually. Better availability/price when you WANT a battery, not when you NEED a battery.
jwb
Footballguy
Better answer than I gave, for sure
I totally agree - once I got the 18-200, my picture taking went up tenfold. It's the lens to carry when you'll be out and don't want to carry three lenses/etc.And like CrossEyed said - it's an investment. Given the choice, I would prefer to shoot w/ the kit lens and wait/save up and get the 18-200. But everyone has a different price point where they feel comfortable.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
This is great advice. Some phones are getting so good you may not even need to purchase a device for video. In fact the phones are putting so much pressure on those flip-cameras that you can get a high quality flip-cam for very cheap.
HellToupee
Footballguy
they put so much pressure on them they put flip out of business
CrossEyed
Footballguy
I like the quality of my iPhone 4S videos, but no zoom really is kind of a deal-breaker for me.
jwb
Footballguy
I actually bought this as a "what the hell" w/ some gifted money (I already had the 18-200 and 70-300, and really liked both). It did what I wanted - it replaced both lenses, and is a little lighter than the 70-300 to boot. I ended up giving my 70-300 to my cousin, and I'll keep the 18-200 as a spare.It's awesome, really, even on my D80 (which is a DX, and this is really an FX lens). But I probably wouldn't have sprung for it if I wasn't using "found" money. However, if someone is considering the 18-200, this is a worthy choice as well for a few bucks more.
HellToupee
Footballguy
zoom on good P&S cams are one of the only things keeping them relevant
cr8f
Footballguy
Yeah I bought one for $15 shipped just to test out.
Joe T
Footballguy
I have this exact setup (minus the bag) and love it. Your wife will likely love it too.
Last edited by a moderator:
BoltBacker
Footballguy
And for those willing to pay a bit for software you can crank the ISO up pretty high and still remove noise from the photos in post processing. Many pro's use Lightroom 3 for this...http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-lightroom-3/remove-noise-from-photos/... and if have access to a .edu email address you can get the student version of Lightroom 3 for a very reasonable price.
CrossEyed
Footballguy
Anyone here take any portrait-type shots at home? Can I just buy some material to use as a backdrop for pics of the kids? Or will that just end up looking cheesy? How much for a professional looking backdrop? I'm sure I can get good quality shots at home, just not sure what to do about the background.
ODoyleRules
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
jwb
Footballguy
Awesome!!Shows how hard taking good pictures is (maybe now I can show my wife why I fiddle with settings and shoot 100 pictures to get 12 nice ones)
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Hey guys, I'm totally new to this and have a few beginner questions. I recently got this Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 camera. I guess my first question would be, is this a good camera (at least, for a beginner like me)?
Anyway, I've mostly just left it on the auto settings to take pictures. 99.9% of the pictures I'm taking right now are of my infant son, and since he doesn't exactly want to sit still and pose for photos, I hold down the button so it takes a bunch of pictures in succession, hoping that one or two turn out ok. Anyway, some questions:
1) Most of the pictures I take end up blurry, often because my son is always moving. What causes this and what can I do to prevent it?
2) I have a PNY Professional 8 GB Class 10 memory card in there. When I hold down the button to take a bunch of pictures, it sometimes lags as it's trying to write to the memory card. I think this has gotten worse as time has gone on. Will a more expensive memory card help with this? Any suggestions?
3) I'm currently just using the 14-42 lens that came with the camera, although I get the impression that if I want to get more serious about taking pictures I should upgrade this. What am I looking for? Any suggestions?
4) Any other tips for a total newb? I've read a couple things but it's a little overwhelming since I've never done this before. Any really basic tips to get me started feeling like I'm doing something more than just snapping pics on auto settings?
Anyway, I've mostly just left it on the auto settings to take pictures. 99.9% of the pictures I'm taking right now are of my infant son, and since he doesn't exactly want to sit still and pose for photos, I hold down the button so it takes a bunch of pictures in succession, hoping that one or two turn out ok. Anyway, some questions:
1) Most of the pictures I take end up blurry, often because my son is always moving. What causes this and what can I do to prevent it?
2) I have a PNY Professional 8 GB Class 10 memory card in there. When I hold down the button to take a bunch of pictures, it sometimes lags as it's trying to write to the memory card. I think this has gotten worse as time has gone on. Will a more expensive memory card help with this? Any suggestions?
3) I'm currently just using the 14-42 lens that came with the camera, although I get the impression that if I want to get more serious about taking pictures I should upgrade this. What am I looking for? Any suggestions?
4) Any other tips for a total newb? I've read a couple things but it's a little overwhelming since I've never done this before. Any really basic tips to get me started feeling like I'm doing something more than just snapping pics on auto settings?
ODoyleRules
Footballguy
Your pictures are blurry simply because you don't get enough light in the camera. The fixes are:- shoot outdoors or use a flash indoors.
- if you don't like to use a flash indoors (I'm in this camp), get more light in the camera by changing the settings on your camera to a higher ISO (like 1600 or 3200). A more advanced solution is to set the camera on aperture setting and target the lowest # your camera will go to, but usually the camera will do this automatically on Auto setting.
- another easy fix is to put your kid in a high light setting. Some of the best pictures of my kids happen when I simply ask them to stand next to a window.
Other tips
- shoot in RAW. Took me a long time to get to this point, but now I'm on board with it. This gives you the most detailed version of the image and it can be easily edited to the optimal version of the picture. These images take longer to put onto the memory card when shooting, so it may increase your lag problem.
- once you have shot a lot and reviewed the pictures, I think you'll find that the burst mode isn't helping you get better pictures, but waiting for your kid to get in better light situations will help your pictures. (I hated this advice when I first got started because it's vague, but it's true. The more you shoot, you'll get better at seeing good picture situations. )
- for shooting kids, I like to have the metering set at spot metering (the camera figures the best exposure for your kid's face) and I like to have the autofocus set at a single point at the center of the frame (instead of the 23 point AF or whatever they have) - that way I can force the camera to focus on and optimize the lighting for my kid's face.
- once your kid starts walking, bend down and try and get pictures at his level.
As for your other questions, I thought Class 10 was the highest. I don't have any good ideas here. Also, I'm not familiar with the lenses for the Panny family so I can't help you there.
Good luck!
ETA: In order to follow the camera settings advice above, you need to change your camera setting from Auto to Program (P). Program setting is similar to auto except that you specify flash on/off and you can fiddle with some of the settings like ISO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Thanks for all the input! I'm wondering if we're thinking of two different things here... I suspect you're thinking that the pictures are blurry in general. I mean that I get a lot of motion-related blur (because my son won't sit still
). For example, if I take a picture of a stuffed animal in a chair, it turns out fine (no blur) but when I try to take a picture of my son, most of them end up blurry because he's conttantly moving his head, arms, etc. I realize that there's probably only so much I can do about this, but I'm wondering if there's a setting or a strategy that can minimize this. Like for "action shots" or something.Or, since I don't know what I'm talking about, maybe it really is a lighting issue. I'd appreciate if you could confirm.Thanks for all the other stuff. I haven't really dug into all the settings and stuff but I'm going to try to make some time this weekend to go through the instruction manual and I will try some of the other stuff you mentioned.I also thought Class 10 was the fastest memory card but from reading online (and just looking at prices) I get the impression that performance within the class can vary (i.e. some class 10 cards perform better than others). Mine was relatively inexpensive so I'm assuming there are better ones out there, but I didn't know if that was the case.
ODoyleRules
Footballguy
It's still a lighting issue I think. If you are taking pictures outside, the camera would probably shoot at a shutter speed of 1/250 or 1/500 on auto setting. At that shutter speed, the picture won't be blurry... it may be out of focus because the camera can't keep up with your boy, but it shouldn't be blurry. If you are taking pictures inside without flash, the camera would probably shoot 1/30 or 1/60 on auto setting. At this shutter speed, most pictures will be blurry without a tripod due to hand vibration. If your kid is a typical kid, I think you will need to find situations where you can shoot at shutter speeds 1/125 or 1/250 to avoid blur. This is tough to find indoors without a flash - it's not a camera problem. You can always force the camera to shoot at this shutter speed with the S setting, but instead of blurry, you might get dark pictures. I would try to find well lit areas where the camera can shoot at these speeds and see if that works. If it doesn't, I'd just use flash.Thanks for all the input! I'm wondering if we're thinking of two different things here... I suspect you're thinking that the pictures are blurry in general. I mean that I get a lot of motion-related blur (because my son won't sit still
BoltBacker
Footballguy
If you don't want to use a flash to reduce the blur of a moving subject indoors the options get very expensive in most cases. ODoyleRules suggestion of getting the subject closer to a light source(especially a natural light source like a window) is a great one.
- The least expensive option is cranking up the ISO settings as ODoyleRules suggests and your images will likely have more "noise" but you can try to fix the noise after you get the photos home with software. Some software works better than others at this.
- You can use a faster lens. The 50mm f1.8 usually aren't that expensive but if you are trying to shoot in REALLY low light situations than you may need an even faster lens(like an f1.2) and those do get very expensive. Lenses are an investment however and once you own a good prime low light lens you'll find it's pretty useful and opens up lots of possibilities for shots that slow lenses and/or P&S cameras would really struggle with. The f1.8 will only cost you ~$100+, the f1.2 is more like ~$1,000+.
- Another option is to get a camera with a bigger sensor to capture more light. I'm assuming you're shooting with an APS-C sensor now the jump up to a camera to a full size sensor is going to be ~$2,000+.
- You may want to experiment with flash since a workable flash can be bought closer to ~$100(the best flash units will be closer to $500 all by themselves). Try to get the flash as far away from the lens as possible. I hate using flash but in the situation you describe I own these and would use....
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003GR6IUK/ref=oh_o06_s00_i02_details
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004E2XC64/ref=oh_o00_s00_i00_details
... maybe with a soft box diffuser. You might just try to the ceiling or nearby walls to bounce the flash. The situation you describe is tough because you don't want to use a flash in the face of a poor kid too often because they will often become camera shy and you won't get the photos you want because of that. The flash that is built into the camera and hovering right next to the lens is never going to get very good results.
I really hate it when people on message boards say "Well, just go out and drop $3k on better equipment" but that really is the way to take the pictures you want. The high ISO/f1.8 lens/flash solutions are probably your best bet without dropping a bunch of dough. Shooting moving subjects in low light conditions is one of the more difficult types of shooting you can do. Your son will never be at this age again so it's worth all the trial and error. That's the great thing about digital, even if it takes a thousand awful shots all that matters are the shots you keep so experimenting is more or less free. Best of luck!
- The least expensive option is cranking up the ISO settings as ODoyleRules suggests and your images will likely have more "noise" but you can try to fix the noise after you get the photos home with software. Some software works better than others at this.
- You can use a faster lens. The 50mm f1.8 usually aren't that expensive but if you are trying to shoot in REALLY low light situations than you may need an even faster lens(like an f1.2) and those do get very expensive. Lenses are an investment however and once you own a good prime low light lens you'll find it's pretty useful and opens up lots of possibilities for shots that slow lenses and/or P&S cameras would really struggle with. The f1.8 will only cost you ~$100+, the f1.2 is more like ~$1,000+.
- Another option is to get a camera with a bigger sensor to capture more light. I'm assuming you're shooting with an APS-C sensor now the jump up to a camera to a full size sensor is going to be ~$2,000+.
- You may want to experiment with flash since a workable flash can be bought closer to ~$100(the best flash units will be closer to $500 all by themselves). Try to get the flash as far away from the lens as possible. I hate using flash but in the situation you describe I own these and would use....
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003GR6IUK/ref=oh_o06_s00_i02_details
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004E2XC64/ref=oh_o00_s00_i00_details
... maybe with a soft box diffuser. You might just try to the ceiling or nearby walls to bounce the flash. The situation you describe is tough because you don't want to use a flash in the face of a poor kid too often because they will often become camera shy and you won't get the photos you want because of that. The flash that is built into the camera and hovering right next to the lens is never going to get very good results.
I really hate it when people on message boards say "Well, just go out and drop $3k on better equipment" but that really is the way to take the pictures you want. The high ISO/f1.8 lens/flash solutions are probably your best bet without dropping a bunch of dough. Shooting moving subjects in low light conditions is one of the more difficult types of shooting you can do. Your son will never be at this age again so it's worth all the trial and error. That's the great thing about digital, even if it takes a thousand awful shots all that matters are the shots you keep so experimenting is more or less free. Best of luck!
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Speaking of using software that allows you to use high ISO's and remove noise afterward....
"TODAY ONLY Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Software $99.99 Free Shipping
Newegg Shell Shocker I. Newegg has the Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Software for a low $99.99 Free Shipping. Tax in CA, NJ, TN.
Superior noise reduction
Accelerated performance
Lens correction
Support for DSLR video files
Perspective correction
Tethered shooting
Easy-to-share slide show videos with music
Image watermarking"
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?nm_mc=AFC-TechBargains&cm_mmc=AFC-TechBargains-_-NA-_-NA-_-NA&Item=N82E16832105807
... and you don't even need the .edu email address to get a great price if you act fast. Lots of pro's use this software. Seems like a steal to me.
"TODAY ONLY Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Software $99.99 Free Shipping
Newegg Shell Shocker I. Newegg has the Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Software for a low $99.99 Free Shipping. Tax in CA, NJ, TN.
Superior noise reduction
Accelerated performance
Lens correction
Support for DSLR video files
Perspective correction
Tethered shooting
Easy-to-share slide show videos with music
Image watermarking"
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?nm_mc=AFC-TechBargains&cm_mmc=AFC-TechBargains-_-NA-_-NA-_-NA&Item=N82E16832105807
... and you don't even need the .edu email address to get a great price if you act fast. Lots of pro's use this software. Seems like a steal to me.
