camera for slow shutter photography

[mustangwarrior]

well i see alot of really cool pics of the night sky and what not that were taken at a really slow shutter speed and i may be in the market for a new camera

so i was wondering if y'all could help point me in the direction of a good camera for doing this, maybe under $400 or help me understand what i need to look for when buying

 

[nwoods]

Two things involved:
1. A camera with manual shutter settings (or a "Bulb" setting), and a
2. Remote shutter release (usually a cable switch) like this

I think the best deal going is a Canon G10 or G11 for that amount of money

 

[2500ak]

I have a Nikon D60. I've also used a D90 a lot. Not a lot of difference unless you're planing on blowing the pictures way up.

18-55 is my main lens. I also have a 35-75, and a big 270 vintage Soligor.

I'd recommend Nikon, they'll do whatever you're trying to accomplish, and they've got camera's in that price range. Just make sure you've got a good piece of glass on the end of it.


This was a fairly short long exposure, the truck was just about pegged at the time.
http://flic.kr/p/8N6ega

Fireworks, this was a difficult long exposure because I had to have the camera braced to my knees (no tripod)

http://flic.kr/p/8N6b5T

http://flic.kr/p/8N9eYq

Northern lights are about the hardest long exposure shots I've tried. Probably around 1:30.

http://flic.kr/p/7R9Ng6

http://flic.kr/p/7Rd5ZN

http://flic.kr/p/7R9MRv


Most of what I do is landscape and action shots, more like these:

http://flic.kr/p/8SgZKW

http://flic.kr/p/8N9yRQ

http://flic.kr/p/8N9xUu

http://flic.kr/p/8N6ocF

http://flic.kr/p/7stJ6h

http://flic.kr/p/6XF4xw

http://flic.kr/p/6KNxFJ

 

[08whitex]

Two things involved:
1. A camera with manual shutter settings (or a "Bulb" setting), and a
2. Remote shutter release (usually a cable switch) like this

I think the best deal going is a Canon G10 or G11 for that amount of money

I don't know about the G10 but the G11 does not have bulb mode.

 

[Michael Slade]

I think it's funny that we all assume he's asking for a digital camera when the OP says no such thing.

:coffeedrink:

 

[2500ak]

imo, you want a real DSLR. If you're going to spend that much, get a camera that has the option of getting interchangeable lenses.

I don't think they're making the D60 anymore, this seems to be what they've replaced it with.

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_054D3K1855/Nikon-D3000-Kit.html?tp=9633&avf=N&nvpair=FFBrand|Nikon

There are still D60's up on amazon for about the same price.

 

[2500ak]

I think it's funny that we all assume he's asking for a digital camera when the OP says no such thing.

:coffeedrink:

The day an 8mp camera came out (digital resolution surpassed that of 35mm film cameras) was the day film no longer had anything to offer, that couldn't be had with digital.

On the other hand an SLR could be had dirt cheap, which would mean he could buy a pretty formidable lens.

I'd never go back to the old stuff though.

 

[DaveInDenver]

The day an 8mp camera came out (digital resolution surpassed that of 35mm film cameras) was the day film no longer had anything to offer, that couldn't be had with digital.

This generalization is in the eye of the beholder. There's more to a pleasing photo than just resolution.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/09/kodak-sees-a-very-real-resurgence-for-film/

Thought film was dead? Far from it. In an interview with the British Journal of Photography, Kodak’s US marketing manager of pro film Scott DiSabato said that sales of color film are steady, and that black and white is “doing extremely well.” He sees it as a mini-revolution, adding that “it almost feels that there is a very real resurgence for film.”

 

[ywen]

I don't think a film camera is right for the OP... This is just my feeling from the OP's question.

Long exposure is much much easier with a digital camera.

The ability to get instant feedback, trial & error shooting, and without the concern of reciprocity failure all makes digital the logical choice.

Film has its place still, but for most people, the benefits offered by film is not worth the additional effort involved.

OP: For long exposure photography, the P&S style camera will perform up to a point. DSLR cameras are much better than P&S for this type of photography. For under $400, you can pick up a reasonably new used DSLR from Canon or Nikon. The newer the better. If the camera body looks good, then the camera likely have not been dropped, no internal damage and it's good to go.

 

[2500ak]

This generalization is in the eye of the beholder. There's more to a pleasing photo than just resolution.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/09/kodak-sees-a-very-real-resurgence-for-film/

Meh, maybe it was a bit of generalization. I know a few people who are doing the whole black & white thing. They're developing it themselves, and I can't see any reason for all that extra work other than nostalgia.

 

[tdesanto]

I think it's funny that we all assume he's asking for a digital camera when the OP says no such thing.

:coffeedrink:

Absolutley right, Michael. A Pentax K1000 and a true bulb release would be all he would need. And a lot of film and practice.

 

[DaveInDenver]

The ability to get instant feedback, trial & error shooting, and without the concern of reciprocity failure all makes digital the logical choice.

The instant feedback is an advantage, agreed. Particularly when learning. Although I dunno how much you can tell from the tiny screen. Either way, once you try it a couple of times you start to get a sense of your film's response (which is a well known effect after 100+ years of film use!). It helps to keep a little notebook, too. CMOS sensors have a similar problem in dynamic range nonlinearity as exposure times increase, too. That's more of a noise issue, though.

Meh, maybe it was a bit of generalization. I know a few people who are doing the whole black & white thing. They're developing it themselves, and I can't see any reason for all that extra work other than nostalgia.

Yeah, maybe I'm the tail end of the hold outs using plain old Tri-X and Extachrome and Fujichrome. I'm definitely no artist, but I just prefer real slideshows and old cameras. It's cathartic from the day job.

 

[MatthewThompson]

Absolutley right, Michael. A Pentax K1000 and a true bulb release would be all he would need. And a lot of film and practice.

I vote this. Barring that, a key component to good long exposures with a DSLR is image sensor physical size. The bigger the sensor, the cleaner the resulting image. Look for at least APS-C.

 

[mustangwarrior]

thanks for all the help guys, and 2500ak, nice pics man!

and yes i was talking about a digital camera, guess i thought that was just to be assumed, my bad, we've had two digital cameras in the past, an olympus and a samsung, both i've not been very happy, neither take good photos in low light and action shots aren't very good, i've tried to play aorund with settings but still not the happiest, i just don't want to be disapointed by another camera, maybe i'll take a look and see what the pawn shop has to offer, friend of mine's family runs one

these are the type of photos i would like to be able to accomplish

just for examples, and i know i've seen alot of photos of the night sky here like that, has always intrigued me

 

[ywen]

The instant feedback is an advantage, agreed. Particularly when learning. Although I dunno how much you can tell from the tiny screen. Either way, once you try it a couple of times you start to get a sense of your film's response (which is a well known effect after 100+ years of film use!). It helps to keep a little notebook, too. CMOS sensors have a similar problem in dynamic range nonlinearity as exposure times increase, too. That's more of a noise issue, though.

Yeah, maybe I'm the tail end of the hold outs using plain old Tri-X and Extachrome and Fujichrome. I'm definitely no artist, but I just prefer real slideshows and old cameras. It's cathartic from the day job.

There is basically no advantage with using film vs a modern digital sensor for long exposure photography. The LCD, while not accurate enough to tell you absolute exposure or color, can tell you a lot about contrast ratio and composition. This is especially useful if you are lighting painting. Can you find someone who can do it with film? Of course. Is it worth the effort for most people? No.