'Small' DSLR or mirrorless for low light and glare?

[Jim888]

Hello everyone and thankyou for the opportunity to join.

I am a newbie so please be patient with me!

I enjoy taking photos of historic cars and aircraft that are mostly housed in museums. Often these places are not particularly well lit, but have spotlights making a challenging environment for a hack with a point and shoot. As well as the low light/spot-lit challenge, the cars/planes often have reflected glare 'spots' on the shiny bits. I am looking to buy a 'small' DSLR or mirrorless as I am traveling, and was wondering if one is better than the other for indoor museum subjects. I have read up a bit on the differences between DSLR and mirrorless but was hoping for some guidance regarding this particular environment.

Any help gratefully received!

 

[JoeW]

Okay, what you're facing is a common problem. So let me provide some answers (from my perspective anyway).

1. You mention SLR--that's a camera that shoots film. I assume that was a typo and you meant DSLR.

2. Mirrorless is where the industry is going. If you think you're going to invest in a lot more lens and equipment, shoot more than cars, then go mirrorless. However, mirrorless will be much more expensive for you than a DSLR. Find a mirrorless that is roughly about the same quality of a DSLR and you can expect to pay substantially more for the mirrorless.

3. Low light and glare/hot spots: two separate issues and I'll deal with them separately. Low light, you've got several answers. The first isn't the camera, it's the lens. "Fast Glass" (or a lens that has an f-stop of 2.8) is considered (generally) "fast." It lets in more light by opening up the camera aperture. When you can't add light (like a speed light), then you need to have a lens that lets in more available light. Or you need to shoot on a tripod with a longer exposure. There are other things you can do about light but the simplest (again, assuming you can't use a tripod or bring in speed lights or strobes) is to have a camera with a lens that lets in more light (thus--f2.8 lens or better).

4. Glare and hot spots: sadly, there is little you can do when you TAKE the picture to resolve those. Since you're shooting in a museum, they control the lighting, not you. And the type of cars I expect you're shooting likely have shiny finishes and lots of chrome--so natural reflections. If you move around the vehicle, you can change where the hot spots are. But ultimately, for where you are shooting, you'll fix this in post processing by cloning (using software to take color from the bumper and put it over the hotspot on the hood). Lots of programs allow you to clone. Avoid photoshop--you pay a monthly rental fee and it's cumbersome to learn. A program like Affinity Photo or Luminar will be cheaper and give you the ability to clone and stamp to cover up glare and shot spots.

5. Wide Angle: shooting in a museum you're going to start with a wide angle lens. Otherwise you'll either have to back up and shoot your car photo with 20 people in the gallery wandering around it. Or you'll have a great shot of the headlines and hood and not the rest of the car. So you need to start with a wide angle lens to get the entire car or aircraft in your photo. Now, if you shoot air shows or instances where aircraft are parked 100 feet away from you, you'll need probably a 200mm zoom at minimum. But for right now, let's focus on the "shooting in a museum"--wide angle lens is necessary. Nothing bigger than 35mm (and around 20mm would be even better).

Now, to answer your initial question (now that I hope I've provided some background info and context): if you're looking for a package that is under $1,000 (camera and lens, battery, memory cards), I'd look at a Nikon D5600 with a 35mm f1.8 lens. That is one of the lightest DSLR cameras out there. It will give you good color. The 35mm f1.8 lens is light, sharp, and small. The D5600 is smaller than comparable DSLRs because it uses the autofocus motor in the lens to focus and leaves it out of the body (thus saving weight and size).

Now, if that's still too big for you, I'd next look at the Olympus like of 4/3rd cameras (called 4/3rds because of the size of the processor). They're tiny (so very easy to travel with and carry around) and with a wide angle lens (which is what you want given a museum), it will fit in a purse or coat pocket easily. The catch is is: a 4/3 DSLR has a small processor (so it takes in less light). So if you're hoping to blow your pictures up to poster size, this camera won't cut it. Also, it will be more expensive than the Nikon (for comparable specs in terms of body and lens). But I know a number of OM users and they love it, especially the portability. Also, it's a very menu-driven camera (you do almost everything through menus) which I don't care for. Again, if seize and weight are huge issues for you and you don't mind paying the prices, you can get a very good OM-Olympus with a sharp wide angle but probably double the prices of what you'd pay for a comparable D5600 with 35mm f1.8.

Now, if cost is no object for your passion, then I'd look at a mirrorless. Be prepared to spend a couple thousand to get a good mirrorless body with a fast wide angle lens. Sony was first to really jump in to the mirrorless market and they've got a lot of good bodies and a wide range of glass to choose from. Canon and Nikon are both seriously getting in to mirrorless. I just bought a used Nikon Z-6. That body (excellent for what you are talking about) with a good wide angle lens will cost you probably around $2,000. Also, I'm not as familiar with the Sony options. But believe it or not, the OM-Olympus will probably be smaller and lighter than a comparable Nikon or Canon mirrorless.

Remember, for what you want to do, you're looking for very specific needs. Unless you're shooting airplanes in flight you don't need lots of FPS (frames per second). A lot of the AF capability (focusing on eyes, tracking movement, focus points) just isn't that relevant to you. Getting in to the world of "what camera should I buy?" is bewildering for a newbie because there are so many features. And most of them are completely irrelevant to you. You want a body and lens that will work well in low light, if wide angle, is small and light. Your subjects aren't going anywhere, you almost certainly can't use a flash (so ambient light). But you don't want a "point and shoot."

Good luck and report back with what you decide to get.

 

[Jim888]

G'day Joe,

Thankyou for sharing your knowledge and for taking the time to reply! Yep, a typo - left the D out of SLR - have now edited. Hmmm...it's the old situation of now knowing how little you know until you realise how little you know. New camera buying is definitely bewildering, but you have given me a lot of food for thought. It's horses for courses and swings and roundabouts I guess. My point and shoot is what it is, but it was particularly in the museum environment where it's limitations were very obvious. I'll check out the cameras and lenses you recommend. Thanks again for your advice Joe!

 

[JoeW]

G'day Joe,

Thankyou for sharing your knowledge and for taking the time to reply! Yep, a typo - left the D out of SLR - have now edited. Hmmm...it's the old situation of now knowing how little you know until you realise how little you know. New camera buying is definitely bewildering, but you have given me a lot of food for thought. It's horses for courses and swings and roundabouts I guess. My point and shoot is what it is, but it was particularly in the museum environment where it's limitations were very obvious. I'll check out the cameras and lenses you recommend. Thanks again for your advice Joe!

First, your "horses for courses" cliche is PERFECT. Unless you think there is a good chance you're going to branch in to....sports, wildlife, abstracts, macro, street photography, etc. you don't need a great camera. You need a camera that is good at what you specifically shoot.

Second, if you go in to a camera store, bring your point and shoot and explain what you shoot and what the limitations of the P&S are (specifically, your ability to focus is mediocre, your pictures aren't sharp, it's very grainy, poor dynamic range, WB isn't true so colors suck). Also, your P&S probably doesn't allow you to change the WB (or White Balance). And that matters in museums which often have poor lighting so you get people with green skin tones or the colors are changed. Your new camera needs to be able to change WB (and ideally, even allow you to set custom WB). The hot spots and glare you'll have to fix post-processing.

Third, something I didn't mention in my original post something that may be a real tool for you: you can deal with hot spots and areas of deep shadow and bright light (common in museums with large objects like planes and cars) by either using "exposure compensation" (which your P&S doesn't have) or by stacking photos (done with software).

For instance, photographers shooting interiors for real estate often face the same problem: some areas of the room are blown out, others in shadow. And if you can't change the lighting, you instead change the exposure and then combine the photos. I'll spare you the details on that. But that can be a way where you encounter extreme dynamic range.

And I get your point about we don't know what we don't know. Well, you got this. Frankly, you've got a much better grasp on what you need and what is important to you than most folks saying "I need me a new camera!" Good luck and report back.

 

[Jim888]

Hey Joe,

Thanks again mate. As I enjoy hiking and camping I also take heaps of photos outdoors. I have been content with my point and shoot for this; accepting I'm not going to take world class photos (and that wildlife shots are beyond the little camera's abilities). (The P&S is also water proof to 20 metres, so I can take it on shallow dives.) It's really been indoors that my P&S has really been found out, just as you described in the second paragraph above. I reason, hopefully close-to-correctly, that if I upgrade to an DSLR or mirrorless to get better indoor shots, I will also see a big improvement in everything else I try and photograph too. Thanks for your help and for all the info - it's good to find out there are techniques for coping with indoor lighting issues pre, during and post-shooting. I'll let you know how I get on, perhaps when I have narrowed things down a little.

 

[ac12]

The other problem you have is, you don't have a crystal ball.
IOW what will you take pics of in the future?
Will that have an effect on your camera/lens selection?

One thing about what @JoeW said is computer hardware, software and your skill with the software.
Until just the other week, I did not have the hardware to run some of the new editing software.
Next is you have to develop the editing skills to do what Joe talked about. Some of what Joe described is beyond my level.

 

[Jim888]

Hey ac12, yes true - no crystal ball...I guess I will have to make a decision on what my needs are now, and adjust as time goes on. I also may have to accept 'flaws' in my photos, depending on the money, time and patience I have for editing...

 

[Jim888]

First, your "horses for courses" cliche is PERFECT. Unless you think there is a good chance you're going to branch in to....sports, wildlife, abstracts, macro, street photography, etc. you don't need a great camera. You need a camera that is good at what you specifically shoot.

Second, if you go in to a camera store, bring your point and shoot and explain what you shoot and what the limitations of the P&S are (specifically, your ability to focus is mediocre, your pictures aren't sharp, it's very grainy, poor dynamic range, WB isn't true so colors suck). Also, your P&S probably doesn't allow you to change the WB (or White Balance). And that matters in museums which often have poor lighting so you get people with green skin tones or the colors are changed. Your new camera needs to be able to change WB (and ideally, even allow you to set custom WB). The hot spots and glare you'll have to fix post-processing.

Third, something I didn't mention in my original post something that may be a real tool for you: you can deal with hot spots and areas of deep shadow and bright light (common in museums with large objects like planes and cars) by either using "exposure compensation" (which your P&S doesn't have) or by stacking photos (done with software).

For instance, photographers shooting interiors for real estate often face the same problem: some areas of the room are blown out, others in shadow. And if you can't change the lighting, you instead change the exposure and then combine the photos. I'll spare you the details on that. But that can be a way where you encounter extreme dynamic range.

And I get your point about we don't know what we don't know. Well, you got this. Frankly, you've got a much better grasp on what you need and what is important to you than most folks saying "I need me a new camera!" Good luck and report back.

Hey Joe, I've been doing some research...I am leaning towards DSLR for reasons of cost (I am not tough on gear, but I am a backpacker-type traveller and things do get knocked around somtimes, and I would rather have a $900 set up damaged than a $2000, let alone the start up costs too), and battery life. I take a lot of pics when I find something I like, so don't want to have to be worried about draining batteries or swapping batteries etc.

As metioned size is an issue, so have been looking at the Canon EOS Rebel SL3 DSLR aka EOS 250D. Reviews of this unit are postive as a small and light entry-level DSLR. I was then thinking of the Canon EF-S 18-55 f/4-5.6 IS STM lens as an all rounder, and the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II as a low-light lens.

If you have a few minutes to give me your thoughts I would be very appreciative. You have been very generous with your time already so if you haven't any more to spend I completely understand!

 

[JoeW]

Hey Joe, I've been doing some research...I am leaning towards DSLR for reasons of cost (I am not tough on gear, but I am a backpacker-type traveller and things do get knocked around somtimes, and I would rather have a $900 set up damaged than a $2000, let alone the start up costs too), and battery life. I take a lot of pics when I find something I like, so don't want to have to be worried about draining batteries or swapping batteries etc.

As metioned size is an issue, so have been looking at the Canon EOS Rebel SL3 DSLR aka EOS 250D. Reviews of this unit are postive as a small and light entry-level DSLR. I was then thinking of the Canon EF-S 18-55 f/4-5.6 IS STM lens as an all rounder, and the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II as a low-light lens.

If you have a few minutes to give me your thoughts I would be very appreciative. You have been very generous with your time already so if you haven't any more to spend I completely understand!

First, I don't shoot Canon so I'm not a good person to give you detailed analysis of that specific body. What I would say is this: Get a camera that can handle your museum needs (so good in low light, good dynamic range, able to do exposure compensation) and is the size/weight you want to travel with. Then finding one you can shoot landscapes with will be easier--that will more likely be a question of the lens and then making sure it's protected against rain, dust, and being dropped.

A 50mm lens is a good standard lens with one caveat--I think you need a wider angle lens for your museum shots. f1.8 is very good for low light but the 50mm focal length is probably not wide enough for your needs. I've attached a shot of a FW-190 at 40mm and you'll notice I couldn't get the entire wingspan in (and couldn't back up further without getting in to the plane behind me).

 

[Jim888]

First, I don't shoot Canon so I'm not a good person to give you detailed analysis of that specific body. What I would say is this: Get a camera that can handle your museum needs (so good in low light, good dynamic range, able to do exposure compensation) and is the size/weight you want to travel with. Then finding one you can shoot landscapes with will be easier--that will more likely be a question of the lens and then making sure it's protected against rain, dust, and being dropped.

A 50mm lens is a good standard lens with one caveat--I think you need a wider angle lens for your museum shots. f1.8 is very good for low light but the 50mm focal length is probably not wide enough for your needs. I've attached a shot of a FW-190 at 40mm and you'll notice I couldn't get the entire wingspan in (and couldn't back up further without getting in to the plane behind me).

Hey Joe thankyou for sharing your knowledge. It seems like you have a first-hand understanding of my museum aircraft issues!! OK...I'll do some more investigation of lens options. What would you suggest as a minimum 'width angle'? Thanks again mate

 

[ac12]

Hey Joe, I've been doing some research...I am leaning towards DSLR for reasons of cost (I am not tough on gear, but I am a backpacker-type traveller and things do get knocked around somtimes, and I would rather have a $900 set up damaged than a $2000, let alone the start up costs too), and battery life. I take a lot of pics when I find something I like, so don't want to have to be worried about draining batteries or swapping batteries etc.

As metioned size is an issue, so have been looking at the Canon EOS Rebel SL3 DSLR aka EOS 250D. Reviews of this unit are postive as a small and light entry-level DSLR. I was then thinking of the Canon EF-S 18-55 f/4-5.6 IS STM lens as an all rounder, and the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II as a low-light lens.

I prefer the 18-135, for more reach without having to switch to a longer lens. We use that lens at school as the GP lens. And I use the Nikon 18-140 as my GP lens.

For LOW light I prefer a moderate wide. On an APS-C camera, the 50 is a short tele. Lens selection depends on expected use.
But Canon does not make an EF-S 24/2 or normal 35/2.
KEH has a used EF 35/2

Canon 35mm f/2 EF-Mount Lens {52}

The Canon EF 35mm f/2 (Canon part# 2507A002) is a moderately wide angle lens for Full Frame 35mm format Canon EOS SLR cameras. The EF 35mm f/2 has been a popular staple in the EOS system since it's inception. The lens offers a wide angle field

www.keh.com

and an EF 28/1.8

Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM EF-Mount Lens {58}

The Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM is a fast versatile wide angle lens prime lens for Canon Full Frame 35mm format EOS SLR Cameras. The ultra bright f/1.8 maximum aperture lets in more than twice as much light as more common f/2.8 lens options; in addition

www.keh.com

 

[Jim888]

I prefer the 18-135, for more reach without having to switch to a longer lens. We use that lens at school as the GP lens. And I use the Nikon 18-140 as my GP lens.

For LOW light I prefer a moderate wide. On an APS-C camera, the 50 is a short tele. Lens selection depends on expected use.
But Canon does not make an EF-S 24/2 or normal 35/2.
KEH has a used EF 35/2

Canon 35mm f/2 EF-Mount Lens {52}

The Canon EF 35mm f/2 (Canon part# 2507A002) is a moderately wide angle lens for Full Frame 35mm format Canon EOS SLR cameras. The EF 35mm f/2 has been a popular staple in the EOS system since it's inception. The lens offers a wide angle field

www.keh.com

and an EF 28/1.8

Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM EF-Mount Lens {58}

The Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM is a fast versatile wide angle lens prime lens for Canon Full Frame 35mm format EOS SLR Cameras. The ultra bright f/1.8 maximum aperture lets in more than twice as much light as more common f/2.8 lens options; in addition

www.keh.com

Hello ac12, thankyou for your help! I can see the advantage of the 18-135, but it does weigh twice as much as the 18-55...I'll give it some thought...

 

[JoeW]

Hey Joe thankyou for sharing your knowledge. It seems like you have a first-hand understanding of my museum aircraft issues!! OK...I'll do some more investigation of lens options. What would you suggest as a minimum 'width angle'? Thanks again mate

That's a function of whether you buy a full frame camera or a crop body. Crop bodies are cheaper but effectively make the lens 15-20% narrower because of the sensor size. For instance, a 50mm focal length will look like a 65mm lens on a crop body. The FW-190 shot I shared was shot on a crop body Nikon.

For museums that don't have a lot of space (and you're trying to cut the crowds out by being as close to the plane as you can be), you'll probably need something with a focal length of 20-35mm...again, depending upon whether or not it's a crop body or full sized sensor.

 

[Soocom1]

Jola from the Land of Entrapment (New Mexico).

the advice given I cant argue, but there are several things not mentioned or (IMO glossed over, no offence intended) that i want to touch on given my previous experience.

First and foremost, LENS SHADES!!! Inside any closed structure with lights established for various displays, you must remember that the lights are actually put in place in very specific manners to give the desired impression of the museum. that being said, said lights may cause glair and flair in your images. So lens shades cut that out quite a bit. Not entirely, but enough to remove alot of stray light.

Second. Many museums (depending on the local income) will use typically HID lights that give a very sharp blueish like near CA fringe.
Many are switching to high intensity LED lighting that gives a diff. hue. Auto white balance and/or a white or grey card is very handy for Post processing.

Third: I know I am going to be hammered on this but the use of a circular and in my case (I am one of the wierd ones) an older linear polarizer helped greatly!

for a noob: Linear Polarizer vs Circular Polarizer: What's the difference?

Camera wise is personal decision. Cell phone cameras are just fine for snapshots, APC are the norm, Full Frame can be had for relatively cheap and med. Format if you want to get serious.

Lenses for museums will actually depend on the focal length.
If your after certain types of shots, such as the long body shot from the bumper type, then depending on the camera, 35-50mm will work.
If your closed off by ropes or barriers, then anything from the 28mm to around 50 will work. if your blocked off from a distance, then a 100-400 mm range will be the situation.


having all of the above mentioned cameras including mirrorless to Large format, the choice is yours alone to what works.

Canon wise depending on sensor size is key.
A EOS m is an APS sized camera that from used shops may run as little as $300 USD. Then adapting nearly any lens you want to it using adapters. (Nikon onto Canon).

where DSLRs wont allow that easily.
if you want pure auto focus research the lens mount types first before purchasing.

Adobe actually has a web page devoted to this:

Car photography tips and how-to guide - Adobe

Car photography helps people celebrate and share their rides. Get advice on how to make car photos shine, and bring out the best in unique automobiles.

www.adobe.com

Keep asking. there is alot of other good info to give.

 

[Jim888]

Hola Soocom1 and thankyou for taking the time to share your knowledge. Certainly lots of food for thought in your message. Both you and JoeW have mentioned sensor size....the Canon EOS Rebel SL3 DSLR aka EOS 250D I am considering has a sensor size of 22.3 x 14.9mm and a diameter of 26.8mm. I guess I will therefore have to accept a practical 'narrowing' of any lens I use...