Need you help!

[iamdrew]

I just volunteered as a photographer for some weekly events. I will be taking pictures every Friday and Saturday night at the parties. They will be indoor and outdoor parties. I do live in Phoenix, Arizona so it will be pretty warm....especially when they are indoor. It might be a bit humid at the indoor parties as well. I am mostly going to be taking pictures of people posing in a dark room with a lot of random bright lights flashing all over the place. Then I will also be taking pictures of people dancing with LED lights and spinning/breathing fire. I want my camera to have a bunch of options to make these pictures look crazy. I am looking to spend around $100-600 but I can go higher if it makes a big difference. I am also worried about it getting broken and have no clue what a camera warranty would cover as far as dropping it goes. There will be a lot of people dancing around all crazy and bumping into each other.

So yeah, I need a camera for taking pictures of people partying at rave parties. Then I will be posting them online the next morning. Something nice and fast would be good.....but I am more concerned about the image quality and features to makes the pictures look cooler.

The two cameras I found using google were:

Sony Alpha DSLR-A350 Digital Camera
and the
Sigma SD14

They both looked nice but I found better reviews on the Sony.

What would you recommend I get for this type of photo job?

I am going to be going to the party at about 10 PM tonight, so the faster I get some answers the better. I am thinking of just going to Fry's and getting a nice camera to use tonight and then returning it tomorrow. Then tomorrow I would order the new camera online.

Well, tell me what you think. Thanks!

[Frog]

First, I don't think its cool to get a camera with the intent of returning it.
You're going to be better off with the Sony but its going to cost around 700 without the lens and you'll need a fast lens for those conditions. I'm not familiar with Sony's lenses but someone here will be.
Then when you get the camera, you'll need to learn how to use it which takes time......I've had my dslr for two years and am still learning stuff.
Your partys sound like fun and I'm sure people would like to see images but you'll need to do some research.

[dumpy]

No "features" will make your photos look in those conditions (dark, but bright lights, fire etc), having a solid camera with good fast glass and most importantly knowing how to use it will. As Frog already stated, not a short term task.

Actually having "features" on a camera rarley makes a good looking shot, setting your camera up for the conditions you are in will. Take a class or get a book. Or just read around on here and practice practice practice.

+1 on Frog's statement about buying a camera to return it, seriously not cool. However if you do go this route, buy your new camera from Broadway Photo. He he...

[iamdrew]

Yeah, I was pretty sure I was getting the Sony. Also, I know I am going to need to practice a lot....I was just looking from some quick information before I went out and bought one. I ended up getting a Sony Cybershot DSC-H10. I totally forgot to buy a memory card though so I didn't get to take too many pictures. I do really like the camera though. It took some really nice looking pictures and everything was pretty easy to use.

Nice joke about Broadway Photo. I am definitely not that stupid.

Any ideas on what type of lenses I am going to need or should look into for making tracers effects and things like that?

Also, I bought the camera from Walmart and told the lady exactly what I was planning on doing and she had no problems with it. It was an emergency.

[Frog]

You can't put other lenses on that camera. You might be able to do effects with photoshop or other editing programs.

[uilq]

you can make any effects that you want by using photoshop.

[byjamesderuvoDHQ]

Since you're going to be taking a lot of picture in low light, you want to be wary of falling into the "More megapixels is better" trap, because it isn't. Cameras like that H10 may be attractive on their face, but the problem is, that with digital cameras anything over 6mp (yes, that's right I said 6mp) is overkill and can actually do more HARM than good. Let me explain.

I came across an interesting article today about how more mega pixels is not necessarily a good thing. According to Image Engineering – a company that does testing of digital cameras for photo magazines in Germany – the quality of digital pictures has steadily decreased since the state of the art was six megapixels back in 2004. And because they don’t have a “dog in this hunt,” they put forth a compelling argument for buying new digital cameras with less mega pixels and not more.

The argument is essentially this: CCD chips on point and shoot cameras a smaller and as such, fitting in more pixels causes them to lose light sensivity. Sure, there’s more data on the chip, but the chip can’t absorb the light data and what it ends up with is a picture that has more noise than image quality. In addition, the more megapixels a camera has, the larger the lens it needs to provide the clarity it deserves and prevent diffraction due to a loss of detail with smaller apertures. But since we’re talking portable point and shoots here, those large lenses simply aren’t being made.

Finally, with larger mega pixels comes longer saving time due to their requires huge storage capacity, or more compression if not storing images in RAW format. The result is a noisier image and a dissatisfied camera user who thirsts for high quality and speed but fell into the trap of "more must mean better."

In the end, relying on a smaller MP that can balance all these needs may indeed be a better answer.