Reached the point of not needing a flash?

R

richard9897

Suspended / Banned
Messages
43
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi. I'm a beginner, I know little about cameras. I'm trying to figure out what to buy in a bridge, system, or DSLR.

But, have we reached a point in the technology where the average amateur photographer is well advised to, or can quite sensibly aim to buy a camera that offers no flash?

I'm not sure whether no flash is the preserve of the higher end camera. Not looked into it.

I think ideally, I'd prefer to buy a camera not requiring a flash, and it be say no more than £260 - or less. Because I'm a on a pretty strict budget.

Any comments and/or camera recommendation? Thanks.
 
A flash is a tool used for many different purposes. A onboard flash is much less useful than an external unit.

But if I'm honest I'm struggling to get what your question is?
 
When I was photographing (in my home) some items I was going to sell on Ebay, I found that I had to buy a 500W floodlight. How wonderful it would be if the ability to take a picture in low light was something of a standard feature. My question is more-or-less asking, is this ability of not needing a flash, or the need for extra light, anywhere near to being a standard feature of relatively inexpensive cameras? I obviously wish it was.
 
Last edited:
If you mean general high ISO (low light) performance then most current generation mirrorless/DSLR systems will deliver good results at ISO 6400. Combined with a faster lens means faster shutter speeds in very low light so a flash isn't 'needed' in most situations. However, very few bridge cameras will deliver the same quality results in low light as they are basically a point and shoot camera with a very long telephoto lens.

However, there's a difference between 'needing' flash and 'using' flash creatively. There will always be a requirement for light to make a good image, being able to control where that falls and how powerful it is is critical. This is just an example I've got on my phone, shot with my A6000, 50/1.8 and bouncing the onboard flash against the wall next to me to spread the light.

https://flic.kr/p/QwEeF2

If I hadn't have added some fill flash I'd have lost most of the shadow detail and would have been using a much higher ISO.
 
Last edited:
With regards to your budget and requirement for low light quality, I'd personally steer clear of any bridge camera in that price bracket. Their major feature is a long telephoto lens but their sensor is the same as a standard compact camera.

You'd be better off with something like a Sony Nex5/6/7 or, if you could push the budget slightly, an A6000 with a 50/1.8 lens. Alternatively, an entry level Canon or Nikon DSLR. These systems all give you a larger APS-C 'crop' sensor which in turn will generally deliver better low light performance.
 
If you're photographing things indoors which don't move there's no need for a flash. You can get the same effect with a low powered desk anglepoise or whatever comes to hand, plus a cheap tripod to keep your camera steady and use longer exposures than can be handheld.

The reason expensive cameras don't have in-built flashes is not because they don't "need" a flash, it's because at that kind of cost and sophistication they expect you to be buy and use a proper serious (and expensive) flash gun.
 
chris malcolm said:
If you're photographing things indoors which don't move there's no need for a flash. You can get the same effect with a low powered desk anglepoise or whatever comes to hand.
Click to expand...
Providing whatever comes to hand has a high CRI lamp fitted (unless you've got very low colour accuracy requirements/expectations).

For tabletop stuff I'll happily use an anglepoise, but it cost me a £40 LED lamp for it to get an acceptable colour accuracy.. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top