Cam for Shooting From 11th Story Window?

[Slate Shannon]

Hello,

I am seeking advice regarding purchasing what would be my first real camera, digital or otherwise.

My primary reason for wanting a camera is to be able to take candid shots of people (mainly children) and animals (mainly dogs) walking, playing sports, running around, etc. The challenge is that I want to take many, perhaps even most, of such photos from the windows of an eleventh-story apartment, looking down onto the streets below.

(EDIT: Concerning the question of how I would appear to the neighbors across-the-way who would see me standing at the windows with a zoom lens, I have just made a separate post in the "Open Talk" section.)

The elevation from street-level alone is over 100 feet. If at all possible, I would want to be able to shoot from behind the barrier of the window-glass. (Even if the weather wouldn't limit my ability to take pictures from an open window, safety concerns would.) If I understand what I've read at various sites correctly, shooting from behind the glass of a window necessitates the use of a polarizing lens filter.

Cost is a real concern for me. If at all possible, I want to stay below $300.00. Anything beyond $400-500 is out-of-the-question and even that would be tough. I realize that this greatly limits the quality and features I can expect to get. But from the research I have done thus far, it would appear that as long as I keep my expectations realistic, I can still get something that would be satisfactory.

When I first started looking at different cameras online, the Nikon COOLPIX L830 (around $200.00) appeared as if it could suffice for me. The lack of a viewfinder was a concern but considering how much more it appeared a model with a viewfinder would cost (around $150.00, based on the prices I saw at the time) I suspected I may have to resign myself to doing without one.

But then I discovered that the lens on the Nikon L830 apparently lacks the threading for attaching filters.

Thanks to a reviewer on Amazon, I learned that this also appears to be the case for the Nikon P530, which I had considered buying used from B & H. The P530 had initially seemed attractive mainly because it has a viewfinder and because of the manufacturer's claim that, "High-performance CMOS image sensor lets you shoot without a flash". But all of that would seem to matter little if the ability to use a lens filter with relative ease is lacking, considering my apparent need for a polarizing filter. (Additionally, the ability to simply protect the lens from scratches and, more so, dust, that I believe a UV filter would provide, is not something I take lightly.)

After looking (online) at any number of other models, I keep coming back to the Panasonic Lumix FZ70. At no more than $300.00 (and possibly as low as $240.00 or so; see note at end*) the FZ70 appears as if it may be one of the only choices within my price-range that would satisfy all of my essential requirements.

But I don't even know how to determine the minimum zoom I actually need or even what the different "x" values actually mean and how to make sense of them (And I just read a comment in another thread in this very forum in which the author claimed that these "x" zoom values actually mean little and that they can be misleading and even a marketing gimmick.)

(EDIT: I would also like to know how to figure-out how much zoom is required not for an object or view to appear closer but just in order for it to appear no more distant than it does to the naked eye. I figure that since I enjoy the views from my apartment that I see with only my naked bespectacled eyes so much, I shouldn't rule-out the possibility of settling for a camera that could reasonably reproduce such views, as I see them with my eyes.)

Let me also note that if I have recalled and understood correctly what I have read, with all superzooms come a considerable sacrifice in photo-quality, particularly in low-light and indoor conditions. I am prepared to accept this trade-off.

Would I be correct, however, in thinking that even indoors, under sub-optimal lighting conditions, I could at least expect to take photos of objects that would be decent enough for basic documentation purposes (such as showing evidence of damage to a product received or structural damage within a home, etc.)?

Any advice or information that could help me here would be much appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to read my admittedly long post.

*As far as the price of the Panasonic Lumix FZ70, I have been watching it since sometime before Thanksgiving and have seen it fluctuate back-and-forth rather wildly in this time. From a high of $350.00 sometime before Thanksgiving to a low of $229.00 (from a third-party seller with a 93% positive rating), earlier today.

 

[pixseal]

Hello,

I am seeking advice regarding purchasing what would be my first real camera, digital or otherwise.

My primary reason for wanting a camera is to be able to take candid shots of people (mainly children) and animals (mainly dogs) walking, playing sports, running around, etc. The challenge is that I want to take many, perhaps even most, of such photos from the windows of an eleventh-story apartment, looking down onto the streets below.

• If the subjects are at a great distance (horizontally), then you'll need lots of "reach". That will require a long focal length (greater number of mm).
• If the subjects are below you (vertically), then you'll get shots of uninteresting bald heads and parted hair kind of shots.
• Candids will be more interesting taken from the street level. Make photography another reason to get outside.

(EDIT: Concerning the question of how I would appear to the neighbors across-the-way who would see me standing at the windows with a zoom lens, I have just made a separate post in the "Open Talk" section.)

The elevation from street-level alone is over 100 feet. If at all possible, I would want to be able to shoot from behind the barrier of the window-glass. (Even if the weather wouldn't limit my ability to take pictures from an open window, safety concerns would.) If I understand what I've read at various sites correctly, shooting from behind the glass of a window necessitates the use of a polarizing lens filter.

• Using a polarizer can cut out window reflections (a good thing)
• Using a polarizer will cut out 75% of the light (a bad thing)
• Consider shading the window near the lens to minimize reflection (instead of using a polarizer)
• Shooting other than perpendicular to the glass will cause distortion and can cause images to be out of focus
• Your best images will be those shot through an open window

Cost is a real concern for me. If at all possible, I want to stay below $300.00. Anything beyond $400-500 is out-of-the-question and even that would be tough. I realize that this greatly limits the quality and features I can expect to get. But from the research I have done thus far, it would appear that as long as I keep my expectations realistic, I can still get something that would be satisfactory.

When I first started looking at different cameras online, the Nikon COOLPIX L830 (around $200.00) appeared as if it could suffice for me. The lack of a viewfinder was a concern but considering how much more it appeared a model with a viewfinder would cost (around $150.00, based on the prices I saw at the time) I suspected I may have to resign myself to doing without one.

But then I discovered that the lens on the Nikon L830 apparently lacks the threading for attaching filters.

Thanks to a reviewer on Amazon, I learned that this also appears to be the case for the Nikon P530, which I had considered buying used from B & H. The P530 had initially seemed attractive mainly because it has a viewfinder and because of the manufacturer's claim that, "High-performance CMOS image sensor lets you shoot without a flash". But all of that would seem to matter little if the ability to use a lens filter with relative ease is lacking, considering my apparent need for a polarizing filter. (Additionally, the ability to simply protect the lens from scratches and, more so, dust, that I believe a UV filter would provide, is not something I take lightly.)

Forget filters. Even using a polarizer will be difficult in your situation. I've shot over 100,000 images and I've never scratched a lens - and I don't use UV filters.

After looking (online) at any number of other models, I keep coming back to the Panasonic Lumix FZ70. At no more than $300.00 (and possibly as low as $240.00 or so; see note at end*) the FZ70 appears as if it may be one of the only choices within my price-range that would satisfy all of my essential requirements.

But I don't even know how to determine the minimum zoom I actually need or even what the different "x" values actually mean and how to make sense of them (And I just read a comment in another thread in this very forum in which the author claimed that these "x" zoom values actually mean little and that they can be misleading and even a marketing gimmick.)

"X" is meaningless - the "X" number is merely the ratio of the shortest focal length to the longest focal length. What you want is the longest focal length that you can afford (you can get by with shorter focal lengths if you shoot from ground level.)

(EDIT: I would also like to know how to figure-out how much zoom is required not for an object or view to appear closer but just in order for it to appear no more distant than it does to the naked eye. I figure that since I enjoy the views from my apartment that I see with only my naked bespectacled eyes so much, I shouldn't rule-out the possibility of settling for a camera that could reasonably reproduce such views, as I see them with my eyes.)

A 50mm (full-frame equivalent) focal length is generally considered what the naked eye sees. However, from your description of what you want, you really want a binocular kind of view. You should look for something with a 300mm (full-frame equivalent) focal length.

Let me also note that if I have recalled and understood correctly what I have read, with all superzooms come a considerable sacrifice in photo-quality, particularly in low-light and indoor conditions. I am prepared to accept this trade-off.

Would I be correct, however, in thinking that even indoors, under sub-optimal lighting conditions, I could at least expect to take photos of objects that would be decent enough for basic documentation purposes (such as showing evidence of damage to a product received or structural damage within a home, etc.)?

Use the built-in flash for indoors.

Any advice or information that could help me here would be much appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to read my admittedly long post.

*As far as the price of the Panasonic Lumix FZ70, I have been watching it since sometime before Thanksgiving and have seen it fluctuate back-and-forth rather wildly in this time. From a high of $350.00 sometime before Thanksgiving to a low of $229.00 (from a third-party seller with a 93% positive rating), earlier today.

Good luck.

--
-Dave
http://pixseal.com

 

[Slate Shannon]

Thank you very much for your reply, Dave. I found it most informative and helpful. I'm sorry it took me so long to acknowledge it.

(I had a quick look at some of your photos, by the way, and liked what I saw.)

Please see below for a detailed response, interspersed between selected quotes from yours.

• Candids will be more interesting taken from the street level. Make photography another reason to get outside.

I would not doubt that achieving quality photos is far easier and more likely to happen when one shoots from the same level as (and within a very limited distance from) one's subjects. But "interesting" is a subjective term, isn't it?

The views I see from my apartment hold a personal interest for me at least. I would like to be able to capture some of them with a camera.

Whether or not I will actually manage to do so, however, is another story. I have become increasingly skeptical, as the implications and challenges involved--- both photographic as well as social-- have become increasingly apparent.

• Using a polarizer can cut out window reflections (a good thing)

Hence, why I had thought that I would probably need to use a polarizer...

• Using a polarizer will cut out 75% of the light (a bad thing)

I had barely, if at all, considered this, however. Now that I think of it, I have to wonder whether the use of a polarizer in a case such as mine would even be viable. For it would seem that any camera that I would buy at this point would almost certainly have greatly limited capabilities in low-light conditions.

(I suppose that only for a camera with a sufficiently large sensor would the use of a polarizer be a real option.)

• Consider shading the window near the lens to minimize reflection (instead of using a polarizer)

Thanks for this suggestion. I will keep it in mind.

• Shooting other than perpendicular to the glass will cause distortion and can cause images to be out of focus

Sounds like shooting anything below me may be a problem, then. I would think that if I have to focus my eyes downward to see subjects at street-level, then I would have to do the same with any camera.

• Your best images will be those shot through an open window.

That much seemed obvious to me.

Unfortunately, though, as I wrote in my initial post, shooting through an open window may not be practical for me. (If not because of weather, then almost surely because of safety considerations.)

(EDIT: I would also like to know how to figure-out how much zoom is required not for an object or view to appear closer but just in order for it to appear no more distant than it does to the naked eye. I figure that since I enjoy the views from my apartment that I see with only my naked bespectacled eyes so much, I shouldn't rule-out the possibility of settling for a camera that could reasonably reproduce such views, as I see them with my eyes.)

A 50mm (full-frame equivalent) focal length is generally considered what the naked eye sees.

If I have understood what I have read elsewhere correctly, then by "full-frame equivalent", you mean when adjusted for the standard based on 35mm film. Is this correct?

However, from your description of what you want, you really want a binocular kind of view. You should look for something with a 300mm (full-frame equivalent) focal length.

I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you mean that I would need a focal length of at least 300mm merely to achieve photos that approximate the view I see, from the same vantage point (i.e., my window), with only my eyes (unaided by anything but my glasses)?

That would answer what I had asked here, in the addendum I had made to my original post that you were replying-to.

When you wrote of "a binocular kind of view", however, it sounded to me as if you were referring-to achieving photos in which the subjects appear at least somewhat closer than they would to the naked eye. This is what I desire ideally, yes. But as I tried to make clear (in the addendum to which you were replying), I was (and still am) considering settling for images that would merely capture the views I see from window, as I see them with my naked eyes-- neither any closer nor any more distant.

I would appreciate if you would clarify what you meant.

Also, there must be a way to calculate the distance in relation to focal length.

 

[cprevost]

Here's a focal length comparison tool that may help you with that part of the equation.

http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php

 

[chuxter]

• Consider shading the window near the lens to minimize reflection (instead of using a polarizer)

Thanks for this suggestion. I will keep it in mind.

What you need to "shade" is the area of the room reflected in the window glass. That is probably the floor. Simply spread a black cloth on the floor so that no bright reflections end up in your pictures.

• Shooting other than perpendicular to the glass will cause distortion and can cause images to be out of focus

Sounds like shooting anything below me may be a problem, then. I would think that if I have to focus my eyes downward to see subjects at street-level, then I would have to do the same with any camera.

I would only consider shooting through an open window. If that presents safety or social issues, drop this idea.

• Your best images will be those shot through an open window.

That much seemed obvious to me.

Unfortunately, though, as I wrote in my initial post, shooting through an open window may not be practical for me. (If not because of weather, then almost surely because of safety considerations.)

The problem is easily solved w/ technology. But that costs $$$.

(EDIT: I would also like to know how to figure-out how much zoom is required not for an object or view to appear closer but just in order for it to appear no more distant than it does to the naked eye. I figure that since I enjoy the views from my apartment that I see with only my naked bespectacled eyes so much, I shouldn't rule-out the possibility of settling for a camera that could reasonably reproduce such views, as I see them with my eyes.)

A 50mm (full-frame equivalent) focal length is generally considered what the naked eye sees.

If I have understood what I have read elsewhere correctly, then by "full-frame equivalent", you mean when adjusted for the standard based on 35mm film. Is this correct?

However, from your description of what you want, you really want a binocular kind of view. You should look for something with a 300mm (full-frame equivalent) focal length.

I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you mean that I would need a focal length of at least 300mm merely to achieve photos that approximate the view I see, from the same vantage point (i.e., my window), with only my eyes (unaided by anything but my glasses)?

That would answer what I had asked here, in the addendum I had made to my original post that you were replying-to.

When you wrote of "a binocular kind of view", however, it sounded to me as if you were referring-to achieving photos in which the subjects appear at least somewhat closer than they would to the naked eye. This is what I desire ideally, yes. But as I tried to make clear (in the addendum to which you were replying), I was (and still am) considering settling for images that would merely capture the views I see from window, as I see them with my naked eyes-- neither any closer nor any more distant.

The human visual system is not at all like a camera! Most people have no idea how we actually see. Our eyes are dominated by a small, high-resolution, color sensor [the cones] that subtends a small angle. It is in essence a telephoto [long FL lens]. Our control computer uses that telephoto lens to scan the larger scene and assemble a composite view. This is much like what some of us do w/ our cameras when we "stitch" together hundreds of small images to make a HUGE picture.

If you were to put a lens on your camera that captured this larger view, it would be the 50mm lens mentioned. BUT, you are actually looking at the small, telephoto image in the middle. The rest of the picture in your brain is virtual [it existed in the past]. If the rods that see your peripheral area notice something change, then your control computer moves your eye over to that spot and re-scans it. You are not aware of this.

I would appreciate if you would clarify what you meant.

Also, there must be a way to calculate the distance in relation to focal length.

Not easily. Get a camera and take some pix and you will quickly find out what YOU want.

 

[pixseal]

Thank you very much for your reply, Dave. I found it most informative and helpful. I'm sorry it took me so long to acknowledge it.

You're welcome.

(EDIT: I would also like to know how to figure-out how much zoom is required not for an object or view to appear closer but just in order for it to appear no more distant than it does to the naked eye. I figure that since I enjoy the views from my apartment that I see with only my naked bespectacled eyes so much, I shouldn't rule-out the possibility of settling for a camera that could reasonably reproduce such views, as I see them with my eyes.)

A 50mm (full-frame equivalent) focal length is generally considered what the naked eye sees.

If I have understood what I have read elsewhere correctly, then by "full-frame equivalent", you mean when adjusted for the standard based on 35mm film. Is this correct?

However, from your description of what you want, you really want a binocular kind of view. You should look for something with a 300mm (full-frame equivalent) focal length.

I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you mean that I would need a focal length of at least 300mm merely to achieve photos that approximate the view I see, from the same vantage point (i.e., my window), with only my eyes (unaided by anything but my glasses)?

That would answer what I had asked here, in the addendum I had made to my original post that you were replying-to.

When you wrote of "a binocular kind of view", however, it sounded to me as if you were referring-to achieving photos in which the subjects appear at least somewhat closer than they would to the naked eye. This is what I desire ideally, yes. But as I tried to make clear (in the addendum to which you were replying), I was (and still am) considering settling for images that would merely capture the views I see from window, as I see them with my naked eyes-- neither any closer nor any more distant.

I would appreciate if you would clarify what you meant.

I used "full-frame equivalent" (FFE) because most small sensor cameras use that in their marketing.

The human eye in cooperation with the human brain is a wonderful thing. As your eyes scan a scene outside of your window, 50mm (FFE) is a good estimate. But if you were enjoying the broader cityscape, 24mm (wide angle) might be closer. If your eyes noticed something going on at street level, 100mm (narrow angle) might be FFE with a camera. If you picked up a pair of binoculars to read a car license plate, then you might want a 300mm FFE lens (telephoto view).

Lucky for us, cameras typically have a "zoom" range (variable focal length or variable angle of view) which allows us to decide how much of the scene to include in the image. The maximum focal length divided by the minimum focal length equals the "X" in the camera marketing materials (a camera with 20mm to 100mm would be a "5X" zoom, as would a camera with a range of 35mm to 175mm, but they would have a very different range).

I hope this helps.

--
-Dave
http://pixseal.com

 

[yardcoyote]

I think Chuxter is right on the nail with the last comment. Eventually you are going to have to buy a camera and start taking pictures. That's the only way to really figure any of this out.

The idea of dark draping inside the room has a lot of merit. I'd cover anything that causes a reflection. I shoot through windows all the time and I don't recall any problems I think a polarizer would have fixed. Reflections from inside the room and dirty glass are the two biggest problems from my experience. Washing an 11th story window presents its own problems, of course.

If you find the photography project is working well enough to be interesting, you might want to see if there is some kind of grate or safety barrier you can install in the window to allow you to shoot with the window open. I knew several families who raised children in high rise buildings and they had these barriers installed in their apartments. Might be possible to put one in your favorite window with a gap at the right level for the camera.

 

[Wally626]

Hello,

I am seeking advice regarding purchasing what would be my first real camera, digital or otherwise.

My primary reason for wanting a camera is to be able to take candid shots of people (mainly children) and animals (mainly dogs) walking, playing sports, running around, etc. The challenge is that I want to take many, perhaps even most, of such photos from the windows of an eleventh-story apartment, looking down onto the streets below.

...

Get the camera with the longest lens (compare using 35mm equivalents) and largest sensor you can afford and manual focus or at least an infinity setting. Get blackout curtains for the apartment, close them and turn off all interior lighting. Build a shade for the window or open it. Get a strong table or build a stand and place a large sand bag on it. Place the camera on the bag to take the photos, preferably with a remote trigger. In this situation a rear LCD is fine as the interior will be dark and you should be able to see it fine. I would also build a shade to surround the lens and be in contact with the window, might be able to use this instead of blackout curtains. Wash the windows. Could use a tripod instead of sandbag but on your budget you could not get a sturdy enough one.

Have a good story ready when the police drop by.

 

[JoePhoto]

I didn't see your answer of whether you can shoot through an open window ???

But open/window is the only way I would consider it. Shooting through glass will degrade quality and possibly introduce distortion/waves.

I think the Panasonic FZ-200 is sufficient for starting. (600mm-equiv w/ f/2.8)

The FZ-1000 is my favorite camera and its DFD-AF and 5-axis IS would help your images. It can even digital-zoom to 3200mm (equiv). But it is more expensive -- with MANY more features that you don't indicate you would use.

A polarizer would be good for reducing reflections on other-building windows in daytime, (but it would be so relatively dark inside that you probably still could not image anything inside w/out over-exposing outside).

I was recently in Hawaii on vacation and stayed in a high-rise hotel. I was testing the FZ-1000's long (up to 3200mm) tele-zoom w/ 5-axis IS & high-ISO, through (distant) hotel windows at NIGHT, (but I can't post here the images I captured) ....

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )

 

[Slate Shannon]

Hello again,

In coming back now to follow-up on this thread that I had started last December (2014), I realized that there were several gracious replies to me that I apparently had not acknowledged. I want to first offer a very belated thanks for those. I had intended to do so much sooner but then got busy and subsequently forgot. (I believe I had "liked" some of these not long after they were posted but it doesn't seem as if the posters would have been notified of that.)

In January, I purchased a Panasonic ZS-7, secondhand from KEH ($63.95 with shipping). Between late January and early June, I photographed from my windows on a total of around fifteen separate occasions. Most of the photos seem pretty dull, some even dismal and even the best of them appear quite flawed-- at least when viewed from any strictly technical perspective. Still, there are a select number that I value because of a combination of the subjects and moments that I managed to capture. I have just posted some of these in the Samples & Galleries forum.

Photographing from my windows is no longer a priority for me and I am not sure if I will go back to doing so. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is the concern that I had raised in the companion thread to this one that I had created in the Open Talk forum. Namely, not wanting to appear to neighbors as if I am snooping into their windows. I realized that this was probably simply unavoidable. Incidentally, I must note that I recently noticed what appeared to be a tripod with some sort of telescopic lens* in one of the windows that mine face. Needless to say, I found this rather ironic. In the interest of fairness, however, I hasten to note that the lens I saw in the window appeared to be pointing upward (perhaps toward the sky or the skyline above the roof of my building) and not toward my windows. I have not seen anyone present at any of the times that I have noticed the mounted lens. (*I could not make-out whether what I saw was a camera or a stand-alone telescope. I suppose if I were to have used the zoom lens on my own camera...)

I hope to have more opportunities to photograph in the park and perhaps on the street as well.

I do not use Adobe Flash, so apparently cannot create galleries here at DPreview. I am considering creating galleries at an external site and posting links to them here.

Thanks again,

"Slate"

--
I appreciate all constructive replies but may be slow in responding.