How to shoot in dark lighting condition ?

[paulk_68]

Or a shot cleaner than ISO 25,600?:

The exif data for that shot was:

Camera: Nikon D700 Exposure: 0.8 sec (4/5) Aperture: f/16 Focal Length: 24 mm ISO Speed: 25600

A Canon user would have know that the same sharpness/DOF/exposure could have been achieved with an aperture of f/8, and would not have needed an ISO speed of 25,600

 

[musicaleCA]

Please, not another Canon vs. Nikon debacle. Personally, I think there is some validity to the argument that Nikon has sensors that have better signal-to-noise ratios at high ISOs, just as I think there's some validity to the argument that Canon has more reliable gear. The differences are pretty darn slight.

Visit the Strobist website and read Lighting 101 and Lighting 102.

Man, those were/are (I read them a while ago ) a great read. Probably helped me the most with my flash photography. And I probably wouldn't have managed to shoot at ISOs as low as 400, with 1/20 and f/2.5 without the advice on there (and yep, the people were moving too, but having a solid knowledge of how to stabilize the camera on the fly and how to bounce flash and use the camera on manual has done more for my low-light photos than anything else).

 

[tsaraleksi]

Everyone knows that Canon handles noise waaay better than Nikon

You go right on thinking that. In the meantime, you care to show me a shot at ISO 6400 that is cleaner than this one from a Canon?

Matching EXIF for proof HERE.

Ask and yea shall receive.

1/100, f/2.8, ISO6400

I think the point here is that at this point it's not really a contest with meaningful differences. Both companies have cameras capable of work at extremely high ISO sensitivities.

 

[JerryPH]

Or a shot cleaner than ISO 25,600?:

A Canon user would have know that the same sharpness/DOF/exposure could have been achieved with an aperture of f/8, and would not have needed an ISO speed of 25,600

That is not the point... the point was an exercise of highest ISO settings results, not "optimal settings". This has nothing about Canon users... just that Canon has other advantages (natural skin tone is one), and Nikon has this. Again, let's see any Canon product shoot at this ISO at this level of clarity.

This is not a Canon vs Nikon thread, let's not turn this into that. I responded to someone who said that Canon had better low light shooting capabilities... uhhmm... no. Canon has other things, but this is currently Nikon's domain. This will likely change in the future, but it is not the way it is now or since 2007 when the D3 came out.

 

[JerryPH]

I think the point here is that at this point it's not really a contest with meaningful differences. Both companies have cameras capable of work at extremely high ISO sensitivities.

That is a fact.

 

[rufus5150]

The canon shot at 6400 ISO is way cuter though. So, uh, points there. :thumbup:

 

[JerryPH]

The canon shot at 6400 ISO is way cuter though. So, uh, points there. :thumbup:

Wait, wait, wait... I can graft breasts on that soccer player for you... will that help???

 

[rufus5150]

uh, no.

 

[Tasmaster]

Low light photography is perhaps the most gear-depended type of photography barring scientific applications.

 

[tsaraleksi]

Low light photography is perhaps the most gear-depended type of photography barring scientific applications.

It's a lot cheaper to shoot in low-light than it is to say, shoot sports or birds, gear wise.

 

[JerryPH]

I would think that birding/nature shots are the most equipment intensive, not so much becuase of a lot of equipment, but that one single 600mm F/4 for $12,000.00 is not cheap... lol

 

[Tasmaster]

Technically, high-speed photography is little light photography which is the same as low light :mrgreen: ok maybe that is stretching it a tiny little!

I guess i was thinking digital and 35mm camera bodies. And how about large format sports photography from really far away in a candle-lit venue, now that's going to be expensive!

 

[c.cloudwalker]

A flash is a possibility but it depends on the shot you're trying to get. There's been quite a few times in the first years of my professional life when, if I'd used a flash or an SLR (rangefinder anyone?), I would have been the one getting shot.

Same with a tripod. Great if you have one handy and the room to set it up but it's not always the case. I never carried a tripod in the field but I always had this little bag 3/4 full of sand. Plop it down on something and put your camera on top. It will take whatever shape so that your horizon is actually horizontal.

If we managed to get shots in low light situation without the help of ISO 6400 or 25,600 (????), so can you. Then again, we all carried some super fast lenses for those situations. They may not be cheap but it's hard to do your work with the wrong tools. If you're going to drill a hole in a wall, are you going to use a hammer?

I will stop so that I don't totally disgust you with my old man way of looking at things but keep in mind that, no matter what ISO you can set your camera at, sometimes there just isn't enough light

 

[CxThree]

If you can use a flash in your location, you can get creative with it and get good results. Even on camera flash bounced or in a omnibounce can produce good results. Just don't go shooting the flash directly at your subject. If you play around iwth bouncing flash or shooting with your flash in manual mode to dial it back, you will find that flash does not have to make your pictures look like there was a flash.
As mentioned, the strobist site is a good source of info. If you have access ro a flash, put it on your camera, put a diffuser on it, and shoot it straight at the ceiling as a starting point. See how you like the results and adjust from there.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Funny, while I was trying to answer this question and the phone at the same time, this thread turned into a not so helpful one for the person asking the question

The battle of the brands has always been my favorite private joke. Just about everyone around me used either Nikon or Canon and I used Minolta. Actually, I still do. Anyone can think of one reason why I would have chosen Minolta? That was early 70s if it helps.

Thank god the person who turned me on to photography was more interested in the images than in what gear/ISO/lens/aperture/... I was using. As a photographer I try to create images that will grab your heart and not let go and if I do it with a pinhole camera, what's the problem?