lens decision for low light

[JerryPH]

I have to agree.

I shot all this with ISO 5,000 and ISO 6,000 hand held, Nikon D3 (with incredible full frame sensor), 70-200/2.8 lens in lowest of low light situation (but still needed a high shutter to stop motion) -- little grainy, but still useable... (scroll by the guy with the green hair... lolol) http://jodieotte.com/?p=340

Jodie, please tell me that you ran these ISO 5000 pictures through some kind of noise reduction software at a really low level.

If you tell me that these are SOOC or without any noise reduction, you are seriously going to expedite the process of me lightening my wallet for the D700 and accessories... lol.

The guy with the green hair... its not his fault an oompah-loompah mated with a biker... lol

 

[JodieO]

Jodie, please tell me that you ran these ISO 5000 pictures through some kind of noise reduction software at a really low level.

If you tell me that these are SOOC or without any noise reduction, you are seriously going to expedite the process of me lightening my wallet for the D700 and accessories... lol.

The guy with the green hair... its not his fault an oompah-loompah mated with a biker... lol

LOL - that's my husband :mrgreen:

No, I didn't do anything with them except resize for web. They are SOOC - I *NEVER* use noiseware, EVER. Seriously, as I have said in other threads, it is not worth buying anything Nikon but the D3 or D700. After dealing with this full frame sensor and shooting at ISO 5,000 and 6400... I will never ever think anything else is even worth looking at.

I regularly shoot running toddlers at ISO 1,000 to 2,000 outside in overcast/shade conditions, like it is ISO 200. I don't even think about it, I just do it... there's no reason not to. I hand hold everything and just shoot comfortably, increasing ISO as necessary so I can keep a fast shutter. Those on my blog above were shot with a shutter of 1/1,000 because I wanted to freeze the action AND be hand holding the camera at 200 mm.

Seriously, I don't think twice about increasing my ISO to four digits regularly...

This is ISO 1600 - this one is TOTALLY SOOC - as you can see, I didn't even color correct it.

This is ISO 1250

ISO 2500

ISO 1250

ISO 1250

ISO 1,000

ISO 800

ISO 4,000 (don't really know why it was at 4,000 - I must have switched indoors to outdoors and didn't think about it)

ISO 3200

This is ISO 5,000 set on aperture priority - this is me on my horse - my daughter shot this image.... it's not brain surgery... but nice smooth hardly any digital noise ISO 5,000!!!!!

and these (in the following link) were all my first shots from the D3 - factory settings, the minute I got it.... they are SOOC -- and shot on A priority (out of sheer laziness) - and any vignetting you see comes naturally from my Sigma 10-20 on the FF cameras.

http://jodieotte.com/?p=172

I couldn't honestly tell anyone to waste their money on anything less than a camera with a sensor like in the D3 and D700. I'm not being a "camera snob", I have waited for this technology for years, and it is HERE... whether some people want to take notice or not, this technology is incredible.... anything else would be a waste to me.

 

[Dao]

4 letters - N I C E


Jerry ... I believe your X'mas shopping starts now.

 

[gsgary]

doesnt a higher ISO reduce image quality slightly?
or were my tutors not being truthful?

A shot with a bit of noise is better than no shot, you can alway turn it into a nice B+W

 

[gsgary]

I'd have to say the f2.8 70-200L sounds like the best option, you could go for the older non IS vertion but that wouldnt help for other uses. The only other think I would suggest is try a cam with a lower noise level

How can can that be the best option he shot theses shot at F2.8 and they are not very good

 

[gsgary]

LOL - that's my husband :mrgreen:

No, I didn't do anything with them except resize for web. They are SOOC - I *NEVER* use noiseware, EVER. Seriously, as I have said in other threads, it is not worth buying anything Nikon but the D3 or D700. After dealing with this full frame sensor and shooting at ISO 5,000 and 6400... I will never ever think anything else is even worth looking at.

I regularly shoot running toddlers at ISO 1,000 to 2,000 outside in overcast/shade conditions, like it is ISO 200. I don't even think about it, I just do it... there's no reason not to. I hand hold everything and just shoot comfortably, increasing ISO as necessary so I can keep a fast shutter. Those on my blog above were shot with a shutter of 1/1,000 because I wanted to freeze the action AND be hand holding the camera at 200 mm.

Seriously, I don't think twice about increasing my ISO to four digits regularly...

This is ISO 1600 - this one is TOTALLY SOOC - as you can see, I didn't even color correct it.

This is ISO 1250

ISO 2500

ISO 1250

ISO 1250

ISO 1,000

ISO 800

ISO 4,000 (don't really know why it was at 4,000 - I must have switched indoors to outdoors and didn't think about it)

ISO 3200

This is ISO 5,000 set on aperture priority - this is me on my horse - my daughter shot this image.... it's not brain surgery... but nice smooth hardly any digital noise ISO 5,000!!!!!

and these (in the following link) were all my first shots from the D3 - factory settings, the minute I got it.... they are SOOC -- and shot on A priority (out of sheer laziness) - and any vignetting you see comes naturally from my Sigma 10-20 on the FF cameras.

http://jodieotte.com/?p=172

I couldn't honestly tell anyone to waste their money on anything less than a camera with a sensor like in the D3 and D700. I'm not being a "camera snob", I have waited for this technology for years, and it is HERE... whether some people want to take notice or not, this technology is incredible.... anything else would be a waste to me.

Does that mean you could not get a good picture before the D3, a fancy camera does not make you a good photographer

 

[Harmony]

Does that mean you could not get a good picture before the D3, a fancy camera does not make you a good photographer

So are you calling her a lousy photographer?

And the whole point of Jodie's post was to give examples on the D3's and the D700's amazing ISO capabilities. And they are amazing.

No need to be rude.

 

[rufus5150]

Which doesn't have a whole lot to do with what the OP was asking, seeing as he's both a Canon shooter and asking about lenses.

 

[Harmony]

Which doesn't have a whole lot to do with what the OP was asking, seeing as he's both a Canon shooter and asking about lenses.

Agreed.

However, I felt (and still feel) that gsgary was needlessly blunt.

 

[JerryPH]

LOL - that's my husband :mrgreen:

Oh good God, thanks for having a great sense of humor, Jodie... I am really embarrassed this moment. Sorry about that! :blushing: :blushing: :lmao:

No, I didn't do anything with them except resize for web. They are SOOC - I *NEVER* use noiseware, EVER.

Incredible. I see other pics that are very close but not quite that clean, so you have to be nailing the exposure every time in every pic here that you've shown.

After I get the D700, I'd like to talk to you about some of the settings you are using to get these results, if you don't mind? Not the basics like ISO, shutter speed or aperture, but more along the lines of what EV and whe you compose, what are you metering against. If these are things you'd not want to discuss, of course, I would totally understand.

I couldn't honestly tell anyone to waste their money on anything less than a camera with a sensor like in the D3 and D700. I'm not being a "camera snob", I have waited for this technology for years, and it is HERE... whether some people want to take notice or not, this technology is incredible.... anything else would be a waste to me.

I'm very much of the same mind. I don't participate in the brand wars (unless it's with tongue in cheek), and have taken the time to do my own personal research and found very much the same things you have.

Jerry ... I believe your X'mas shopping starts now.

Hmm... I am not sure. I was aiming for just after the holidays, but may not even last till Christmas now... lol.

 

[JodieO]

Does that mean you could not get a good picture before the D3, a fancy camera does not make you a good photographer

Boy, that was a rude one. There are still pictures on my website that I took with a D100, D70, D2X, and D200 - go check them out www.jottephotography.com I've been in business WAY longer than the D3 has been out.

I shared mostly my personal snapshots above taken with the D3 (my son playing football, my daughter with her horse, my backyard, my dog, etc.) showing that the D3 is INCREDIBLE at higher ISOs. I used to avoid low light shots before the D3 because I knew that low shutters plus action (moving kids, moving nature, etc.) was not really going to work very well. Now it is just freeing to be able to take a snapshot of my kid at night in my house with nothing but one lamp, no flash, and it is going to be fantastically sharp.... or I can let a client show later toward sunset and know that I can just increase my ISO and still shoot their kids outdoors as the sun is going down. I just had an NFL player bring his dog this week as his wife wants some blown up black and whites of their dog for their new house and we shot right as the sun was going down - an energetic dog chasing a stick, I was able to freeze, hand held, no flash. It's very freeing not to have to worry so much about lighting conditions holding back even family snapshots.

 

[JodieO]

Which doesn't have a whole lot to do with what the OP was asking, seeing as he's both a Canon shooter and asking about lenses.

Okay, smart@ss, it has to do with the fact that the original poster, was asking if he should upgrade his camera or upgrade the lens.

Then there was some talk about digital noise. I personally would vote for upgrade the camera if he already has a 2.8 lens that isn't working well for him.

I then discussed how some cameras (mainly the Nikon D3) can be amazing at higher ISOs.

Then another poster came in and was asking if I used noise reduction on the images I linked to expressing his interest in obtaining a D700 sooner rather than later. I said no noise reduction, and then wanted to give examples of simple straight out of camera snapshots at various high ISOs from the D3 to illustrate that there is no major digital noise in them.

Back to the original poster ---- Personally, if I were him and wanted to stick with Canon, I wouldn't hesitate to go out and get a Canon 5D - why? Because it is close to the D3s high ISO capabilities. It's full frame, has a better sensor than his Canon XTI.

 

[JodieO]

Oh good God, thanks for having a great sense of humor, Jodie... I am really embarrassed this moment. Sorry about that! :blushing: :blushing: :lmao:


Incredible. I see other pics that are very close but not quite that clean, so you have to be nailing the exposure every time in every pic here that you've shown.

After I get the D700, I'd like to talk to you about some of the settings you are using to get these results, if you don't mind? Not the basics like ISO, shutter speed or aperture, but more along the lines of what EV and whe you compose, what are you metering against. If these are things you'd not want to discuss, of course, I would totally understand.



I'm very much of the same mind. I don't participate in the brand wars (unless it's with tongue in cheek), and have taken the time to do my own personal research and found very much the same things you have.



Hmm... I am not sure. I was aiming for just after the holidays, but may not even last till Christmas now... lol.

No need to be embarrassed, I thought it was funny

Yes, you have to nail your exposure... if you start playing with your curves/levels or adding anything to the images in photoshop, digital noise will start to show.

As far as metering - I will start with the in camera metering, try a setting, "chimp" (i.e., look at my LCD screen) and adjust my shutter or aperture or ISO to whatever I want the LCD screen to show (i.e., proper exposure by the naked eye), then I will double check my histogram to make sure things are exposed properly, then I start shooting. If my lighting conditions change, I do the same thing over again -it's actually a very quick process, but insures that I am not screwing up my exposure. UNLESS I am shooting for my fun and walk around with aperture priority... if I am shooting with aperture priority, I adjust my exposure compensation up or down depending on what I see on the LCD and histogram. I shoot aperture priority when I am shooting sports and family snapshots and such... but will change to manual when I know there is a tricky lighting situation.

Also, I have yet to change anything from factory settings on the D3 except one thing -- the LCD screen brightness. I took a picture with it the minute I got it, and then uploaded, put it on my computer screen (which is callibrated to my lab) and adjusted the brightness of the LCD to match what I saw on the screen. That way, any time I "chimp" the LCD screen, it should be showing just about exactly what I am going to see when I upload.

It was a stretch for me to get the D3 when it came out. I tried to avoid getting it for a while and then I was going through the slow season with business and had just bought a horse (that cost way more than the D3), so I was a little low on cash... but I squeezed it onto a credit card and was scared but never looked back... so I paid it off a few months later, but honestly, I still have a D70, a D2X and a D200 here and I won't even take them on a hike with me... THAT is how much I love the D3, I'm willing to risk harming it for "the shot", but it is insured, thankfully No regrets. This thing amazes me all the time...

Again, not that the camera makes the photographer, but having that tool opened worlds for me with my personal low light stuff that I was always frustrated with when it came to digital noise before.

 

[gsgary]

So are you calling her a lousy photographer?

And the whole point of Jodie's post was to give examples on the D3's and the D700's amazing ISO capabilities. And they are amazing.

No need to be rude.

Sorry i can be a bit blunt sometimes sorry
No i'm not, but you don't need the best equipment to get good shots, not everyone can afford the best equipment, the photographer is the most important part in taking a shot

 

[JodieO]

No i'm not, but you don't need the best equipment to get good shots, not everyone can afford the best equipment, the photographer is the most important part in taking a shot

Absolutely, and I totally agree with that, but dang having the ability to shoot at ISO 5,000 comfortably has changed the way I shoot.... opened up a new world to me personally even in my personal family snapshots. The good news? The D700 has the same sensor and is much cheaper.

Anyone who supports the Nikon line and is actually in business as a pro charging for their work should HIGHLY consider the D700 or the D3... they should be able to afford it - after all, it is a *GREAT* tax deduction.