anyone have any shooting at night tips for a 7100 because right now

[runnah]

Your eye has more dynamic range than a camera sensor that is why you can see down a scope.

 

[memento]

I can see, why cant the camera?

I don't understand why my camera cant see what i see.

you are now aware of how far superior the human eye is to electronics.

 

[Derrel]

here's a tip... buy a tripod.

and here's another... read up on long exposures.

I have a tripod. But is this really that hard of a shot I should need a long exposure on a tripod? REALLY? surrounded by streetlamps, lights on the other side of the lake. full moon. stars out. I could see everything clear as day with my eyes. Not like it was pitch black. I didn't think I was expecting too much here.

You need to read up on exposure. You would have had more luck walking on water. Hand-held at night at 1/60 second???

LMFAO. Sorry dude, but seriously, I am LMFAO!

 

[bribrius]

TRIPOD. Wider aperture prime. TRIPOD.

But really, there's only so much you can do without a tripod.

Best,
Jake

here's a tip... buy a tripod.

and here's another... read up on long exposures.

I have a tripod. But is this really that hard of a shot I should need a long exposure on a tripod? REALLY? surrounded by streetlamps, lights on the other side of the lake. full moon. stars out. I could see everything clear as day with my eyes. Not like it was pitch black. I didn't think I was expecting too much here.

You need to read up on exposure. You would have had more luck walking on water. Hand-held at night at 1/60 second???

LMFAO. Sorry dude, but seriously, I am LMFAO!

My expectations were obviously too high here.
NOt really that funny. i was grasping at straws. wasn't expecting it to be such a issue. I didn't stay at 1/60 or start at 1/60. over 1/100 was REALLY dark. i worked my way down. So went down to 1/80- 1/60 and fired off ten, deleted the blurs and ended up with about the best I could come up with. usually at this point I put the camera on the vehicle if nothing else but my then I was so annoyed I think I put down rubber leaving.

 

[robbins.photo]

here's a tip... buy a tripod.

and here's another... read up on long exposures.

I have a tripod. But is this really that hard of a shot I should need a long exposure on a tripod? REALLY? surrounded by streetlamps, lights on the other side of the lake. full moon. stars out. I could see everything clear as day with my eyes. Not like it was pitch black. I didn't think I was expecting too much here.

I know... Right!!!

I have the same problems shooting high school football games under stadium lights. I can see fine!! I don't understand why my camera cant see what i see. Everybody says i need to learn better technique but i know there is something wrong with my camera!

Well when you buy your very first 52 MP plus camera with a dynamic range in excess of 24 fstops equipped with what is by far the worlds fastest (hands down, no comparison) autofocus system and is also equipped with a lens that has front glass element that actually changes shape to accomodate for either wide angle or telephoto plus an automated aperture system that automatically adjusts the aperture based on focal length and light level, all tied into to a processing system that stomps the worlds best Cray super computer into the dirt, then you might have a shot.

Until then.. eh, buy a tripod.

 

[bribrius]

I have a tripod. But is this really that hard of a shot I should need a long exposure on a tripod? REALLY? surrounded by streetlamps, lights on the other side of the lake. full moon. stars out. I could see everything clear as day with my eyes. Not like it was pitch black. I didn't think I was expecting too much here.

I know... Right!!!

I have the same problems shooting high school football games under stadium lights. I can see fine!! I don't understand why my camera cant see what i see. Everybody says i need to learn better technique but i know there is something wrong with my camera!

Well when you buy your very first 52 MP plus camera with a dynamic range in excess of 24 fstops equipped with what is by far the worlds fastest (hands down, no comparison) autofocus system and is also equipped with a lens that has front glass element that actually changes shape to accomodate for either wide angle or telephoto plus an automated aperture system that automatically adjusts the aperture based on focal length and light level, all tied into to a processing system that stomps the worlds best Cray super computer into the dirt, then you might have a shot.

Until then.. eh, buy a tripod.

yeah, but we are getting screwed tech wise. night vision rifle scope isn't much more than this camera and lense and that baby sees at night. I should super glue one to the end of the camera lens maybe then the stupid thing would get the hint.

 

[robbins.photo]

I know... Right!!!

I have the same problems shooting high school football games under stadium lights. I can see fine!! I don't understand why my camera cant see what i see. Everybody says i need to learn better technique but i know there is something wrong with my camera!

Well when you buy your very first 52 MP plus camera with a dynamic range in excess of 24 fstops equipped with what is by far the worlds fastest (hands down, no comparison) autofocus system and is also equipped with a lens that has front glass element that actually changes shape to accomodate for either wide angle or telephoto plus an automated aperture system that automatically adjusts the aperture based on focal length and light level, all tied into to a processing system that stomps the worlds best Cray super computer into the dirt, then you might have a shot.

Until then.. eh, buy a tripod.

yeah, but we are getting screwed tech wise. night vision rifle scope isn't much more than this camera and lense and that baby sees at night. I should super glue one to the end of the camera lens maybe then the stupid thing would get the hint.

Night vision electronics generally rely on amplifying available light and then projecting a visible image. The less light you have to work with, the more that light is amplified the worse the image gets. While for things like scopes you don't really need a clear crisp image with good color representation, for cameras people are kind of fussy about that sort of thing.

Your camera can do this as well, to a more limited extent - by increasing your ISO. However once you start getting past a certain point in amplification the image gets grainy, starts losing dynamic range, etc. So why is it so much more noticeable in the camera? The size of the image. When your dealing with a scope the image being presented is tiny by comparison, it's hard to see all the distortion and noise. When your looking at images from the camera though, the image size is huge by comparison. So yes, noise and other problems are going to be far more noticeable.

 

[Derrel]

TRIPOD. Wider aperture prime. TRIPOD.

But really, there's only so much you can do without a tripod.

Best,
Jake

I have a tripod. But is this really that hard of a shot I should need a long exposure on a tripod? REALLY? surrounded by streetlamps, lights on the other side of the lake. full moon. stars out. I could see everything clear as day with my eyes. Not like it was pitch black. I didn't think I was expecting too much here.

You need to read up on exposure. You would have had more luck walking on water. Hand-held at night at 1/60 second???

LMFAO. Sorry dude, but seriously, I am LMFAO!

My expectations were obviously too high here.
NOt really that funny. i was grasping at straws. wasn't expecting it to be such a issue. I didn't stay at 1/60 or start at 1/60. over 1/100 was REALLY dark. i worked my way down. So went down to 1/80- 1/60 and fired off ten, deleted the blurs and ended up with about the best I could come up with. usually at this point I put the camera on the vehicle if nothing else but my then I was so annoyed I think I put down rubber leaving.

You mean speeds faster than 1/100 second at night came out DARK?????? No kidding? You don't say!

And you ended up getting so frustrated and mad that you burned rubber leaving the scene????

Yes, your expectations as to the behavior of LIGHT at nighttime were overly optimistic, for sure. Shooting HAND-HELD pictures at NIGHT at daytime exposure settings is...an impossibility. I will give you some advice about shooting at nightime, based on experience that goes back a long time. Pick an aperture that works well at night for man-made scenes and the natural world. Let';s standardize on ONE, single f/stop that will give nice starburst effects to point sources, and which has good depth of field, and which actually works well. That f/stop would be f/8. It works on buildings, city-scapes, and fireworks. It's not too large, it's not too small.

Set the lens to f/8. Put the camera on a tripod. Set the self-timer. Start with exposure times of 20 seconds in bright, city environments. In small towns, start at 30 seconds. In the suburbs, start at 45 seconds. On the outskirts of towns, start at 90 seconds. In remote wilderness, start at 2 minutes 30 seconds.

See what happens. If you have no tripod, a firm support (picnic table, bench, concrete wall, etc.) can be used. Just make sure the camera is stable. You very well might need to prop the lens up with a solid object when using a "found" camera support.

 

[bribrius]

Well when you buy your very first 52 MP plus camera with a dynamic range in excess of 24 fstops equipped with what is by far the worlds fastest (hands down, no comparison) autofocus system and is also equipped with a lens that has front glass element that actually changes shape to accomodate for either wide angle or telephoto plus an automated aperture system that automatically adjusts the aperture based on focal length and light level, all tied into to a processing system that stomps the worlds best Cray super computer into the dirt, then you might have a shot.

Until then.. eh, buy a tripod.

yeah, but we are getting screwed tech wise. night vision rifle scope isn't much more than this camera and lense and that baby sees at night. I should super glue one to the end of the camera lens maybe then the stupid thing would get the hint.

Night vision electronics generally rely on amplifying available light and then projecting a visible image. The less light you have to work with, the more that light is amplified the worse the image gets. While for things like scopes you don't really need a clear crisp image with good color representation, for cameras people are kind of fussy about that sort of thing.

Your camera can do this as well, to a more limited extent - by increasing your ISO. However once you start getting past a certain point in amplification the image gets grainy, starts losing dynamic range, etc. So why is it so much more noticeable in the camera? The size of the image. When your dealing with a scope the image being presented is tiny by comparison, it's hard to see all the distortion and noise. When your looking at images from the camera though, the image size is huge by comparison. So yes, noise and other problems are going to be far more noticeable.

thanks. I guess that explains why night vision seems on the surface to me so much better than a camera. which is part of my frustration. Between my eye seeing it, night vision sees it. Im getting a little ticked off at the camera thing thinking it should be better and it's b.s. that it isn't..
But your explanation kind of helped.

 

[runnah]

Learning what your camera can't do is as important as learning what it can do.

 

[bribrius]

TRIPOD. Wider aperture prime. TRIPOD.

But really, there's only so much you can do without a tripod.

Best,
Jake

You need to read up on exposure. You would have had more luck walking on water. Hand-held at night at 1/60 second???

LMFAO. Sorry dude, but seriously, I am LMFAO!

My expectations were obviously too high here.
NOt really that funny. i was grasping at straws. wasn't expecting it to be such a issue. I didn't stay at 1/60 or start at 1/60. over 1/100 was REALLY dark. i worked my way down. So went down to 1/80- 1/60 and fired off ten, deleted the blurs and ended up with about the best I could come up with. usually at this point I put the camera on the vehicle if nothing else but my then I was so annoyed I think I put down rubber leaving.

You mean speeds faster than 1/100 second at night came out DARK?????? No kidding? You don't say!

And you ended up getting so frustrated and mad that you burned rubber leaving the scene????

Yes, your expectations as to the behavior of LIGHT at nighttime were overly optimistic, for sure. Shooting HAND-HELD pictures at NIGHT at daytime exposure settings is...an impossibility. I will give you some advice about shooting at nightime, based on experience that goes back a long time. Pick an aperture that works well at night for man-made scenes and the natural world. Let';s standardize on ONE, single f/stop that will give nice starburst effects to point sources, and which has good depth of field, and which actually works well. That f/stop would be f/8. It works on buildings, city-scapes, and fireworks. It's not too large, it's not too small.

Set the lens to f/8. Put the camera on a tripod. Set the self-timer. Start with exposure times of 20 seconds in bright, city environments. In small towns, start at 30 seconds. In the suburbs, start at 45 seconds. On the outskirts of towns, start at 90 seconds. In remote wilderness, start at 2 minutes 30 seconds.

See what happens. If you have no tripod, a firm support (picnic table, bench, concrete wall, etc.) can be used. Just make sure the camera is stable. You very well might need to prop the lens up with a solid object when using a "found" camera support.

this is actually really helpful as I usually go through lots of trial and error. I have a tripod I just don't carry it. Actually never used it away from home, I don't carry it around.
Last time I did this, long exposures, I ended up with light streams in the city. Kind of neat in a way but also unavoidable im guessing? no way around it doing long exposures I suppose ill have to stay away from the busy places to avoid the light streams. Again, actually really helpful I usually burn off at least five shots just getting the camera settings right this might mean I only waste two.

also different. Going to f8? now I feel I have no choices. I automatically go to the highest aperture I can. which means minimum focal length I can for what im shooting. Thinking aperture is lesser of evils. bump up the iso to what I think I can get away with. And last lower the shutter knowing that causes the blur.. If I cant get a keeper I bump the iso again. when I start getting noise I sadly start lowering shutter speed again, bump exposure and hope and pray. I basically feel I have no options. like a camera owns me and it puts me up against a wall with no choice. I end up with everything near maxed out far as I can go..
feeling like the camera is limiting and controlling me and im nolonger picking the shot.

 

[robbins.photo]

yeah, but we are getting screwed tech wise. night vision rifle scope isn't much more than this camera and lense and that baby sees at night. I should super glue one to the end of the camera lens maybe then the stupid thing would get the hint.

Night vision electronics generally rely on amplifying available light and then projecting a visible image. The less light you have to work with, the more that light is amplified the worse the image gets. While for things like scopes you don't really need a clear crisp image with good color representation, for cameras people are kind of fussy about that sort of thing.

Your camera can do this as well, to a more limited extent - by increasing your ISO. However once you start getting past a certain point in amplification the image gets grainy, starts losing dynamic range, etc. So why is it so much more noticeable in the camera? The size of the image. When your dealing with a scope the image being presented is tiny by comparison, it's hard to see all the distortion and noise. When your looking at images from the camera though, the image size is huge by comparison. So yes, noise and other problems are going to be far more noticeable.

thanks. I guess that explains why night vision seems on the surface to me so much better than a camera. which is part of my frustration. Between my eye seeing it, night vision sees it. Im getting a little ticked off at the camera thing thinking it should be better and it's b.s. that it isn't..
But your explanation kind of helped.

Good deal, happy to help. Camera systems really don't deal that well with low light situations but there are ways to work around it as others have mentioned.

 

[bribrius]

Night vision electronics generally rely on amplifying available light and then projecting a visible image. The less light you have to work with, the more that light is amplified the worse the image gets. While for things like scopes you don't really need a clear crisp image with good color representation, for cameras people are kind of fussy about that sort of thing.

Your camera can do this as well, to a more limited extent - by increasing your ISO. However once you start getting past a certain point in amplification the image gets grainy, starts losing dynamic range, etc. So why is it so much more noticeable in the camera? The size of the image. When your dealing with a scope the image being presented is tiny by comparison, it's hard to see all the distortion and noise. When your looking at images from the camera though, the image size is huge by comparison. So yes, noise and other problems are going to be far more noticeable.

thanks. I guess that explains why night vision seems on the surface to me so much better than a camera. which is part of my frustration. Between my eye seeing it, night vision sees it. Im getting a little ticked off at the camera thing thinking it should be better and it's b.s. that it isn't..
But your explanation kind of helped.

Good deal, happy to help. Camera systems really don't deal that well with low light situations but there are ways to work around it as others have mentioned.

I see a lot of people on here taking great night shots. runnah posted one a couple weeks ago off a road that was fabulous. I want to be able to do good night shots. plus, generally I have more opportunity to shoot at night.

 

[Derrel]

Years ago, one of the photo magazines had a portfolio of a very excellent night shooter. It was his method to shoot almost every regular night photo at f/8. He said by settling on f/8, he got the benefits I mentioned: a good "starburst" on point light sources, and exposure times that were easy to estimate. This was back in the film days, so ISO values were typically either 64 or 100 for color slide film, and normally, about 125 ASA for fine-grained B&W negative film, or 400 for "fast" B&W film. The encapsulated advice he gave was, "Shoot your night shots at f/8, and soon, you'll be able to estimate the proper exposure pretty well."

If you do not want to carry a tripod, maybe you could look into something a bit easier to carry, like a large C-clamp with a 1/4 x 20 bolt welded to it, and using a small but sturdy ball head on that, or a pair of Vise-Grip pliers with a 1/4 x 20 thread.

For years I have owned one of these mini-clamps with 1/4x20 thread, and I have used it with a small Cullman brand ball-head: Mini Camera Clamp Mount | eBay

You could also buy a Manfrotto Super Clamp, and mount a small ballhead on the spigot.
Manfrotto 035RL Super Clamp with Standard Stud 035RL B&H Photo

You want some way to keep the camera steady for 20 to 10,000 seconds.

 

[Braineack]

I see a lot of people on here taking great night shots. runnah posted one a couple weeks ago off a road that was fabulous. I want to be able to do good night shots. plus, generally I have more opportunity to shoot at night.

Ask them how they did it and what the camera settings were and what the ambient lighting conditions were at the time...

You could also buy a Manfrotto Super Clamp, and mount a small ballhead on the spigot.
Manfrotto 035RL Super Clamp with Standard Stud 035RL B&H Photo

I did this. I have a super clamp and ballhead and use it for both my camera and flashes.