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

[bribrius]

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.

what are you clamping it too tree branches?

 

[Braineack]

poles, roll balls, chairs, stands, joists, etc.

 

[jaomul]

ISO at higher figures is for when there is low light, not almost no light. Night shots work as stated above because of long exposures. This is a night shot using a d7100 at iso 800. It is a 30 second exposure. I had a tripod but no remote and didn't want to keep my finger on the shutter for 4 minutes, which would have been required if I used iso 100


Gorch Fock Cobh 14 marc 2014 (7) by jaomul, on Flickr

Here its long exposures not high iso that helps get the shot

Below is a better example of when high iso is need and you can't use a tripod or a long exposure, ISO 4500 converted to black and white as the lighting was dreadful

Brawl off the ball charity event (5) by jaomul, on Flickr

The d7100 is not to bad at high ISO, your approach to night shots needs a different approach, where night shots don't need high iso

 

[bribrius]

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!

you know why. cameras, they are all junk. doesn't matter if you spend five hundred or five k. All junk. The differences in low light and image is probably a stones throw between the lowest end and the highest end. They could make one that probably did better, but why would they? you are going to buy one anyway and the more it sucks the more you will buy gear and upgrade. Plus they need just a increment higher for next years releases. so you up grade, and get a minimal better performance. But then realize that is junk too. They are all junk. I could have probably went full frame, and it would make such a miniscule amount of difference I would want to throw that across the lake even more. Because that would be junk too. They all are. Kind of reminds me of automobiles. They make them eighty years and still cant make one worth a damn without a pile of recalls and stupidity. Except they actually COULD. But hey, why? you will buy one anyway. Might as well go buy a fifty dollar point and shoot and call it a fukn day..
sorry. im not sounding negative am I?

 

[D-B-J]

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

Whoah... that's deep.

And I agree completely.

 

[Braineack]

im not sounding negative am I?

ignorant and stubborn if anything. #nofiltersneeded.

 

[pixmedic]

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!

you know why. cameras, they are all junk. doesn't matter if you spend five hundred or five k. All junk. The differences in low light and image is probably a stones throw between the lowest end and the highest end. They could make one that probably did better, but why would they? you are going to buy one anyway and the more it sucks the more you will buy gear and upgrade. Plus they need just a increment higher for next years releases. so you up grade, and get a minimal better performance. But then realize that is junk too. They are all junk. I could have probably went full frame, and it would make such a miniscule amount of difference I would want to throw that across the lake even more. Because that would be junk too. They all are. Kind of reminds me of automobiles. They make them eighty years and still cant make one worth a damn without a pile of recalls and stupidity. Except they actually COULD. But hey, why? you will buy one anyway. Might as well go buy a fifty dollar point and shoot and call it a fukn day..
sorry. im not sounding negative am I?

I completely agree.
just send me your junk D7100 and I will send you my Samsung WB150 P&S. its got built in bluetooth and wifi. takes great night pictures, and is small enough to stick in your pocket. no need to carry around that large junk camera when you can just use my nice Samsung. I will even be generous enough to consider it an even trade.

 

[robbins.photo]

poles, roll balls, chairs, stands, joists, etc.

Bystanders.. lol

 

[robbins.photo]

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!

you know why. cameras, they are all junk. doesn't matter if you spend five hundred or five k. All junk. The differences in low light and image is probably a stones throw between the lowest end and the highest end. They could make one that probably did better, but why would they? you are going to buy one anyway and the more it sucks the more you will buy gear and upgrade. Plus they need just a increment higher for next years releases. so you up grade, and get a minimal better performance. But then realize that is junk too. They are all junk. I could have probably went full frame, and it would make such a miniscule amount of difference I would want to throw that across the lake even more. Because that would be junk too. They all are. Kind of reminds me of automobiles. They make them eighty years and still cant make one worth a damn without a pile of recalls and stupidity. Except they actually COULD. But hey, why? you will buy one anyway. Might as well go buy a fifty dollar point and shoot and call it a fukn day..
sorry. im not sounding negative am I?

Like anything camera, you have to make certain trade offs.

It's pretty easy to apply a huge amount light amplfication to an image that's only a couple of hundred pixels by a hundred or so pixels tall and still come out with something usable. It's pretty much impossible to do that with an image that's 6000x4000 at that same level of amplification and not have it turn out to be unusable garbage. Your camera is going to have certain limitations, it's just an engineering fact. Not much point in blaming the people who make them for that or taking it personally. There are simply certain engineering limitations that they have to deal with that cannot be ignored.

 

[bribrius]

im not sounding negative am I?

ignorant and stubborn if anything. #nofiltersneeded.

well, yeah. there is that. call it a temper tantrum if you will.

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!

you know why. cameras, they are all junk. doesn't matter if you spend five hundred or five k. All junk. The differences in low light and image is probably a stones throw between the lowest end and the highest end. They could make one that probably did better, but why would they? you are going to buy one anyway and the more it sucks the more you will buy gear and upgrade. Plus they need just a increment higher for next years releases. so you up grade, and get a minimal better performance. But then realize that is junk too. They are all junk. I could have probably went full frame, and it would make such a miniscule amount of difference I would want to throw that across the lake even more. Because that would be junk too. They all are. Kind of reminds me of automobiles. They make them eighty years and still cant make one worth a damn without a pile of recalls and stupidity. Except they actually COULD. But hey, why? you will buy one anyway. Might as well go buy a fifty dollar point and shoot and call it a fukn day..
sorry. im not sounding negative am I?

I completely agree.
just send me your junk D7100 and I will send you my Samsung WB150 P&S. its got built in bluetooth and wifi. takes great night pictures, and is small enough to stick in your pocket. no need to carry around that large junk camera when you can just use my nice Samsung. I will even be generous enough to consider it an even trade.

you are funny.

on a serious note these I read a while back and I would say they are just resonating with me.
one I cant find the link now but it was also rockewell and went something like "for image and purposes all cameras from a generation are generally the same"
which I didn't quite "get" at the time but I am now. which might explain my somewhat derogatory post above. Pretty large concept if you think about it. For image quality, every camera within a generation is pretty much the same. And I think he means human generation. That is a lot of cameras that are somewhat the equivalent of eachother to varying degrees. I didn't quite "get" it. now I do.

and..
"

Just about any camera, regardless of how good or bad it is, can be used to create outstanding photographs for magazine covers, winning photo contests and hanging in art galleries. The quality of a lens or camera has almost nothing do with the quality of images it can be used to produce.You probably already have all the equipment you need, if you'd just learn to make the best of it. Better gear will not make you any better photos, since the gear can't make you a better photographer. Photographers make photos, not cameras.It's sad how few people realize any of this, and spend all their time blaming poor results on their equipment, instead of spending that time learning how to see and learning how to manipulate and interpret light. "

Your Camera Doesn't Matter


now that's a pill to swallow.







​

 

[bribrius]

course I also read a anti telephoto lens article there a while back, which I didn't get either. now I am. I was overusing telephoto when using a simple fixed lens and my feet will produce better results. That is part of the reason I bought the 50mm. I needed to learn to walk.

 

[robbins.photo]

on a serious note these I read a while back and I would say they are just resonating with me.
one I cant find the link now but it was also rockewell and went something like "for image and purposes all cameras from a generation are generally the same"
which I didn't quite "get" at the time but I am now. which might explain my somewhat derogatory post above.

and..
"

Just about any camera, regardless of how good or bad it is, can be used to create outstanding photographs for magazine covers, winning photo contests and hanging in art galleries. The quality of a lens or camera has almost nothing do with the quality of images it can be used to produce.You probably already have all the equipment you need, if you'd just learn to make the best of it. Better gear will not make you any better photos, since the gear can't make you a better photographer. Photographers make photos, not cameras.It's sad how few people realize any of this, and spend all their time blaming poor results on their equipment, instead of spending that time learning how to see and learning how to manipulate and interpret light. "

Your Camera Doesn't Matter







​

Well on this one I'm afraid we'll have to agree to compeltely disagree. A great camera won't make up for a lack of photographic skill, no matter how great it is or how many features it might have, but no matter how skilled of a photographer I might be it is absolutely impossible to deny the inherint limitations of the camera system I'm using and anyone who says otherwise, well I'm sorry but they are just dead wrong.

I cannot take a $50 point and shoot and using it under the exact same conditions as my D5200 produce an image that is going to be comparable in image quality. I cannot take my D5200 and using an F/4.5 to 5.6 lens and using the exact same technique and short exposure times get the same kind of image I can from one of my F/1.8 primes. If I take an image using a $50 point and shoot and I increase the image size to the same as the 6000x4000 default size of the 5200, it will look like crap. Any camera can take halfway decent images if you want to only view them on a tiny screen, sure. Put them on a full sized computer monitor and you start to notice some of the differences. Print them out in anything larger than 4x6 and you really seriously start to notice these differences.

It doesn't matter if I took the shot or Ansel Adams did, it's a limitation of the equipment used.

A great photographer can understand how best to use what he/she has and produce a much "better" image using the same equipment than someone with more limited knowledge or experience, sure. He/she will have a better understanding of how to use his equipment, how to work with what he has to get the best shot, etc - But your confusing artistic expression and technical skill with image quality, IQ. You can use the first two to make up for some deficiencies in the second, but you cannot in any way shape or form ignore the technical limitations of the equipment your working with just because you want to believe it is so.

 

[bribrius]

on a serious note these I read a while back and I would say they are just resonating with me.
one I cant find the link now but it was also rockewell and went something like "for image and purposes all cameras from a generation are generally the same"
which I didn't quite "get" at the time but I am now. which might explain my somewhat derogatory post above.

and..
"

Just about any camera, regardless of how good or bad it is, can be used to create outstanding photographs for magazine covers, winning photo contests and hanging in art galleries. The quality of a lens or camera has almost nothing do with the quality of images it can be used to produce.You probably already have all the equipment you need, if you'd just learn to make the best of it. Better gear will not make you any better photos, since the gear can't make you a better photographer. Photographers make photos, not cameras.It's sad how few people realize any of this, and spend all their time blaming poor results on their equipment, instead of spending that time learning how to see and learning how to manipulate and interpret light. "

Your Camera Doesn't Matter







​

Well on this one I'm afraid we'll have to agree to compeltely disagree. A great camera won't make up for a lack of photographic skill, no matter how great it is or how many features it might have, but no matter how skilled of a photographer I might be it is absolutely impossible to deny the inherint limitations of the camera system I'm using and anyone who says otherwise, well I'm sorry but they are just dead wrong.

I cannot take a $50 point and shoot and using it under the exact same conditions as my D5200 produce an image that is going to be comparable in image quality. I cannot take my D5200 and using an F/4.5 to 5.6 lens and using the exact same technique and short exposure times get the same kind of image I can from one of my F/1.8 primes. If I take an image using a $50 point and shoot and I increase the image size to the same as the 6000x4000 default size of the 5200, it will look like crap. Any camera can take halfway decent images if you want to only view them on a tiny screen, sure. Put them on a full sized computer monitor and you start to notice some of the differences. Print them out in anything larger than 4x6 and you really seriously start to notice these differences.

It doesn't matter if I took the shot or Ansel Adams did, it's a limitation of the equipment used.

A great photographer can understand how best to use what he/she has and produce a much "better" image using the same equipment than someone with more limited knowledge or experience, sure. He/she will have a better understanding of how to use his equipment, how to work with what he has to get the best shot, etc - But your confusing artistic expression and technical skill with image quality, IQ. You can use the first two to make up for some deficiencies in the second, but you cannot in any way shape or form ignore the technical limitations of the equipment your working with just because you want to believe it is so.

translation "the site you have been reading and studying is dogma"

 

[robbins.photo]

on a serious note these I read a while back and I would say they are just resonating with me.
one I cant find the link now but it was also rockewell and went something like "for image and purposes all cameras from a generation are generally the same"
which I didn't quite "get" at the time but I am now. which might explain my somewhat derogatory post above.

and..
"

Just about any camera, regardless of how good or bad it is, can be used to create outstanding photographs for magazine covers, winning photo contests and hanging in art galleries. The quality of a lens or camera has almost nothing do with the quality of images it can be used to produce.You probably already have all the equipment you need, if you'd just learn to make the best of it. Better gear will not make you any better photos, since the gear can't make you a better photographer. Photographers make photos, not cameras.It's sad how few people realize any of this, and spend all their time blaming poor results on their equipment, instead of spending that time learning how to see and learning how to manipulate and interpret light. "

Your Camera Doesn't Matter







​

Well on this one I'm afraid we'll have to agree to compeltely disagree. A great camera won't make up for a lack of photographic skill, no matter how great it is or how many features it might have, but no matter how skilled of a photographer I might be it is absolutely impossible to deny the inherint limitations of the camera system I'm using and anyone who says otherwise, well I'm sorry but they are just dead wrong.

I cannot take a $50 point and shoot and using it under the exact same conditions as my D5200 produce an image that is going to be comparable in image quality. I cannot take my D5200 and using an F/4.5 to 5.6 lens and using the exact same technique and short exposure times get the same kind of image I can from one of my F/1.8 primes. If I take an image using a $50 point and shoot and I increase the image size to the same as the 6000x4000 default size of the 5200, it will look like crap. Any camera can take halfway decent images if you want to only view them on a tiny screen, sure. Put them on a full sized computer monitor and you start to notice some of the differences. Print them out in anything larger than 4x6 and you really seriously start to notice these differences.

It doesn't matter if I took the shot or Ansel Adams did, it's a limitation of the equipment used.

A great photographer can understand how best to use what he/she has and produce a much "better" image using the same equipment than someone with more limited knowledge or experience, sure. He/she will have a better understanding of how to use his equipment, how to work with what he has to get the best shot, etc - But your confusing artistic expression and technical skill with image quality, IQ. You can use the first two to make up for some deficiencies in the second, but you cannot in any way shape or form ignore the technical limitations of the equipment your working with just because you want to believe it is so.

translation "the site you have been reading and studying is dogma"

Well I wouldn't say "dogma" per see. I would say that Mr. Rockwell tells a lot of folks what they want to hear in a lot of situations because his income depends on people coming to the site and reading his stuff, so as a result I'd really take a lot of what is written there with a huge dose of salt. Well that and maybe some advil. But my point here is pretty simple actually, you give somebody with the skills and abilities of an Ansel Adams a crappy cell phone camera and the images they capture are bound to be "better" than anything I could do in my wildest dreams using even a top of the line full frame camera in the arena of artistic expression, composition, etc. But if you want a wall sized print out of that, forget it. And if you blow it up enough it will become pretty obvious pretty quick that it might be a great photograph, but it was taken with a crappy camera. No level of skill can overcome that, it's a technical limitation.

So yes, I can do what rockwell did and produce some photographs on a cell phone or low end point and shoot that will look just fine if I put them up in sizes that used for embedding them into a web page. View them full screen and you'll start to notice the differences between a high resolution image taken with good quality professional glass and something taken with a cell phone or point and shoot really quick. Just think about it, if this premise were even remotely true that the camera really didn't matter at all, then why on earth would guys who shoot professionally and who know their trade bother wasting a ton of money on equipment that "didn't matter?"

Why wouldn't they all just be carrying a dirt cheap point and shoot in their pocket and call it good?

 

[Braineack]

course I also read a anti telephoto lens article there a while back, which I didn't get either. now I am. I was overusing telephoto when using a simple fixed lens and my feet will produce better results. That is part of the reason I bought the 50mm. I needed to learn to walk.

Telephoto does not equal zoom.