Best Cameras for Low Light?

[TCampbell]

The Sony NEX would come up as a great low light camera "in it's category" because it uses an APS-C sensor and most MILC cameras have considerably smaller sensors. But all DSLRs have APS-C sensors... or larger. The NEX is a MILC (Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera). It doesn't have a true reflex mirror and pentaprism with phase-detect auto-focusing. So it's not as fast as a DSLR, but it's more compact because not having a reflex mirror (which takes up a lot of space) means it can have a smaller sensor body.

Here's the physics of sensors and low light:

A sensor is covered with light sensitive receptors called "photo-sites". A black & white sensor is overlaid with a color mask called a bayer mask. The mask has a checkerboard of colors where 4 photo-sites are combined in an arrangement with 2 green photo-sites, 1 red, and 1 blue (human eyes are more sensitive to green so it's more realistic if the camera is also more sensitive to green.). This allows the camera to produce color images. When you cluster those black & white photo-sites coating with the bayer mask of colored checker-board patterns, the grouping of 4 photo-sites (2 green + 1 red and 1 blue) create one single "pixel".

The physical size of an individual photo-site is measured in microns. The larger the photo-site, the more sensitive it naturally is to collecting light (it's a bucket with a larger opening... more photons land on it.) A camera with a physically larger sensor size can also have larger photo-sites. That means they are more efficient at gather light.

Full frame DSLRs (e.g. Canon 6D, 5D series, and 1D series as well as the Nikon D3X, D4, D600 and... actually I hate to lump in the D800 because it's a special case) have larger physical sensors and will typically do much better job in low light (they're also noticeably more expensive bodies.) BTW, the reason I excluded the D800 is because while it is a full-frame camera, it has VERY high resolution... which means it actually has tiny photo-sites. It's native noise performance is actually poor compared to other full-frame cameras. BUT... since it's very high resolution, and you typically don't need all that resolution, when you resample the images back to an equivalent resolution of most other full-frame cameras, the noise tends to get smoothed out and it performs quite well.

That's the CAMERA. But now let's talk about the LENS.

The lens has a HUGE impact on how much light it can gather. If the physical diameter of one lens is twice as wide as another, then that lens with the larger opening is more efficient at gathering available light. This is described as the focal ratio. The ratio is the number of times the diameter of the lens can be divided into the focal length of the lens. An f/4 lens means it's best possible focal ratio is f/4 and that means that you can divide it's widest clear aperture into it's focal length four times. If it were a 100mm lens then it would have a 25mm diameter clear aperture. At f/2 lens means it's clear aperture only divides in two times. With that same 100mm focal length, the f/2 lens would have a clear aperture of 50mm wide. And because of the way the area of a circle is calculated, a 50mm area actually collects four times as much light as a 25mm aperture (not merely two times more.)

So while there are lots of great cameras on the market when it comes to low light, it's really the LENS that will make the biggest difference. If I compare all the various "currently marketed" (so we're ignoring the old models) cameras by all the vendors in a similar price category (e.g. let's just pick on $750 camera bodies) then you'll find that the ISO performance difference is probably not all that great. Some will be better than others... but they wont be FOUR TIMES better... they'll be more like 10% better... 20% better, etc. BUT... if you merely buy a lens with a lower focal ratio (more efficient at gathering available light) you can literally have a lens that's collecting TEN TIMES MORE LIGHT! That's a HUGE difference.

When it comes to determine what influences the quality of your images, the lenses are always more important than the camera body (assuming the camera body isn't junk.)

Buy a Nikon. Buy a Canon. Buy a Sony. We don't care. But buy a lens with a LOW FOCAL RATIO if you want to do well in low light. That's what will make the biggest difference.

 

[WickedWitch]

When it comes to determine what influences the quality of your images, the lenses are always more important than the camera body (assuming the camera body isn't junk.)

Buy a Nikon. Buy a Canon. Buy a Sony. We don't care. But buy a lens with a LOW FOCAL RATIO if you want to do well in low light. That's what will make the biggest difference.

I was wondering about that. Is it possible that my current camera is capable of doing well with a different lens? I posted it's specs in the OP. When I got the camera there weren't a lot of choices being that it is a 4:3 camera mount. I haven't even looked to see if there is anything else, I pretty much just gave up on the camera all together. I figured it wasn't keeping up with the things I wanted to do. It's been pretty darn good to me but at 5MP it's pretty far behind the times.

 

[TCampbell]

When it comes to determine what influences the quality of your images, the lenses are always more important than the camera body (assuming the camera body isn't junk.)

Buy a Nikon. Buy a Canon. Buy a Sony. We don't care. But buy a lens with a LOW FOCAL RATIO if you want to do well in low light. That's what will make the biggest difference.

I was wondering about that. Is it possible that my current camera is capable of doing well with a different lens? I posted it's specs in the OP. When I got the camera there weren't a lot of choices being that it is a 4:3 camera mount. I haven't even looked to see if there is anything else, I pretty much just gave up on the camera all together. I figured it wasn't keeping up with the things I wanted to do. It's been pretty darn good to me but at 5MP it's pretty far behind the times.

You have a "Four Thirds" camera (that's the sensor size). It can technically use any "four thirds" lens (Important: NOT to be confused with "micro four thirds" which is a different body and lens type although the sensor size is technically the same.

You can find a list of four thirds lenses here: SLR Lenses| B&H Photo Video (this happens to be a page at B&H Photo). Notice that you can get lenses from a variety of brands... you don't just have to buy them from Olympus / Zuiko).

For example:

Here's a 14-35mm lens (on a full-frame DSLR this would be the equivalent of a 28-70mm lens) which can provide a focal ratio of f/2 at all focal lengths. f/2 is 3 full stops better than f/5.6 ... or 8 times as much light. That's HUGE!

Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 ED SWD Zuiko Zoom Lens for Olympus 261011

Before you run right out and buy it, there are a few factors to consider:

1) This lens is $2300.00

2) Your camera is 8 years old and performs well below the capabilities of a Canon EOS XT (aka 350D). See: Olympus E-500 EVOLT Review: Digital Photography Review

3) Do you _really_ want to buy a $2300.00 lens for a camera that's basically out-dated?

That lens was basically the only constant focal ratio lens I could spot for a four-thirds system that had a "normal" zoom range.

Here's another example: Olympus 25mm f/2.8 ED Zuiko Lens for Olympus Digital &

That lens is only $250. It's an f/2.8 lens. It's not a zoom. It provides the equivalent of using a 50mm lens on a full-frame DSLR. In other words, it's basically the equivalent of the "nifty fifty" which you can buy for most DSLRs for about $125... but for the four thirds system it'll cost you double (probably economies of scale).

If you're current camera were providing ISO speeds and noise levels competitive with the current crop of cameras AND if the investment in lenses could be carried forward by replacing the body, then I'd say buy the lenses. BUT... given that four thirds isn't popular, there are fewer lenses, and the investment required is higher, I'd probably just switch to a more current DSLR body and invest in low focal ratios for those cameras. You can buy a Nikon or a Canon, buy some fast low-focal ratio lenses... and years from now you can choose to upgrade to a better body knowing that your lens investment is protected and you can still use them.

My intent behind my earlier comments wasn't necessarily to stick with your camera. Rather it was to point out that, among the current cameras, rather than stress about which one can provide 1/10th stop better ISO performance, look to the lenses for the improvement in light gathering capabilities.

 

[skieur]

At the risk of being hunted down and beaten...what are your thoughts on the Sony NEX cameras? When looking for the best low light camera these came up repeatedly. I've watched videos on them until I'm blue in the face. I'm not sure that I want to go the way of mirrorless but I'm also the person that said I would never give up film. I'm also torn by the way that they are marketed as the future of cameras, that the quality is as good as or better than DSLR's yet are not suggested for anyone who wants to take amateur - professional photos WTF? Thoughts?

The image quality of the Sony NEX cameras compares well with, and is even better than many DSLRs with the same megapixels. The disadvantage is the limited number of lenses and other "add-ons".

skieur

 

[WickedWitch]

Thank you for getting that information for me! Yes I agree, I just need to upgrade to a more stable brand and invest in lenses. I think I was just reluctant to leave it behind, I don't do well with change lol. I've just been getting neurotic about the whole thing. You're insight has been super great.

 

[skieur]

I tend to take the physics with a grain of salt. Comparing the images is the bottom line for me and 10% less noise doesn't mean much if there is still noise in the photo. As far as lenses are concerned if you put the respective best lenses on Canon, Nikon, or Sony cameras they will all give you a similar quality shot. As a matter of fact, lab tests show the Olympus Zuiko lenses to be the best quality, but you don't see many photographers pointing out that fact. There is a difference between marketing/advertising and reality and there is a difference between "physics" and what you see in looking at images.

skieur

 

[StandingBear1983]

The best would be a D3s or D4 with a 0.95f 10k$ leica lens - but for the price you want, i say +1 on the D7000, if you want to go cheaper then the D5100 (same sensor), but you will have less controls and will need to dig in the menus more, but also its not that bad...so i say either the D7000 or the D5100 with a 35mm 1.8G lens, would let you shoot almost in the dark on ISO 6400 on 1.8f.

 

[usayit]

I'm going to be a bit different and recommend the Sony RX1.

* Full Frame
* Great Sensor that ranks up there with the best DSLRs
* Compact
* Probably one of the best optics in the market today.

BUT

It is a fixed lens camera.
It ain't cheap
The reviews focused on image quality are excellent. Handling seems to be a bit unrefined (1st gen product)

 

[skieur]

I'm going to be a bit different and recommend the Sony RX1.

* Full Frame
* Great Sensor that ranks up there with the best DSLRs
* Compact
* Probably one of the best optics in the market today.

BUT

It is a fixed lens camera.
It ain't cheap
The reviews focused on image quality are excellent. Handling seems to be a bit unrefined (1st gen product)

For once I agree with you, but only because I have looked at the image comparisons.

skieur

 

[usayit]

For once I agree with you, ...

woohoo!

 

[ghache]

Thanks for the response. This is why I wanted to hear from people who actually use the cameras, CNET showed the D7000 as being kinda noisy. I'm trying to keep it in the 1k range. I'm not against buying used. I mostly want to know what's best and then I can narrow down what I can afford from there.

D7000 noisy ? WTF

In the DX bodies the D7000 has the best low light performent and this will be the camera I would recomend for you to get.
I have a D7000 and it opened my eyes in regards to night photography.
I use it on 3200ISO and even 6400ISO and is VERY happy with the results.

BTW if you want the best camera for low light then the answer is Canon 6D.
While being a Nikon owner I can but admire the Canon 6D low light performance.
Its better by 1-2 stops then the Nikon D600 which is on its own an amazing low light performance camera but the Canon 6D is way out of your price.

I own 2 d7000 and they are great camera. i also own a d600 and the iso performance and noise control on that 2 stop more is making a huudge difference. d600 handle iso better at iso 5000 than the d7000 does it a 1600.