DSLR sensors

[jacsul]

Hi all,
I'm looking to move up to a DSLR, entry level that I can grow with. I'm looking to spend around $1000 w/a kit lens, new or used. My question is which camera sensors are better suited for low light? Also, has the technoligy in sensors changed much? And are there any new emerging camera bodies to look for?

Thanks

Jack

 

[ANDS!]

Ask this very basic question:

Who do you hate more Shaq or Kobe?

Once you have answered that question ask yourself another one: How much "low light" shooting are you REALLY going to be doing. I eagerly await your reply dear sir.

 

[jacsul]

Well, I work mostly at night outdoors. And I come across some unique landscape and cityscape images. What I own now always leaves alot of noise on my images. What would you recommend?

 

[UUilliam]

noise ninja and photoshop
you will ALWAYS get noise (but i know you mean your getting too much noise)
just use a lower iso and a longer shutter
but i guess sensors that have the ability to go VERY sensitive like 5D's 25600 which means it will more than likely work VERY well with iso at your needs (around 3200)

now i am not recommending the 5d what so ever, it wouldn't be worth your while ATM but im giving you an example

also i went night shooting forthe first time the other day with my 450D

here is the results (all i done was in photoshop i turned the temperature down so it removed the yellow-cast you get in night shots. then run it through Noise ninja)

http://uuilliam.deviantart.com/art/propellerhead-124081842 - 1.3 second shutter at ISO 100 and aperture f/5
http://uuilliam.deviantart.com/art/Holytown-Memorial-124080789 - ISO 400 shutter 3.2 second aperture f/6.3
http://uuilliam.deviantart.com/art/Shipyard-Reflection-124081522 - ISO 100 shutter 4 second aperture f/7.1

 

[Henry Peach]

If you've been using a compact digital any DSLR introduced in the last 4 or 5 years will probably be a significant improvement. Whatever Canon or Nikon DSLR kit that costs what you want to spend will do you just fine. If it were me, I'd buy the cheapest Nikon or Canon body I could find (introduced in the last couple of years), and get a f/2.8 Tamron or Sigma zoom instead of the kit lens.

The most bang for the buck for low light shooting right now is the Canon 5D (mk I), but even discontinued it'll cost almost $2000 new with a lens.

 

[Dwig]

...I'm looking to spend around $1000 w/a kit lens, new or used. My question is which camera sensors are better suited for low light? ...

I suggest that you check out Welcome to dxomark.com (beta), a free resource dedicated to RAW-based camera image quality and look at their sensor tests. Currently, the Nikon D5000 is one of the leading performers in the sub $1000USD range when you include a kit lens.

 

[KmH]

+1 on the D5000. Or if you can afford it, it's bigger brother, the D90 so you get a few more features. They have the same CMOS image sensor.

In fact the D5000, D90, and the D300 all have the same CMOS image sensor.

Here's a link to DXO and image quality info on the three side-by-side. The D90 has the best ISO performance of the 3. DXO only rates RAW IQ (image quality), they don't compare features.

 

[ANDS!]

Well, I work mostly at night outdoors

Noise then is going to be a simple fact of life, unless you invest in a tripod. If you have a tripod then you may be able to capture the cityscapes (or whatever it is youre after). However, if you are working in pitch black, where the distant flickering of lights is seen int he distance, then youre going to run into the limitations of a dSLR very quickly.

-1 on the D5000. If you don't mind buying used or refurbished (and you shouldn't) go for something else.

You can get a refurbed D90 and a nice lens for around 1000 bucks.

 

[jacsul]

So the CMOS is the better sensor... I like the feel of D90. Is nikon now of choice in the DSLR catagory in this price range?

Thanks

 

[ANDS!]

CMOS, CCD - useless technobabble that only technophiles care about it. The people who actually USE the equipment know that most cameras made in the last 5 years or so, will be able to handle 90% of the tasks you throw at it. Do not focus on "technical specs" and instead look at what "extras" you get.

If you want the ability to capture video, by all means go with a refurbished D90 - I had a chance to play with one and it feels as sturdy as the old D80. If you can find a used D200 though, I would get that over a D90. The only reason I like the newer models, is they have that nicer screen, but really it doesn't matter. If I had a choice to save more or get a nice screen, I'd save money.

 

[KmH]

The most important part when making an image is the photographer, not the equipment.

 

[Dwig]

So the CMOS is the better sensor...

Better for what??

Its just like the VHS/Beta wars from the previous millennium. One may be technically better in theory, but technical advances result in a leap-frogging effect where at any one time one is better than the other but that reverses in a minute or so.

At this particular eye-blink moment of time, systems based on CMOS sensors are delivering lower noise at high ISOs than CCD based systems when resolution and photosite size are approximately the same. This could change at any minute.

 

[PremOutshine]

...I'm looking to spend around $1000 w/a kit lens, new or used. My question is which camera sensors are better suited for low light? ...

I suggest that you check out Welcome to dxomark.com (beta), a free resource dedicated to RAW-based camera image quality and look at their sensor tests. Currently, the Nikon D5000 is one of the leading performers in the sub $1000USD range when you include a kit lens.

I found D5000 amazing. It's really beautiful camera. +1 for that.
-Lightweight compact body
-D-SLR movie function: D-Movie, selectable from 320 x 216 pixels, 640 x 424 pixels or 1,280 x 720 pixels in AVI format.

 

[hirejn]

Getting to the point, the more expensive the camera, the better the file quality at high ISOs. There may be some instances where they differ, but in general as you move up you get better file quality (don't confuse file quality with image quality, the latter of which you determine). There's no way around that. "Noise Ninja and Photoshop" isn't a solution, unless you have a good exposure to start with, and NN is outdated. Shoot at the lowest ISO possible and get the best exposure possible. Shoot in RAW, and then use proper processing techniques for reducing noise. Noise will be a fact in high ISO images, but you can reduce it. Too many people look to RAW and Photoshop as a fix. The noise in a RAW file is actually quite bad until you apply noise reduction in software. RAW is simply an uncompressed file of the original capture information, and Photoshop is simply an editing program, equally capable of rescue and enhancement, but why rescue when you can enhance? If you're pulling detail out of shadows in software, even RAW at ISO 100 won't save you from noise.

 

[TCampbell]

Well, I work mostly at night outdoors. And I come across some unique landscape and cityscape images. What I own now always leaves alot of noise on my images. What would you recommend?

Oh wait... that's different. What I recommend you buy... is a TRIPOD!

If your camera is absolutely not moving and also your subject is not moving (e.g. landscapes or cityscapes) then you can use a minimum ISO and leave the shutter open as long as you need and actually get a great shot. You'll be delighted to learn that a tripod will be VASTLY cheaper than a new camera. I've seen photos that you'd swear were taken in the daytime that were actually taken with nothing more than the light of the full moon... on a TRIPOD.

If you really want a new camera anyway and this was just the excuse to buy it, then any of the "currently" marketed bodies from Canon or Nikon will be "pretty good", but for "very good" you'd want a full-frame body which will noticeably be SEVERAL stops better at dealing with low-light photography with limited noise. The problem with full-frame cameras is the entry-barrier is about $2000 for the body only.

Also, don't use a "kit" lens. Get a low focal ratio prime (a lens that doesn't zoom) lens.

But really... the tripod is an essential for nighttime shots. You're not going to take take-sharp hand-held shots in the black of night and I don't care how much you invest in the camera and lens.