Help with low-light.

[Ashmanarion]

The other night, I took some pictures for a school dance with my Nikon D3000. It's really the first time I've had to use the camera for more than a point and shoot and I pretty much failed. I set it to auto because I was trying to take quick shots of the kids dancing and didn't have a tripod to hold it still. So, with that I had the flash on the camera going off all night. This managed to upset one of the other teachers I believe. Since this is the first time I've been in real low-light, it showed me that I don't know how to use my camera and I was hoping some of you could give me some help on what I should have done right. Here are a couple pictures, one with flash, the other without and it will help to show my lack of ability.

I know I didn't have a steady hand the other night at all and it shows. All help is appreciated!

 

[hankejp]

In low-light conditions and trying to shoot action type shots, you will need a fast lens. With out looking at the EXIF info, it looks like the shutter speed was too low for the conditions.

For something like that, you need to increase the ISO (to probably the highest it'll go), increase the aperature to the highest (lower the number, the wider the aperature). This will then allow you to increase the shutter speed. This probably won't resolve all the issues and you will still probably need to make use of a flash.

 

[gsgary]

Using auto with low light is not a good mix, the only way to shoot in low light is on manual, it takes lots of practise and fast lenses and high iso's like iso3200

 

[tdiprincess]

A lot of people have recommended like a 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4... the 1.8 are in my price range, 1.4 not as much. A better lens, more practice..
The other equipment I'm working on getting for low lighting:
-SB600 flash
-flash diffuser
-tripod

Just keep practicing. In more comfortable settings, get yourself out of P&S mode. Put it in manual and play around. Not every photo has to look good while playing around. Keep practicing and you'll get better...That's what I'm working on. And keep posting here, everyone's advice is extremely helpful!

 

[puyjapin]

i have the 1.4, personally the 1.8 is quite low build quality. if you are taking shots like below, with no moving subject just get a tripod and use the kit lens, then you can use any iso you want, preferably the lower the better and do a long exposure
obviously this wont work if you are wanting to freeze peoples movements in the dark.
on friday i took some shots with very low light, and i was at about f2.2, iso 1600 and about 1/80th. they were frozen enough for me. then i decided to do some motion shots so brought the suhtter to about 1/15th and upped the aperture to 5.6

 

[tdiprincess]

So basically I should just swallow the cost and buy the f/1.4 lens? Good to know though. Just gotta convince the hubby
thnx for the input. And thnx op for posting. I'm learning from it too. I love this site!

 

[Geaux]

I'm a new owner of the 1.8 and I've been more than impressed with it. I haven't noticed any issues in build quality and imo, it doesn't feel any cheaper than the kit lense. I read plenty of reviews online about both and the comparison and to me, 2.5x the price wasn't worth it. I also went with the 35mm instead of 50mm.

It's helped a lot with indoor shots and low light. Of course, you will still need to have your hand still, but it's a lot better than the kit lense.

Flickr is acting up right now, I was going to post an example for you. I'll edit it into my post once it comes up quicker.

 

[KmH]

.....personally the 1.8 is quite low build quality.

I would say the build quality of the AF 50 mm f/1.8D is better than the build quality of the AF-S 50 mm f/1.4G, and worth every penny (and then some) of the $125.00 USD they cost.

The newer Nikon lenses have many more plastic internal and exterior body parts and none of the AF-S lenses come with an aperture adjustment ring.