lens decision for low light

We've said it time and again... using the same equipment, a good photographer will get better results. Give the better photographer lower end equipment, they may outdo the person with the better camera, but there is a very really easily definable line there. You can be the BEST photographer in the world with a noisy camera and a slow lens and if you are in a dark room where people are moving around, no amount of skill or knowledge will help in any other way other than the photographer KNOWING that all his pics are going to come out looking like crap.

Then you have that little newbie with the camera in P or A-mode and auto ISO up to 6400... and who is snapping away and getting pictures INCREDIBLY better than mr good photographer under those conditions (they may be compositional crap, but they are at least motion-blur free and properly exposed!). Now, what each person needs to define within themselves is how often are you going to be in these conditions to justify such a camera for them? For some, never, for others, always. Most people will be somewhere in the middle, but I can promise you this... everytime you are in a low light scenario and are taking pictures, pushing the ISO higher and higher on your camera and *will* be needing the crutch of noise removal software (which is currently me, and I am doing it with some success, but would not mind doing better without it.. lol), you *will* be wishing you owned a camera like the D700/D3 and a F/1.4 lens.


Yeah, you have to KNOW what you are doing... but you can do so much more when you BOTH know what you are doing AND have a camera that is literally redefining the standards in high ISO - low noise photography as we know it today (now, throw into that mix a fast quality lens and things start to get very interesting!).
 
Last edited:
Sorry i can be a bit blunt sometimes sorry
No i'm not, but you don't need the best equipment to get good shots, not everyone can afford the best equipment, the photographer is the most important part in taking a shot

For someone like me as a beginner, I would say yes. Give me a best camera in the world may not make a huge different. However, for an experienced photographer, he/she can take the advantage of the extra features and capabilities of the camera and make a stunning photos especially in certain difficult situations.[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
 
Those are beautiful, but 'lowest of low light situations'? Looks pretty bright to me, especially compared to the theater already test shot.

-S


They look pretty bright because they are *properly exposed* and have pretty correct white balance. The horses were in the center of this arena and the lights were dim everywhere - it was VERY similar to theatre lighting - in fact, the mounted police shot - the room was almost impossibly dark even for ISO 6400 - that WAS equivalent to that theatre lighting if not WORSE than theatre lighting. The OP was shooting at 800 ISO 1/320 and F2.8 -- the result is an underexposed and blurred picture. If he was shooting like I was for the jumping horses at 2.8, 1/1,000 and ISO 5000, it probably would have been WAY better exposed (it may have been a little overexposed, so maybe drop his ISO back down to maybe around 2,000) and no motion blur. Also, the white balance needs to be correct for exposure to look correct.

And I disagree when someone said you can stop motion at 1/320. No, you can't if you are hand holding and the subject is moving and you are not using flash with a 100 mm lens. If I am shooting at 100 mm, I want my shutter more like 1/1000 if my subject is moving. It's just WAY EASIER to get a focused image that way. When I am shooting moving subjects with a simple 50 mm, I like to have my shutter at least 1/250, so double that distance, I wouldn't go under 1/500 but would prefer 1/1000.

I just checked back on my settings - that mounted police shot -- was at F2.8, ISO 6400 and 1/100 - that was WAY darker than the original OP's shot on here, so you can't say that it was bright circumstances at all - in fact, it was DARKER... Yes, they ARE Brighter... because it was exposed properly - thus brighter in the picture. Being able to shoot with such high ISOs can totally fool the eye in the final picture to think that it was better circumstances for light - when it wasn't.

If you want to compare light conditions - the ornamental plum picture I have above is close to the OP's setting. My plum picture is shot at F3.2, ISO 800, and 1/320. It's properly exposed with correct white balance, that's why it is so much brighter.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely, and I totally agree with that, but dang having the ability to shoot at ISO 5,000 comfortably has changed the way I shoot.... opened up a new world to me personally even in my personal family snapshots. The good news? The D700 has the same sensor and is much cheaper.

Anyone who supports the Nikon line and is actually in business as a pro charging for their work should HIGHLY consider the D700 or the D3... they should be able to afford it - after all, it is a *GREAT* tax deduction.


I like to see a bit of noise for converting to B+W Jeff Ascough shoots at iso800 in daylight to give it a film look
 
These are from what people say is a very noisy camera at high iso the 1Dmk1 but if the exposure is good i think they come out ok
iso1600 no noise reduction 50mmF1.4 shot at F2
360231482_6aeuf-L.jpg


iso3200
225308895_5nSYe-L.jpg
 
Now see, the noise in the images you posted doesn't bother me because it isn't that green/red noise that I see in a lot of high ISO images of different cameras... but you are shooting with a better camera in the Canon line, correct? (sorry, I don't know a lot about Canon - I went years ago from Minolta to Nikon and haven't found a reason to change from Nikon at this time with my arsenal of lenses lolol ;))
 
Now see, the noise in the images you posted doesn't bother me because it isn't that green/red noise that I see in a lot of high ISO images of different cameras... but you are shooting with a better camera in the Canon line, correct? (sorry, I don't know a lot about Canon - I went years ago from Minolta to Nikon and haven't found a reason to change from Nikon at this time with my arsenal of lenses lolol ;))


A good old one (2005 model) since then it has been replaced by the mk2 mk2n and mk3 but i love it, probably get the 1Dmk2n and 5D soon but keep the mk1
 
Last edited:
Ahh.. I gotcha... I shot with the Nikon D2X for so long and I LOVED that camera... I was "one" with that camera... lololol!, and I would get images like you post above, but it wasn't always like that. It would be like every 2 out of 50 would look like that at high ISOs and 48 of them would suck ;) That's why I like this D3 so much - it's consistently barely showing any digital noise at all...
 
I'm kind of in a never ending debate on what to put my money into: bodies or lenses. I originally bought a Nikon D40 as my original SLR however its small, plasticy body, its lack of AF motor, its short life, and its lack of controls led me to upgrade to the D70s. So far I have been nothing but happy, however its sensor isn't the greatest. Its very noisy at higher ISOs and it has a small screen. I do have an F1.8 lens which makes it pretty manageable, but I still feel slightly limited. I hopefully have an Tamron 17-50/2.8 or a 28-70/2.8 coming around the holiday season. I have heard great things about the quality of these lense, plus the great speed. However, I am thinking of saving up more money and don't know what to put it into. The only bodies even remotely in my reach are the D200 and maybe the D300, although I don't know if I would be better served putting that money into a lens.

As for the OP, I would upgrade to the 50 or 40D at the very least, even a 5D if you can afford it. Buying an F1.8 lens isn't going to make a giant difference if you already have an F2.8 lens, and the telephoto is just way too slow. You're going to want a camera that can perform better in higher ISOs, which would be the 40D, 50D, or 5D.
 
I shoot a 20D and It probably has a little better performance than the XT, but I have made prints at 3200(H) at 8X12 that look great hanging on the wall, even 4x6 don't show distinguishable noise when holding them. Often prints look much better than the file on your screen. You can see some noise here but I don't find it distracting especially in print. this Jpg also look noticeably worse than the original file.

Canon 20D, Canon 50mm 1.4, @f/1.4, 1/20 sec ISO 3200. No noise Reduction.
3200.jpg
 
ok...help me break this down a little...

i was already using a 2.8 at 100mm so the 70-200 2.8 IS wont be any better than what i already had. :thumbdown:

the 85mm 1.8 would improve my photos, but i am locked at 85mm :meh:

upgrading to a Canon 50D would help combined with the 85mm.
would it be good with my existing 2.8 100mm lens?

upgrading to a Canon 5D would greatly improve using my existing lens, but what 5D? they have a 12mp and a new 21mp?

thanks again for all the help!!!!!!!! :hail:
 
ok...help me break this down a little...

i was already using a 2.8 at 100mm so the 70-200 2.8 IS wont be any better than what i already had. :thumbdown:

the 85mm 1.8 would improve my photos, but i am locked at 85mm :meh:

upgrading to a Canon 50D would help combined with the 85mm.
would it be good with my existing 2.8 100mm lens?

upgrading to a Canon 5D would greatly improve using my existing lens, but what 5D? they have a 12mp and a new 21mp?

thanks again for all the help!!!!!!!! :hail:


The best performing low light lenses are primes which means you will be fixed to a focal length but you have legs that is how you zoom with a prime :lol: they are usually sharper than zoom lenses. You have a great lens with the 100F2.8 but with IS it is only good if your subject is stationary your daughter will be moving around the stage so you need a higher shutter speed the only way to get that is a bigger aperture
 
The best performing low light lenses are primes
Technically that is incorrect. The best performing lenses are the ones with the largest apertures so that they can let in the most light. Because the size of a 70-200 that did F/1.4 would be the size of the average howitzer canon and cost your right arm and first born combined, they are not made faster than F/2.8.

You have a great lens with the 100F2.8 but with IS it is only good if your subject is stationary your daughter will be moving around the stage so you need a higher shutter speed the only way to get that is a bigger aperture

... and/or higher ISO.

As far as primes being sharper than zooms, I disagree. In the old days, that may have been true, but top of the line zooms today are as good or better than primes from the "good old days". :) I am not saying this is true of all cases, but I would feel confident that is is true 90% of the time.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top