lens decision for low light

[gsgary]

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.



... 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.

I don't think there is any zoom upto 300mm that can match my 300mmF2.8L

 

[TBAM]

The band shots you just provided, I think, are underexposed quite considerably, which is why it is a bit noisy.

The 1d was a professional camera am I right? Even with a lower megapixel count, due to it being an older model.

Those pictures don't look very noisy to me.

You want to see noise, I'll shoot ISO 1600 on my Olympus and on anything but perfect exposure, it's noisy, really noisy, 10x noisier than the above pics from the 1d.

But then again, I'm not a Pro, and I didn't buy the Olympus for High ISO low light capabilities.

Why don't you borrow your friend's 1dmk1? If you've already got canon glass

EDIT:
Crap, sorry i didn't realise this thread was 2 pages, I accidentally quick-posted to the pics GSgary posted on the end of the 1st page

EDIT:
GSgary isn't the OP, i should really just shuttup.

 

[anubis404]

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 85mm and the 50d in combination would be your best bet, but alone the 50D would be better. The 5D would be even better than the 50D.

Also, don't pay attention to Megapixels. They don't matter.

 

[JodieO]

I don't think there is any zoom upto 300mm that can match my 300mmF2.8L

I've got the 70-200/2.8 Nikkor that is TACK sharp, but I'm now getting the 200-400mm Nikkor for 2009 - I'll let you know, it is supposed to be "the ultimate" for 5 grand... it better be!

 

[Helen B]

In truly low light the wider apertures of the fast primes will help with focusing. This is the biggest issue I have with the D3 in low light in comparison to a rangefinder camera (see my profile for a list of the cameras I use regularly) - but I'm talking about five or six stops below the conditions Jodie is referring to. The D3 can produce a remarkably high quality image, but focusing can be a problem - the AF stops working before the electronic rangefinder becomes unusable, by the way. It's also worth remembering that the higher the ISO or EI (setting above ISO) you use, the lower the dynamic range. In controlled lighting situations the brightness range may not be high, but in most low light conditions encountered in documentary/journalism work there can be a high brightness range, and hence the lower the ISO the better.

Best,
Helen

 

[Mike_E]

And we've come full circle, though Helen has pointed out something not mentioned in the AF getting dicey in very low light. Katz Eye Optics makes a nice focusing screen for manually focusing just like the old days.

So, keep your glass, get a newer camera with better ISO performance, A Katz eye focusing screen ( http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/cat--Canon-DSLRs--cat_canon.html ) and finally: print your photos rather than scouring over them on a monitor.

It all fits together nicely, eh?

 

[JerryPH]

Actually, Helen mentioned something about the focusing screens too... now this was a while back and memory is a little fuzzy this morning.

I *believe* she mentioned that you can pickup an older Nikon focusing screen for a fraction of the price of a katz-eye and get the same results. I believe that there would have to be some modification of the lens element needed before it fit, but that it was nothing major.

Helen, was I mistaken?

 

[Helen B]

That's right. The K3 screen for the FM3 can be cut down and put into the D40x, and probably many other cameras. As far as I can tell it is what a Katz Eye screen is. It helps with manual focusing but not, of course, with AF or the electronic rangefinder. The only mod required for fitting it into the D40x is cutting to size.

Best,
Helen

 

[rufus5150]

though Helen has pointed out something not mentioned in the AF getting dicey in very low light

I must be on everyone's ignore list. I mentioned AF being the problem way the heck up thread (Helen, as always, does a much better job at being crystal clear and knowing the finer details, though!)

 

[JerryPH]

lol... you are not on mine. I hope you are not requesting that I do?

 

[Mike_E]

Sorry, I wasn't talking about the AF being the original problem, just a solution to low light focusing in general by manually focusing with a split screen.


And as the OP shoots Canon I just thought I'd link to a screen made for that brand.

 

[gsgary]

I've got the 70-200/2.8 Nikkor that is TACK sharp, but I'm now getting the 200-400mm Nikkor for 2009 - I'll let you know, it is supposed to be "the ultimate" for 5 grand... it better be!

Thats a lot of money for F4, what will you be shooting with it ?

 

[JodieO]

Thats a lot of money for F4, what will you be shooting with it ?

If I told you, I would have to kill you. :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Nah... it's just an assignment, but I also have plenty I can use it for as well... my kid will be starting high school football soon (one more year of rec) and it would be nice to shoot with then as well since I won't be able to stand on the sidelines like I do now. I also shoot lots of nature, so there are plenty PLENTY of uses... but the main reason is an assignment upcoming. I prefer not to go into details until it is completed... I've been burned by other photogs by speaking up about things before they are finished - not that I suspect people to do those things, but it has happened in the past... just makes me more cautious.

 

[gsgary]

If I told you, I would have to kill you. :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Nah... it's just an assignment, but I also have plenty I can use it for as well... my kid will be starting high school football soon (one more year of rec) and it would be nice to shoot with then as well since I won't be able to stand on the sidelines like I do now. I also shoot lots of nature, so there are plenty PLENTY of uses... but the main reason is an assignment upcoming. I prefer not to go into details until it is completed... I've been burned by other photogs by speaking up about things before they are finished - not that I suspect people to do those things, but it has happened in the past... just makes me more cautious.

I would love a 400F2.8 for cricket but it is too much £s at the moment with the way the economy is

 

[JodieO]

I would love a 400F2.8 for cricket but it is too much £s at the moment with the way the economy is

The primes are very nice but honestly, with what I am doing, I will not be able to "zoom with my feet" so I have to have a zoom, that's why I have to go to the F4 at this time.