Triple threat

[astroNikon]

of course, you probably would need a tripod
as you increase the f number you also increase shutter. you could also increase ISO.

If ISO is 100 at night, try moving it up to at least 400 (just for experimentation but also try at least 800 to start geting comfortable with ISO). With todays' cameras they can handle alot of ISO but that's with my d7000 but I assume your d3200 can handle the same thing as my d7000 as yours is 24mp and mine is 16mp and ISO looks to be comparable.

 

[Braineack]

so you'll take your camera through a tunnel at a 30s exposure, but you wouldn't try a smaller aperture to get the entire subject in focus and do the same? you can even keep the iso at 100 so you don't get noise.

 

[hamlet]

At f11 it would have been underexposed.

not if you exposed it properly...

I understand that, but setting the shutter speed any slower would have blurred my picture.

 

[astroNikon]

I don't really understand all this hubbub about losing detail? I won't keep my lens at f1.8 if i don't have to, but whats so good about detail when your picture has noise in it because the lens couldn't let enough light in? I am terrible at focusing on what i want, but pictures i've seen shot of giant buildings at f1.8 would be pictures i would want.

I understand totally.
But I've also learned alot about detail of an image which has also made me learn more. The image that we capture with our cameras reminds us of the image that we see with our eyes.

but if someone else looks at the image they can see a loss of detail .. or things being fuzzy. In the middle of the image the "details" are crisp and clear. As you move out of the center the details / sharpness get more fuzzy.

sharpness of lines and images etc. This can be more explained if you go to a long fence line. At say a 45 degree angle or even right next to it take a photo going down the fenceline at f/1.8 with single focus point.

Then look at the picture and notice how it get's fuzzy quite quickly both before and after the focus point.

I can do that a little later too and post.

 

[astroNikon]

I understand that, but setting the shutter speed any slower would have blurred my picture.

Thus you raise your ISO to compensate and keep shutter speeds a bit faster.

fun eh ?

 

[hamlet]

of course, you probably would need a tripod
as you increase the f number you also increase shutter. you could also increase ISO.

If ISO is 100 at night, try moving it up to at least 400 (just for experimentation but also try at least 800 to start geting comfortable with ISO). With todays' cameras they can handle alot of ISO but that's with my d7000 but I assume your d3200 can handle the same thing as my d7000 as yours is 24mp and mine is 16mp and ISO looks to be comparable.

I would have loved to use a tripod, but that's not always possible. This situation was one of them.

Here is what i set my camera at:

F1.8 would have helped me bump down the iso to 800 and thus remove the noise.

 

[astroNikon]

So .. in this case we want to keep the same shutter speed.
but get more "depth of field"

so try to put f stop at 4
and then bump up the ISO a little to say 1800 - I don't know your camera but try that. and raise ISO until the exposure is good.

Then try it again. Take the aperture to f 5.6 (or the next one up)
and increase the ISO again until it comes out good.

just experiment and take it up the aperture rating and ISO rating while maintaining the same shutter speed.

and then compare each picture by zooming and and comparing the sharpness.
and then also look where the ISO may start causing a problem and post here


FYI .. I'm not an expert at ISO noise. But I don't think ISO 800 is going to get noise.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise-2.htm


ooh .. I have a 18-55 lens like yours laying around somewhere.
I'll test that a bit tonight too along with my 50/1.8

 

[astroNikon]

read this thread
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/342672-what-highest-iso-can-you-use.html

 

[hamlet]

I'm sorry, i am just going by what little i understand.


Larger aperture: more light
More iso: more noise
slower shutter speed: blurry pictures

So to get what i want, i have to adjust the only one that won't hurt my picture and that would be the aperture. I've thought a lot about this, most f1.8 lenses have in their pros advertised that they perform well in low light. So looking at the pictures other have taken and comparing them, i see no other solution.

 

[hamlet]

read this thread
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/342672-what-highest-iso-can-you-use.html

hi1

 

[astroNikon]

More iso: more noise

understand. I used to think that same way!!

But think of ISO as OKAY until you reach a certain threshold with your specific camera.
which probably is well above 800

 

[raventepes]

I could be wrong, but it seems as if you're wanting to hand-hold your camera in low light. If that's the case, then I'm sorry, but you could spend $50,000 on equipment and still not get the shots that you want. It all comes down to one simple tool. A tripod. Yes, they may not always be convenient, but I know first hand how important they are in shooting in less than ideal light settings. Of course, you could also invest in a good speedlight and be nearly done with the problem all together. I know all about shooting in low light. I live in Alaska, where I find myself in low ambient light much of the year.

To put it another way, a person could have the best possible camera, say a Hassleblad H5D series with f/1 lenses (they actually don't make them that large of aperture) and you'd still be hard pressed to get what you're after. You could have the fastest lens available that Nikon makes (f/1.2 @ 50mm) and at the end of the day, you'll still need something external so you can slow your shutter speed down or add light. Another option to consider for what you apparently are wanting to do is work in HDR...High Dynamic Range, which puts 2 or more shots together to form one cohesive image, but again, working in HDR, you'd still need a tripod to hold your camera steady.

Even lenses 2.8 are plenty fast. The picture of the building which you said didn't work out so well would have been great at f/8, but again, you need to make use of slower shutter speeds, possibly higher ISO and a tripod. Fast aperture will only get you so far. Even a light travel tripod would be of use, or even something like this monopod, which would be light weight, has splay-able legs for added support, portable and would get the job done. Manfrotto 682B Pro Monopod with 234RC Swivel Tilt Head 682B/234RC

Just a thought. I merely think you're asking for the impossible.

 

[hamlet]

I could be wrong, but it seems as if you're wanting to hand-hold your camera in low light. If that's the case, then I'm sorry, but you could spend $50,000 on equipment and still not get the shots that you want. It all comes down to one simple tool. A tripod. Yes, they may not always be convenient, but I know first hand how important they are in shooting in less than ideal light settings. Of course, you could also invest in a good speedlight and be nearly done with the problem all together. I know all about shooting in low light. I live in Alaska, where I find myself in low ambient light much of the year.

To put it another way, a person could have the best possible camera, say a Hassleblad H5D series with f/1 lenses (they actually don't make them that large of aperture) and you'd still be hard pressed to get what you're after. You could have the fastest lens available that Nikon makes (f/1.2 @ 50mm) and at the end of the day, you'll still need something external so you can slow your shutter speed down or add light. Another option to consider for what you apparently are wanting to do is work in HDR...High Dynamic Range, which puts 2 or more shots together to form one cohesive image, but again, working in HDR, you'd still need a tripod to hold your camera steady.

Even lenses 2.8 are plenty fast. The picture of the building which you said didn't work out so well would have been great at f/8, but again, you need to make use of slower shutter speeds, possibly higher ISO and a tripod. Fast aperture will only get you so far. Even a light travel tripod would be of use, or even something like this monopod, which would be light weight, has splay-able legs for added support, portable and would get the job done. Manfrotto 682B Pro Monopod with 234RC Swivel Tilt Head 682B/234RC

Just a thought. I merely think you're asking for the impossible.

!!!

That Hassleblad has to wait a year or two, i've still got a lot to learn on my training wheels. Speedlight you said? How is a flash going to make something at that distance look good? Because if it will, then i will definitely invest in a Speedlight. As for the tripod, it was not possible to bring it, because i was taking that picture on a busy road with 2 ton death machines coming whichever way.

 

[PaulWog]

!!!

That Hassleblad has to wait a year or two, i've still got a lot to learn on my training wheels. Speedlight you said? How is a flash going to make something at that distance look good? Because if it will, then i will definitely invest in a Speedlight. As for the tripod, it was not possible to bring it, because i was taking that picture on a busy road with 2 ton death machines coming whichever way.

Invest in an appropriate telescoping monopod then.

A speedlight will help with a lot of the photography you want to do, though it has limitations as well. You're interested in night-time photography though, so two tools which are must-haves are a tripod, and a speedlight. A monopod could be handy as well as I mentioned. If you aren't willing to pick up those tools, then you're severely limiting what you'll be able to do with your photography. What's nice is those tools aren't just limited to being used at night: You'll want a speedlight and a tripod for any type of photography.

For handheld photography at night you'll need VR and you'll also need a quick aperture. The Sigma 17-50mm OS (optical stabilization) lens might be just the ticket. It's not overly expensive, performance is very good, and you get a quick aperture alongside stabilization. Good optical stabilization will outweigh the difference between f1.8 and f2.8 when shooting a landscape hand-held. The whole "optical stabilization offers 2 to 3 stops improvement" doesn't quite translate: Often times you end up getting improvements in your image that equate to 5, 6, or 7 stops of improvement in your image. A good example is with the 70-300 VR, which people often shoot at its longer focal lengths with shutter speeds ranging anywhere from 1/4 of a second to 1/40 of a second, and still managing super sharp images.

What I was explaining to you had to do with the exposure triangle. Note that you don't need to tell me that ISO will increase light intake: I'm quite aware (otherwise I wouldn't be qualified to give you advice! haha).

Anyway, I think you'll be happiest with a lens with a quick aperture and optical stabilization. I think first you should buy the 35mm 1.8G, because it's a good quick lens without optical stabilization. See how it serves you. It is absolutely a lens you need, so just buy it now. Don't look back. Then you might be able to determine if something like the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS is for you, or if you want something else, or if the 35mm 1.8G serves your purposes and you want another quick lens... etc. The 18-35mm f1.8 is not going to save you money... it's not quite super wide, and it doesn't cover all of the mid-range focal lengths -- it's a lens that you NEED to absolutely know you want. If you end up feeling limited on the wider end, you'll end up getting something like a Tokina 11-16mm (I think it's that), and then the 18-35mm will all of a sudden become a lot more useless to you (or it might not-- you might love it). But that's exactly it: a lot of these things are MAYBE-situations. The 35mm 1.8G isn't a maybe situation: It's a lens that YOU definitely need, want, and should buy right now. It will put the other purchases into context, and it will allow YOU to decide on what you want, as opposed to relying on this thread as much

 

[hamlet]

I will think about it some more, i am still pretty sure i want an aperture of f1.8 or less.


Look at this review for the d800.
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/03/25/d...on-d800-camera-part-3-wide-angle-lenses.aspx/

This here Sigma 20mm F1.8 EX DG ASP RF Nikon performs second best to mister Zeis's Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/15 ZF.2 Nikon. Who the heck is this Carl Zeiss? Why does he think he can charge so much for his snake oil? Is he some kind of mountain hermit?