Which camera for low light photography?

[gothra]

Yea, the flash is no good to their eyes, so I will definately not use it. I have some pictures to show! This is how my gecko room looks:

Most of the photos are taken through the front glass. You can see I don't have much space to move around; so if I do buy a DSLR, I think I'll need a lens that has very short minimum focusing distance. Will I need a macro lens? Or a standard prime lens will do? I had a look at Canon's webpage, most of the macro lenses are f2.8...how will that compare to the S100 or X10's f2.0? On the other hand, the standard prime lenses are much faster. But will the subject be very small on the frame? I'm going to go to Canon's showroom this weekend; I hope they'll let me try out some lenses.

And some pictures taken with the Fuji X10; I found the best combo for me is ISO 1250, shutter speed 1/6" and try not to zoom too much. I usually use Photoshop to brighten the images and add a little contrast, but these here are straight from the camera, so they're a bit dark:

This one is zoomed in, f2.8. ISO 1250, tv 1/6"

And I tried a slower shutter speed:
Fuji X10, ISO 1600, Av 2.5, Tv 0.5"; most of the pictures are slightly blurred at 0.5sec shutter speed.

Canon S100, ISO 1600, Av 5.6, Tv 0.5"; the image stabilisation is much better with the S100, I even managed to take crisp shots with 1 full second shutter speed!

 

[gothra]

Forgot to mention, that last picture taken with the S100 has +2/3 exposure compensation, the picture was taken at 6:40pm, so the ambient lighting might be a little brigther to begin with.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Image stabilization has nothing to do with motion blur of your subject.

 

[StandingBear1983]

Image stabilization has nothing to do with motion blur of your subject.

Correct, you have to shoot in higher shutter speeds. for example, i use D5100 with 35mm1.8G with the DX crop factor its about 52 on a FF camera, you have to have at least double the shutter speed compared to the focal length, so if you shoot with a 50mm you have to shoot at least at 1/100 if not 1/125 to get sharp images handheld.

 

[gothra]

But the blur occurs when I press the shutter button...the image was sharp from the back display, the gecko didn't move, but the end product just turns out blurred. So I figured the blur was due to me pressing the shutter button.

 

[StandingBear1983]

hold the camera close to your body and use your body as an anchor to stabilize the camera, use your arms as a tripod take a deep breath and when you press theh button, press half way - focous - then slide your finger instead of clicking it hard, plus, try and shoot at least at speeds that i said above or higher.

 

[gothra]

I lean against the glass to stabilize my hands; and yea I do the press half way, focus, then shoot thing. But with the X10, I have less sucessful (sharp) shots than the S100. I can't shoot at speed higher than 1/10, because the room is too dark and anything over ISO 1600 is too grainy. More practice may help though!

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Ever thought of a mini table top tripod?

 

[gothra]

Oh I just re-read the whole thread, you pretty much answered all my queries. Now that I have a little more understanding with basic photography, this all makes sense to me now! However I don't get the part about macro lens being f2.8, wouldn't that allow less light hitting the sensor; and therefore resulting in darker image? Or slower shutter speed?

Focus and zoom are something entirely different.Zooming will bring objects that are further away closer.Focus will not change the object size, it will only change the focus point of the camera (the point that is sharp).The most important thing you should take a look at is the distance you're going to shoot at.You're placing your camera close to the glass tank where your gecko can get really close. This basically means you're going to need a macro lens.Macro lenses are able to focus on objects that are really close to the lens.Most real macro lenses are fixed and can not zoom in so you'll have to zoom by moving your camera forwards. Don't worry, you get used to that really quickly.I'm afraid a 50mm f/1.8 lens will not be what you're looking for as the closest focus distance on those lenses is about .5m if I remember correctly.Your gecko is going to get much closer than that! While the 50mm is a great lens you'll really want a macro lens for this.I myself have the 105mm f/2.8 nikkor which is a great lens. It'll do exactly what you want (and probably more if you get used to working with it).The 60mm f/2.8 nikkor will probably work just as good, the working distance is just a bit smaller.I imagine that this difference in working distance isn't a problem with your gecko, it might be a good thing to consider if you think you'd also like to try shooting insects.You'll really want a longer working distance with insects because they get spooked. Don't worry about the aperture being 'only' f/2.8 as with macro photography f/2.8 has a crazy small DOF, you'll be shooting at higher apertures like f/8 a lot more because if you don't you simply won't get enough sharpness. As for the camera: Larger sensor is usually less noise.This means a DSLR is better than a compact and a FX camera is better than a DX camera.You will not regret getting a DSLR instead of a compact camera. The quality of your photos will improve loads and it's not too hard getting used to a DSLR, especially with such a fun practice subject.FX cameras tend to be rather a lot more expensive than DX cameras though and might be slightly overkill anyways.I myself own the D7000 and am really pleased with the performance. It's ISO performance is simply one of the best when it comes to DX cameras, I can quite easily shoot at 1200 ISO and the images will not be extremely noisy.I actually shot some images at 2400 ISO by accident yesterday and didn't even notice until I saw the EXIF data. You can get a D7000 with a 105mm f/2.8 nikkor new for a little less 2000 dollars I guess (not sure off the prices there).

 

[Overread]

The difference between f2.8 and f2 is not even a full stop of light. Yes f2 is better, but f2.8 is more than enough; furthermore the larger sensor means that the DSLR is capable of going to a higher ISO and giving you a much cleaner and more detailed photo than the point and shoot can even dream of.

My suggestion would still stand at a Canon 5D series (original second hand; MII new or second hand; MIII new - though that is very expensive and beyond what you'd need) camera body mated to a macro lens. For the specific range of the macro lens I would seriously consider testing in a shop if you can. I would expect anything between a 70mm and a 100mm would be suitable for the kinds of shooting you are presenting. I can't give much more advice than that really and its going to be down to a little testing on your part of the options to really sort out what is going to suit your needs the best.

The lack of flash support really pushes one toward considering the DSLR as an option simply because it does lowlight work so much better than the point and shoots, even the high end ones. The fullframe (35mm) DSLRs are top of the game for low light performance.

 

[gothra]

Thank you Overread! I'll be heading to Canon's showroom tomorrow, hopefully they'll let me try out some of their lenses.

 

[StandingBear1983]

if you have no choice but to shoot at 1/10 you NEED to get yourself a tripod, there is no chance in hell that you can get a sharp shoot handheld at 1/10 of a second. the pros use also remote release for very long exposure, though that's only if you have a proper DSLR.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I'd recommend a Nikon D700/D3/D3s or Canon 5DM2, although I prefer Nikon, I slightly favor Canon 5DM2 compared to D700.

 

[StandingBear1983]

I'd recommend a Nikon D700/D3/D3s or Canon 5DM2, although I prefer Nikon, I slightly favor Canon 5DM2 compared to D700.

I think that would be overkill IF he needs a new camera, first i would buy a tripod and see if it fixes the problem instead of going ALL OUT and buying the best DSLR possible.

Maybe he can do with the Canon S100 more then we think, with a tripod...if you buy a tripod and try it, and still its blurry, go for something like the Nikon D5100, it has a very good sensor for low light, and you can get the relatively cheap 35mm 1.8G DX lens, and your set for almost all low light situations.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I think that would be overkill IF he needs a new camera, first i would buy a tripod and see if it fixes the problem instead of going ALL OUT and buying the best DSLR possible.

Maybe he can do with the Canon S100 more then we think, with a tripod...if you buy a tripod and try it, and still its blurry, go for something like the Nikon D5100, it has a very good sensor for low light, and you can get the relatively cheap 35mm 1.8G DX lens, and your set for almost all low light situations.

That's what I said before, but after looking at his budget and what Overread recommended, I give him my opinion too.