low light movie works better than low light still photos why?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Brian, Jun 9, 2009.

  1. Brian

    Brian Guest

    I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
    exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
    photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
    camera the exposure is good....why is that? Is there any way of
    getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
    If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
    happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
    without them looking too grainy.

    Regards Brian
     
    Brian, Jun 9, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Brian wrote:
    > I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
    > exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
    > photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
    > camera the exposure is good....why is that? Is there any way of
    > getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
    > If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
    > happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
    > without them looking too grainy.
    >
    > Regards Brian


    Two effects:

    1 - Still image: 8.3MP, video image: 0.3MP, so each "pixel" can capture
    some 27 times as much light.

    2 - viewing a "movie" your eye will integrate out the noise (grain). Try
    looking at a still from a movie taken in low-light conditions.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 9, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Brian

    Guest

    On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:32:58 +1200, in rec.photo.digital Brian
    <> wrote:

    >I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
    >exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
    >photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
    >camera the exposure is good....why is that? Is there any way of
    >getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
    >If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
    >happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
    >without them looking too grainy.


    Give one of the free versions or trials of aftermarket noise filtering
    software, such as Neat Image, Noise Ninja or Noiseware a try.
     
    , Jun 9, 2009
    #3
  4. Brian

    Brian Guest

    Thankd Fon for the useful information.

    Regards Brian


    Don Stauffer <> wrote:

    >Brian wrote:
    >> I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
    >> exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
    >> photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
    >> camera the exposure is good....why is that? Is there any way of
    >> getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
    >> If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
    >> happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
    >> without them looking too grainy.
    >>
    >> Regards Brian

    >
    >In viewing a movie, the eye averages noise, due to limitations on
    >persistance of vision.
    >
    >Another way to get the same effect requires a tripod- take ten or twenty
    >exposures and then stick them together (takes either a special "filter"
    >or lots of playing with brightness and contrast to do this manually).
    >The background noise is always different from frame to frame, so the
    >averaging process eliminates it. Some amateur astronomy software will
    >do this.
     
    Brian, Jun 10, 2009
    #4
  5. Brian

    Bob Larter Guest

    Brian wrote:
    > I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
    > exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
    > photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
    > camera the exposure is good....why is that?


    It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.

    > Is there any way of
    > getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
    > If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
    > happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
    > without them looking too grainy.


    I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR & some
    fast lenses.


    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 10, 2009
    #5
  6. Brian

    John Navas Guest

    On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:04:41 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    wrote in <4a2f3eeb$>:

    >Brian wrote:
    >> I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
    >> exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
    >> photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
    >> camera the exposure is good....why is that?

    >
    >It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.
    >
    >> Is there any way of
    >> getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
    >> If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
    >> happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
    >> without them looking too grainy.

    >
    >I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR & some
    >fast lenses.


    Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
    camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
    low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jun 10, 2009
    #6
  7. Brian

    Brian Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:04:41 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    >wrote in <4a2f3eeb$>:
    >
    >>Brian wrote:
    >>> I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
    >>> exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
    >>> photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
    >>> camera the exposure is good....why is that?

    >>
    >>It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.
    >>
    >>> Is there any way of
    >>> getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
    >>> If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
    >>> happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
    >>> without them looking too grainy.

    >>
    >>I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR & some
    >>fast lenses.

    >
    >Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
    >camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
    >low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>


    I chhose the Fujiphoto S8000 camera as it had a 18x optical zoom and a
    good price tag. Still you can't have eveything in a camera.

    Regards Brian
     
    Brian, Jun 11, 2009
    #7
  8. Brian

    daveFaktor Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:04:41 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    > wrote in <4a2f3eeb$>:
    >
    >> Brian wrote:
    >>> I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
    >>> exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
    >>> photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
    >>> camera the exposure is good....why is that?

    >> It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.
    >>
    >>> Is there any way of
    >>> getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
    >>> If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
    >>> happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
    >>> without them looking too grainy.

    >> I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR & some
    >> fast lenses.

    >
    > Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
    > camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
    > low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>
    >


    Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired
    bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best!
     
    daveFaktor, Jun 11, 2009
    #8
  9. Brian

    John Navas Guest

    On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:56:02 +1000, daveFaktor <>
    wrote in <>:

    >John Navas wrote:


    >> Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
    >> camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
    >> low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>

    >
    >Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired
    >bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best!


    Nonsense.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jun 11, 2009
    #9
  10. Brian

    daveFaktor Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:56:02 +1000, daveFaktor <>
    > wrote in <>:
    >
    >> John Navas wrote:

    >
    >>> Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
    >>> camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
    >>> low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>

    >> Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired
    >> bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best!

    >
    > Nonsense.
    >


    It only goes to demonstrate the narrow dynamic range of Panasonic
    sensors. Try as they might, Panasonic can't do much about with their
    current (and future it world seem) technology.
     
    daveFaktor, Jun 11, 2009
    #10
  11. Brian

    Bob Larter Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:04:41 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    > wrote in <4a2f3eeb$>:
    >
    >> Brian wrote:
    >>> I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
    >>> exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
    >>> photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
    >>> camera the exposure is good....why is that?

    >> It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.
    >>
    >>> Is there any way of
    >>> getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
    >>> If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
    >>> happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
    >>> without them looking too grainy.

    >> I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR & some
    >> fast lenses.

    >
    > Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
    > camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
    > low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>


    That's very good for a compact camera, but only ISO 800. I routinely
    shoot at ISO 1600, then push the RAW image another stop or two.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 11, 2009
    #11
  12. Brian

    daveFaktor Guest

    Bob Larter wrote:
    > John Navas wrote:
    >> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:04:41 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    >> wrote in <4a2f3eeb$>:
    >>
    >>> Brian wrote:
    >>>> I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
    >>>> exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
    >>>> photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
    >>>> camera the exposure is good....why is that?
    >>> It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.
    >>>
    >>>> Is there any way of
    >>>> getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
    >>>> If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
    >>>> happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
    >>>> without them looking too grainy.
    >>> I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR &
    >>> some fast lenses.

    >>
    >> Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
    >> camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
    >> low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>

    >
    > That's very good for a compact camera, but only ISO 800. I routinely
    > shoot at ISO 1600, then push the RAW image another stop or two.
    >


    I do that myself but push my Nikon D300 files a lot more than is
    possible with a DSLR Canon. The main reason for changing to Nikon.

    http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/gallery/high-20,000-ISO.htm

    I understand that the D3x is capable of a heck of a lot more but I don't
    have one of those. I have on order a D3 so perhaps I can soon explore
    the claimed ISO 125,000 of these cameras. For now, I have never seen a
    P&S that can operate above ISO 1600 without producing terrible noise.
     
    daveFaktor, Jun 11, 2009
    #12
  13. Bob Larter <> wrote:
    > John Navas wrote:
    >> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:04:41 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    >> wrote in <4a2f3eeb$>:
    >>
    >>> Brian wrote:
    >>>> I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
    >>>> exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
    >>>> photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
    >>>> camera the exposure is good....why is that?
    >>> It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.
    >>>
    >>>> Is there any way of
    >>>> getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
    >>>> If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
    >>>> happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
    >>>> without them looking too grainy.
    >>> I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR & some
    >>> fast lenses.

    >>
    >> Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
    >> camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
    >> low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>


    > That's very good for a compact camera, but only ISO 800. I routinely
    > shoot at ISO 1600, then push the RAW image another stop or two.


    You find that better than using a higher ISO and not pushing? My
    impression, without having carried out critical comparisons, is that
    pushing an ISO 1600 image up a stop gives me the same noise and image
    quality as unpushed ISO 3200.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 11, 2009
    #13
  14. Brian

    John Navas Guest

    On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:36:33 +1000, daveFaktor <>
    wrote in <>:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:56:02 +1000, daveFaktor <>
    >> wrote in <>:
    >>
    >>> John Navas wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
    >>>> camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
    >>>> low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>
    >>> Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired
    >>> bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best!

    >>
    >> Nonsense.

    >
    >It only goes to demonstrate the narrow dynamic range of Panasonic
    >sensors. Try as they might, Panasonic can't do much about with their
    >current (and future it world seem) technology.


    Likewise nonsense.

    Had you (1) an open mind and (2) bothered to look at the EXIF data, you
    would have seen that this handheld image was actually a remarkable
    achievement.

    --
    Best regards,
    John <http:/navasgroup.com>

    "When the superior scholar hears of Tao, he diligently practises it.
    When the average scholar hears of Tao, he sometimes retains it,
    sometimes loses it. When the inferior scholar hears of Tao, he loudly
    laughs at it. Were it not thus ridiculed, it would not be worthy of the
    name of Tao." [Lao-Tzu]
     
    John Navas, Jun 11, 2009
    #14
  15. Brian

    John Navas Guest

    On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:42:25 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    wrote in <4a308b31$>:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:04:41 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    >> wrote in <4a2f3eeb$>:
    >>
    >>> Brian wrote:
    >>>> I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
    >>>> exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
    >>>> photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
    >>>> camera the exposure is good....why is that?
    >>> It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.
    >>>
    >>>> Is there any way of
    >>>> getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
    >>>> If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
    >>>> happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
    >>>> without them looking too grainy.
    >>> I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR & some
    >>> fast lenses.

    >>
    >> Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
    >> camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
    >> low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>

    >
    >That's very good for a compact camera, but only ISO 800. I routinely
    >shoot at ISO 1600, then push the RAW image another stop or two.


    I routinely shoot at 1-2 stops wider than a roughly comparable dSLR
    lens, which makes up for the difference.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jun 11, 2009
    #15
  16. Brian

    daveFaktor Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:36:33 +1000, daveFaktor <>
    > wrote in <>:
    >
    >> John Navas wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:56:02 +1000, daveFaktor <>
    >>> wrote in <>:
    >>>
    >>>> John Navas wrote:
    >>>>> Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
    >>>>> camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
    >>>>> low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>
    >>>> Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired
    >>>> bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best!
    >>> Nonsense.

    >> It only goes to demonstrate the narrow dynamic range of Panasonic
    >> sensors. Try as they might, Panasonic can't do much about with their
    >> current (and future it world seem) technology.

    >
    > Likewise nonsense.
    >
    > Had you (1) an open mind and (2) bothered to look at the EXIF data, you
    > would have seen that this handheld image was actually a remarkable
    > achievement.
    >


    If you qualified that with "for a P&S" you might have gained some
    credibility. The fact is John - and one you consistently fail to
    recognise - is that just the miniature sensors in P&S cameras guarantee
    a noisey picture. 3 or 4 other factors work against them producing low
    noise images too.

    There are some things a P&S can do that a DSLR is either hard pushed to
    achieve or can't achieve at all but noise control is not one of them.
    The only reason your camera can take a low light picture at all is the
    extremely low shutter speeds you can use. We used to use FZ50
    Panasonic's at 1/15th (hand held) for low light shots. There's examples
    here:
    http://www.d-mac.info/previews/scott-katrina/

    That doesn't mean I'd use one for action capture or critical work where
    large prints are expected. Like this one. The canvas print is over six
    feet wide. A totally impossible shot for a P&S.

    http://www.d-mac.info/examples/HDRatdawn.htm

    The whole issue is not about fanatical devotion to a particular brand
    because you happen to own one but choosing the right tool for the job. I
    make movies in natural light, with a D90 set at ISO 3200. Maybe a RED
    camera might equal it's ability but I won't be shelling out $60,000 for
    one when a D90 does just as well - *FOR MY USE*.
     
    daveFaktor, Jun 11, 2009
    #16
  17. Brian

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:35:37 +1000, daveFaktor <>
    wrote in <>:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:36:33 +1000, daveFaktor <>
    >> wrote in <>:
    >>
    >>> John Navas wrote:
    >>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:56:02 +1000, daveFaktor <>
    >>>> wrote in <>:
    >>>>
    >>>>> John Navas wrote:
    >>>>>> Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
    >>>>>> camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
    >>>>>> low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>
    >>>>> Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired
    >>>>> bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best!
    >>>> Nonsense.
    >>> It only goes to demonstrate the narrow dynamic range of Panasonic
    >>> sensors. Try as they might, Panasonic can't do much about with their
    >>> current (and future it world seem) technology.

    >>
    >> Likewise nonsense.
    >>
    >> Had you (1) an open mind and (2) bothered to look at the EXIF data, you
    >> would have seen that this handheld image was actually a remarkable
    >> achievement.

    >
    >If you qualified that with "for a P&S" you might have gained some
    >credibility. The fact is John - and one you consistently fail to
    >recognise - is that just the miniature sensors in P&S cameras guarantee
    >a noisey picture. 3 or 4 other factors work against them producing low
    >noise images too.


    Likewise nonsense.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jun 12, 2009
    #17
  18. Brian

    Bob Larter Guest

    Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > Bob Larter <> wrote:
    >> John Navas wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:04:41 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    >>> wrote in <4a2f3eeb$>:
    >>>
    >>>> Brian wrote:
    >>>>> I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
    >>>>> exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
    >>>>> photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
    >>>>> camera the exposure is good....why is that?
    >>>> It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Is there any way of
    >>>>> getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
    >>>>> If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
    >>>>> happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
    >>>>> without them looking too grainy.
    >>>> I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR & some
    >>>> fast lenses.
    >>> Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
    >>> camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
    >>> low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>

    >
    >> That's very good for a compact camera, but only ISO 800. I routinely
    >> shoot at ISO 1600, then push the RAW image another stop or two.

    >
    > You find that better than using a higher ISO and not pushing?


    Yes.

    > My
    > impression, without having carried out critical comparisons, is that
    > pushing an ISO 1600 image up a stop gives me the same noise and image
    > quality as unpushed ISO 3200.


    I find that shooting ISO 3200 gives me a lot more chroma noise than
    pushing ISO 1600. Bear in mind that I (obviously) shoot RAW, & I also
    carefully tweak the top & bottom of the tone curve.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 12, 2009
    #18
  19. Brian

    Bob Larter Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:42:25 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    > wrote in <4a308b31$>:
    >
    >> John Navas wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:04:41 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    >>> wrote in <4a2f3eeb$>:
    >>>
    >>>> Brian wrote:
    >>>>> I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
    >>>>> exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
    >>>>> photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
    >>>>> camera the exposure is good....why is that?
    >>>> It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Is there any way of
    >>>>> getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
    >>>>> If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
    >>>>> happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
    >>>>> without them looking too grainy.
    >>>> I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR & some
    >>>> fast lenses.
    >>> Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
    >>> camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
    >>> low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>

    >> That's very good for a compact camera, but only ISO 800. I routinely
    >> shoot at ISO 1600, then push the RAW image another stop or two.

    >
    > I routinely shoot at 1-2 stops wider than a roughly comparable dSLR
    > lens, which makes up for the difference.


    In my case, I'm usually also shooting wide open with F1.4 or F1.8
    primes. It's more case of available darkness than available light. ;^)


    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 12, 2009
    #19
  20. Brian

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:18:52 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    wrote in <4a31d72c$>:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:42:25 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    >> wrote in <4a308b31$>:
    >>
    >>> John Navas wrote:


    >>>> Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
    >>>> camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
    >>>> low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>
    >>> That's very good for a compact camera, but only ISO 800. I routinely
    >>> shoot at ISO 1600, then push the RAW image another stop or two.

    >>
    >> I routinely shoot at 1-2 stops wider than a roughly comparable dSLR
    >> lens, which makes up for the difference.

    >
    >In my case, I'm usually also shooting wide open with F1.4 or F1.8
    >primes. It's more case of available darkness than available light. ;^)


    Had you checked the EXIF data of my image, you would have found that
    I was much too far away to use a 50 mm lens. ;)

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jun 12, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Iconoclast

    Are digital photos better than B/W photos?

    Iconoclast, Dec 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    693
    Steve House
    Jan 24, 2004
  2. VHS Loyalist

    Why VHS is still better than DVD

    VHS Loyalist, Apr 3, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    64
    Views:
    2,177
    Michael Walker
    May 10, 2005
  3. Adriano
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    930
    mark mandel
    Dec 15, 2003
  4. Fogar
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    703
    Erick
    Jan 17, 2006
  5. dh@.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    468
    PTravel
    Aug 28, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page