low light

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ipy2006, Mar 7, 2007.

  1. ipy2006

    Rutger Guest

    "nospam" <> schreef in bericht
    news:070320070812162004%...
    > In article <>, ray
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    >> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    >> what is available with film.

    >
    > digital is *much* better than film at high iso.


    That is *very much* dependand by brand.

    Rutger


    --
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager
     
    Rutger, Mar 7, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. ipy2006

    UC Guest

    On Mar 7, 7:03 am, "ipy2006" <> wrote:
    > I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    > best DSLR for this purpose?
    > Thanks,
    > Yip




    None. You need light to do photography, you moron.
     
    UC, Mar 7, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. ray <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0800, ipy2006 wrote:
    >
    >> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    >> best DSLR for this purpose?
    >> Thanks,
    >> Yip

    >
    >I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    >film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    >what is available with film.


    Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 7, 2007
    #23
  4. "ipy2006" <> wrote:
    >I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    >best DSLR for this purpose?


    Either Canon or Nikon will do fine, as well as perhaps others.

    The camera itself isn't really that important, compared to lense
    selection. (I use Nikon equipment, so that is what I'll discuss
    specifically, but the basic selection process would be the same
    for any brand of camera.)

    The trick is to figure out which lenses you actually *need*.
    Consider that there are inexpensive 20mm f/2.8 plus 50 and 85mm
    f/1.8 lenses; and there are 30mm, 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 lenses
    which are not so inexpensive.

    If your budget allows, the f/1.4 lenses are definitely better,
    but if the budget is tight it might be necessary to select just
    one of the f/1.8 lenses. (Note that for Nikon, the 50mm f/1.8 is
    very good and very inexpensive.)

    For a general purpose lense, Nikon has an 18-70mm zoom lense
    that is wonderful, but far too slow for "low light conditions".

    I would consider any of the low end Nikon DSLRs, with the
    18-70mm zoom as a kit lense; then look on eBay to find the fast
    fixed focal length lense that suits your style.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 7, 2007
    #24
  5. UC wrote:
    > On Mar 7, 7:03 am, "ipy2006" <> wrote:
    >> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    >> best DSLR for this purpose?
    >> Thanks,
    >> Yip

    >
    >
    >
    > None. You need light to do photography, you moron.


    Troll.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 7, 2007
    #25
  6. ipy2006

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:13:36 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    > ray <> wrote:
    >>On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0800, ipy2006 wrote:
    >>
    >>> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    >>> best DSLR for this purpose?
    >>> Thanks,
    >>> Yip

    >>
    >>I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    >>film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    >>what is available with film.

    >
    > Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.


    I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?
     
    ray, Mar 7, 2007
    #26
  7. ipy2006

    Frank ess Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > UC wrote:
    >> On Mar 7, 7:03 am, "ipy2006" <> wrote:
    >>> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    >>> best DSLR for this purpose?
    >>> Thanks,
    >>> Yip

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> None. You need light to do photography, you moron.

    >
    > Troll.


    Troll nourisher.
     
    Frank ess, Mar 7, 2007
    #27
  8. ipy2006

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, ray
    <> wrote:

    > >>I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    > >>film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    > >>what is available with film.

    > >
    > > Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.

    >
    > I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?


    <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html>

    basically, unless one is using fine grain film, pretty much any digital
    slr is going to be better, especially at higher iso.
     
    nospam, Mar 7, 2007
    #28
  9. ray <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:13:36 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >
    >> ray <> wrote:
    >>>On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0800, ipy2006 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    >>>> best DSLR for this purpose?
    >>>> Thanks,
    >>>> Yip
    >>>
    >>>I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    >>>film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    >>>what is available with film.

    >>
    >> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.

    >
    >I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?


    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
    http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
    http://photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60.shtml

    The controversy seems to be whether that has only been recently
    true, or whether in fact the Nikon D1 (1999) out performed film
    at high ISOs.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 7, 2007
    #29
  10. Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > ray <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:13:36 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>
    >>> ray <> wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0800, ipy2006 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    >>>>> best DSLR for this purpose?
    >>>>> Thanks,
    >>>>> Yip
    >>>> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    >>>> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    >>>> what is available with film.
    >>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.

    >> I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?

    >
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
    > http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
    > http://photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60.shtml
    >
    > The controversy seems to be whether that has only been recently
    > true, or whether in fact the Nikon D1 (1999) out performed film
    > at high ISOs.


    Yeah, and I wouldn't know about that.

    My Epson 850Z did *not* outperform film at ASA 400. My Fuji S2 *did*
    outperform film (in subjective terms; I'm not working from a quantified
    measure of picture quality that's valid across both film and digital!)
    at ISO 1600 to ISO 400 at least.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 7, 2007
    #30
  11. ipy2006

    John Sheehy Guest

    "ipy2006" <> wrote in news:1173274977.039356.148330
    @h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:


    > I read some review that Canon Eos Digital Rebel xTi DSLR is good low
    > lighting. Nikon D80 was good but the article said more as a available-
    > light camera.


    I agree that the XTi is "good" in low light; it's better than older Canons
    like the 10D and 300D, and better than most current CCD DSLRs from other
    manufacturers, but it is still a good notch below the 30D. The read noise
    of the 30D is 0.6 stops lower in ADUs (RAW levels), and the XTi is 0.5 stop
    less sensitive (RAW signal for a fixed illumination and exposure). The XTi
    and 30D both meter for approximately 120% of the stated ISO, but the XTi
    winds up with an extra 0.5 stops of headroom. So. all told, the practical
    noise floor is 1.1 stops higher with the XTi, for the same real (not
    metered) exposure.

    The XTi seems to be a better imager at ISOs 100 and 200, though, with more
    pixels and less read noise.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Mar 7, 2007
    #31
  12. ipy2006

    acl Guest

    On Mar 7, 8:03 pm, "Rutger" <> wrote:
    > "nospam" <> schreef in berichtnews:070320070812162004%...
    >
    > > In article <>, ray
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > >> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    > >> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    > >> what is available with film.

    >
    > > digital is *much* better than film at high iso.

    >
    > That is *very much* dependand by brand.
    >


    Well, can you name a film that is better than the Nikon D200 at, say,
    ISO 1600? (noise is not its strongest point).

    Or do you mean something like "sensor/pixel size" by brand?
     
    acl, Mar 7, 2007
    #32
  13. >> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    >> best DSLR for this purpose?

    >
    >Canon 5D and see if that and a typical "kit" lens gets you what you
    >need. If not, you might need to spend about $1000 or even several


    You don't need to spend $1,000 for a lens that does better in low
    light than the kit lens. A good 50mm prime will do very well in low
    light. And the Canon 30D does amazingly well at ISO1600.

    On the other hand, if you're taking pictures in low light of things
    that aren't moving, and if you can't use a tripod, then the slower IS
    lenses (17-85, e.g.) may be better than the 50mm prime.

    For that matter, if you you really have VERY little light, then
    nothing will help.

    But basically, the Canons do a bit better under low light than the
    Nikons, and you want as fast a lens as you can afford.

    -Joel

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EXIF data for any image or web page: http://exif.posted-online.com
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Mar 7, 2007
    #33
  14. "Rutger" <> wrote:
    >"nospam" <> schreef in bericht
    >news:070320070812162004%...
    >> In article <>, ray
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    >>> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    >>> what is available with film.

    >>
    >> digital is *much* better than film at high iso.

    >
    >That is *very much* dependand by brand.


    There is no brand of film that is better than all brands of
    digital cameras.

    The question was not if there is a given digital camera that is
    not as good as some type of film. Of course there is. The question
    is which is best at its best; and the answer is digital.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 7, 2007
    #34
  15. ipy2006

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:58:03 GMT, Paul Furman wrote:

    > I think he will need a wider lens for groups of people in a kitchen
    > unless it's a huge kitchen. I initially only saw the $1000 budget but
    > with $1500 he could get a Nikon D50, Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and 18-70mm
    > lenses. I don't know the Canon options as well.


    It depends on the kitchen. Mine might need an ultra-wide. :)
    For many, 18mm is probably wide enough. A turkey in a pan isn't
    going to be as quick as a toddler in the living room or a frisky
    pet, and if the rest of the shot is sharp, the slight blur of a
    stirring spoon might even be desirable. If the kitchen is small and
    dim, then the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 might be a good addition, but I'd
    hold off on it for at least long enough to find out if the 18-70mm
    lens's aperture is too small. A bigger problem in cramped quarters
    will be dealing with harsh and very uneven lighting if a flash has
    to be used, but dealing with that can come later, as I don't think
    that the solutions would be effected very much by the choices of
    DSLR body and lenses, as long as there's enough left in the budget.
     
    ASAAR, Mar 8, 2007
    #35
  16. ipy2006

    Mark² Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > UC wrote:
    >> On Mar 7, 7:03 am, "ipy2006" <> wrote:
    >>> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    >>> best DSLR for this purpose?
    >>> Thanks,
    >>> Yip

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> None. You need light to do photography, you moron.

    >
    > Troll.


    In my browser, this particular troll is only an echo... :)

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Mar 8, 2007
    #36
  17. ipy2006

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:21:09 -0800, nospam wrote:

    > In article <>, ray
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> >>I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    >> >>film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    >> >>what is available with film.
    >> >
    >> > Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.

    >>
    >> I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?

    >
    > <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html>
    >
    > basically, unless one is using fine grain film, pretty much any digital
    > slr is going to be better, especially at higher iso.


    I certainly was not referring to cheapie film off the wall at Walgreen's.
    I plan to delve into some of the references above, but I'd still be
    surprised if a DSLR will out perform high quality, high speed film at low
    light levels.
     
    ray, Mar 8, 2007
    #37
  18. ipy2006

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:47:20 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    > ray <> wrote:
    >>On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:13:36 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>
    >>> ray <> wrote:
    >>>>On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0800, ipy2006 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    >>>>> best DSLR for this purpose?
    >>>>> Thanks,
    >>>>> Yip
    >>>>
    >>>>I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    >>>>film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    >>>>what is available with film.
    >>>
    >>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.

    >>
    >>I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?

    >
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
    > http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
    > http://photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60.shtml
    >
    > The controversy seems to be whether that has only been recently
    > true, or whether in fact the Nikon D1 (1999) out performed film
    > at high ISOs.


    Interesting references. Only problem is that they seem to be addressing
    what might be achieved under optimal conditions rather than addressing
    high ISO - low light action shots. I'm still not convinced.
     
    ray, Mar 8, 2007
    #38
  19. ray wrote:
    > On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:21:09 -0800, nospam wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, ray
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    >>>>> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    >>>>> what is available with film.
    >>>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.
    >>> I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?

    >> <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html>
    >>
    >> basically, unless one is using fine grain film, pretty much any digital
    >> slr is going to be better, especially at higher iso.

    >
    > I certainly was not referring to cheapie film off the wall at Walgreen's.
    > I plan to delve into some of the references above, but I'd still be
    > surprised if a DSLR will out perform high quality, high speed film at low
    > light levels.


    Several of us who've played with high-speed film for multiple decades,
    and digital for somewhat less, have told you that in our experience
    digital is *much* better than film at high ISO. This is also a truism
    repeated in nearly any introductory discussion of digital photography
    aimed at people used to film (the fact that you can use ISO at least a
    stop faster than you're used to for the same quality results).

    Skepticism is healthy in a broad sort of way, but I'd suggest that this
    sort of widespread consensus contrary to your beliefs should be at least
    pushing you to doubt yourself, and to be actively seeking to run your
    own comparison tests.

    If you in fact care, of course; you may have strong opinions but not
    actually *use* high ISO so you don't really care. In which case it
    might be better to just drop the discussion.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 8, 2007
    #39
  20. ipy2006

    Scott W Guest

    On Mar 8, 6:23 am, ray <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:47:20 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > > ray <> wrote:
    > >>On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:13:36 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    >
    > >>> ray <> wrote:
    > >>>>On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0800, ipy2006 wrote:

    >
    > >>>>> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
    > >>>>> best DSLR for this purpose?
    > >>>>> Thanks,
    > >>>>> Yip

    >
    > >>>>I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
    > >>>>film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
    > >>>>what is available with film.

    >
    > >>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.

    >
    > >>I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?

    >
    > > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
    > > http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
    > > http://photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/
    > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60.shtml

    >
    > > The controversy seems to be whether that has only been recently
    > > true, or whether in fact the Nikon D1 (1999) out performed film
    > > at high ISOs.

    >
    > Interesting references. Only problem is that they seem to be addressing
    > what might be achieved under optimal conditions rather than addressing
    > high ISO - low light action shots. I'm still not convinced

    One of the real delights in using a DSLR is being able to get indoor
    shots with available light that I could never get before. The scans I
    have seen of even ISO 400 film have looked pretty bad, I don't want to
    even think about how bad ISO 1600 color print film would be.

    And the DSLRs just keep getting better, our 20D does very well at 1600
    and is very usable at 3200, but I have seen test shots from the 1D
    mark 3 at 6400 that just blow me away.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 8, 2007
    #40
    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. Mike O.

    How low is "low light"?

    Mike O., Jan 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    605
    Michael Meissner
    Jan 4, 2004
  2. ishtarbgl
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    563
    ishtarbgl
    Apr 1, 2004
  3. D

    Sony HC5E low frame rate in low light

    D, May 21, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    633
  4. low end digital / low light and macro ?

    , Jun 27, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    650
    Chris Malcolm
    Jul 11, 2008
  5. Brian
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,150
    Bob Larter
    Jun 14, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page