# lens decision for low light



## Flynnstone (Nov 9, 2008)

my daughter is in dance. it is extremely important to her, and i wish to capture it. 
 what i have used for this so far is my Canon XTI with a 18-55mm  3.5-5.6( mostly at 55mm) lens and my 100mm 2.8 Macro lens. i must boost my ISO up to 800 to get the shots with the available light, but i am unhappy with the outcome. either the shot is blurred from movement, poorly detailed, or if i boost it to 1600ISO it is grainy.
 every store i go to has a different opinion. so i thought i would post my options here and ask you for your help. 

upgrade to a Canon 50D (higer megapixles)
upgrade to a prime 85mm 1.8
upgrade to a 70-200 4.0 IS lens

the option of getting the 70-200 lens, would make the purchase of this item not only for dance, but i would be able to use it in other areas of shooting as well. as long as it will perform well as intended too.

thank you in advance!!


----------



## czsmola (Nov 9, 2008)

85mm is deffinetly the best option due 1.8 f-stop  for low light


----------



## Ls3D (Nov 9, 2008)

Can I choose all 3?

The 50D body being the last, but room to crop is always nice..

The 70-200 f/4?...  how about the f/2.8?  Too much..

The 85 f/1.8...  very nice but will you have freedom to compose?  The speed seems right for the typical auditorium.

I would invite a friend with good skills and equipment as a second shooter if you know anyone.


----------



## Kegger (Nov 9, 2008)

Instead of the 70-200 f/4 which isn't a very fast lens, go for the 2.8 IS version. Faster lens with IS will make life much easier in low light. 

Megapixels mean nothing when dealing with low light, but the camera's high ISO performance is something to look at.


----------



## Flynnstone (Nov 9, 2008)

composure is the reason i am leaning away from the 85mm. i would need to crop to get what i want, but would the higher megapixel make up for that? if not, maybe i should keep the camera i have now?
 the 2.8 70-200 non IS would be in my price range, but i don't really like the weight of it. that is why i opted for the 4.0 IS.

and sorry, but i have no friends what-so-ever that are into photography. so no one to help me out at the recital.


----------



## cosmonaut (Nov 9, 2008)

Neither option sounds to good to me. You need a really fast lens and a full frame sensor to deal with the noise at higher ISO's The IS will help very little with motion blur.


----------



## kundalini (Nov 9, 2008)

What is your average distance to subject (daughter on stage)?  Can you move in closer from time to time?

Is the auditorium lights out and only stage lights?


----------



## Flynnstone (Nov 9, 2008)

so what exactly would you recomend?

here is a shot thats i took to help understand what light i am dealing with. any insight is appreciated. flash photagraphy isn't allowed


----------



## Ejazzle (Nov 9, 2008)

you just need a faster lens. The 85 1.8 or the 70-200 2.8 are the way to go.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Nov 9, 2008)

I think that the 85 is unquestionably the way to go. The 70-200/4 would be a downgrade from the 100/2.8, actually, and based on the picture you posted super-fast apertures are where you need to be looking. If the 85 is too short you might look at something like the 100/2 or the 135/2L (though this is moving up in price).


----------



## Mike_E (Nov 9, 2008)

First get a tripod or at least a monopod.

Second, either get a better camera or a good noise removal software. A camera with better high ISO capabilities is the far better choice. If you can't do it with an f/1.8 then an f/2.8 isn't going to help.  

Any lens is unlikely to help you at very low apertures anyway due to the DOF being so shallow.  You might be able to shoot at 1/90 but if the DoF is 7 1/2 inches  and your target is moving, so what?  Also, you should be shooting at 1 over the focal length times the crop factor just to cope with the camera shake (ignore this if you are using a good tripod) if you are shooting hand held with good technique. So the longer the lens the harder it is to use.  IS/VR comes in handy but even so you need the faster shutter speeds to capture the action.

You hear about sports shooters using fast glass but they shoot in very well lit arenas and you don't have that luxury.

Your final option is to buy the theater a spotlight.  That ought to do the trick!


----------



## epp_b (Nov 9, 2008)

> The 70-200 f/4?...  how about the f/2.8?  Too much..


f/4 is much too slow for that sort of lighting.  f/2.8 will be quite a bit better.

I suggest finding the longest f/1.8 or f/2 lens you can which, for Canon, seems to be the 85mm f/1.8.



> First get a tripod or at least a monopod.


Really?  In crowded auditorium seating?  I think not.



> Second, either get a better camera or a good noise removal software. A camera with better high ISO capabilities is the far better choice. If you can't do it with an f/1.8 then an f/2.8 isn't going to help.


I have to disagree.  Put the camera in AF-C (or "continuous servo" in Canonese) to keep your subject in focus.

Using a _manual_ focus 50mm f/1.8 at the biggest aperture, I got one of my very favorite shots of this guy shredding away:





I shot at 1/60th intentionally to blur his hand movement, but I got plenty of frozen shots at that same shutter as well.  I could still go up to 1/125 or 1/200 and have a good exposure after dodging things up a bit.

If the lighting is too poor to use a really fast shutter speed, that's just a reality you'll have to live with. Practice taking your shots at just the right moments where the movement and action equals the shutter speed.


----------



## Kegger (Nov 10, 2008)

Well if you were considering upgrading the body, you should be able to get the 70-200 2.8 IS. I found a few for under $1400. Just gotta look around. 

Or you could just as easily go for the Sigma version, the only downfall is no IS.


----------



## Flynnstone (Nov 10, 2008)

so would the 70-200 2.8 IS be as good as the 85mm 1.8 using my same body?
 and would that price for the 70-200 be for a used one?


----------



## Battou (Nov 10, 2008)

My suggestions

100mm 2.8

100mm 2.8 BiN

135mm 2.8

135 2.0


----------



## MrsMoo (Nov 10, 2008)

doesnt a higher ISO reduce image quality slightly?
or were my tutors not being truthful?


----------



## Mike_E (Nov 10, 2008)

MrsMoo said:


> doesnt a higher ISO reduce image quality slightly?
> or were my tutors not being truthful?



To a point. The thing is you either will get the shot or get one you can't use.  And the new DSLRs these days make very good images at high ISO

BTW yes you can use a tripod in a theater (and yes I have-several times)- you have to want to and be allowed to but you most definitely can.  And a monopod is easy to use in one.

Putting the camera in continuous and shooting in 3 or 4 shot bursts does help but proper hand holding technique helps even more.   Support is still the best answer because camera shake and subject movement added together are just evil.  If you didn't notice those girls were tap dancing and the difference between what is acceptable to a parent of a little girl on stage doing tap is a world away from what a rock guitarist wants to see.

So, mono or tri-pod and a camera that is good at high ISO plus the fast lens you already have is you best bet.


----------



## JodieO (Nov 10, 2008)

cosmonaut said:


> Neither option sounds to good to me. You need a really fast lens and a full frame sensor to deal with the noise at higher ISO's


 
I have to agree.

I shot all this with ISO 5,000 and ISO 6,000 hand held, Nikon D3 (with incredible full frame sensor), 70-200/2.8 lens in lowest of low light situation (but still needed a high shutter to stop motion) -- little grainy, but still useable... (scroll by the guy with the green hair... lolol) http://jodieotte.com/?p=340


----------



## Ls3D (Nov 10, 2008)

Those are beautiful, but 'lowest of low light situations'?  Looks pretty bright to me, especially compared to the theater already test shot.

-S


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 10, 2008)

IS and a tripod won't help unless he can boost the shutter speed of the lens. f/1.8 sucks as DOF gets so shallow it's a real pain in the ass to get a good photo because focus has to be perfect and even then it's only one part or another that's in focus.

It's basically a comprosmise. High ISO isn't bad if the photo is properly exposed. Your above photo is under exposed. Under exposure causes grain. A low shutter speed causes motion blur and camera shake. Best thing to try is high ISO, faster aperture, and steady the camera as best as possible. None of these are going to work on their own, but you're going to have to do your best unless you're allowed to a flash.


----------



## DReali (Nov 10, 2008)

You may also want to consider noise reduction software such as noiseware (photoshop plig-in). It's very effective at removing noise and preserving detail (even at 3200 ISO) and nowhere near as expensive as a lens or camera: http://www.imagenomic.com/nwsa.aspx.


----------



## iflynething (Nov 11, 2008)

If you're going to use this for the dance, dont waste your money on the IS. It won't be worth it since it will do nothing for you to freeze the movement. I'm a dance photographer for my sister's dance studio and I'm using a 70-200 2.8.

DO NOT use that f/4 if you want any decent shots. You'll have to boost your ISO up way too high (i had to shoot at 800 on my D80) to get a decent shutter speed. I was shooting at about 1/160 to 1/200 sec and got great results. 

As for the lighting, I shot at degrees kelvin. Most stage lighting is at about 2600 or so degree. I believe I was at 2550 or so and was pretty spot on. 

~Michael~


----------



## SilverGlow (Nov 12, 2008)

Here is my take on this:

1. Don't make the mistake of relying on anti-noise software to mitigate the noise later. This is a foolish policy to have because anti-noise means bye, bye precious image quality. Even with today's very clean high ISO cameras it is still best to keep in the 100-800 range when possible.

2. Don't bring a tripod. It will inhibit you from moving around.

3. Don't think a prime will limit your compositions. Unless you're in a wheelchair it often won't. Bring/rent/buy a 28mm F1.8, and/or 50mm F1.8 and/or F1.4, 85mm F1.8, and/or maybe 135 F2. I don't know how far you'll be so pick 2 or 3 of these and rest assured you will have all your shots covered.

3. IS lenses will not help...they don't stabilize moving subjects.

4. Anything slower then F2.8 is a joke and not even to be considered if the best IQ is what you strive for.  I suspect even F2.8 is often too slow.

5. Yes you will change lenses often. Yes you will have to move around often. A small price to pay when you strive for the best IQ.

6. Shoot raw. Use evaluative metering. Your most used focus point is perhas the one on the very top.

7. Buy/rent/borrow a 2nd body to place another prime on.

8. DON'T use the flash, at least for shots of the action on the stage. It won't help and will destroy the mood, look, and feel.

9. Later in post processing, and using a layer and mask, apply anti-noise selectively and surgiccally only on the parts of your comp that need it. Anti-noise can be very distructive must never be applied to the entire image. It smears and details gone forever.

10. Post process on a 16 or 32 bit file even if your raw is just 12 or 14. This means the math your program does has room for rounding, and less likely to add digital artifacts such as blocking, combing and the like.

11. Another benefit of a fast prime is that it will help the camera acquire focus faster, and your view finder will be brighter even if you don't need to shoot wide open.


----------



## SilverGlow (Nov 12, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> f/1.8 sucks as DOF gets so shallow it's a real pain in the ass to get a good photo because focus has to be perfect and even then it's only one part or another that's in focus.


 
I have to disagree. F1.8 through F2 could provide enought DOF if one is far enough from the action. Sure a wide aperture effects DOF, but so does (1) focal length, and (2) distance from subject. Remember the shooter is point toward the action on a stage, and I suspect he can be as far away or close as he wants (usually).

I often find that my 135L at F2 and shooting far behind a bride and groom in a dark church provides wide enough DOF for critical focus. Of course if I took the shot just a few feet behind them, then yes, I would have a too narrow DOF to work with.

And I just want to add that often and even in a dark auditoriam, the action is often light brightly so even though the venue is very dark, the action may not also be.


----------



## SilverGlow (Nov 12, 2008)

Flynnstone said:


> so what exactly would you recomend?
> 
> here is a shot thats i took to help understand what light i am dealing with. any insight is appreciated. flash photagraphy isn't allowed


 
Your shot is a bad example.  It is way, way too soft in focus...not very good image quality.  Cute girls though....


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 12, 2008)

SilverGlow said:


> Your shot is a bad example. It is way, way too soft in focus...not very good image quality. Cute girls though....


 
That shot is from the OP showing people what the lighting is like and the conditions he's shooting with...that's what he was asking for advice on.


----------



## laam999 (Nov 12, 2008)

I'd have to say the f2.8 70-200L sounds like the best option, you could go for the older non IS vertion but that wouldnt help for other uses. The only other think I would suggest is try a cam with a lower noise level


----------



## SilverGlow (Nov 12, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> That shot is from the OP showing people what the lighting is like and the conditions he's shooting with...that's what he was asking for advice on.


 
Ah, got cha....thanks for the clarification...


----------



## rufus5150 (Nov 12, 2008)

Judging by your exif on that image, I don't think speed is your problem. That was a 1/320th of a second exposure, fast enough to freeze most motion as well as counteract camera shake on a 100mm lens.

You were shooting wide open on an 100mm f/2.8. Someone more experienced with that lens might have to comment on how it performs wide open (I played around with one for a day) but images with any lens wide open tend to be a shade on the soft side.

You could probably shoot this at ISO400 and 1/160th and be about 95% safe from motion blur and still avoiding camera shake.

What it looks like to me is focus was a problem. Auto-focusing in low light can be very, very difficult and the 100mm, IIRC, is pretty slow at focusing anyway. 

If you look closely at the image, their legs are really sharp, especially the girl in the center towards her feet.

How are you focusing? center-point and recompose? or multi-point? (or some other singe point?)

ETA: my understanding of autofocus uses as part of its algorithm contrast to determine a focal point (if I'm wrong someone will correct me). That particular lighting situation is going to be difficult because the skin tones of your subjects and the background are close. The fact it's in low light amplifies that lack of contrast. I seriously don't think your lens is the problem with that image.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 12, 2008)

MrsMoo said:


> doesnt a higher ISO reduce image quality slightly?
> or were my tutors not being truthful?


It doesn't reduce image quality at all perse... it *introduces* digital noise, which if not overly excessive, can be very easily removed with little to no loss in image quality.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 12, 2008)

JodieO said:


> I have to agree.
> 
> I shot all this with ISO 5,000 and ISO 6,000 hand held, Nikon D3 (with incredible full frame sensor), 70-200/2.8 lens in lowest of low light situation (but still needed a high shutter to stop motion) -- little grainy, but still useable... (scroll by the guy with the green hair... lolol) http://jodieotte.com/?p=340



Jodie, please tell me that you ran these ISO 5000 pictures through some kind of noise reduction software at a really low level.  

If you tell me that these are SOOC or without any noise reduction, you are seriously going to expedite the process of me lightening my wallet for the D700 and accessories... lol.

The guy with the green hair... its not his fault an oompah-loompah mated with a biker... lol


----------



## JodieO (Nov 14, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Jodie, please tell me that you ran these ISO 5000 pictures through some kind of noise reduction software at a really low level.
> 
> If you tell me that these are SOOC or without any noise reduction, you are seriously going to expedite the process of me lightening my wallet for the D700 and accessories... lol.
> 
> The guy with the green hair... its not his fault an oompah-loompah mated with a biker... lol


 
LOL - that's my husband :mrgreen:

No, I didn't do anything with them except resize for web. They are SOOC - I *NEVER* use noiseware, EVER. Seriously, as I have said in other threads, it is not worth buying anything Nikon but the D3 or D700. After dealing with this full frame sensor and shooting at ISO 5,000 and 6400... I will never ever think anything else is even worth looking at.

I regularly shoot running toddlers at ISO 1,000 to 2,000 outside in overcast/shade conditions, like it is ISO 200. I don't even think about it, I just do it... there's no reason not to. I hand hold everything and just shoot comfortably, increasing ISO as necessary so I can keep a fast shutter. Those on my blog above were shot with a shutter of 1/1,000 because I wanted to freeze the action AND be hand holding the camera at 200 mm.

Seriously, I don't think twice about increasing my ISO to four digits regularly...

This is ISO 1600 - this one is TOTALLY SOOC - as you can see, I didn't even color correct it.







This is ISO 1250






ISO 2500






ISO 1250






ISO 1250






ISO 1,000






ISO 800






ISO 4,000 (don't really know why it was at 4,000 - I must have switched indoors to outdoors and didn't think about it)






ISO 3200






This is ISO 5,000 set on aperture priority - this is me on my horse - my daughter shot this image.... it's not brain surgery... but nice smooth hardly any digital noise ISO 5,000!!!!!






and these (in the following link) were all my first shots from the D3 - factory settings, the minute I got it.... they are SOOC -- and shot on A priority (out of sheer laziness) - and any vignetting you see comes naturally from my Sigma 10-20 on the FF cameras.

http://jodieotte.com/?p=172

I couldn't honestly tell anyone to waste their money on anything less than a camera with a sensor like in the D3 and D700. I'm not being a "camera snob", I have waited for this technology for years, and it is HERE... whether some people want to take notice or not, this technology is incredible.... anything else would be a waste to me.


----------



## Dao (Nov 14, 2008)

4 letters - N I C E


Jerry ...   I believe your X'mas shopping starts now.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 14, 2008)

MrsMoo said:


> doesnt a higher ISO reduce image quality slightly?
> or were my tutors not being truthful?


 
A shot with a bit of noise is better than no shot, you can alway turn it into a nice B+W


----------



## gsgary (Nov 14, 2008)

laam999 said:


> I'd have to say the f2.8 70-200L sounds like the best option, you could go for the older non IS vertion but that wouldnt help for other uses. The only other think I would suggest is try a cam with a lower noise level


 
How can can that be the best option he shot theses shot at F2.8 and they are not very good


----------



## gsgary (Nov 14, 2008)

JodieO said:


> LOL - that's my husband :mrgreen:
> 
> No, I didn't do anything with them except resize for web. They are SOOC - I *NEVER* use noiseware, EVER. Seriously, as I have said in other threads, it is not worth buying anything Nikon but the D3 or D700. After dealing with this full frame sensor and shooting at ISO 5,000 and 6400... I will never ever think anything else is even worth looking at.
> 
> ...


 

Does that mean you could not get a good picture before the D3, a fancy camera does not make you a good photographer


----------



## Harmony (Nov 14, 2008)

gsgary said:


> Does that mean you could not get a good picture before the D3, a fancy camera does not make you a good photographer



So are you calling her a lousy photographer?

And the whole point of Jodie's post was to give examples on the D3's and the D700's amazing ISO capabilities. And they _are _amazing.

No need to be rude.


----------



## rufus5150 (Nov 14, 2008)

Which doesn't have a whole lot to do with what the OP was asking, seeing as he's both a Canon shooter and asking about lenses.


----------



## Harmony (Nov 14, 2008)

rufus5150 said:


> Which doesn't have a whole lot to do with what the OP was asking, seeing as he's both a Canon shooter and asking about lenses.



Agreed. 

However, I felt (and still feel) that gsgary was needlessly blunt.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 14, 2008)

JodieO said:


> LOL - that's my husband :mrgreen:



Oh good God, thanks for having a great sense of humor, Jodie... I am really embarrassed this moment.  Sorry about that!  :blushing: :blushing:  :lmao:



JodieO said:


> No, I didn't do anything with them except resize for web. They are SOOC - I *NEVER* use noiseware, EVER.


Incredible.  I see other pics that are very close but not quite that clean, so you have to be nailing the exposure every time in every pic here that you've shown.

After I get the D700, I'd like to talk to you about some of the settings you are using to get these results, if you don't mind?  Not the basics like ISO, shutter speed or aperture, but more along the lines of what EV and whe you compose, what are you metering against.  If these are things you'd not want to discuss, of course, I would totally understand. 



JodieO said:


> I couldn't honestly tell anyone to waste their money on anything less than a camera with a sensor like in the D3 and D700. I'm not being a "camera snob", I have waited for this technology for years, and it is HERE... whether some people want to take notice or not, this technology is incredible.... anything else would be a waste to me.



I'm very much of the same mind.  I don't participate in the brand wars (unless it's with tongue in cheek), and have taken the time to do my own personal research and found very much the same things you have.



Dao said:


> Jerry ...   I believe your X'mas shopping starts now.



Hmm... I am not sure.  I was aiming for just after the holidays, but may not even last till Christmas now... lol.


----------



## JodieO (Nov 15, 2008)

gsgary said:


> Does that mean you could not get a good picture before the D3, a fancy camera does not make you a good photographer


 
Boy, that was a rude one. There are still pictures on my website that I took with a D100, D70, D2X, and D200 - go check them out www.jottephotography.com I've been in business WAY longer than the D3 has been out.

I shared mostly my personal snapshots above taken with the D3 (my son playing football, my daughter with her horse, my backyard, my dog, etc.) showing that the D3 is INCREDIBLE at higher ISOs. I used to avoid low light shots before the D3 because I knew that low shutters plus action (moving kids, moving nature, etc.) was not really going to work very well. Now it is just freeing to be able to take a snapshot of my kid at night in my house with nothing but one lamp, no flash, and it is going to be fantastically sharp.... or I can let a client show later toward sunset and know that I can just increase my ISO and still shoot their kids outdoors as the sun is going down. I just had an NFL player bring his dog this week as his wife wants some blown up black and whites of their dog for their new house and we shot right as the sun was going down - an energetic dog chasing a stick, I was able to freeze, hand held, no flash.  It's very freeing not to have to worry so much about lighting conditions holding back even family snapshots.


----------



## JodieO (Nov 15, 2008)

rufus5150 said:


> Which doesn't have a whole lot to do with what the OP was asking, seeing as he's both a Canon shooter and asking about lenses.


 
Okay, smart@ss, it has to do with the fact that the original poster, was asking if he should upgrade his camera or upgrade the lens.

Then there was some talk about digital noise. I personally would vote for upgrade the camera if he already has a 2.8 lens that isn't working well for him.

I then discussed how some cameras (mainly the Nikon D3) can be amazing at higher ISOs.

Then another poster came in and was asking if I used noise reduction on the images I linked to expressing his interest in obtaining a D700 sooner rather than later. I said no noise reduction, and then wanted to give examples of simple straight out of camera snapshots at various high ISOs from the D3 to illustrate that there is no major digital noise in them.

Back to the original poster ---- Personally, if I were him and wanted to stick with Canon, I wouldn't hesitate to go out and get a Canon 5D - why? Because it is close to the D3s high ISO capabilities. It's full frame, has a better sensor than his Canon XTI.


----------



## JodieO (Nov 15, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Oh good God, thanks for having a great sense of humor, Jodie... I am really embarrassed this moment. Sorry about that! :blushing: :blushing: :lmao:
> 
> 
> Incredible. I see other pics that are very close but not quite that clean, so you have to be nailing the exposure every time in every pic here that you've shown.
> ...


 

No need to be embarrassed, I thought it was funny 

Yes, you have to nail your exposure... if you start playing with your curves/levels or adding anything to the images in photoshop, digital noise will start to show.

As far as metering - I will start with the in camera metering, try a setting, "chimp" (i.e., look at my LCD screen) and adjust my shutter or aperture or ISO to whatever I want the LCD screen to show (i.e., proper exposure by the naked eye), then I will double check my histogram to make sure things are exposed properly, then I start shooting. If my lighting conditions change, I do the same thing over again -it's actually a very quick process, but insures that I am not screwing up my exposure. UNLESS I am shooting for my fun and walk around with aperture priority... if I am shooting with aperture priority, I adjust my exposure compensation up or down depending on what I see on the LCD and histogram. I shoot aperture priority when I am shooting sports and family snapshots and such... but will change to manual when I know there is a tricky lighting situation.

Also, I have yet to change anything from factory settings on the D3 except one thing -- the LCD screen brightness. I took a picture with it the minute I got it, and then uploaded, put it on my computer screen (which is callibrated to my lab) and adjusted the brightness of the LCD to match what I saw on the screen. That way, any time I "chimp" the LCD screen, it should be showing just about exactly what I am going to see when I upload.

It was a stretch for me to get the D3 when it came out. I tried to avoid getting it for a while and then I was going through the slow season with business and had just bought a horse (that cost way more than the D3), so I was a little low on cash... but I squeezed it onto a credit card and was scared but never looked back... so I paid it off a few months later, but honestly, I still have a D70, a D2X and a D200 here and I won't even take them on a hike with me... THAT is how much I love the D3, I'm willing to risk harming it for "the shot", but it is insured, thankfully  No regrets. This thing amazes me all the time...

Again, not that the camera makes the photographer, but having that tool opened worlds for me with my personal low light stuff that I was always frustrated with when it came to digital noise before.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 15, 2008)

Harmony said:


> So are you calling her a lousy photographer?
> 
> And the whole point of Jodie's post was to give examples on the D3's and the D700's amazing ISO capabilities. And they _are _amazing.
> 
> No need to be rude.


 
 Sorry i can be a bit blunt sometimes sorry
No i'm not, but you don't need the best equipment to get good shots, not everyone can afford the best equipment, the photographer is the most important part in taking a shot


----------



## JodieO (Nov 15, 2008)

gsgary said:


> No i'm not, but you don't need the best equipment to get good shots, not everyone can afford the best equipment, the photographer is the most important part in taking a shot


 
Absolutely, and I totally agree with that, but dang having the ability to shoot at ISO 5,000 comfortably has changed the way I shoot.... opened up a new world to me personally even in my personal family snapshots. The good news? The D700 has the same sensor and is much cheaper.

Anyone who supports the Nikon line and is actually in business as a pro charging for their work should HIGHLY consider the D700 or the D3... they should be able to afford it - after all, it is a *GREAT* tax deduction.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 15, 2008)

We've said it time and again... using the same equipment, a good photographer will get better results.  Give the better photographer lower end equipment, they may outdo the person with the better camera, but there is a very really easily definable line there.  You can be the BEST photographer in the world with a noisy camera and a slow lens and if you are in a dark room where people are moving around, no amount of skill or knowledge will help in any other way other than the photographer KNOWING that all his pics are going to come out looking like crap.

Then you have that little newbie with the camera in P or A-mode and auto ISO up to 6400... and who is snapping away and getting pictures INCREDIBLY better than mr good photographer under those conditions (they may be compositional crap, but they are at least motion-blur free and properly exposed!).  Now, what each person needs to define within themselves is how often are you going to be in these conditions to justify such a camera for them?  For some, never, for others, always.  Most people will be somewhere in the middle, but I can promise you this... everytime you are in a low light scenario and are taking pictures, pushing the ISO higher and higher on your camera and *will* be needing the crutch of noise removal software (which is currently me, and I am doing it with some success, but would not mind doing better without it.. lol), you *will* be wishing you owned a camera like the D700/D3 and a F/1.4 lens.


Yeah, you have to KNOW what you are doing... but you can do so much more when you BOTH know what you are doing AND have a camera that is literally redefining the standards in high ISO - low noise photography as we know it today (now, throw into that mix a fast quality lens and things start to get very interesting!).


----------



## Dao (Nov 15, 2008)

gsgary said:


> Sorry i can be a bit blunt sometimes sorry
> No i'm not, but you don't need the best equipment to get good shots, not everyone can afford the best equipment, the photographer is the most important part in taking a shot



For someone like me as a beginner, I would say yes.  Give me a best camera in the world may not make a huge different.   However, for an experienced photographer, he/she can take the advantage of the extra features and capabilities of the camera and make a stunning photos especially in certain difficult situations.[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]


----------



## JodieO (Nov 15, 2008)

Ls3D said:


> Those are beautiful, but 'lowest of low light situations'? Looks pretty bright to me, especially compared to the theater already test shot.
> 
> -S


 

They look pretty bright because they are *properly exposed* and have pretty correct white balance. The horses were in the center of this arena and the lights were dim everywhere - it was VERY similar to theatre lighting - in fact, the mounted police shot - the room was almost impossibly dark even for ISO 6400 - that WAS equivalent to that theatre lighting if not WORSE than theatre lighting. The OP was shooting at 800 ISO 1/320 and F2.8 -- the result is an underexposed and blurred picture. If he was shooting like I was for the jumping horses at 2.8, 1/1,000 and ISO 5000, it probably would have been WAY better exposed (it may have been a little overexposed, so maybe drop his ISO back down to maybe around 2,000) and no motion blur. Also, the white balance needs to be correct for exposure to look correct.

And I disagree when someone said you can stop motion at 1/320. No, you can't if you are hand holding and the subject is moving and you are not using flash with a 100 mm lens. If I am shooting at 100 mm, I want my shutter more like 1/1000 if my subject is moving. It's just WAY EASIER to get a focused image that way. When I am shooting moving subjects with a simple 50 mm, I like to have my shutter at least 1/250, so double that distance, I wouldn't go under 1/500 but would prefer 1/1000.

I just checked back on my settings - that mounted police shot -- was at F2.8, ISO 6400 and 1/100 - that was WAY darker than the original OP's shot on here, so you can't say that it was bright circumstances at all - in fact, it was DARKER... Yes, they ARE Brighter... because it was exposed properly - thus brighter in the picture. Being able to shoot with such high ISOs can totally fool the eye in the final picture to think that it was better circumstances for light - when it wasn't.

If you want to compare light conditions - the ornamental plum picture I have above is close to the OP's setting.  My plum picture is shot at F3.2, ISO 800, and 1/320.  It's properly exposed with correct white balance, that's why it is so much brighter.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 15, 2008)

JodieO said:


> Absolutely, and I totally agree with that, but dang having the ability to shoot at ISO 5,000 comfortably has changed the way I shoot.... opened up a new world to me personally even in my personal family snapshots. The good news? The D700 has the same sensor and is much cheaper.
> 
> Anyone who supports the Nikon line and is actually in business as a pro charging for their work should HIGHLY consider the D700 or the D3... they should be able to afford it - after all, it is a *GREAT* tax deduction.


 

I like to see a bit of noise for converting to B+W Jeff Ascough shoots at iso800 in daylight to give it a film look


----------



## gsgary (Nov 15, 2008)

These are from what people say is a very noisy camera at high iso the 1Dmk1 but if the exposure is good i think they come out ok
iso1600 no noise reduction 50mmF1.4 shot at F2






iso3200


----------



## JodieO (Nov 15, 2008)

Now see, the noise in the images you posted doesn't bother me because it isn't that green/red noise that I see in a lot of high ISO images of different cameras... but you are shooting with a better camera in the Canon line, correct?  (sorry, I don't know a lot about Canon - I went years ago from Minolta to Nikon and haven't found a reason to change from Nikon at this time with my arsenal of lenses lolol )


----------



## gsgary (Nov 15, 2008)

JodieO said:


> Now see, the noise in the images you posted doesn't bother me because it isn't that green/red noise that I see in a lot of high ISO images of different cameras... but you are shooting with a better camera in the Canon line, correct? (sorry, I don't know a lot about Canon - I went years ago from Minolta to Nikon and haven't found a reason to change from Nikon at this time with my arsenal of lenses lolol )


 

A good old one (2005 model) since then it has been replaced by the mk2 mk2n and mk3 but i love it, probably get the 1Dmk2n and 5D soon but keep the mk1


----------



## JodieO (Nov 15, 2008)

Ahh.. I gotcha... I shot with the Nikon D2X for so long and I LOVED that camera... I was "one" with that camera... lololol!, and I would get images like you post above, but it wasn't always like that.  It would be like every 2 out of 50 would look like that at high ISOs and 48 of them would suck   That's why I like this D3 so much - it's consistently barely showing any digital noise at all...


----------



## Pugs (Nov 15, 2008)

gsgary said:


>


 
Love this photograph!  Great capture, great exposure!  His expression and the stage lights coloring his face/hair... fantastic!


----------



## gsgary (Nov 15, 2008)

Pugs said:


> Love this photograph! Great capture, great exposure! His expression and the stage lights coloring his face/hair... fantastic!


 

Cheers Pugs, he is also a fantastic player you can listen to them here 


http://www.the-idle-hands.co.uk/downloads.htm


----------



## anubis404 (Nov 15, 2008)

I'm kind of in a never ending debate on what to put my money into: bodies or lenses. I originally bought a Nikon D40 as my original SLR however its small, plasticy body, its lack of AF motor, its short life, and its lack of controls led me to upgrade to the D70s. So far I have been nothing but happy, however its sensor isn't the greatest. Its very noisy at higher ISOs and it has a small screen. I do have an F1.8 lens which makes it pretty manageable, but I still feel slightly limited. I hopefully have an Tamron 17-50/2.8 or a 28-70/2.8 coming around the holiday season. I have heard great things about the quality of these lense, plus the great speed. However, I am thinking of saving up more money and don't know what to put it into. The only bodies even remotely in my reach are the D200 and maybe the D300, although I don't know if I would be better served putting that money into a lens.

As for the OP, I would upgrade to the 50 or 40D at the very least, even a 5D if you can afford it. Buying an F1.8 lens isn't going to make a giant difference if you already have an F2.8 lens, and the telephoto is just way too slow. You're going to want a camera that can perform better in higher ISOs, which would be the 40D, 50D, or 5D.


----------



## RyanLilly (Nov 15, 2008)

I shoot a 20D and It probably has a little better performance than the XT, but I have made prints at 3200(H) at 8X12 that look great hanging on the wall, even 4x6 don't show distinguishable noise when holding them. Often prints look much better than the file on your screen. You can see some noise here but I don't find it distracting especially in print. this Jpg also look noticeably worse  than the original file.

Canon 20D, Canon 50mm 1.4, @f/1.4, 1/20 sec ISO 3200. No noise Reduction.


----------



## Flynnstone (Nov 15, 2008)

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:


----------



## gsgary (Nov 15, 2008)

Flynnstone said:


> 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 best performing low light lenses are primes which means you will be fixed  to a focal length but you have legs that is how you zoom with a prime  they are usually sharper than zoom lenses. You have a great lens with the 100F2.8 but with IS it is only good if your subject is stationary your daughter will be moving around the stage so you need a higher shutter speed the only way to get that is a bigger aperture


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 15, 2008)

gsgary said:


> The best performing low light lenses are primes


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.



gsgary said:


> You have a great lens with the 100F2.8 but with IS it is only good if your subject is stationary your daughter will be moving around the stage so you need a higher shutter speed the only way to get that is a bigger aperture



... 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.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 16, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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


----------



## TBAM (Nov 16, 2008)

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 (Nov 16, 2008)

Flynnstone said:


> 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 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 (Nov 17, 2008)

gsgary said:


> 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 (Nov 17, 2008)

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 (Nov 17, 2008)

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 (Nov 17, 2008)

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 (Nov 17, 2008)

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 (Nov 17, 2008)

> 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 (Nov 17, 2008)

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


----------



## Mike_E (Nov 17, 2008)

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 (Nov 17, 2008)

JodieO said:


> 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 (Nov 17, 2008)

gsgary said:


> 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 (Nov 17, 2008)

JodieO said:


> 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 (Nov 17, 2008)

gsgary said:


> 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.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 17, 2008)

JodieO said:


> 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.


 
Sounds good http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=316&sort=7&cat=28&page=1


----------



## Helen B (Nov 17, 2008)

rufus5150 said:


> I must be on everyone's ignore list.  I mentioned AF being the problem way the heck up thread



Ah, sorry Rufus, I wasn't ignoring your post, just giving specific details about the D3 and how focusing can become a problem before image quality does.

The reason some of us have multiple bodies, beyond the simple requirement for a spare, is so that we can have two or three fast primes of different focal lengths available. I don't, however, tend to require long lenses so typically have 24/35 - 50 - 75/80 f/1.4 primes ready.

Best,
Helen


----------



## rufus5150 (Nov 17, 2008)

No need to apologize, ever, Helen. I was more amused by it than anything.


----------

