# Best low light set up for the money?



## CameraCameraPotato (Feb 4, 2014)

So I asked before for a new body and you were all very helpful so I thought I could ask some more here again!
My friend wants to get a camera he's only used point and shoots but he knows his way around a camera. He will be shooting handheld, portaits, at night so it'll be pretty low light maybe some street lights. I had the same question when i wanted a new body and i was recommended a full frame for the better low light capabilities. I'm asking here in Canon because I will be letting him use some of my lenses. His budget will be around $1200 maybe a little more. What would you suggest he get? I was thinking a 5D 2 with maybe a 50mm 1.4 that would total around  $1200 (Used body for around $900 lens about $300). Any help would be appreciated thanks!


----------



## grafxman (Feb 4, 2014)

I think the 6D is generally considered to be the best low light camera. That's the reason I bought one. It gives excellent photos at extremely high ISO levels. When noise does eventually show up it typically is in the form of non-objectionable fine grain almost like sandpaper. That noise is easily eliminated with nothing more than Canon's DPP software. I know I've been very, very impressed with its low light abilities. I'm afraid I can't speak to other full frame cameras. B&H has a used one for just a bit more money than your friends amount. Here's a link:

Used canon eos 6d body | B&H Photo Video

Hope this helps. Good luck.


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 4, 2014)

Yes, full frame is better for low light performance. However, for that budget, I don't recommend going full frame. It simply costs more than that, $1200 isn't enough money to do it right. Getting an old gen full frame with a single prime lens and nothing else is woefully failing to take advantage of the platform AND is not setting you up for quality, cost-effective add-ons and upgrades later.

$1200 is enough money to get a very nice modern crop frame and a very nice bright lens or two with wide apertures, that will allow much better upgrades later and modern conveniences in options and autofocus and resolution etc.

And then re-evaluate the intended photoshoots.  WHY must they be handheld? A simple $50 tripod can completely solve any issues of portraiture in low light, if you can simply adapt your plans to accommodate one. And it shouldn't be that hard to do so with a model who is sitting still for you and hanging around as long as you need. You need a really damn good reason not to use one for something like this.

Also, WHY must you literally use street lamps only for lighting? Street lights are terrible lighting, they are small far away point sources that will cast harsh ugly shadows with difficult to recover color information (very narrow wavelength in sodium lamps), and they're almost impossible to vary as desired without completely changing location. You'd be much better off in most cases getting an affordable lighting system like alienbees and some cheap triggers, and simulating a street lamp with a flash and softbox with amber gel, all for <$300 or so.

Decent crop frame camera: $500ish
Used 50mm 1.4: $300
Relatively luxurious lighting setup for a beginner in the form of Alienbees strobe, softbox, gels, stand, cheap triggers or cord and portable power inverter: $450
Tripod: $50
= ~$1300, and that's assuming borrowing your lenses. Ideally he'd have something a little more flexible with glass to have his own stuff, like a nice 18-135 STM as well, putting you around $1700 (good upgrade for later on when you have mroe to spend)


Edit: Yes, if you insist on going full frame, 6D is the way to go with any sort of budget considerations. But that's your entire budget on a body alone. And you should honestly STILL have controlled external lighting (still $450ish for outdoors shoots), and you need a good lens (still $300, or a LOT more potentially if you want any flexibility in composition). Yeah you could probably do away with the tripod in that case. 

So you're looking at more like $2000 full frame minumum, and ideally again with more glass flexibility, such as adding on the 24-105 kit option for more like $2500 total.


----------



## grafxman (Feb 4, 2014)

Shooting in dark areas is sure fire way to high noise photos for the inexperienced. The noise in my 7D shows up as hideous red dots that is often impossible to get rid of. The only way I can deal with it is to use a slow shutter speed. Many of the photos in this set were shot with a slow shutter speed due to darkness:

Henry Plant Museum - a set on Flickr

Flash and tripods were not permitted. The only lighting in the inner hallway was with Edison lights which are about as powerful as a candle. I'm not sure how well a slow shutter speed, tripod, flash gear, etc. would work in a dynamic environment like outdoors.


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 4, 2014)

> I'm not sure how well a slow shutter speed, tripod, flash gear, etc. would work in a dynamic environment like outdoors.


? 

They work the same way as indoors. It's just a little bit more expensive to power strobes if you don't have outlets nearby. So you use an inverter, or just battery powered speedlights. Otherwise, photons don't know if they're under a roof or not.


----------



## CameraCameraPotato (Feb 4, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Yes, full frame is better for low light performance. However, for that budget, I don't recommend going full frame. It simply costs more than that, $1200 isn't enough money to do it right. Getting an old gen full frame with a single prime lens and nothing else is woefully failing to take advantage of the platform AND is not setting you up for quality, cost-effective add-ons and upgrades later.
> 
> $1200 is enough money to get a very nice modern crop frame and a very nice bright lens or two with wide apertures, that will allow much better upgrades later and modern conveniences in options and autofocus and resolution etc.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your very detailed response. I don't think I was very clear when I explained this sorry. we won't be carrying tripods because we tend to travel  long distances sometimes 60 miles a day by foot or bike. 

We're not using street lights as our lighting because we want to but many of the shots will be candid and a flash going off in someones face probably isn't the best thing, having half a studio on a side walk probably wont help either haha. There are no designated places we're going to shoot so really if lighting is terrible we can completely change location. Also I am in New York City so there will be areas where the street lights are as bright as day like Time Square. 

As for the 6D it's not what I was recommending it for him I was just saying I was told that would be a good choice for myself and his needs will be similar to mine, just with a smaller budget that's why I asked if a 5D2 was even worth it. 




grafxman said:


> Flash and tripods were not permitted. The only lighting in the inner hallway was with Edison lights which are about as powerful as a candle. I'm not sure how well a slow shutter speed, tripod, flash gear, etc. would work in a dynamic environment like outdoors.



Thanks for sharing those, I can't wait to try it, I'm just waiting for CP+ to pass in case they announce something that would make me regret buying it!


----------



## jaomul (Feb 4, 2014)

D700/ 50mmf1.4d


----------



## CameraCameraPotato (Feb 4, 2014)

jaomul said:


> D700/ 50mmf1.4d


Haha I listed this in the Canon section and because I have lenses for Canon to share with him. D700 is nice but it's also way out of his budget so I don't know if you're being serious.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 4, 2014)

CameraCameraPotato said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > D700/ 50mmf1.4d
> ...



I'd probably look for something like a 50d and a nice fast prime or two.  Really it isn't the best bang for your buck you can get for lowlight, but if your set on Canon that would probably be your best option.


----------



## Dao (Feb 4, 2014)

Just one shoot through umbrella with radio trigger and hot shoe flash on a flash stand is going to be better in my opinion. And all that can easily fit inside a bag.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 4, 2014)

Used Canon 5D classic and a 50mm f/1.4 Canon EF????


----------



## Dao (Feb 4, 2014)

Derrel, you know what, if I spot a low cost 5D classic in good condition, I may grab one just for shooting portrait.  I learned from another forum that there are people prefer the Classic then the MKII simply because of the better color output from the classic.


----------



## jaomul (Feb 5, 2014)

CameraCameraPotato said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > D700/ 50mmf1.4d
> ...


Sorry. I missed the fact it was in the Canon section. I found the 5d original great with it even performing well at its extended iso. 
I would have thought 1200 was about correct for a used d700 though so I was serious.


----------



## CameraCameraPotato (Feb 5, 2014)

jaomul said:


> CameraCameraPotato said:
> 
> 
> > jaomul said:
> ...



Wow surprisingly it is! I didn't even know I thought it was a lot more! Unfortunately my lenses probably won't be much help for him if he gets a Nikon, thanks for your suggestion though it's appreciated!


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 5, 2014)

That makes it easier. Lightweight solutions also tend to be cheap solutions, luckily for you.

Given the additional information, if you want to travel minimum weight and cheap in low light, I suggest:



-A lightweight *mono*pod, usually < 1 pound: $25, mobile and easy.Get one with some sort of head on it (might cost a bit more, let's say another $25). Use it any time you're taking a non candid portrait at night, and it will add almost a stop to your abilities. About as effective as switching to full frame without a monopod, frankly.
-50 f/*1.8* FOUR ounces (1/3 the weight and cost of the 1.4 and quite a nice lens functionally, if not aesthetically), $100
-an old manual 135mm 2.8: 1 pound or so, $50 all over ebay in 100 different brands. Go for a pentax or T-mount version. Only cheap way I know of to go above 100mm with good optics and a reasonably bright aperture. You need a $5 adapter or so. This doesn't stay on your lens most of the time. 50mm is great for touristy shots walking around, etc., and lots of portraits. The 135mm is for two things: *intimate *portraits without perspective issues. It also gives you *stand-off distance* for candids, since you said you want to do those.
-A crop frame camera of some sort is also gonna very significantly save weight in addition to costs and more upgradeability. For example an SL1 is about half the weight of a 6D or 5D classic. A T3i is about 2/3 the weight.  Either SL1 or t3i = ~ 1 pound, $500 new/$400 used
-A very short piece of PVC plumbing pipe, and a white plastic grocery bag or two = flash diffuser in case you want a less crappy on-camera flash shot, if you don't mind looking dumb. Also bring a few index cards so you can bounce the on camera flash to a ceiling or wall if available

Cost: $600-700
Weight: ~ 3 pounds total. 3.5 with a small bag and a head on the monopod.
(Also both lenses suggested above are full frame if you change later)

Both apertures will give you plenty of artistic portrait blur and night capability, and with a monopod both can shoot about as well as a f/2 or faster would handheld.


----------



## Ihatemymoney (Feb 5, 2014)

T3i with a EF-s 10 - 22 mm fast ,fun, light and in budget. 
I bought a 5 d mk 2 used about 6 months ago for 1500$ gripped with L bracket, under 5k actuations.
I own a t3i too, It really is a nice camera and in the right hands produces professional pictures

Good luck finding what you are looking for.


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 5, 2014)

Oh, another option to consider is a film camera.

That gives you full frame benefits for portraiture like shallower DOF, for very little money.
You can grab a modern electronic film SLR that will work with Canon lens autofocus and image stabilization, etc. for like $30.
$8 or so per rolls + developing them + printing or scanning the few photos you like the most. Significantly less if you learn how to do it yourself.

Depends how long your trip is, I guess. And if you want to upload stuff during, etc. If you only plan to take 1,000-2,000 photos (film you shoot a LOT less, this is the equivalent of maybe 5-10,000 digital camera shots), you might save a reasonable amount of money, and be less of a robbery target, etc. to boot.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 5, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Oh, another option to consider is a film camera.
> 
> That gives you full frame benefits for portraiture like shallower DOF, for very little money.
> You can grab a modern electronic film SLR that will work with Canon lens autofocus and image stabilization, etc. for like $30.
> ...



This is one of the craziest ideas yet. I mean come on...first off, he's gonna save like $1175 by buying a used Canon EOS camera from Goodwill for like $30. I'm not that great at math, but let's say he has to spend another $99 to get a Canon 50/1.8 lens...so his total savings are only like a little under $1100. THAT MEANS he can only buy like 75 rolls of 36-exposure film. And instead of risking a $1200 camera setup, he's risking the existence of a $129 camera/lens combo!!! Madness, I tell you, sheer, utter madness!

THen there's the idea of applying selectivity and judgement to his entire photographic "take". Instead of an instant, digital regurgitation/web-splooge of EVERYTHING SHOT, you're advocating careful, selective evaluation of the photographic results. That's just crazy-talk, Gav, just total, unadulterated crazy-talk! By doing that he risks showing people only *the best of the best*, and condemning the "rest of the rest" to going un-seen!!!


----------



## Designer (Feb 5, 2014)

Sarcasm rarely works on the internet, but sometimes it does.  

Yet another profound profundity from the Designer.

*THE* Designer


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 5, 2014)

Derrel said:


> This is one of the craziest ideas yet. I mean come on...first off, he's gonna save like $1175 by buying a used Canon EOS camera from Goodwill for like $30. I'm not that great at math, but let's say he has to spend another $99 to get a Canon 50/1.8 lens...so his total savings are only like a little under $1100. THAT MEANS he can only buy like 75 rolls of 36-exposure film. And instead of risking a $1200 camera setup, he's risking the existence of a $129 camera/lens combo!!! Madness, I tell you, sheer, utter madness!



Yup.  So, we need ot have Gavjenks locked up.  Hmm.. My guess is that's not the first time someone put forth that opinion.. rotflmao...



> THen there's the idea of applying selectivity and judgement to his entire photographic "take". Instead of an instant, digital regurgitation/web-splooge of EVERYTHING SHOT, you're advocating careful, selective evaluation of the photographic results. That's just crazy-talk, Gav, just total, unadulterated crazy-talk! By doing that he risks showing people only *the best of the best*, and condemning the "rest of the rest" to going un-seen!!!



Hmm.. ok, wait.. you say "instant digital regurgitation / web splooge" like it's a bad thing.  Weird.

Lol


----------



## Derrel (Feb 5, 2014)

Designer said:


> Sarcasm rarely works on the internet, but sometimes it does.
> 
> Yet another profound profundity from the Designer.
> 
> *THE* Designer



Sooooo, you're saying  that YOU are "*the designer*" of sarcasm! Right???


----------



## raventepes (Feb 5, 2014)

I know you don't like the idea of a flash, but it would probably be the best option. My advice is to get a flash, such as a Yongnuo of some type or a Metz, and a flash mounted softbox like this inexpensive option from Fotodiox www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Speedlight-Speedlite-600EX-RT-Panasonic/dp/B003Y30334/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1391634424&sr=8-3&keywords=fotodiox. I use the softbox a lot in my wedding photography. Combine that with a Canon of your choice and maybe pick up a used 50mm f/1.8 and one would be pretty well set up for that kind of photography.


----------



## Designer (Feb 5, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > Sarcasm rarely works on the internet, but sometimes it does.
> ...



Actually not THAT Designer.  I have tried sarcasm many times on the webz only to have it UTTERLY FAIL every time.  

Tip-O'-The-Hat


----------



## runnah (Feb 5, 2014)

A flash light.


----------

