low light

On Mar 7, 7:58 am, ASAAR <cau....RemoveThis@22.com> wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0800, Yip quipped:
>
> > I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
> > best DSLR for this purpose?
>
> It's never just a matter of getting the best DSLR for the purpose.
> It's a DSLR body + lens combination that must be considered, as well
> as the low light level and specific types of actions you need to
> shoot. Some combinations will be so demanding that there may not be
> a suitable solution. Others may be so easy that almost any DSLR
> will do. If you can determine the minimum gear that will suffice,
> you can save a lot of money buying a body and lens(es). If you
> don't know but have enough money to burn, you could start with a
> 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
> thousand dollars getting a better lens if the kit lens proves
> inadequate. If your sports shooting demands long bursts of shots at
> very high frame rates, you might need to get a much more expensive
> body than the 5D, ie, one of the "pro" bodies from Canon or Nikon.
>
> You gave no information at all as to the kind of action photos
> you'll be shooting or in what kind of low light levels. If you can
> tell us what they are, you might get some concrete examples of what
> kind of DSLR will meet your needs. Which brings up another point.
> You really want to know what kind of cameras will be suitable. You
> don't want to ask what the BEST DSLR is, because the "best" for one
> person won't be the best for another, and the absolute "best" for
> *you* might be $8,000 above your budget, whereas a $1,200 camera
> with kit lens might do everything you're looking for, and would be
> good enough. Care to share which camera(s) you're currently using,
> if any?

Here are some scenarios,
Indoor shooting of people talking with hand gestures, people walking
or pacing in the room, kids playing, women cooking in kitchen, or
groups of people in meeting rooms etc. Sometimes I don't have the
ability to use lights, I need to depend on flash and high brightness
setting. Currently, I am using a Sony Digital Camera, Cyber-shot, DSC-
H2. My budget is $1000 and at the most $1500.

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.

Please comment.

Thanks,
yip
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

"ipy2006" <ipyasaswi.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173268980.676512.227070@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
> best DSLR for this purpose?
> Thanks,
> Yip
>
Probably the best DSLR for your purpose would be the upcoming Canon 1D
mkIII, it shoots 10 fps, has a "silent mode," an ISO range up to3200
expandable to 6400. That being said, a appropriate lens is critical to the
equation. Depending on what the subject is, a 70-200 f2.8 zoom or a fixed
focal length lens like the 100 f2, 85 f1.8 or 85 f1.2 could be excellent
choices. Notice, when you say "best," without saying what you're budget is,
the best is expensive, the body will probably be in the $4000+ range, the
70-200 f2.8 is about $1600, and the 85 f1.2 is about $1200.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

On Mar 7, 9:04 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
<usern... RemoveThis @qwest.net> wrote:
> tomm42 wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 7:03 am, "ipy2006" <ipyasa... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
> >> best DSLR for this purpose?
> >> Thanks,
> >> Yip
>
> > I'd look at a Canon 30D, about the best for a reason able price, the
> > Canon 5D is better but 3X (approx) the price. Canons seem to have a
> > heavier in camera noise reduction than the cameras with a Sony sensor.
>
> Not quite. Canon sensors have inherently low noise at low signal
> levels. Noise reduction implies some method of reducing noise,
> and that can only be done by averaging pixels to reduce
> spatial resolution. One can do that in software in post processing.
> It helps to have a good low noise/high signal system to begin with.
>
> See:
> Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
> Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter
>
> Digital Camera Sensor Performance Summary
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.sum...
>
> For the OP: choose a camera with the largest pixels and the lowest
> read noise. The two relevant plots on the digital.sensor.performance.summary
> web page are Figure 3 (lower on the plot is better), Figure 6 (higher
> on the plot is better) and Figure 7 (higher = better).
>
> > Remember you won't get by with a kit lens here. If you are in school
> > gyms, swimming pools etc you will neeed at least an f2.8 lens. A
> > 70-200 f2.8 pushes $2K. If you buy single focal length lenses 85 -
> > 135mm should cover what you need, just look at lenses that are f1.4-
> > f2.8, price escalate dramaticly after 135mm. Some claim they get by
> > with a fast 50mm, doesn't seem long enough for me. An 85 f1.8 or a 135
> > f2 should be good lenses to look at, depending on the distance of the
> > action. Just calculate what f-stop and ISO can get you to a shutter
> > speed of at least 1/250 of a second.
> > Vibration reduction will be of minimal usefulness you should be at
> > shutter speeds that don't need it and the blur will come from the
> > action.
>
> For indoor action shots, a 50mm f/1.8 lens is very low cost (about %70)
> and very high performance. Remember, on a 1.6x crop camera,
> 50 mm is like 80 mm on a full frame camera regarding full field
> of view.
>
> Roger

This (1.2) would be a lens to save up for in your situation:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcateg...id=152&

But the 1.4's are about $900 to $1000.
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

On Mar 7, 9:23 am, "DeanB" <deanbrow....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 9:04 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
>
>
>
>
>
> <usern....DeleteThis@qwest.net> wrote:
> > tomm42 wrote:
> > > On Mar 7, 7:03 am, "ipy2006" <ipyasa....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
> > >> best DSLR for this purpose?
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Yip
>
> > > I'd look at a Canon 30D, about the best for a reason able price, the
> > > Canon 5D is better but 3X (approx) the price. Canons seem to have a
> > > heavier in camera noise reduction than the cameras with a Sony sensor.
>
> > Not quite. Canon sensors have inherently low noise at low signal
> > levels. Noise reduction implies some method of reducing noise,
> > and that can only be done by averaging pixels to reduce
> > spatial resolution. One can do that in software in post processing.
> > It helps to have a good low noise/high signal system to begin with.
>
> > See:
> > Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
> > Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera
> > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter
>
> > Digital Camera Sensor Performance Summary
> > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.sum...
>
> > For the OP: choose a camera with the largest pixels and the lowest
> > read noise. The two relevant plots on the digital.sensor.performance.summary
> > web page are Figure 3 (lower on the plot is better), Figure 6 (higher
> > on the plot is better) and Figure 7 (higher = better).
>
> > > Remember you won't get by with a kit lens here. If you are in school
> > > gyms, swimming pools etc you will neeed at least an f2.8 lens. A
> > > 70-200 f2.8 pushes $2K. If you buy single focal length lenses 85 -
> > > 135mm should cover what you need, just look at lenses that are f1.4-
> > > f2.8, price escalate dramaticly after 135mm. Some claim they get by
> > > with a fast 50mm, doesn't seem long enough for me. An 85 f1.8 or a 135
> > > f2 should be good lenses to look at, depending on the distance of the
> > > action. Just calculate what f-stop and ISO can get you to a shutter
> > > speed of at least 1/250 of a second.
> > > Vibration reduction will be of minimal usefulness you should be at
> > > shutter speeds that don't need it and the blur will come from the
> > > action.
>
> > For indoor action shots, a 50mm f/1.8 lens is very low cost (about %70)
> > and very high performance. Remember, on a 1.6x crop camera,
> > 50 mm is like 80 mm on a full frame camera regarding full field
> > of view.
>
> > Roger
>
> This (1.2) would be a lens to save up for in your situation:
>
> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcate...
>
> But the 1.4's are about $900 to $1000.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thank you all for your feedback.
Yip
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

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

I've had about a year with DSLRs after a few years with higher end
digitals. I made the transition due to similar circumstances - the
family and friends refused to stay still in bright light while i was
awake.

Here's the best piece of advice I've been told by a coupl eof people
and experience is confirming this:
"It's all about the lenses"

Unlike a lot of consumer electronic devices where the base unit is
important rather than the peripherals, DSLRs aren't quite the same
way.
Lens end up being more important because:
1) The optics determine quality to a large extent. I didn't say all
or 99% or anything else is trivial. But the glass is a huge factor.
2) The lenses will outlive the body. Especially digital bodies where
technology changes and improves so rapidly. Even in the film age, the
investment ended up in lenses.
3) Lenses largely determine how much light is needed for a good shot.
4) You can always start with a lower level body and a great set of
lenses and get great pics in tough lighting situations immediately.
Great body but mediocre kit lenses will leave you in the same
situation as with many point-and-shoot cameras today - just can't do
it. Kit lenses are rarely good enough to use in low light situations.

My recommendations, to be taken as a rough and still a bit not fully
informed opinion... I have a Canon 400D so I'm only going to talk
about things I have *some* idea about. Again, you are going to have
to do your own research despite what any of us says.

Lenses:
Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical - for close to normal
indoor shots, and outdoor shots within talking distance. And the
everyday, always on default lens.
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM - the classic, very good 3-4x-ish
telephoto lens for low light situations, from portrait to kid sports
(after the first two and the body, we have:) Canon EF 70 - 300mm
f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM - for extended telephoto shots

Body:
Start with a good used 300D or 350D. The 350D would be a good choice
as the 400D is more or less 350D with a couple of extra near-
superfluous megapixels and a cleaning system (very nice but we're
trying to conserve dollars here for lenses and accessories).
Certainly a XTi (400D) is a good choice but I'm concerned about the
budgetary restraints you gave. Again, invest in lenses - you can swap
bodies out later. I've done one swap out from a used 300D to a new
XTi.

Don;t forget the key essentials.... flash (search for 430EX, vivitar
flash, sunpak flash), and a good tripod. there's another $200-400!
But with the flash, you can settle for using cheaper 3rd party items
at th beginning. But preferable to buy new.
And a travel case. $25-50.

Nikon is another good choice to Canon since they have a nice huge
selection of lenses to choose from - including 3rd parties. Perhaps
the Nikkoners can provide some detailed recommendations here.
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

tomm42 wrote:
> On Mar 7, 7:03 am, "ipy2006" <ipyasa....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
>> best DSLR for this purpose?
>> Thanks,
>> Yip
>
>
> I'd look at a Canon 30D, about the best for a reason able price, the
> Canon 5D is better but 3X (approx) the price. Canons seem to have a
> heavier in camera noise reduction than the cameras with a Sony sensor.

Not quite. Canon sensors have inherently low noise at low signal
levels. Noise reduction implies some method of reducing noise,
and that can only be done by averaging pixels to reduce
spatial resolution. One can do that in software in post processing.
It helps to have a good low noise/high signal system to begin with.

See:
Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter

Digital Camera Sensor Performance Summary
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary

For the OP: choose a camera with the largest pixels and the lowest
read noise. The two relevant plots on the digital.sensor.performance.summary
web page are Figure 3 (lower on the plot is better), Figure 6 (higher
on the plot is better) and Figure 7 (higher = better).

> Remember you won't get by with a kit lens here. If you are in school
> gyms, swimming pools etc you will neeed at least an f2.8 lens. A
> 70-200 f2.8 pushes $2K. If you buy single focal length lenses 85 -
> 135mm should cover what you need, just look at lenses that are f1.4-
> f2.8, price escalate dramaticly after 135mm. Some claim they get by
> with a fast 50mm, doesn't seem long enough for me. An 85 f1.8 or a 135
> f2 should be good lenses to look at, depending on the distance of the
> action. Just calculate what f-stop and ISO can get you to a shutter
> speed of at least 1/250 of a second.
> Vibration reduction will be of minimal usefulness you should be at
> shutter speeds that don't need it and the blur will come from the
> action.

For indoor action shots, a 50mm f/1.8 lens is very low cost (about %70)
and very high performance. Remember, on a 1.6x crop camera,
50 mm is like 80 mm on a full frame camera regarding full field
of view.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

ipy2006 wrote:

> Here are some scenarios,
> Indoor shooting of people talking with hand gestures, people walking
> or pacing in the room, kids playing, women cooking in kitchen, or
> groups of people in meeting rooms etc. Sometimes I don't have the
> ability to use lights, I need to depend on flash and high brightness
> setting. Currently, I am using a Sony Digital Camera, Cyber-shot, DSC-
> H2. My budget is $1000 and at the most $1500.

What, you don't take pictures of men cooking in the kitchen?

>
> 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.
>
> Please comment.

The rebel xti (400D) has smaller pixels than other rebel cameras,
5.7 microns) (and smaller than many other DSLRs). I don't have
data on the xti, but can see on Figure 6 at
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary
that plotting at 5.7 microns in the gray band, the
performance would probably be below most other DSLRs on the plot.
(If you can't see the gray band on the plot, your monitor
is set too bright/too high contrast.)

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

"ipy2006" <ipyasaswi RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173274977.039356.148330@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Here are some scenarios,
> Indoor shooting of people talking with hand gestures, people walking
> or pacing in the room, kids playing, women cooking in kitchen, or
> groups of people in meeting rooms etc. Sometimes I don't have the
> ability to use lights, I need to depend on flash and high brightness
> setting. Currently, I am using a Sony Digital Camera, Cyber-shot, DSC-
> H2. My budget is $1000 and at the most $1500.
>
> 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.
>
> Please comment.

From what it sounds like with the situations you described there will be
some sort of lighting source, not like the people are in complete darkness
or anything or not lights on in the house/room at all. I have teh Canon XTI
and I have been suprised wtih the situations where I have not had to use the
flash at all, with just appropriate adjustment with shutter, aperture, and
white balance I have gotten some really good pictures.

B-Worthey
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

On 7 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0800, Yip quipped:

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

It's never just a matter of getting the best DSLR for the purpose.
It's a DSLR body + lens combination that must be considered, as well
as the low light level and specific types of actions you need to
shoot. Some combinations will be so demanding that there may not be
a suitable solution. Others may be so easy that almost any DSLR
will do. If you can determine the minimum gear that will suffice,
you can save a lot of money buying a body and lens(es). If you
don't know but have enough money to burn, you could start with a
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
thousand dollars getting a better lens if the kit lens proves
inadequate. If your sports shooting demands long bursts of shots at
very high frame rates, you might need to get a much more expensive
body than the 5D, ie, one of the "pro" bodies from Canon or Nikon.

You gave no information at all as to the kind of action photos
you'll be shooting or in what kind of low light levels. If you can
tell us what they are, you might get some concrete examples of what
kind of DSLR will meet your needs. Which brings up another point.
You really want to know what kind of cameras will be suitable. You
don't want to ask what the BEST DSLR is, because the "best" for one
person won't be the best for another, and the absolute "best" for
*you* might be $8,000 above your budget, whereas a $1,200 camera
with kit lens might do everything you're looking for, and would be
good enough. Care to share which camera(s) you're currently using,
if any?
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

In article <pan.2007.03.07.15.53.05.559375 DeleteThis @zianet.com>, ray
<ray DeleteThis @zianet.com> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

ray <ray.RemoveThis@zianet.com> 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.RemoveThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

"ipy2006" <ipyasaswi DeleteThis @gmail.com> 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 DeleteThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: low light