low light

"ipy2006" <ipyasaswi RemoveThis @gmail.com> 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 <JPS RemoveThis @no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> UC 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
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

>> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

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

> In article <pan.2007.03.07.18.44.00.473793.TakeThisOut@zianet.com>, ray
> <ray.TakeThisOut@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 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.
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

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

> ray <ray.TakeThisOut@zianet.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:13:36 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>> ray <ray.TakeThisOut@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.
>>
>>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.
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

On Mar 8, 6:23 am, ray <r....TakeThisOut@zianet.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:47:20 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> > ray <r....TakeThisOut@zianet.com> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:13:36 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
> >>> ray <r....TakeThisOut@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.
>
> >>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
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

"Scott W" <biphoto.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> writes:
> 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.

I don't see how the 1Dmk3 does better given the various observations
that the 20D's low light performance is limited basically by photon noise.
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

On Mar 8, 7:37 am, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> "Scott W" <biph....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> writes:
> > 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.
>
> I don't see how the 1Dmk3 does better given the various observations
> that the 20D's low light performance is limited basically by photon noise.

The 1D III has a larger sensor then the 20D, and they have impoved the
fill factor
on the 1D III, less dead space between pixels.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

On Mar 8, 7:38 am, ray <r....RemoveThis@zianet.com> wrote:

> That's another point that the OP failed to mention: is the ultimate
> objective to have an image in the computer to manipulate or just to have
> some good prints? That, IMHO, would make a difference.
My own experience has been that I can get far better prints by
scanning my own negatives and printing from the image files rather
then just sending the film to a lab.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

On Mar 7, 1:31 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d....DeleteThis@dd-b.net> wrote:
> UC 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
>
> > None. You need light to do photography, you moron.
>
> Troll.

Moron.
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

"Scott W" <biphoto RemoveThis @hotmail.com> writes:
> > I don't see how the 1Dmk3 does better given the various observations
> > that the 20D's low light performance is limited basically by photon noise.
> The 1D III has a larger sensor then the 20D, and they have impoved the
> fill factor on the 1D III, less dead space between pixels.

Oh, both good points, though I thought the 1D3 uses a CMOS sensor
which used to mean that there was some penalty because of digitization
circuitry using up some of the active area that was somehow kept
available for light collection with CCD sensors.
 >> Stay informed about: low light 

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:26:44 -0800, Scott W wrote:

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

That's another point that the OP failed to mention: is the ultimate
objective to have an image in the computer to manipulate or just to have
some good prints? That, IMHO, would make a difference.

>
> 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
 >> Stay informed about: low light