low light

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

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.

"ipy2006" schreef in bericht
ups.com...
I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
best DSLR for this purpose?
Thanks,
Yip


The one with the biggest sensor. And wit biggest i mean in millimetres, NOT
in megapixels. The bigger the sensor, the lower the noise, which will
certainly occur when shooting in low light.

Rutger


--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager

On 7 Mar 2007 05:42:57 -0800, 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.

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.

I have no idea what the review meant. I'd take referring to a
camera as "good low lighting" and "more as a available light camera"
to be the same thing, both seem to be praising the camera's low
(available) light ability. Both are good cameras, and well within
your budget, leaving enough room left over to get a good flash. But
the cameras that they replaced are probably better from a low light
standpoint, because these (Canon's 350D and Nikon's D50), using the
same size sensors, have fewer, larger pixels. This makes them able
to collect more light and for the same high ISO setting, produce
less "noise". Canon claims that despite having smaller pixels, the
400D is no noisier than the 350D, based on using better electronics,
but I'd guess that the difference is slight, and whatever difference
there is, the advantage would probably be to the 350D. I think that
the 350D and D50 do at least as well in low light and perhaps better
than their newer, more expensive siblings.

These older models are still available new, and you can get them
for many hundreds of dollars less than the current models. The
"kit" lenses for these cameras are usually something like 18mm-55mm
and are very inexpensive. These lenses would probably be well
suited for some of the slower activities you mentioned - women
cooking, people in a meeting room, maybe people walking and pacing,
etc. With the money saved by not going for the more expensive 400D
or D80, there's a slim chance that you *might* be able to afford a
longer, faster, and unfortunately heavier f/2.8 zoom, that would be
ideal for capturing fast moving pets, children playing, some sports
activities, etc. B&H has the D50 body in stock for $450 (new) and
$400 (used). The 350D is $488 (new). Nikon's recent "budget" DSLR,
the D40 is quite similar to the D50, and it's main limitation
wouldn't be a limitation for you. It won't autofocus with old Nikon
lenses. B&H has it for $570, and this includes Nikon's 18-55mm
f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. Add the same or a similar lens to the D50 or
350D and the price will be in the same ball park. This would leave
your budget with just under $1000 remaining. That could be put to
very good use if these lenses aren't suitable for collecting lots of
light. You'd be all set if a fixed length lens of about 50mm would
do, since an f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens is fairly inexpensive. If you need
a longer lens, then you'd want to look for one that has an f/2.8
aperture, but the prices for these rise rapidly. Longer f/2.8 zoom
lenses are probably well beyond your budget.

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.

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.

For that budget, a Nikon D50 or Canon XTI with a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens.
The fixed focal length gets you faster, wider aperture and that's the
appropriate normal focal length for home sized rooms indoor groups of
people.

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.

ASAAR wrote:

These older models are still available new, and you can get them
for many hundreds of dollars less than the current models. The
"kit" lenses for these cameras are usually something like 18mm-55mm
and are very inexpensive. These lenses would probably be well
suited for some of the slower activities you mentioned - women
cooking, people in a meeting room, maybe people walking and pacing,
etc. With the money saved by not going for the more expensive 400D
or D80, there's a slim chance that you *might* be able to afford a
longer, faster, and unfortunately heavier f/2.8 zoom, that would be
ideal for capturing fast moving pets, children playing, some sports
activities, etc. B&H has the D50 body in stock for $450 (new) and
$400 (used). The 350D is $488 (new). Nikon's recent "budget" DSLR,
the D40 is quite similar to the D50, and it's main limitation
wouldn't be a limitation for you. It won't autofocus with old Nikon
lenses. B&H has it for $570, and this includes Nikon's 18-55mm
f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. Add the same or a similar lens to the D50 or
350D and the price will be in the same ball park. This would leave
your budget with just under $1000 remaining. That could be put to
very good use if these lenses aren't suitable for collecting lots of
light. You'd be all set if a fixed length lens of about 50mm would
do, since an f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens is fairly inexpensive. If you need
a longer lens, then you'd want to look for one that has an f/2.8
aperture, but the prices for these rise rapidly. Longer f/2.8 zoom
lenses are probably well beyond your budget.

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.

In article , ray
wrote:

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

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

? "ipy2006" ?????? ??? ??????
ups.com...
I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
best DSLR for this purpose?
Thanks,
On my film days, I used some 400 ASA film for such an occasion, with my
Nikkor 50 mm 1.4 (either delta or T-Max).Now I use a P&S, and besides I was
a Nikon fan, canon cameras are generally very good.


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr

ipy2006 wrote:
I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
best DSLR for this purpose?

Well, any of the Nikon or Canon offerings are going to be significantly
better than what you're using now (I've read ahead some).

On the other hand, many of the good choices blow your $1500 max budget
*before* buying a lens. By a factor of about 5, in some cases. At that
budget, anything remotely resembling the "best" the market currently has
to offer is completely off the radar. Some of the lenses you might
want to buy for this work blow your $1500 budget all by themselves.

Sounds like you're talking bright home / average office brightness
levels, rather than really low light levels. And people in normal life,
rather than high-speed sports and such.

I would suggest that you'll be best off with a bottom-end DSLR from
Canon or Nikon plus the best fast lenses you can fit into the budget.
Nothing slower than f/2.8 need apply. You want at least one at f/1.4 or
faster, probably either a 50mm or the Sigma 30mm. And you still won't
be able to get what you really need for $1500. You also need the good
flash, in Nikon the SB-800, I forget the Canon equivalent model. The
Nikon flash system is generally thought better than the Canon, the Canon
noise at high ISOs is generally thought lower than the Nikon in
comparable cameras. The Canon fast lenses seem to be cheaper, but on
Nikon you can get cheap manual focus fast lenses and still use them on
the DSLRs. It's all a bunch of tradeoffs.

But your $1500 just isn't going to cut it with anything other than
fairly blatantly compromised equipment.

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

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

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

In my experience, this is massively wrong. High ISO is where digital
completely blows film away; there's no comparison. (I've been pushing
TRI-X since 1969, shooting the Konica 3200 color neg when it was
available, and oh *man* is digital better than any of that.)