-
Available Light
I'm currently using a Minolta A1, and looking to find a digital SLR to go in the main camera bag.
My biggest challenge is getting enough photons in the sensor !
I have to photograph conference speakers on stage, with no additional light and preferably no distracting flash. I'm getting around 10% success rate due to subject movement, which is what I expect.
I find the A1 is very noisy, with what looks like column shift noise from highlights across dark areas at 800ASA setting. I expect the A2 to be even worse, as the lens hasn't changed and probably the sensor size hasn't changed, which means cramming more, smaller, pixels into the same space.
I tried the EOS300D for a weekend and it drove me nuts.
But it did get good photographs, even though I hated using it.
* wouldn't focus in low light
* slow to find the focus
* no microprism, or crossed prism, or fresnel in the viewfinder
* poor eye relief from the finder
* unusable controls for shutter/aperture in manual mode
* no manual control over built in flash
So what would you recommend, for low light?
PAul
-
2 Attachment(s)
I have a Canon 10D and shoot quite a bit using available light in very dark conditions. I do lots of work in bars, shooting band photos, and flash can't be used. Even if I could use it, I prefer not to because it destroys the mood of the scene. So, what I do is shoot at 3200 ISO with the fastest lens I can find. I routinely use a 50 1.4, and a 135 f/2L in addition to a 16-35 2.8L
The results are noisy, but not terribly so for my purposes. The Rebel tops out at 1600 ISO, which is "fast enough" most of the time, but not in dark bars. Insofar as focus issues are concerned, the 10D will focus most of the time fine with the 16-35 2.8, but with the other lenses it sometimes hunts or won't focus at all in the dark. Usually, though, if I am shooting people on a lighted stage, the 10D will focus pretty well with any lens. If I am having problems with focus, I put a flash on the camera, set one of the custom functions to disable the flash from firing but activate the IR focus assist light. This solves the focus problem, and the flickering, dim red focus assist light is not distracting.
Here are two examples taken with the 10D at ISO 3200, with a 50 1.4 Both women liked these pictures, as did I.
-
Hi:
I am using the much cheaper Minolta G500 in low stage light at ASA 400 and f 2.8 and I am certainly not having any trouble with focus, movement or shutter lag. The occasional bit of noise, I get rid of with Paint Shop Pro, which has a nice enhance photo option which is quite accurate.
Ronnoco
-
I do a lot of low light shooting an I use a Canon 1D, which should soon be coming available used for a very low price (new is $2,000 now). That body coupled with a low light lens is excellent, even at 1600 ISO, and if you need to you can boost the ISO to 3200. If noise is a problem the very best noise fixing program is Neat Image. They also have a plugin for Photo Shop if you use that.
John
-
I use the 300D a lot in ambient light with my 24-70 f2.8. The lens makes a LOT of difference; if you're using the kit lens, switch to a better one. My 50 1.8, even though it's brighter, doesn't focus as well or as fast as the 24-70. I haven't used a 50 1.4, 35 1.4, or 85 1.2, but those are reportedly ambient light wonders. The 50 by far the cheapest and the 85 1.2 is a dream lens. Make sure you have ONLY the center focus point active, and that it lands on a good contrast line (not just a flat face, but the eye lines, nose, or whatever.) Makes a world of difference; it will focus in lower light than my hands allow at ISO 1600, f2.8 (EV 3-4). I've gotten 1600 ISO shots (with Neat Image) to print some fairly nice 8x10s.
-
A lot of people like Neat Image, but a simpe gaussian blur of the noisiest channel also does wonders for reducing noise, as well as being infinitely faster than NI. :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian
A lot of people like Neat Image, but a simpe gaussian blur of the noisiest channel also does wonders for reducing noise, as well as being infinitely faster than NI. :)
Ah, well, there are two camps here; people who process too many pictures to count and those who fixate on a few. I fall into the latter; I print maybe a couple shots from a weekend shoot, so I work on getting those "perfect" and speed is not much of an issue. Neat Image does wonders for me, not just with noise, but bokeh too. I use a hard setting, then meticulously paint back details where I want them. I MAY be a little too anal about my shots. :D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHall
Ah, well, there are two camps here; people who process too many pictures to count and those who fixate on a few. I fall into the latter; I print maybe a couple shots from a weekend shoot, so I work on getting those "perfect" and speed is not much of an issue. Neat Image does wonders for me, not just with noise, but bokeh too. I use a hard setting, then meticulously paint back details where I want them. I MAY be a little too anal about my shots. :D
Different solutions for different needs. I hardly ever touch noise, I just don't care enough. If I want clear shots I use long shutter speeds, low ISO and a stable tripod. :D
Try Noise Ninja, all the reviews seem to put it several notches above Neat Image. I think it's supposed to be faster too, but don't wuote me on that.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian
Different solutions for different needs. I hardly ever touch noise, I just don't care enough. If I want clear shots I use long shutter speeds, low ISO and a stable tripod. :D
Try Noise Ninja, all the reviews seem to put it several notches above Neat Image. I think it's supposed to be faster too, but don't wuote me on that.
Hmmm, well, like you said different needs!
I tried Noise Ninja, it is faster, but not better IMHO (the noise reduction is similar, but the defaults are at a lower application which avoids some of the 'plasticy' facial features) and not available as a plugin the last time I checked. The good thing is it does have brushes to restore detail, which duplicates the history brushing in PS and can belay the detriments of not being a plugin, although obviously you still need to do something about layering.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHall
Hmmm, well, like you said different needs!
I tried Noise Ninja, it is faster, but not better IMHO (the noise reduction is similar, but the defaults are at a lower application which avoids some of the 'plasticy' facial features) and not available as a plugin the last time I checked. The good thing is it does have brushes to restore detail, which duplicates the history brushing in PS and can belay the detriments of not being a plugin, although obviously you still need to do something about layering.
Like I said, I just don't use them, just thought I'd mention it since it's been getting such good reviews. :D
|