Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

An upgrade to better low light peformance?

sensor dx iso lens

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,224 posts
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

I love my 105 Micro...don't use it often but I am quite happy with the results every time I do use it.  

 

Proton-0034.jpg

 

As promised...I finally had a chance to look at an image or two and here's one I shot with the D500 and my Nikon 70-200 @ 70mm, f2.8, 1/500, ISO 25600...I tweaked the exposure, clarity and such a bit and it is slightly cropped, but I did not do any noise reduction so everyone could see the grain.  Not too bad considering it was at 25600...I shot a several shots that night of a couple of performers which I haven't had a chance to process yet and a few hundred with the D500 at the wedding which I've just started reviewing.  I have been pretty impressed by the body...it is definitely part of my wish list :)!

 

Edit:  Meant to add that I only chose to shoot JPEG for the musicians...I shot both RAW and JPEG at the wedding with RAW to the XQD and JPEG to the SD...



#22
leighgion

leighgion

    Senior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMadrid


Many thanks for all of the replies on this subject.  Apologies for my absence from the discussion.  My excuse is that, as the Exhibition Secretary for my camera club, I've been putting a lot of work into our next show, which starts on the 4th October.  I hope that's a valid excuse!  ..but more work to do yet!

 

I was fascinated by the diversion into Tri-X!  I've some film experience from some years ago.  I set up a dark room in my university room (late 1970s) and had a great time with the magic of seeing the image appear in the tray in front of your eyes.  I love digital photography but what fired me up originally was that almost unbelievable moment when your image appeared.  It was so creative!  I think I used an Ilford 400 ASA B&W film?  Was it HP4 or FP4 or something like that?

 

Anyway, back to it...

 

Nikonian asked me what lenses I had so here goes:

 

  • AFS 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 GII  VR - (Probably the most used lens I have at present.  It's the one that sits on my D300).

  • AFS 35mm 1:1.8 G  -   (Really getting to like this one and it may replace my 18-55 as the stock lens).

  • AFS 55-200 mm 1:4.5-5.6G ED - (Not the fastest or most expensive lens on the Nikkor range but it performs well and gets used quite a lot.  It's very light to carry, which helps me to like it!).

  • AFS Micro Nikkor 105mm 1;2.8G ED.  (Thought I would do more macro but haven't.  The lens is heavy but what a beautiful performer.  Pin sharp.  It doesn't always get put in the camera bag.)

  • AFS 70-300 1:4.5-5.6G VR ED - (A bit of a lump but great when I need a longer focal length.  It doesn't always get put in the camera bag.)

  • Tokina SD 11-16 mm F2.8 (IF) DX.  (I'm a bit of a fan of this one.  It's my only none-Nikkor lens. Great fun to use and it gives me an excellent quality of image.)

There we are.  All of the comments about being more adventurous with the ISO are noted!  Maybe I'll grow to think of noise differently!  I'll certainly try some higher ISO settings and then show them around to fellow photographers and at my club to see what feedback I get. 

 

Any more comments or advice, now that I've revealed my hand, would be most welcome.

 

Thanks again folks.

 

 

You've got some good lenses. I cut my DSLR teeth on the 18-55 and 55-200, which are excellent for what they are. However, the only glass you've got that's really suitable to available light action photography is the 35/1.8 and to a considerably lesser extent, the Tokina 11-16mm and Nikkor 105mm. A constant f/2.8 zoom is a great thing, but the fact is f/2.8 is barely entry level for this kind of shooting.

 

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but the reality is, when it comes to freehand in dark places with only available light, that technology hasn't come anywhere near providing us with more than enough performance. You need to leverage every bit of lens speed, high ISO performance and if you push far enough, steady hands and controlled breathing for slower shutter speeds in order to get those naturalistic low light action shots.

 

I'll let some pictures do the talking. These are all shot with my D300 while I owned one.

 

3541394136_5b2d4f40b9_o.jpg

Purple Triumph by Leigh, on Flickr

Terry Man was performing in his regular weekend venue of the time, a tiny, dimly lit blues club. (D300 + 50mm 1.4G @ f/1.4, 1/125, ISO 3200)

 

3531730859_9c161a273b_o.jpg

The Happy Drummer by Leigh, on Flickr

Terry's drummer at the time. (D300 + Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 @ f/2.8, 1/13, ISO 3200)

 

3499146440_6f47197df9_o.jpg

Red Glamour by Leigh, on Flickr

Avante gard performance I will not endeavor to try to explain. (D300 + 50mm 1.4G @ f/1.4, 1/100, ISO 3200)

 

These aren't full res shots (I could mine those out later) so I'll just say that yes, if you zoomed in to 100% on the originals, you'd see noise. 

 

All were shot at 3200, not manually selected by me, but by the auto-iso function according to my designated limitations of no higher than ISO 3200 and a minimum shutter speed of 1/125th of a sec. Had the light levels come up (which in the club they did at times) the camera would've automatically dropped the ISO down. 

 

Now, there are certainly a variety of valid opinions that can be leveled at these shots, but one point of fact is that had I chosen to limit myself to ISO 800, none of these shots would exist as you see them. A loss of two stops of performance would have had a catastrophic impact on both my ability to hold the camera steady and on the already strained ability to keep my subjects from turning into blurs of motion, as the lenses were already wide open and to this day I'm not sure how I managed to handhold the camera reasonably steady at 1/13th of a second with the music hammering me.

 

Life's short. Buy more faster lenses, push your ISO up and get shots you couldn't otherwise. 



#23
etphoto

etphoto

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
I got a wedding tomorrow and one of the pictures they are requesting are shots of them around a camp fire cooking marshmallows. Not sure how I am going light it. I guess it depends on the available light and brightness if the fire. I enjoy these types of challenges.

Twitter: @PhotographyET

#24
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,204 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

Many thanks for all of the replies on this subject.  Apologies for my absence from the discussion.  My excuse is that, as the Exhibition Secretary for my camera club, I've been putting a lot of work into our next show, which starts on the 4th October.  I hope that's a valid excuse!  ..but more work to do yet!

 

I was fascinated by the diversion into Tri-X!  I've some film experience from some years ago.  I set up a dark room in my university room (late 1970s) and had a great time with the magic of seeing the image appear in the tray in front of your eyes.  I love digital photography but what fired me up originally was that almost unbelievable moment when your image appeared.  It was so creative!  I think I used an Ilford 400 ASA B&W film?  Was it HP4 or FP4 or something like that?

 

Anyway, back to it...

 

Nikonian asked me what lenses I had so here goes:

 

  • AFS 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 GII  VR - (Probably the most used lens I have at present.  It's the one that sits on my D300).
  • AFS 35mm 1:1.8 G  -   (Really getting to like this one and it may replace my 18-55 as the stock lens).
  • AFS 55-200 mm 1:4.5-5.6G ED - (Not the fastest or most expensive lens on the Nikkor range but it performs well and gets used quite a lot.  It's very light to carry, which helps me to like it!).
  • AFS Micro Nikkor 105mm 1;2.8G ED.  (Thought I would do more macro but haven't.  The lens is heavy but what a beautiful performer.  Pin sharp.  It doesn't always get put in the camera bag.)
  • AFS 70-300 1:4.5-5.6G VR ED - (A bit of a lump but great when I need a longer focal length.  It doesn't always get put in the camera bag.)
  • Tokina SD 11-16 mm F2.8 (IF) DX.  (I'm a bit of a fan of this one.  It's my only none-Nikkor lens. Great fun to use and it gives me an excellent quality of image.)

There we are.  All of the comments about being more adventurous with the ISO are noted!  Maybe I'll grow to think of noise differently!  I'll certainly try some higher ISO settings and then show them around to fellow photographers and at my club to see what feedback I get. 

 

Any more comments or advice, now that I've revealed my hand, would be most welcome.

 

Thanks again folks.

The film you used might have been HP4, but that went out of production in 1976 and was replaced by HP5.

 

Your lenses are a nice kit, but far from ideal for available dark photography as even f/2.8 is on the slow side as leighion said. I would look at what focal lengths I use the most except 35 mm and get a fast(ish) prime or two to cover these before upgrading to a more modern camera.

 

One thing to keep in mind about the D300 when pushing the ISO envelope is that underexposing and lifting the shadows *will* produce noise. If you shoot in raw, make a Picture control with low contrast and saturation to get a more reliable histogram when shooting in low light. The photos will look like crap in Capture SOOC, but changing the Picture control in post is easy. If you use any other editing software, the Picture control is discarded anyway. The histogram can then be used to expose to the right with confidence. The 12 MP DX sensor is the last Nikon made that reacts well to the ETTR technique.



#25
ScottinPollock

ScottinPollock

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationWest Slope Northern Sierra Nevada


The 12 MP DX sensor is the last Nikon made that reacts well to the ETTR technique.


Curious why you say this, and about the issues you perceive with newer sensors.

#26
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,204 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

As the later algorithms for de-bayering and the newer metering algorithms protect the highlights, ETTR will cost more in lost DR than is gained in noise levels. Even center-weighted or spot responds slightly differently than yesteryear as the meter isn't calibrated for 18% grey anymore. It isn't that ETTR is wrong, it is more that the gains from the technique isn't as large as they used to be.



#27
NickOn

NickOn

    Junior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUK, Devon

Thanks for the replies.  

 

Yup, by the date I probably used HP5.  Occasionally when clearing the loft, I come across some of my old monochrome film work.  Happy days!

 

Thanks for the tip on using Picture Control and yes, I do shoot in raw and will give it a go.


Thanks for the reply Nikonian,

 

Exposing to the right (ETTR) is a valid technique for my D300 then?  Sorry, but what's "lost DR"?  Any thoughts on my lens  collection?



#28
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,204 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

ETTR works very well with the D300. DR is dynamic range. By overexposing slightly and not just nearly overexposing there will be a loss of details in the highlights. The D300 makes it much easier to not go over that threshold than the later bodies. 

 

The Tokina is nice, even if the new 11-20 is better. It is also as fast as you get for an ultrawideangle lens.

The 18-55 is good optically even if it is a slow lens and the build and feel isn't as nice as, for example, the 16-85.

The 35 is your only fast lens and is a no-brainer for a DX shooter. The FX 35/1.8 is sharper and has less distortion, but the price difference is substantial.

The 55-200 is light and that is it's main attraction.

The 70-300 is heavier but also much better built and sharper than the 55-200. I use mine as a light alternative to carrying either three lenses (105/2, 180/2.8 and 300/4) or a 70-200/2.8 and 1.4X TC.

The 105 MicroNikkor is a versatile beast as it is as at home as a short tele for portraits where you have the room to back off as it is for macros. None of the older 105-s do this as the Micros are not flattering for portraits and the portrait 105-s don't do close-ups.

 

They are all up to the demands from a modern DX sensor if you decide to go that way.

 

Like I said in post #24, I would analyze what focal lengths I use most besides the 35 and get a f/1.8 prime or two to cover that for available darkness and keep using the D300 for the time being.



#29
NickOn

NickOn

    Junior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUK, Devon

Great, thanks for the further advice.  NickOn



#30
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

As far as fast primes go, I can recommend both the 20 and 85mm f/1.8 Nikkors. And, my guess is that the other lenses in Nikon's new f/1.8 series are just as good. I personally also use the FX 35mm f/1.8 that Peter spoke of and it's one of my best lenses. So my suggestion would be to go with those three... or actually two since you already have the DX 35mm f/1.8 lens.

 

--Ron



#31
NickOn

NickOn

    Junior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUK, Devon

Thanks for your post and interesting lens suggestions.  Can I use FX lenses on my DX camera?

 

NickOn



#32
Jerry_

Jerry_

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,212 posts
  • Country Flag

Thanks for your post and interesting lens suggestions. Can I use FX lenses on my DX camera?

NickOn


Yes, you can use FX lenses on your DX camera.

They should even give a better picture as they are foreseen for a larger sensor.
  • Ron likes this

#33
murushn

murushn

    Junior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Country Flag

FX lenses are good on DX camera with a crop factor, I had asked similar question and TBonz, Merco suggested a 85mm 1.8D for my D7200 and got it and results are very good, low light with low ISO (for low noise) will have a camera shake but with 400 to 1600 ISO I get sharp pictures. I had 18-55 VRII and 35mm 1.8.

Waiting for fall foliage :)







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: sensor, dx, iso, lens