fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2005 · What is 'low light'

Jack OBrien
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · What is 'low light'

I understand the concept I suppose, maybe a dim room or a dark night. I'm just wondering, are the terms 'low light performance' and 'high ISO performance' being used interchangably? I hear people say things like "I don't like this cameras low light performance", and I'm not sure how to understand that.

For example,
1) Scene one: if I'm shooting a scene at night, and I set the camera to ISO 100, long exposure NR turned on, and I make an exposure, say, for 90 seconds. After evaluation, I note that there is no noise, color is beautiful, etc, etc.

2) Scene two: on the same night, I crank the ISO up to 3200 and open up the aperture so that I can shoot at 1/30 of a second. Hmm, the image looks ok, but after close evaluation, it needs noise removal work, and exhibits many of the problems of high ISO images.

Now, from my film days, when I shot in 'low light', I could use slow film or fast film. If I used slow film, I knew it would be a long exposure, and maybe even exposure compensation due to reciprocity failure, but I knew the image would look 'good'. On the other hand, I could use 'fast film' for the same scene, but I would expect grainy images, knowing that it was one of the characteristics of the film.

So, in digital photography, when you refer to 'low light performance', are you talking about 'high iso performance' or something else? IMO, there is more than one way to shoot a scene, setting the camera to give you the best results for what you're shooting for. So, aren't both the above scenes 'low light'?

Just thinking....

Jack

Nov 08, 2005 at 09:34 PM

MPerdomo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · What is 'low light'

The only low light modern DSLRS have is when trying to shoot handheld in the dark, like concert photography, which is what I have found myself doing a lot:

http://markperdomo.smugmug.com/photos/39249931-M.jpg

Nov 08, 2005 at 10:05 PM

jmcfadden
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · What is 'low light'

Jack

the game and the rules have dramatically changed , and for the better. In the old days a camera was really a light tight box and the difference was the glass and the film(s) one chose for a job and a look. Now the film is the camera, and for better or worse the s/n matters too, for all the hoopla the canon's do a better job at low light stuff be it high iso or very long exposure work, primarily the former and not so much the latter. BUT , it comes with a cost, nothing is free in photography. So you pay your money and you takes your chances. For a myriad of reasons , chief among them is that I do not do much high iso work , I surely will take Nikon on her strengths and leave all the prattlers and trolls to tell us we are foolish for doing so , and that is fine with me too

J

Nov 08, 2005 at 10:08 PM

Jack OBrien
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · What is 'low light'

jmcfadden wrote:
Jack

the game and the rules have dramatically changed , and for the better. In the old days a camera was really a light tight box and the difference was the glass and the film(s) one chose for a job and a look. Now the film is the camera, and for better or worse the s/n matters too, for all the hoopla the canon's do a better job at low light stuff be it high iso or very long exposure work, primarily the former and not so much the latter. BUT , it comes with a cost, nothing is free...Show more →

No doubt the rules have changed. I marvel at the shots I can make now that were nearly if not impossible with film. However, I don't recall too many people complaining about the 'low light performance' of fast film. Everybody knew the limitations and worked within them. For myself, I have very little requirement to shoot at max ISO, and when I shoot higher ISO's, I'm usually going for a deliberate effect. It seems to me that digital shooters are talking about nothing but the 'low light performance' of their camera, mostly to the tune of how crappy/great it is. Does anybody besides John Shaw shoot at base ISO anymore? (Well, John McFadden too). I'm wanting a camera that will give me ISO 25 or ISO 50, but for now, I guess I'll have to be content with ISO 100. I guess my original point was, in my mind there is a difference between low light performance, and high iso performance. One may be stellar, the other may not be. With current digital technology, I personally think 'high ISO performance' is amazing, because film could never pull it off, but to the rest of the digital world, there's some holy grail of image sterility that has to be reached, completely without character or personality.

Jack

Nov 08, 2005 at 10:48 PM

jperkinson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · What is 'low light'

I typically refer to low light *performance* as higher ISO exposures in high contrast *low* light.

Jack, you wouldn't be referring to that goofy Canon thread by chance? I just responded with a 5D shot of my own...

Nov 08, 2005 at 10:49 PM

Jack OBrien
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · What is 'low light'

MPerdomo wrote:
The only low light modern DSLRS have is when trying to shoot handheld in the dark.....

I truly don't understand that statement

Nov 08, 2005 at 10:49 PM

Fundy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · What is 'low light'

Jack,

I think that this has something to do with high ISO performance in low light versus bright light.

Many 'test' shots on the web are at 1600 ISO in the middle of the day. I think this produces much less noise than say the concert shot above because there is so much of the frame in shadows.

In my book all high ISO test shots should be done in 'dark' conditions.

Andrew

Nov 08, 2005 at 10:50 PM

Jack OBrien
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · What is 'low light'

jperkinson wrote:
I typically refer to low light *performance* as higher ISO exposures in high contrast *low* light.

Jack, you wouldn't be referring to that goofy Canon thread by chance? I just responded with a 5D shot of my own...

Hello John, no, I hadn't read the goofy Canon thread

I'll go give a look see. I guess I'm trying to equate film terminolgy to digital lingo, and my brain just hasn't been clicking.

Nov 08, 2005 at 11:02 PM

Jack OBrien
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · What is 'low light'

Fundy wrote:
Jack,

I think that this has something to do with high ISO performance in low light versus bright light.

Many 'test' shots on the web are at 1600 ISO in the middle of the day. I think this produces much less noise than say the concert shot above because there is so much of the frame in shadows.

In my book all high ISO test shots should be done in 'dark' conditions.

Andrew

I see your point. I've done high ISO tests which look great to me, in daylight and with studio lights. However, I've done some with a single incandescent that I thought looked pretty good, but I guess by today's standards they would not be acceptable. Hmmm, I might do a few in 'dark' conditions.

Jack

Nov 08, 2005 at 11:09 PM

MPerdomo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · What is 'low light'

jacko wrote:
I truly don't understand that statement

Bah, I mistyped. I was meaning that the only low light situations that modern DSLRs have problems with are when shooting handheld in low light, as long exposure noise problems are almost non-existent (and much better than film). But trying to get the shutter speed up to handhold or stop action, you need to jack up ISO

Nov 08, 2005 at 11:28 PM

brandofamily
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · What is 'low light'

Jack, low light performance for me is this....shooting a dance or theatrical performance in available light only and trying to stop the actors' or dancers' movements on the image. Do I up the ISO to get the shutter I need? I better or the motion will not be frozen when need be. So when I do this (up the ISO), and assuming I hit the exposure correctly, how noisy are the images. Are they acceptable? That's my low light performance definition.

Nov 08, 2005 at 11:38 PM

jasin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · What is 'low light'

Jacko I thought your question was actually quite self expanetry but after reading the answers I guess it means different things to different people.
To me low light performance is a combination of the cameras high iso and how it handles the light available to shoot at that iso with the available shutter and aperture combination.

Nov 09, 2005 at 01:33 AM

rffffffff
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · What is 'low light'

I have a totally different take on the whole thing...

the D2X is an incredible low light performer in that it can focus in the absolute dark, where the D70, on the otherhand is quite pedestrian in that if the light is low, it won't focus...

Nov 09, 2005 at 01:42 AM

Qranc
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · What is 'low light'

the D2X is an incredible low light performer in that it can focus in the absolute dark, where the D70, on the otherhand is quite pedestrian in that if the light is low, it won't focus...

unless of course we are talking about low light maybe something along the lines of oh say ... street level .... then in fact the D70 being pedestrian would be a superior tool!

Nov 09, 2005 at 02:12 AM

rffffffff
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · What is 'low light'

now I am totally confused...

Nov 09, 2005 at 02:47 AM

john11t
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · What is 'low light'

I'm going to say 10 at 2.8 at 1600 is the best you can hope for is low light. That is what it means to me

Nov 09, 2005 at 03:07 AM

jasin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · What is 'low light'

What in lords name has the Trainman started?
It is fantastic to see how we all think!
Cheers,
Jasin.

Nov 09, 2005 at 03:14 AM

Jack OBrien
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · What is 'low light'

It's very interesting to me to read statements like "to me it means ...."

I know what 'low' light is, and I know what 'high' ISO is, but from many of the responses, it seems that when many people say "low light performance" they are really referring to the camera's "high ISO noise in low light performance".

Something was brought out about the D2X that fits in with this. The X will focus in almost total darkness. That is truly a function of "low light performance"

The reason I brought this up is, it seems to me that we coin these phrases and apply meanings to them that sometimes are confusing or the definitions of terms have been changed to mean something completely different.

If I can pull off a shot in near darkness at high ISO with perfect AF, using my D2X, I would think the "low light performance" is great, because I got the shot. Yet, if the image has any noise in it, another person, with a camera that couldn't pull off the shot, say because his camera wouldn't focus, would tell me that my camera doesn't have good "low light performance".

To quote New York photographer Jay Maisel..."I don't give a damn what the ISO is, I'm getting the shot. You didn't get sh*t because you refused to change the ISO"

Thanks everybody!

Jack

Nov 09, 2005 at 07:24 AM

clew
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · What is 'low light'

I was shooting a wedding last week with a gal that shoots a 20D. We help each other out on occaision and this happened to be her wedding. I was busily shooting away with my d2x and she asked me, "You can get your camera to focus in this light

?" She had to set up a monolight and turn on the modeling light in order to focus.

To me, low light performance would include just being able to take the photo wrt focusing. Sure, I'd love better high ISO images in low light, but sometimes it's bueno just to get the shot. I can process it later if I have to.

Chris

Nov 09, 2005 at 10:49 AM

DMSsix
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · What is 'low light'

My thougths pretty much mirror Anthony's and Mark's. My partner and I shot a wedding 2 weekends ago and my concerns grew at the reception when obvioulsy the light got much dimmer and I knew I had to shoot 800-1600. I wanted to prevent blur as much as I could obviously, and I was using my 50 1.8. The shots came out ok as my Rebel's high ISO performance is decent (was noted as real good when it first came out) But since then, the 20D, XT and now the 5D from Canon are better, and much better. Do I wish I would have had either of those three cameras to shoot the reception instead of mine? Hell yes, the shots would have been more pleasing in appearance in my opinion. Same situation at the church earlier in the day where the light was somewhat dim. I also wish I would have had the 85 1.2 on the camera, but that purchase along with a new camera ain't happening any time soon.

Nov 09, 2005 at 11:20 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Nikon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end