Body or lens, what has the biggest effect on quality in low light photography?

rufusdufus

rufusdufus

Messages
9
Edit My Images
No
Hi, this is my first post on this forum. I have a Nikon D5000 and a selection of budget zoom lenses. I have recently been shooting low light live music and shows, hand held, and the results are average, often blurry and noisy. I've been using ISO's of up to 2000 to compensate for the relatively slow lenses. I would like to upgrade my equipment, and want to know what will have the biggest effect on image quality, a faster better quality lens, or upgrading the body to a D7000 or even going full frame to a used D700 and FX lenses?

Thanks.
 
a good camera helps more i'd have thought.

but if i were you, i'd invest in a fast prime first to see if it helps. it'll be much better in every way than budget zoom lenses. i just entered photography, and use my 35mm f/1.8G most of the time instead of the 18-55mm kit lens.

get a 50mm f/1.8G which supports full frame if you may go that way.
 
wuyanxu said:
a good camera helps more i'd have thought.

but if i were you, i'd invest in a fast prime first to see if it helps.
Click to expand...

That's what I'd do too.
 
First, 2000 isn't nearly enough in real low light... push the boundaries of the camera, use 12800, 25000, whatever it takes to get a sharp shot. You bin a blurry shot but can use a noisy one.

Second, get a fast prime like the ones mentioned above. Start with the cheaper ones, they punch above their weight.

Third, if you can't shoot a non-blurry scene with f/1.4 and ISO 25000 with available light, accept that you're beyond the remit of modern photography and instead light the scene.

Fourth, if you can't light the scene, then put the camera down, watch, and enjoy.
 
A fast good quality lens will improve your shots far more than a better body with crap glass.
I used to shoot gigs on an old D200, that was pretty terrible above ISO 800. I used good fast glass and got good photos.

Budget zooms are probably the single worst lens you could use for such things. The aperture will be far too high to allow enough light in. You need at a minimum f/2.8 lenses.
My base point used to be ISO 1600 and f/2.8 on my D200.
 
Thanks for the advice, I think I will invest in some better quality glass and see what results I get.
 
Assuming you are stuck at around f/5.6 with slow glass, you can gain a lot by getting 2.8 zoom (2x more light), or 1.4 primes (4x more light). In ISO terms, anything that requires ISO1600 now could be done at 400 or even 100, respectively! So a good fast glass can help you a lot. Only then you need to focus on better body.
 
Both

Is the TOTAL amount of light you can get away with.

Having 1.2 is all good and all but when you can only do ISO 800 before serious noise come in it's no good. (although the extra bokeh is nice).

Having ISO 128000 is GREAT but if your lens can only do F/5.6 when zoomed then you lost like 5 stops against a 1.2 lens, which is like ISO 400 level of light.
 
daugirdas said:
Assuming you are stuck at around f/5.6 with slow glass, you can gain a lot by getting 2.8 zoom (2x more light), or 1.4 primes (4x more light).
Click to expand...

Nitpicking, but it's actually 2 stops going f/5.6 --> f/2.8 so 4x as much light. And 16x when going f/5.6 --> f/1.4. That said, at focal lengths where kit zooms will force you to f/5.6 max there aren't any real f/1.4 options :)

I would say that for a Nikon user, the 35/1.8G is a no-brainer on a crop camera and won't break the bank.

And as said, just push the ISO. A blurred shot is always binned, lots of noise and if nothing else you can usually get some nice B&W conversions out of them if the chroma noise is too much.
 
If you want to stay with Nikon then a D700 and an 85mm f1.4 prime is a wonderful combo. The sigma 85 is cheaper than the Nikon version too and gives such good results! You could get both for under £2000 with a bit of searching then there's second hand too..
 
onform said:
If you want to stay with Nikon then a D700 and an 85mm f1.4 prime is a wonderful combo. The sigma 85 is cheaper than the Nikon version too and gives such good results! You could get both for under £2000 with a bit of searching then there's second hand too..
Click to expand...

The new Nikon 85mm 1.8 G looks like an exellent performer aswell and can be hand for less than £400 new.
 
I like a good prime too but wouldnt be able to afford real top ones. I have the nifty fifty which is a cracking lens in low light. I have been thinking of buying a 17-50 Tamron to give me a bit more flexibility. but, i would also love an 85mm prime!
 
i have a nikon 35mm DX f/1.8G it is a superb lens also an old saying i have heard floating about is a lens should cost 3 times as much as a body so having a good lens is far more important than upgrading a body
 
Aperture is no substitute for a better performing body if you want to shoot stopped down to get more DoF. Whilst a 1.2 lens is lovely, you only get a wafer thin DoF at normal print sizes.

For low light the tradeoff is simple. Higher ISO will give you more grain on the photo, lower aperture will give you less DoF but allowing you to have a cleaner image. The effect you are trying to recreate will determine which is most important.
 
you need a good prime 50mm or equivilent and a camera that can process the results.

D7000 or D300s with 35mm 1.8 is about the cheapest route.
 
Hi, I should have started this thread by listing my existing DX lenses:

35mm 1.8 G, 18 - 55 mm 3.5 -5.6 G VR, 55 - 200 mm 4.5 - 5.6 G ED VR, 60mm 2.8 G ED Micro. I know the 35mm and the 50mm are ok in low light, but it's the slow zooms that suffer.

I have considered upgrading to a D700, but I'm not sure if any of my existing lenses will work with a full frame sensor? The other option is upgrading the body to a D300s or a D7000 with better quality 2.8 short and long zooms. Of course I could always sell the lot and buy a D800 and a selection of FX lenses, but I don't think my wife would be impressed!
 
Live music... small venues?

I use my 7D and 17-55mm F2.8 and also a 35mm F2 for that sort of shooting.

Regularly I am running ISO 3200 and 6400 at F2.8 to get 1/60th shutter speed. In some better venues I get away with 1/125th ISO1600 but not often... not in the pub/small club scene anyway.
 
RichardtheSane said:
Live music... small venues?

I use my 7D and 17-55mm F2.8 and also a 35mm F2 for that sort of shooting.

Regularly I am running ISO 3200 and 6400 at F2.8 to get 1/60th shutter speed. In some better venues I get away with 1/125th ISO1600 but not often... not in the pub/small club scene anyway.
Click to expand...

I've been to venues where I am forced to push to ISO 3200 (I seldom want to push 6400) at 1.2 or 1.4.

If I were shooting zooms then it is 2.8, that is 2 stops slower! You would need to be shooting at 128000 ISO to get what I got way with at 3200.
 
rufusdufus said:
Hi, I should have started this thread by listing my existing DX lenses:

35mm 1.8 G, 18 - 55 mm 3.5 -5.6 G VR, 55 - 200 mm 4.5 - 5.6 G ED VR, 60mm 2.8 G ED Micro. I know the 35mm and the 50mm are ok in low light, but it's the slow zooms that suffer.
Click to expand...

Same setup as me :), just got one more macro lens than me.

Just get used to look at the world with that 35mm frame, it is more than good enough to capture most low light situations. Forget about the two zoom lenses as they are more than useless for anything not stationary. (VR helps for still shots)
 
I bought a 35mm f/1.8 yesterday & let my mrs try it on her D90......
Well the upshot is that if I want to use one I'll have to go & buy another!
She loves it!
 
onform said:
If you want to stay with Nikon then a D700 and an 85mm f1.4 prime is a wonderful combo. The sigma 85 is cheaper than the Nikon version too and gives such good results! You could get both for under £2000 with a bit of searching then there's second hand too..
Click to expand...
I've just got a D700 (had a D90) and its definitely a big step up in terms of ISO. I have a 24-70 and an 85 is next on my list. (Just not sure whether to go for Nikon f1.4D, Sigma f1.4 or Nikon f1.8G).
 
Thanks for all the good advice, I've decided to go for better glass, and upgrade the body possibly to a D700 later. Is it possible to use an FX lens on a DX body?
 
Of course you can, not DX lens on FX body though.

Difference between DX and FX is just the size of image being projected onto the sensor, DX projects a smaller image, just enough for the crop sensor. FX produces a full frame image, crop sensor takes whatever it needs in the middle.
 
yes, the only problem is using a fx body on a dx lens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top