Lens for weddings

[John Young]

3200 in a dimly lit church will be crap, regardless of noise reduction. I got rid of mine when I attempted 1600 and 2500 in a horribly lit register office. although it wasn't a big deal as I had the D700, the D90 shots were unusable and that was with a 1.4 50 attached.

This is at 3200 on the kit lens (18-105) straight out the camera with no noise reduction

Not perfect but usable

 

[EOS_JD]

First I would ask why it's taken at ISO3200 when it looks like there was plenty light coming through that window.... exif states f8, ISO3200 and 1/90th?

Second with the light you have noise will be less than if taken in a dark church.

 

[John Young]

First I would ask why it's taken at ISO3200 when it looks like there was plenty light coming through that window.... exif states f8, ISO3200 and 1/90th?

Second with the light you have noise will be less than if taken in a dark church.

The window was further away than it looked and it was December and a very dull day but the ISO was that high as an accident as it was left on auto ISO

But I was not getting into an argument about how hard it would be to photograph in a church just that sometimes ISO 3200 is OK on a D90

 

[EOS_JD]

But generally you would only shoot at 3200 when it's dark and you can't shoot at less. In your image I accept easy muistake (we've all done it) but in a brighter room the noise will be far less than in a dark room. Still ok for 3200 though.

 

[John Young]

But generally you would only shoot at 3200 when it's dark and you can't shoot at less. In your image I accept easy muistake (we've all done it) but in a brighter room the noise will be far less than in a dark room. Still ok for 3200 though.

Yes totally agree personally as a rule I try and keep the ISO as low as possible (apart from the mistakes )

 

[EOS_JD]

Yes totally agree personally as a rule I try and keep the ISO as low as possible (apart from the mistakes )

I once shot a christening at 1600 on a 20D (was just learning at the time). Luckily it was just family and no damage but so embarassing! Some nice noisy B&W images though lol.

Ideally you do not want to be using the extremes of ISO on any camera - even a D700/5DII although they can go to 3200 and get amazing results.

 

[rogermbyrne]

This is at 3200 on the kit lens (18-105) straight out the camera with no noise reduction

Not perfect but usable

I see this quite a lot, even some of the bloggers who test new kit show ISO tests in a lit room in normal circumstances and say 'Yeah no noise at ISO6400 blah blah this camera is really great blah blah"

It all changes when you turn the lights off....

In general I've found that using NR software on anything over 1600 on my D90 gives too much of a creamy texture to the skin it looks likes I've gone OTT on the skin softening.

 

[Lensflare]

CONFUSION OVER FOCAL LENGTHS! Again.

D-90. The DX sensor uses 50% of the image circle of FX lenses. The angle of view OF THE LENS (lets just one and stick with it - 50mm for the maths) is the same. The resulting image is different.

The DX will produce an image of the same field of view as the FX, but it will be cropped in to 50% of the image - so effectively giving you the result of a lens 50% longer from the same shooting point. The 50mm on FX gives 50mm view. That same 50mm on DX gives a RESULT equivalent of a 75mm on FX - so yes, you get a cropped result, that is why they are called "crop bodies" and why there are specific lenses built for DX.

If you are going to go down the FX route later on, then get FX lenses now. Lenses do not lose their value. Bodies do. You can use FX lenses on DX bodies - but they will give you results of lenses 1.5x the focal length because of the cropping.
The 17-55 on DX matches the RESULTS of a 24-70 on FX in terms of the image coverage. Put the 24-70 on the DX body at the same settings and without moving the tripod and you will see the edges of the image trimmed away in the viewfinder as compared to the FX body.

Nikon were forced to produce the wide zooms for DX because the standard lenses available for full frame weren't wide enough. That is why there is a 10.5mm DX fisheye to match the field of view of the fisheye for FX, which is 16mm. They both give a 180 degree field of view. Put the 16mm on DX and you get results something like a 24mm on FX (but with funny curves in).

So no, the results are not the same on DX as FX fromthe same lens. That is complete rubbish. The 70-200 on DX is the equivalent of a 105-300 and you need to use shutter speeds to match the longer lens to prevent camera shake. The old 1/200th for 200 doesn't work on DX, becaue of the cropping, it needs 1/300th for the EFFECTIVE 300mm.

 

[Lensflare]

So, in answer to your lens choices. First, you need to decide which system you are going to go with: DX or FX, only then can you decide which lenses to go for, or you will be going through the same process again when you change to FX, if you eventually do so.

 

[StewartR]

So no, the results are not the same on DX as FX fromthe same lens. That is complete rubbish.

I don't think anyone has claimed that, have they? The OP doesn't have an FX body and hasn't expressed any interest in acquiring an FX body, so any comparison between FX and DX bodies isn't obviously relevant to him.

 

[cambsno]

I once shot a christening at 1600 on a 20D (was just learning at the time). Luckily it was just family and no damage but so embarassing! Some nice noisy B&W images though lol.

Ideally you do not want to be using the extremes of ISO on any camera - even a D700/5DII although they can go to 3200 and get amazing results.

Correct, there is a difference in taking a shot at 3200ISO in nice light or a dark church. The image posted looks ok here, but as an image blown up to a 10x8 print or bigger will probably not look so good, especially if light was worse. I took some pics in a quite dark chapel for a christening last year, friends do, so like Jim was not worried. I had to use 1600ISO and that was shooting at 1.4.

 

[Dman]

This is at 3200 on the kit lens (18-105) straight out the camera with no noise reduction

Not perfect but usable

The window was further away than it looked and it was December and a very dull day but the ISO was that high as an accident as it was left on auto ISO

But I was not getting into an argument about how hard it would be to photograph in a church just that sometimes ISO 3200 is OK on a D90

But this thread is about weddings, and under those same settings in a dim church, the results won't be useable.

 

[StewartR]

All this talk about high ISO and noise is interesting, and it's prompted some questions in my mind. But I don't want to hijack the thread so I've started a new one - here.

 

[John Young]

-

 

[John Young]

ISO3200 on a D90 will not be pretty!!! You have to forget about the 18-105 lens, really nowhere near good enough. Ok, you are not charging, and I guess a D90 with a 50mm on should get better results than a guests P&S but I would say you must be able to cover roughly 18/28mm up to 180/200mm, so something like a Tamron set of 28-75 and 70-200 both 2.8's but that would be probably £600 MINIMUM 2nd hand.

Just read an interesting test between the D90 and D300

HERE