Beginner Lens & Lighting

F

failingatphotography

Messages
5
Name
Paul Bates
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

I wasnt too sure what category to post this in as it covers 2 topics, but fundamentally it comes down to the fact im a complete beginner with less than a years experience! :LOL::LOL:

I currently own a Sigma 150-600c lens ( and I know that 80% of my problems are probably technique ) but I am getting frustrated at the fact it struggles in low light.

What I dont understand is what is considered as low light? the next step up from this lens is possibly the nikon 500mm PF which will involve selling one of my kidneys. but will a prime lens like this respond much better to low light than my sigma?

I see photos that people post of dawn/dusk but I dont have any point of reference as to whether its quite dark dawn/dusk or if it pretty much full light.

So I guess the basic question is will an upgrade to this lens ( or equivalent without going to crazy money ) make a material difference to the performance I currently get with the sigma?

thanks
 
The Sigma 150-600c is f/5.6 at the widest end and f/6.3 at the longest end. The quality probably isn't great until you stop it down to somewhere around f/11 to f/16. At those apertures, low light could be a problem - especially as, particularly at the longer focal lengths, you'll probably need a fairly high shutter speed to prevent camera shake.

So, the question is, do you really need such a long lens? Depending on your type of photography, you may or may not.

"Low light" is just a subjective term. It's difficult to attach figures to it.

The only real way of making the light effectively less low is to use a high ISO setting. But how high is "acceptable" without serious loss of quality will depend partly on what you find to be acceptable and partly on the size of your camera sensor and partly on on other factors, so it's difficult to give you a useful answer without more info from you.
 
I currently have a Nikon D500, and I find that as soon as i start to go above ISO 3200 the image quality isnt great. My sigma also hunts ALOT when the light drops which is incredibly frustrating
 
Well, there you go - that camera and lens combination doesn't seem to be ideal.

Actually, nothing ever really is ideal. You could have bought a much more expensive lens with a constant aperture of around f/2.8, or a much more expensive camera that's better at very high ISO, but either option would add a lot of bulk and weight . . ..

We all have different interests, but personally I'm happy with my maximum focal length of 200mm on a full-frame camera. The focus never hunts and high ISO is fine.
Which comes back to my unanswered question - do you really need such a long lens? How about a more modest focal length and using your feet to get closer - would that work for you?
 
you are correct, im a beginner at posting on here as well as photography and am missing key details! I am mainly trying wildlife photography, and have been spoilt by the sigma's 600mm reach.

95% of my photos are at 600mm. but 600mm seem pointless if its at the expense of getting a photo in poor lighting conditions.

I guess im just concerned that if I take the next big financial step up, to something like the 500mm PF, and it doesnt improve the lighting situation and I also lose 100mm then i will be extremely disappointed.

And im not in the situation where I can sell both kidneys and get the F4 in either the 500 or 600mm. :LOL:
 
I have the same combination for my wildlife endeavours, and also have not had much suxccess, but that's mainly poor technique and not being in the right place. You/we really need to be in a position where we can get reasonable composition with no more than about 400mm max extension really, preferably less. If it's birds you are after, you need to look at where you can use well-placed hides. Otherwise, if wild animals, it's all about scouting over time to find a place where you can lie in wait unobtrusively for a length of time waiting for a closer shot.
 
You need some basic guidance...(this is meant to give you a sense of 'low light'...others are likely to disagree about specifics, but it is a starting point to understanding the concept!)
  • ordinarly 'daylight' is cloudless blue sky mid-day...think 'lots of light', and Sunny 16 rule of thumb says to shoot at f/16, 1/100 at ISO 100
  • cloudy overcast sky is 'moderate light, shot at about f/5.6, 1/100 at ISO 100
  • indoors in gymnasium takes about f/2, 1/60 at ISO 400..if I convert that to ISO 100, I would have to shoot f/2, 1/15, ISO 100, ...I consider that to be borderline 'low light'.
IOW, when you have to use a fairly slow shutter speed (which makes your photo prone to subject motion or camera motion to get an exposure with a wide-open aperture, think 'low light'. Usually you use flash to supplement available light and get shots dependably without subject motion or camera shake....otherwise you have 'low light'.

In thise days of digital cameras and ISO settings >1600, it redefines the success of getting shots in 'low light' even without flash. But think of ISO settings <1000 as 'normal light'...most digital cameras these days will not show much 'noise' in photos <ISO 1600, but they can get 'noisy' in 'low light' at >ISO 1600. You might think of 'low light' when subject motion or camera motion or photo noise are possible...'low light' is subjective, but one can utilize objective criteria to indicate a crossover into 'dangerous territory' caused by 'low light' conditions.

Using a long lens with f/5.6 as its largest aperture can put you into 'low light' photography both because of its largest aperture size and because the FL magnifies camera motion (photographer shake). So using the second scenario with 500mm lens, f/5.6 1/100 ISO 100 is 'low light' because the combination forces you to shoot at the slower shutter speed than you ordinarily would use for 500mm lens...1/500 is the generally ackonwledged safe handheld shutter speed for no-photographer shake, and 1/100 is more than -2EV below that
 
Last edited:
failingatphotography said:
I currently have a Nikon D500, and I find that as soon as i start to go above ISO 3200 the image quality isnt great. My sigma also hunts ALOT when the light drops which is incredibly frustrating
Click to expand...
My photo-buddy has this combination too and his images are generally very good, even at ISO10,000+ - noisy yes, but easily recoverable in LRC or Topaz DeNoiseAI. Personally I have a D780 and Sigma 150-600C. Low light is difficult to quantify but my normal setting in any light is 1/2000s, f/7.1, Auto-ISO, stabilisation off. I generally stop shooting when the ISO creeps up to 12,500(ish). The only problem I get (aside from noise) is occasional camera shake (as my handling technique isn't perfect) and I overcome that by using a monopod and gimbal whenever I can.

What settings are you using? Any of the semi-auto settings are likely to give you underexposed images and if your camera is underexposing even at ISO3200 you will still get noisy pictures. It may be time to bite the bullet, switch to manual mode with auto-ISO; set the shutter speed and aperture that you need for the shot and let the camera set the ISO to properly expose the image. Here is an example of what I mean - it was taken earlier this year @ ISO12,800, 1/1000s, 500mm, f/6.3, target distance ~ 10m. The focus point was the left eye (as you look at it) and this demonstrates the shallow depth of focus that you get (both the beak and head feathers are out of focus).

DSC_5914.jpg
Undoubtedly, the Sigma lens is challenging and your technique needs to be spot on and to achieve that you need to practice, practice and practice again. There are many people out there shooting with your camera/lens combination.
 
I don't know Nikon gear, 500mm PF f5.6? Is not going to offer much more on the AF front as it's not a big differance in light gain, being prime may help though.

I have a Canon version Sigma C, I know they hunt, what focus points/areas do you use? Single point/small zone may help stop the camera from looking too much.

Liveview may help if you're able to use it, as the sensor can normally focus in lower light than the AF unit.

Wildlife early/late hours of the day will be high ISO, I'm happy up to 12,800 (and higher), do you shoot JPEG or RAW? RAW will offer better image refinement.

What settings do you use? If you shot f8, the new lens won't help the final ISO used. Shutter speeds will affect ISO used, so watch the SS for the subject, sitting bird 1/800-1/1000, flight 1/1000-1/2000+ (smaller the bird the faster), Deer, Hare, Badgers etc.. 1/500 if standing about 1/800-1/1200+ running... Hares higher still.

Do you crop? This will kill detail, use field craft/hides to get close.

Welcome to TP, post images here, some may be able to help guide you in the right direction.

Use image stability for things under 1/1000 just to help a little more.

These are just my views :)

Good luck & Enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Mozthecat said:
Have you considered experimenting with back-button focus to see if it reduces the hunting in your use case?
Click to expand...
:plus1:

I missed this and it's a good point, working the BBF can help reduce hunting if you work the button to get it closer to the area you need by pressing and releasing then, press and hold it once you're at the point you're after. Works best with single point and small zones.
 
There you go - some excellent advice!

It seems that I'm partly wrong, your lens/camera combination, although not ideal for this type of photography, will in fact do the job.

Let's extract what I think are the main points . . .
1. Don't underexpose, which will greatly increase noise.
2. Shoot in raw format
3. Use a small focus point (or focus manually). See whether back focus helps.
4. Use a decent, solid tripod, or at least use a monopod, and use a gimbal, to reduce camera shake.

So, mainly you need to improve your technique. Please check out the work of Eric Hoskins, a bird photographer of incredible talent who had to manage without any of the high-tech equipment that we take for granted today. The modern "answer" to technical limitations is to spend more money on better equipment, but good technique, care and perseverance is the basic need, not money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top