Best low light photography equipment?

Indeed Colin, but there are very few situations that demand that, unless perhaps if you were paperazzi or a wildlife photographer perhaps.

Usually another way, but it is good to know that it is there anyway.

I have never come across a camera like the Nikon D3 (and latterly I presume the Canon 5DII is the similar) where the sensitivity is better than I can see with the naked eye in the dark.....or perhaps thats a sign of ageing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shreds

The low light capabilities of something like the D3 are simply amazing, but don't go near the extremes. I find that !SO 6400 is the absolute limit and I prefer 1600-3200 if possible. ISO 25600 is for the marketing people. Normally I keep the camera on its native resolution of ISO 200 unless the occasion demands it, and I am sure the same is true with the Canon 5DII as well.

I am more than happy with the D3 performance in low light and makes my older cameras such as the spare D200 look completely incompetent when used alongside. I have had so many comments 'as to how can you possibly take a picture in this light?' It almost becomes repetitive.

Whether it be in churches, in the street or inside, it never fails to amaze folk. Good thing for me though, it gets the results.

---

How does it compare to a D90 then?

If I decide to go on a budget, perhaps a D90 + 35mm f/1.8 would suffice :rolleyes:.

In the Nikon range the D90 is the second from the top of the range crop cameras, whilst the D700 is ranged below the D3.

What does this all mean? Well there is invariably a trickle down of features through the range and equally the cameras become that much more affordable.

Since you started off mentioning the D700, it appears that you are prepared to compromise the idea of a full frame for the cheaper D90.

There are advantages other than the obvious one of $$$. Clearly you have a good idea of budget, but how important to you is the full frame? Beyond that you could have looked at the D300 as a cropped frame camera one step above the D90. The D90 is smaller and lighter which may be very important to you.

The ISO performance of the D90 is IS0 200-3200 range (100-6400 expanded), so from this I would personally always be looking to keep the ISO levels below the 3200 mark and possibly even going down to ISO 1600 max. Is this sufficient? How much noise are you prepared to accept?

One thing to remember though, check out the alternatives within your budget, ideally by hiring or borrowing one for a week or so, if you can't tell the difference, then that is where you need to stop upgrading for now and it will define the camera to go for.

There will always be one better, but if you don't need it then don't spend the money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shreds

In the Nikon range the D90 is the second from the top of the range crop cameras, whilst the D700 is ranged below the D3.

What does this all mean? Well there is invariably a trickle down of features through the range and equally the cameras become that much more affordable.

Since you started off mentioning the D700, it appears that you are prepared to compromise the idea of a full frame for the cheaper D90.

There are advantages other than the obvious one of $$$. Clearly you have a good idea of budget, but how important to you is the full frame? Beyond that you could have looked at the D300 as a cropped frame camera one step above the D90. The D90 is smaller and lighter which may be very important to you.

The ISO performance of the D90 is IS0 200-3200 range (100-6400 expanded), so from this I would personally always be looking to keep the ISO levels below the 3200 mark and possibly even going down to ISO 1600 max. Is this sufficient? How much noise are you prepared to accept?

One thing to remember though, check out the alternatives within your budget, ideally by hiring or borrowing one for a week or so, if you can't tell the difference, then that is where you need to stop upgrading for now and it will define the camera to go for.

There will always be one better, but if you don't need it then don't spend the money.

---

It boils down to testing out cameras doesn't it? :p

Thanks for your reply! I'll see how it goes. Either way, I should be satisfied.

It does for the simple reason you know what you are trying to achieve and what you want to shoot. I suggest trying them, preferably for longer than 5 mins in the showroom, is that you will not have the pressure of the salesman.

Before buying, feel free to come back here with your observations and we may be able to add a bit more depth for you. But do try a couple of options at least.

I know that I have picked up cameras in the past, and reasonably quickly determined they were not right, either due to awkward handling or weight or lack of it and robustness. Some you can dismiss fairly readily but personal experience beats what reviews cannot give you.

We look forward to hearing of your exploits.

Ok! Thanks!

We can be thankful that with digital photography we don't have to worry about reciprocity failure which played merry hell with film photography

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keith201

We can be thankful that with digital photography we don't have to worry about reciprocity failure which played merry hell with film photography

---

Which you only had to deal with when trying to patch up a bad shot with extended developing time...bad photography in either medium should be left on the floor.

I have often thought that a very fast medium length prime lens like a 28 or 30mm, f/1.2 or f/1.4 for 1.6x cameras or a 50mm, f/1.2 or f/1.4 for full frame cameras WITH THE ADDITION OF IMAGE STABILIZATION would be a great idea for hand held low light photography. What do you think?

This would be to photograph black cats in a coal bin...

Nikon D7000 is great for low lights...equal or even better than d700.
Amolsan.