where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Gabbb said:
Shooting to the right is almost the same as using a lower iso, in almost every way, except higher chance of burnt out highlights.
I see what you mean, but I get better results shooting to the right than using a stop more ISO - especially when I am already at high ISO.
@SquamishPhoto
In some of the venues I have taken photos...the shot is either taken or not. I have hand held a 300mm lens at 1/15th sec (against a tree) at ISO 400 with Tri-X film...and the reason was this was what the situation demanded. Admittedly, many years ago. About a week ago, TTJ put up a 25,000 ISO B & W and in the '60's we would be very happy to get this result with 800 ISO & Tri-X pushed. Five s/stops in the technical advance...and in a camera which has incredible resolution, not possible a few years ago.
As to the "quality" I have never been concerned about the grain in a photo except to attempt to minimize it. And the noise in the hi ISO shots is not a problem as well. The exception is in commercial product shots... and I am thinking, this is the situation which may be on the table here.
In the field of photography, the content is what dictates the technical ideal, IMO. And, I like the very highest when possible...to the point of being obsessive... so, I think I understand the idea of not shooting at high ISO with any of these cameras. And I am working on developing techniques to bring the ISO down on the shots I do. One more tripod, I guess....
Hopefully, we will soon see both a D400 and a D600. Hopefully, the D600 will have the same sensor as the D4 at about one third the price. Hopefully, the D400 will have a new DX super-sensor that performs very well in low light. Then there will be 5 (not three) choices: D3s, D4, D800, D600, D400 and the topic of low light performance can be revisited. I look forward to the day ISO 6,400 is both clean and has great dynamic range. I predict we will see that in the next generation of bodies; if not with a D600 or D400 then with a D4s or D5 body.
There is enough out on the D600 and some leaks are starting to happen that points to a 24mp. The question is, will it have better low light performance? I think by the time you compact a D800 image, it will be the same but the D800 will have more detail.
As for a D400, at this point, everything has been decided - we just don't know what it is. Everything would point to a 24mp sensor as well. Considering what Nikon has done with the D3200, it seems like a marketing no-brainer. I do think a low light DX sports camera with 16-20mp would be more preferable - for me at least.
Canon (which is good to watch as to where the market is going) seems to be sticking with the current MP for a 2-3 models now which is kind of odd. Maybe they put all their resources behind their new ILC and rapidly trying to come up with something to go head to head with a D600 rather than develop more MP sensors in bodies. We know they have them, but they are choosing not to focus on them.
I did find quite a few MkIII and D800 video comparisons at really high isos - Canon has it for sure unless you really know video production and have high-end software to clean up the D800 noise. Canon has been doing digital video for years so it doesn't surprise me at all. They have a great system for that. On the Image aspect, I don't see Canon having an advantage in anything other than the post processing in-body of images. Crank up the NR in the D800 and it looks the same to me.
The funny kicker is, it appears the D800 resolution at iso 12,800 is still more than the resolution at the native iso 100 of the MkIII! Now that is funny.
Hi, folks. I'm a long time lurker, but noob poster here, looking to get a D800 around Xmas. Forgive me if I'm posting this in the wrong thread. The wait is killing me for the D800, but at least it gives me time to do some research.
I capture photographs of dancers, so my shutter speed can't go below 1/250th. I currently use a D300 and a 50mm f/1.4 for low light shots in a theater. I figure with an FX camera, I should buy an 85mm. I've read some threads about the 85mm f/1.8g like this one that say it's a monster lens for a great price.
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=4636
and I've read something in Ming Thein's blog on the 85mm f/1.4g that says it's not a good combo with the D800.
With a D300, I can't go above ISO 800 and be happy with the results. I usually like staying at ISO 400 and below. I was wondering with the D800, can I buy the 85mm f/1.8g and crank up the ISO on a D800 to 1600 and be happy or am I going to need to get the f/1.4g? I realize it's a minimal stop difference between the lenses, but when I say I need 1/250th shutter speed, I really need it. I just can't go slower and capture a dancer correctly without any blur. Ideally, I would shoot at 1/320th and faster.
Any advice/experience you guys have with the 85mm f/1.4g or otherwise would be greatly appreciated.
It will depend upon the lighting on stage but I would expect a 1.8 lens would be sufficient to let you shoot at 1/250th and 1/320th. I am quite sure you will be happy with ISO 1600 in the D800. How large do you print? The noise you see when the image is viewed at 100% will decrease significantly as you decrease image size before printing.
Simple answer is yes you can crank it up to 16oo easily.
It all depends on the end uses of the images and if you are printing large high end stuff or major cropping a D4 or D3s would probably be better. If it is just family stuff, only posting on the web (primary) you can go to 6400 and clean it in post easily and match a D300 at iso 800. It really depends if it is for a professional use or not. If yes D3s or D4, if not, then D800 is fine.
As for the 85s, depth of filed seems like would be a bigger issue along with AF speed and FPS. Something to keep in mind.
That is probably close to the worse type of shooting situation you can have. Really a D4 is what would be ideal - but maybe not practical.
Donald and TTJ, thanks for the response! I really appreciate it. Yes, I think a D4 would be more ideal for what I need. But I am not pro at all. I've learned way more from this forum than I could ever give back.
TTJ - this sentence made me say 'Dang it!!!' - "That is probably close to the worse type of shooting situation you can have." Here I am, just a guy who wanted to shoot landscapes with the 14-24 f/2.8 and use the 50 f/1.4 for all other things and I've gotten myself into a situation that requires so much more.
The lighting in the theater depends on the number being performed, sometimes, it's very bright and shooting is easy. Other times, the teachers want lower lights for a more *moody* performance. The D4 is twice as expensive as a D800 and a used D3s is also quite a bit more than a new D800. I currently do not have to blow up images larger than 8x10 (for parents), but the theater where I shoot may start asking me to print larger for advertising or whatever they happen to think of. However, I keep telling myself that these are just small kids. I originally intended my shots to only be used for myself and other parents, but now since people are asking more of me, I may have to start charging them. At least that way I can justify buying the D4 - to myself, my wife, etc...
DoF isn't that much of an issue since I'm only capturing 1-2 dancers at a time. If it becomes an issue, I'll come back here for more advice.
For the time being, I'll stick with the D800 and the 85 f/1.8 and see how it goes. After Xmas, I'll try to remember to post some stuff on PAD and get advice / feedback.
HockeyMan said:
The lighting in the theater depends on the number being performed, sometimes, it's very bright and shooting is easy. Other times, the teachers want lower lights for a more *moody* performance....
...I currently do not have to blow up images larger than 8x10 (for parents), but the theater where I shoot may start asking me to print larger for advertising or whatever they happen to think of.
It doesn't sound as bad as it could be. If you are shooting kids and even some promo stuff I'm willing to bet you could get away with 6400 quite a bit of the time. If you are use to keeping everything below 800 then the D800 will be a breath of fresh air.
If you look at others shooting stage performances, concerts and low light performances, you will notice many compensate for bright stage lights that cause the meter to overexpose. It helps to underexpose by a stop or more which can help lower the ISO as well. Other than that, the more you shoot the better timing you will get and that will help with everything.
TTJ, +1 on the "D800 resolution at iso 12,800 is still more than the resolution at the native iso 100 of the MkIII! Now that is funny."
I see that as well on some of the dpreview.com data.
As to the photos of on stage subjects....the difficulty I have had in the past was the extremely high dynamic range and the complete loss of highlight detail when exposing for an overall scene. And, the only way I was able to overcome this was simply to compensate to bring the highlights into an overexposure which still has detail. This is one area the D4 seems to have a real advantage is the extra stop or so of dynamic range. And it continues to surprise me some of the garbage I can save in PP.
In regards to the noise in digital...here is one of my model director in 1970, a B & W from 1970 shot with an "F" and at ISO 400 (I think).....lots of grain! So, we have come a long, long way... http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7776036474/in/photostream/lightbox/
HockeyMan said:
..., looking to get a D800 around Xmas. ..... I currently use a D300 and a 50mm f/1.4 for low light shots in a theater. I figure with an FX camera, I should buy an 85mm.
Before buying another lens I would try the D800 and 50mm f 1.4
With the D800 not only will you be able to shoot at higher ISOs, you can also crop quite a bit. This can be a big advantage with dance, as you do not have to be too tight with your framing
Depending on your style, how close you can get, and the type of dance, do consider the 24mm f 1.4
Many thanks to the folks at NR. Particularly TaoTeJared's response to my specific questions. The reason I am looking for low light hi def photos AND video is that I have found in big screen slide sound shows, a combination of still and video work very nicely. Just stills alone ( I am pretty good at getting exposure, etc., very close) works sometimes, but imagine a movie without any video or movie effect, just still. Ken Burns has done wonders in that area, but since I have been able to efficiently add DSLR video the results have been very useful. Sometimes some pretty big audiences are seeing these. Even some of my D90 DSLR clips were important, but the D7000 video is sharper. I have found though that in low light (lets say shooting fireworks at night) going up to ISO 3200 was in my mind a failure. In the past I had not tried above 1250 ISO. So for at least fireworks I have to leave it at 1250 ISO max.
So then I tried a moonlight canoe paddling slideshow and my D7000 was not doing to well. I am pretty good at making the adjustments to deal with such difficulties, yet I am SURE the D800 like TTJ finally just BOUGHT (and put to use!) would way out perform the D7000 by light years. It is particularly nice to know the 70-300VR works well and I have outstanding images I published several times with the F5 and the forerunner 70-300 Nikkor D lens. Between the Canon 5DMKIII or the D800 I would personally just buy the D800. Where the D600 is going to come out in all of this I am guessing it will be NO D800. The D400 (and many hope msmoto is right!!!!) would be amazing if that it is announced this fall!!! But there are NO LEAKS about this rumor that I have noticed. But then look how long it took for me to get back to check on the questions I asked.
I also know that almost very feature movie use many TRICKS in filming moonlight scenes. Which means they are using way above the available light I am trying to use. AGAIN thanks for the help on my questions. Most of us could use a shot of cash to afford gear, yet I am a big believer use what you have well since there is much to tell already. I'd rather be in the right place at the right time than have more expensive gear that would be impossible for me to pay for right now. Still a D800 is way less than some tractor parts. I also repeat this thought : LOW LIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY is important, and hardly easy.
Old movie trick - film "night time" scenes by shooting in the daylight and underexposing 2 or 3 stops. Also, can add a blue filter to the underexposure.
To donalddejose: I studied a whole batch of movies and often in the extra features they show just how daylight the "night scenes" actually are. I am still going to try to do some moonlight video BUT it looks like a very tall order.
Now I need to go check on 24-85VR to see what maybe a D800 would do as I accept TTJ's assertion that the D800 is the best bet yet. Waiting for a yet unannounced D400 is a long wait.
D800 - 105mm 2.8VR - iso 6400 - jpeg - LR4 edits
Anyone who says 6400 isn't usable can stick that in their pipe and smoke it ;)
let me put my 2 cents, totally agre with TTJ, d800 is more than usable on iso6400, especially when You can somehow control the light. I'm using mine - occasionally even with auto iso - up to iso 1600.
@HockeyMan - as far as I understand, Your "big" slideshows are not bigger than full HD - as there isn't too much higher capability device performing on higher res right now. that means that if You will get d800, You could shoot up to iso 12800 and than sample down the image to full hd format and still get extraordinary results.
Wow, TTJ, thanks for the ISO6400 post, that looks absolutely awesome! I haven't smoked anything out of a pipe for years... =)
@AdamZ All you guys are just making my mouth water even more than it already was for the D800. I check Adorama, Amazon, BestBuy and even Target for their D800 supply almost every day just to hurt myself. It seems like it's readily available now. I just have to be patient and wait. Did I say it's killing me? Well, it's killing me!!!
@ HockeyMan...this is not the place for the person who is easily influenced to buy new equipment...before long you will have a D800 and about five pro lenses...and loving them all!.
HockeyMan said:
I check Adorama, Amazon, BestBuy and even Target for their D800 supply almost every day just to hurt myself.
been there done that. Nikon Store came through first for me. mine arrives moneday. it is sitting in the ups room here in indianapolis since saturday.
check them, downside is you only have 14 days to return it, but no sales tax (at least i did not get charged any)
As I look at the shots on PAD...the night shot by CE, this is one nice camera. Maybe the D800 is in the cards if the D400 does not materialize..... Can it be called a "pocket camera" I wonder?....
@msmoto - when I snap N24-70/2.8 it's a pocket camera comparing my regular setup :) so yes, it can be called a pocket camera :)
Just a note...as a person who just might slip and stumble more than those who are younger, I use the Black Rapid Strap so as to prevent as much as possible not dropping the camera. But, something like the Spider Holster might be nice when two bodies are in use, like with a 24mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8. I am still a fan of prime lenses. And even the Zeiss manual focus stuff might be an interest.
Oh, pocket....this means being abel to stick it in my purse...which I have with a D90 and 70-200.....so....
CE's night shot of Times Square was pretty incredible. I love the detail, DR and color. That photo really shows off the low light capability of the D800. "Only" ISO 1100, but an incredible image.
I think Nikon was pretty smart with the D800 / D4 combo. They are such different cameras that justifying them both is possible, (and way easier than a D3S, D3X combo). On the other hand, I have a hard time calling the D800 a pocket camera. For me, a pocket camera should be one where if dropped it makes you merely angry and not sick to your stomach. My problem is that I keep tending towards "well I just won't drop it then"... and consequently on those iffy outings I leave good equipment at home. Silly, I know.
You must log in to post.
