Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Flash and Studio Lighting
Thread started 14 Nov 2017 (Tuesday) 19:59
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Please recommend me decent camera for low light pictures

 
samsimon
Hatchling
1 post
Joined Nov 2017
Nov 14, 2017 19:59 |  #1

Hello, Please recommend me decent camera for low light pictures (taking pictures in dark places, low light rooms - taking pictures of people on parties, events)? Can you recommend decent camera in range $300-$500
thanks




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Nov 14, 2017 20:05 |  #2

samsimon wrote in post #18496655 (external link)
Hello, Please recommend me decent camera for low light pictures (taking pictures in dark places, low light rooms - taking pictures of people on parties, events)? Can you recommend decent camera in range $300-$500
thanks

At that budget, the camera won't be doing anything special. So any camera will pretty much do the job (setting camera values to ambient level you want, or no ambient if you want). Wide lenses with image stabilization are nice here.

The flash will do the work. So your budget should be for a flash (be it bounce or direct to subject). Some people put them on a stick so that they can hold them off camera with a little modifier sometimes.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
smaeda
Goldmember
smaeda's Avatar
1,061 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Shawnee, KS
Nov 15, 2017 10:21 |  #3

That budget is too low for a low light Canon camera. Canon dynamic range is already pretty bad unless you get the 5div ($3300) or 1dx2($5700). Maybe look into a used Sony? You might find a decent used A7r for a good price. As stated above, investing in lighting equipment will be your best bet.


https://instagram.com/​shintarodesign (external link)
www.shintarodesign.com (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/shintarodesign (external link)
5Diii, 70-200mm f2.8 L, 35mm f2 IS, 100mm f2.8 L,

LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,123 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Nov 15, 2017 10:51 |  #4

smaeda wrote in post #18497064 (external link)
That budget is too low for a low light Canon camera. Canon dynamic range is already pretty bad unless you get the 5div ($3300) or 1dx2($5700). Maybe look into a used Sony? You might find a decent used A7r for a good price. As stated above, investing in lighting equipment will be your best bet.

Canon dynamic range is as good or better at high ISO than other cameras. Your statement is false.


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
smaeda
Goldmember
smaeda's Avatar
1,061 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Shawnee, KS
Nov 15, 2017 11:25 as a reply to Talley's post |  #5

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Dynamic range is best at lowest iso settings. I'm not talking about noise levels at high ISO settings. Canon dynamic range being behind is a fact.

https://instagram.com/​shintarodesign (external link)
www.shintarodesign.com (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/shintarodesign (external link)
5Diii, 70-200mm f2.8 L, 35mm f2 IS, 100mm f2.8 L,

LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Archibald's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Calgary
Nov 15, 2017 11:31 |  #6

smaeda wrote in post #18497116 (external link)
thumbnailHosted photo: posted by smaeda in
./showthread.php?p=184​97116&i=i252414654
forum: Flash and Studio Lighting

Dynamic range is best at lowest iso settings. I'm not talking about noise levels at high ISO settings. Canon dynamic range being behind is a fact.

ISO 100 is low ISO, not high ISO.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
smaeda
Goldmember
smaeda's Avatar
1,061 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Shawnee, KS
Nov 15, 2017 11:32 as a reply to Archibald's post |  #7

Yes, that is exactly my point. DR of a camera is measured at lowest ISO, not highest.


https://instagram.com/​shintarodesign (external link)
www.shintarodesign.com (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/shintarodesign (external link)
5Diii, 70-200mm f2.8 L, 35mm f2 IS, 100mm f2.8 L,

LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Archibald's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Calgary
Nov 15, 2017 11:36 |  #8

smaeda wrote in post #18497119 (external link)
Yes, that is exactly my point. DR of a camera is measured at lowest ISO, not highest.

OP wants to shoot in low light, but you are talking about DR at low ISO...


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Archibald's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Calgary
Nov 15, 2017 11:39 |  #9

samsimon wrote in post #18496655 (external link)
Hello, Please recommend me decent camera for low light pictures (taking pictures in dark places, low light rooms - taking pictures of people on parties, events)? Can you recommend decent camera in range $300-$500
thanks

We don't know how "decent" the camera needs to be, and we don't know anything about your photographic expertise. You could consider the new Canon SL2 and shoot at high ISO. Depending on your requirements and tastes, you might be pleased with the results.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
smaeda
Goldmember
smaeda's Avatar
1,061 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Shawnee, KS
Nov 15, 2017 11:40 as a reply to Archibald's post |  #10

Yes exactly.... What that means is with better DR, you will be able to shoot with LOWER ISO, resulting in a cleaner image in low light....


https://instagram.com/​shintarodesign (external link)
www.shintarodesign.com (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/shintarodesign (external link)
5Diii, 70-200mm f2.8 L, 35mm f2 IS, 100mm f2.8 L,

LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Archibald's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Calgary
Nov 15, 2017 11:43 |  #11

smaeda wrote in post #18497128 (external link)
Yes exactly.... What that means is with better DR, you will be able to shoot with LOWER ISO, resulting in a cleaner image in low light....

You should shoot at the highest ISO without clipping highlights for best results.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,221 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 3 days ago by TeamSpeed. 3 edits done in total.
Nov 15, 2017 11:46 |  #12

smaeda wrote in post #18497128 (external link)
Yes exactly.... What that means is with better DR, you will be able to shoot with LOWER ISO, resulting in a cleaner image in low light....

DR is not the issue here. We are not talking about taking shadowy areas and bringing them up several stops because of either we underexposed the shot or we had a wide DR scene.

When somebody talks about taking shots in low light situations, that doesn't automatically mean the images are underexposed or are in a wide DR scene. Just expose properly in low light using the appropriate ISO, shutter and aperture. The bigger issue here is whether the camera can even AF in the low light situations called out.

How did you equate "taking pictures in dark places, low light rooms" to be "I plan on taking greatly underexposed shots or will be purposely underexposing areas of my photos because I have areas of highlights I want to preserve, and want to bring those up during post, therefore I need a wide DR camera."?


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
smaeda
Goldmember
smaeda's Avatar
1,061 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Shawnee, KS
Nov 15, 2017 11:47 as a reply to Archibald's post |  #13

That is a very old way of thinking. Sounds like you've never experienced shooting with modern ff cameras. You'll be amazed how much the game has changed.


https://instagram.com/​shintarodesign (external link)
www.shintarodesign.com (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/shintarodesign (external link)
5Diii, 70-200mm f2.8 L, 35mm f2 IS, 100mm f2.8 L,

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,221 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 3 days ago by TeamSpeed. 7 edits done in total.
Nov 15, 2017 11:49 |  #14

smaeda wrote in post #18497135 (external link)
That is a very old way of thinking. Sounds like you've never experienced shooting with modern ff cameras. You'll be amazed how much the game has changed.

The game hasn't changed. You still have to shoot with the stops of DR allowed by the sensor, which means you try to protect the highlights you want to keep so they don't clip to pure white. Again though, that has no bearing on this thread.

The OP wants to know "What is a $300-500 camera and lens setup where I can take pictures in low light situations?". The only factors to consider are:

a) will the camera even AF in those situations with the lens that will be purchased?
b) does the camera have good high ISO levels because chances are the ISO will be set high to allow for reasonable shutter speeds?

DR doesn't even come into play at this point.

Unfortunately the budget is quite small. The best suggestion I can provide would be an SL1 and a 50mm STM, then perhaps also a 430EX flash. That should just about fit in the $500 range (assuming USD as there is no location provided), and should give a pretty good overall package for general shooting to start with. Later add some decent zoom lenses, like a Sigma 17-50 f2.8.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
smaeda
Goldmember
smaeda's Avatar
1,061 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Shawnee, KS
Nov 15, 2017 12:01 as a reply to TeamSpeed's post |  #15

I agree that DR isn't the issue here. This is going off into a tangent. Original point was me defending my statement that Canon DR isn't as good compared with other brands. Because that is indeed a fact.


https://instagram.com/​shintarodesign (external link)
www.shintarodesign.com (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/shintarodesign (external link)
5Diii, 70-200mm f2.8 L, 35mm f2 IS, 100mm f2.8 L,

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

716 views & 3 likes for this thread
Please recommend me decent camera for low light pictures
FORUMS General Gear Talk Flash and Studio Lighting


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00111 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is aKilter
687 guests, 288 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016