Best camera (or system) for dark venue & no flash

[picturesque]

I don't think this thread is about film vs. digital or D3 vs. any other digital. It is about Kimberly trying to figure out what camera/system is going to best help her deal with dim lighting. I feel she is confused about the issue even though she already knows a lot about the various systems and how each would help her do what she wants to do. Film vs. digital is a sub-issue due to the postprocessing and computer support needed. In any case, Kimberly may just like the look of film, and we should all use what we like, what helps us express our own vision, in our work.

 

In these kinds of situations, I always sit down with paper and pencil and write out all of my priorities and concerns, ranking them. Then I make a grid with a line for each considered piece of gear and rank each according to the criteria. Usually, I get a clear winner, or at least, a short list, and at the very least, the exercise helps me sort out my priorities. Sometimes, I find what I thought was a priority, isn't.

 

Also, I would not base a buying decision on the just minted, glowing reports of some new camera, whether it be a Nikon D3 or whatever follows the Canon 5D, etc., etc., or come to any conclusions about what camera "blows away" another. Usually, a new camera goes through a honeymoon period, where negative issues are overlooked, and image quality is said to be the best ever, etc. If the D3 can be used at ISO 6400 all the time with little or no noise, that's great, but if that is the case, I would still wait for a while, making do with what I had, or with an interim kit, before actually buying. Wedding photographers and clients have survived without no flash/ISO 6400 up to this point, and rather well, so I doubt business will dry up for a lack of having a D3 (or whatever new camera comes along after that).

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...It is about Kimberly trying to figure out what camera/system is going to best help her deal with dim lighting..."</b>

<p>

And I think that everyone who suggested a digital camera solution was addressing that question directly.

<p>

Further into the thread, Kimberly did say that she preferred film and/or was not comfortable/pleased with digital SLR's. But as many have posted here - a DSLR will give her the best system to deal with low light situations and can capture it in very high quality.

[tonybeach]

For: .[. Z:

 

"In high ISO? Look at the images AGAIN."

 

Since I downloaded the images and measured the results (all covered in the thread I started on this very topic and linked to in my previous reply here), I think it is you who should look again. Both cameras had essentially identical standard deviation. What's more, the NR applied by the 5D at DPR looked blotchy by comparison to the D300.

 

You seem emotionally attached the the 5D being the better camera to the point of hijacking a thread on a different topic. Let it go here, and reply in the other thread if you have any actual evidence that would support your argument (certainly others can go to the DPR website and make their own judgments, I'm standing behind my assertion that the two cameras are essentially equal in this regard).

[kimberly_smith___anchorage]

Anthony, Ouch! But, as they say, the truth hurts.<BR><BR>

 

But yes, I agree the issue is with lighting, or lack of it. In any system, ISO 3200 is not as smooth and grainless (noiseless) as ISO 25 no matter which way you look at it. It sounds like I need to sit down and really figure out on paper what my priorities are, like you suggested, Nadine. There is no such thing as a "perfect" camera system that is best in every situation. For low lighting (and consequently different colors) it seems the best would be digital, especially for color. Which digital system is the best regarding low light, is overly expounded and argued about. For familiarity and simplicity of workflow, film seems to be the best. But Nikon is the only company that I know about that is still making a professional 35mm film body. For mobility and speed, the RZ67 is not in the lead! :-)<BR><BR>

 

In truth, the photographer should not be chosen for the equipment they use, but the personality and results. But the photographer's confidence in the equipment they use results in how they act during a shoot, and competence with the equipment is directly related to the results.<BR><BR>

 

I will post what I decide when I do, if anyone would like me to. But until then, if anyone has any good advice or opinions, please let me know.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...But Nikon is the only company that I know about that is still making a professional 35mm film body...."</b>

<p>

Just a quick recommendation for a Nikon film body - IMHO the Nikon F5 is a better body and more suited to professional shooting than the lastest (and more expensive) F6.

<P>

You can pick up a used F5 for less than $500!

<p>

Good luck with whatever you choose to use Kimberly!

[steve_c.5]

You film folks (and the original poster) are still overlooking one of the major advantages of digital for wedding work. Flexibility. With a simple button press and thumbwheel roll, I can crank the ISO and shoot inside a black hole of a church, then crank it back to 100 or 200 and run outside and grab shots of groomsmen or others, then run back inside and shoot some more. I have the flexibility to do this without changing film backs, and without being limited to 36 or fewer exposures on a roll. I can shoot an entire wedding, 1000 images, on two 4gig memory cards with ISOs all over the place as needed. And yes, these are the same memory cards that accidently ran thru the washing machine and I dried with a blow dryer, downloaded, reformatted, and they still work...long story.

 

With film, I also could not download images at the reception and place selected images from the day in a laptop slideshow, which clients and their guests LOVE.

 

I no longer need to carry a handheld light meter, because I have one in the camera, and I can see exactly what I shot immediately.

 

I simply could not do what I do with film. I also haven't seen the inside of a film lab in, like, forever. And, if you know photography, you'll nail exposures right to start with and won't have to fiddle with software as much as you think.

 

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

[russ_konrad]

Excellent points Steve!

 

I get so used to changing ISO all the time for different conditions - it is easy to forget what shooting film is like!

[jim_simon6]

Kimberley,

Just so you know - Canon also still makes a professional 35mm film body. It's the EOS 1V.

 

Jim

[kimberly_smith___anchorage]

Russ, thank you for your opinion regarding the F5 and F6 based on your experience. I also admire you for stating that sometimes the older model is just as good as the newest, fanciest thing.<BR><BR>

Z and Anthony you are both right. Both are better in their own way. As with film, my husband loves the look of Tri-x and I prefer the look of T-max. We could get in heated debates (and that can be fun), but I shoot T-max and he shoots Tri-x. Which one is better? Well it depends on the viewer and the shooter. As you both are very definate in your opinion, perhaps you could share with me why you prefer which one in your experience. Ignore all the reviewers and cropping and tests. Could you share your personal experience? High ISO and low light is a difficult thing. Even my eyes go crazy in low light.<BR><BR>

Yes Steve, the ability to change ISO quickly with digital is a big plus in my mind.<BR><BR>

Jim, thanks for letting me know about the Canon. I wonder why I missed it...

[tonybeach]

Darn, I have to repost as the moderators took me up on removing the OT posts. Unfortunately, the larger half of my thread was a direct reply to Kimberly's request, but rewriting the reply is a small price to pay to keep this forum civil.

 

Kimberly, I do not actually own a D3 (but I do own a D300) and I am not a wedding or event photographer (but I did recently shoot my niece's wedding with a couple of D200 cameras and some help from my son). I don't shoot high ISO in low light often and pretty much always use at least some flash, but I do have one example I can share.

 

Let me first explain that when pixel peeping the math would suggest that displaying 100% pixels at 72 dpi would render an image equivalent to an uprezzed 288 dpi print at 4 times the size you are viewing it on your monitor. PP gurus I have read suggest that the equation is closer to 50% crop equals how a print will appear, so by that measure the following crops would be the equivalent of viewing a print that was 30"x20" or 15"x10" respectively.

 

100% crop (750 KB): http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing//Untitled-2.jpg

 

50% crop (250 KB): http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing//Untitled-1.jpg

 

Taken under dim and mixed lighting at a restaurant, below is the full image with no NR.<div></div>

[tonybeach]

In my haste, I missed some details. That's an ISO 1250 shot taken at f/11, 1/125s, front curtain TTL set to -1 EC, converted from a 14 bit RAW file with NX.

[justin_hall]

Kimberley - I loved your reply, its nice to see film snobs are alive and kicking.

 

Normally I would recommend trying something before writing it off but, in your case I think you would really struggle to adapt to digital. Stick to your trusty film.

[ilkka_nissila]

I also think that film is fine up to iso 400, there isn't much advantage to digital up to that speed. At iso 800 a D80 or better will give an advantage over Portra 800 (IMO) and at iso 1600 both digital and film become too grainy to be useful except for black and white images. With a D3 things are totally different, it seems that up to iso 6400 the images are perfectly ok for many uses. If you have the money for a D3 or 1D Mk III then get one of those and base your lens system on it.

 

In any case you should consider the availability of digital bodies on any new system that you buy. That goes for 35mm and also medium format (second hand digital backs are getting cheaper). Canon and Nikon are safe bets.

 

I don't see a problem using a film camera or D200 type small-sensor digital body for weddings. The only situation where it may be absolutely necessary to go with available light indoors in dim conditions is the ceremony. For the rest using a 2-flash setup (e.g. Nikon CLS) is perfectly ok and outdoors you can make do with iso 100-400. However, obviously the ability to shoot at iso 1600-3200 is an advantage and it may be worth the extra expense of a full-frame digital SLR. Also consider fast (f/2 or even f/1.4) lenses.