More FX lenses?

[jorish]

<p>Taking a quick look through the 4 galleries on your website, I can't find lot's of pictures that indicate problems with lack of light. So my guess is that you don't show those?<br>

I'm asking this because -based on the way you ask your questions, and the way you react to other people's suggestions- I have a feeling you will not be satisfied by a new camera, even when it's 4 stops better (I don't know if the D3s is that much better than the D300).</p>

<p>The reason I get this feeling is because there's lot's of factors that make or break low light photographs, and in the pictures I saw on your site, and the way you post in this thread here, I can't find evidence of you having mastered them (I can't find any evidence of you *not* having mastered them either, btw).</p>

<p>Most of my work up until now has been (street)theatre photography (very low light, often made more difficult by hige contrasts). When I started this kind of photography, a friend of mine had been doing it for some 20+ years already. In 1 year I was his technical equal (I still have a way to go in matching his 'eye for the moment'), and after two years I was giving him tips on technique (which he really doesn't want to listen to, because he thinks technique is not creative). I'm now on the point where I'm able to get technically better results using his D50, then he's getting on my D300 (which is also a 2~3 stop difference)...</p>

<p>Things that very often go wrong in his work, and that *might* right now be frustrating you into looking for a better camera, are:<br>

* not being familiar with his camera's metering behaviour (he doesn't even know spot-metering exists)<br>

* not being familiar with the limits in stops his sensor can handle<br>

* not being familiar with the focussing system of his camera (single vs. continuous, release vs. focuspriority)<br>

* not understanding the limits of a very large aperture/very small DOF<br>

* not understanding the way shooting modes work, and thus getting surprised now and then by < 1/30 shutter time in P-mode<br>

* not paying attention to proper hand-holding and breathing technique<br>

* There's probably some other points I have forgotten right now, which other people may be able to point out.</p>

<p>The reason I mention all this is that upgrading your sensor will ultimately probably not help you, because people (probably you as well) tend to try and match what other users of that sensor are able to achive. And you just won't get there unless you have 'the rest' under control.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>A stop is a stop.</p>

<p>The D700 is pretty amazing, especially for those of us who used to shoot ASA 25 slide film. But, it is only a stop or two over the D300, with maybe a wee bit more dynamic range. </p>

<p>I would echo those who urge you to get faster glass first. There will be a successor to the D700, probably in the next year. Consider getting the D700 then when prices fall, and using glass you acquire now.</p>

<p>If you want more feedback than that, then why not rent a D700 or D3 or D3s for a week and come up with your own conclusion after some empirical shots? E.g., just two off the net, D3 at Calumet http://www.calumetphoto.com/rental/digitalcameras, or maybe Adorama.<br>

http://www.adoramarentals.com/Templates/ARC_fall09Pricing.pdf</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The quality of light and the quantity of light are not the same thing. There can be high quality, but very low light, and very strong, but poor quality light (for purposes of photography). I frequently photograph in situations where the light level is very low, but not always poor quality. Last week I shot photos at a chamber music concert with low light (f/2.8 1/250s, ISO 6400) and you could argue that the quality of light was not great (fluorescent lights), nevertheless I got decent results in these conditions with a D3 and a 180/2.8. Sometimes you need to shoot in the conditions that are presented and can not have the option of choosing another subject in another light. Typically the subject and occasion are more important than the technical quality of the photography when shooting for someone doing something important to them.</p>

<p>Another situation last week was an occasion where I was able to shoot models with stage lighting that was controlled by a theatrical lighting designer. Here I was at f/2 1/125s, ISO 1600, or thereabouts. The quality of the light was definitely not poor, though it wasn't bright.</p>

<p>Yes, if you use the 50/1.8 in low light, a D700 or D3s would yield superior image quality (compared to a DX camera). Three reasons for this: first, 12 MP in FX corresponds to lower spatial frequencies than 12 MP in DX. The detail contrast is higher with the FX because of this (the lens produces lower contrast detail as the frequency is increased). The second is because the larger sensor collects more light, leading to lower noise in the image. Third, the 12 MP FX sensors have an unusually high SNR for a sensor of this area, for implementation specific reasons that I don't know the details of. I suspect simply that because the spacing between photosites is greater, there is more space for higher quality electronics to amplify the signal etc.</p>

<p>A less expensive way to improve image quality in low light would be to get the 50/1.4 AF-S which has better image quality at least in the aperture range f/1.4-f/2.5 compared to the 50/1.8D.</p>

<p>Another thing is of technique - if you use program mode you probably have a lot to learn about technique before you're quite ready to invest so much money on a D3s. First, go to aperture priority mode and set the lens wide open. This should get the shutter speed higher. Does it help? If not, get the 50/1.4 and use f/1.4. If you go to the highest ISO of acceptable quality on your current camera and there is still movement blur (dark images would indicate incorrect exposure and not necessarily a limitation of the camera) then you may want to consider an FX camera. But it's still imperative to learn the inside out of the technical side of low-light photography. And I would do that first, before you invest 5k on a top-of-the-line camera.</p>

 

[BelaMolnar]

<p>The whole bunch of beautiful lenses available, used, KEH or eBay, like the 50/1.2 excellent in night photography at 2.8, no point (sagittal coma) of light distortion, like the extremely expensive 58/1.2 ( U$4000.00 plus.) in full open, then, the AF 85/1.4, or the even better 85/1.4 AI-S, 105/1.8 AI-S, 135/2, 180/2.8 and you can mach any of this lens to the D300 or D700, witch I have and also the above mentioned lenses. They are super lenses and fraction of the price of todays plastic, AF big fast lenses. I had the 14-24/2.8 sold more then I paid for it, Instead I have the AF 14/2.8 prime, have the AF 16-35/2.8 and AF 24-70/2.8 behemoth. The 180/2.8 AI-S is wonderful on the D300 body, and it is 270mm/2.8</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>You said: " Even when I shoot with my 50mm 1.8, I'm hard pressed to get a great candid inside shot with ambient lighting above 250" Do you mean iso 250? Many of us who shoot a lot in low light tend to use higher iso's. Even with my first DSLR, a D70, I found that iso 1600 was very acceptable if used correctly (raw, careful exposure and conversion from raw). At that iso an 8x10 print will look very good, and not greatly different from a print made from a shot a lower iso. Some will argue this, but I have many such prints. Pixel peeping at 100% does not tell you anything about a finished print; it depends so much on size of the print and other factors. I would recommend taking your D300 and cranking up the iso to 1600, shooting in raw, carefully using ACR or NX and learning how to control chroma noise and luminance noise. Make some prints in the 9x13 range and see how they look.<br>

Back in the day before digital, I shot ambient light such as living rooms at night, no flash, using plus x or tri x (iso's 125 and 400 respectively) typically using manual mode, 50mm f 1.4 wide open at 1/30 sec. This was a winning formula and I have hundreds of great prints made with that combination. Here's an example: shot on Plux-X. My subject was simply sitting on the couch and no special lighting was used. http://www.photo.net/photo/1152740 here's another from the same roll: http://www.photo.net/photo/1152786<br>

Here's tri-x, 1969 new year's eve party: http://www.photo.net/photo/4650442<br>

Here's D80 at 1600, 18-70 f3.5 1/60 sec: http://www.photo.net/photo/10178733&size=lg<br>

Another with D80 at 1600 iso 24mm f2.8 lens wide open 1/100 sec http://www.photo.net/photo/10178710<br>

my 2 cents!</p>

<p> </p>

[rffffffff]

<p>Almost all of my indoor candids are shot with a prime lens... I may crop a bit, but 85 1.4 and 105 f/2 are my bread and butter on FX... If I have to shoot at f/2.8 indoors, even with a D3, I am usually using flash too. If you think about using screwdriver focused lenses, the D3 is better than the D700, but if you are thinking a 2.8 zoom and a D3 or a D700 and an 85 1.4 or 105 f/2, I would vote for the latter, specifically when shooting candids indoors.</p>

[samoksner]

<p>You want to use a D3s, a $5k camera, for low light but you want to throw a slow (f3.5-f5.6) zoom on it? Tamron makes one for 28-300 for $579 and another for $339, sigma makes one for $299. You do realize that once you do the math, ISO 1600 at f2.8 or ISO 6400 at f5.6, you haven't gone anywhere? What's wrong with spending half the money of a D3s on a D700, using whatever accessories you have from your D300 and spending the rest on awesome glass?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I find "candid shots" and D3s a bit mutually exclusive... Anyway, Ilkka's first post sums it up very nicely. I'd consider one of the 85mm lenses for the D300 - they give nice reach for candid work (and nice size for it too) and allow more than twice the light of your 70-200VR.</p>

<p>One thing to remember too: you would loose your cropfactor, so would the 70-200 still be the lens covering the right focal lenght? If you're using 200mm now, you will have to crop routinely when using a FX body.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>There is always the route of using older manual focus/aperture AIS Nikkors. They can be found relatively cheaply, are built to a much more durable standard than the newer ones and thoroughly compatable with the D300/D700. They are all I use. Just remember that a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor on the D700 would be a 75mm f/1.4 on the D300. The other nice thing about the D700 is you can choose between DX and FX format so your DX lenses will still be useful. Of course you go from 12.1 MP to about 5 MP when you do it, but that is plenty for most applications.</p>

[pictureted]

<p>I'm also interested in the D3s (or the D700 replacement), but want a lens comparable to my 16-85 DX. BTW, the low light performance on my D90 has been exemplary, particularly couple to the 16-85 with VR..</p>

<p>I'd also like a wide-zoom that takes filters. While I love the image quality of the 14-24, not having a polarizer for landscapes rules it out for my use. I shoot at the coast quite a bit and don't want salt spray on the front element to clean off either. I love the current 10-24 DX and it takes the standard 77mm filter.</p>

[josheudowe]

<p>First of all, thank you to everyone for providing some outstanding comments and suggestions. Joris, your thoughts above about me understanding every complexity regarding light is probably right on. I'm certainly not a professional photographer, just an amateur that loves the art and am so inspired by those who have the understanding and capability to create astonishing images. But you, and many others, are probably correct. I need to invest more time learning about light and the options I have with the D300 before I try and compensate my lack of understanding. David, Ilkka, Shun, Bela, Steve, Robert and everyone else - thanks a lot for your thoughts.</p>

<p>That said, I think everyone has convinced me to work more with my D300 and pick up a few new lenses. I ordered the 50mm f/1.4 and the 24-70 f/2.8, as well as a few books recommended by others. These lenses, combined with my 70-200 f/2.8 and my 105 f/2.8 should be good - although I do love the 85 f/2.8 suggestion above as that tends to be right around where I shoot a lot.</p>

<p>Anyone have an excellent book they can suggest?</p>

<p>Again, thank you for a truly educational discussion. I really am impressed by everyone's knowledge and capability - I hope to be there myself some day!</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>I got the 24-70mm before I got the D700.  It is <em>very</em> sharp, and brighter than the kit lens it duplicates.  On the D300, it is almost a portrait lens since it covers mild wide angle to very moderate telephoto equivalent.  On a semi-pro body, though, it weighs a ton.  Not what I would call a walk around lens.<br>

 <br>

Then, I got the D700 earlier this year.  A much better match.  I love the combination, and it just about lives on the front of the D700.  The combination is a little bit heavier than with the D300.  I use it when I go out with a shooting project in mind, usually with tripod along for the exercise.  The quality of the images is top notch, limited only by the abilities of the biological unit located just behind the view screen.  The only limit on use the combination is that I would not want this combination as a full time travel combination, excellent as the image quality is.  It is just too much to carry in one's hand all day long.  Perhaps in a back pack  Still, I have to say it has become my favorite and most used lens camera combination.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>although I do love the 85 f/2.8 suggestion above as that tends to be right around where I shoot a lot.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hope you meant 85/1.8. It is a very sharp and small lens so you don't draw attention to yourself. It is also much cheaper than the 85/1.4, which I don't have. When mounted on a D90, while my Nikon 17-55 can AF without hunting at low light, the 85/1.8 hunts occasionally. I assume the AF on the D300 is much better than the one in D90 so the 85 should work very well.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>Shoot a D700. I use a 24-70 and a 70-200 f2.8 for 99% of what I need and shoot. Will occasionally use another lens under special situations. Would never buy an f4 lens in this range. Simply too slow for my needs..and I am considering the D3s for the 1.5 stop improvement, although I keep hoping for a D700s (just because of cost). I also use old fashion zooming which is quite effective.</p>

[r_johnston]

<p><em><strong>"When you're shooting candid shots, you absolutely need the versatility of a zoom in the 24-200 range, but where do you go with FX? Carry around two lenses - a 24-70 and a 70-200 and swap them quickly? Hard to do without missing shots."</strong> </em><br>

<br /> Photographers have been shooting Candids for Decades, without a single Zoom lens.<br>

We did it long before the first one was ever made. Shot most of them with a Prime 50mm or an 85mm and sometimes with a 135mm.... For a decade after I bought my F1 & F2 only had a 50mm and shot Wedding candid's all the time. Usually so many Brides had a very difficult time deciding what to choose. Most of the time so unobtrusively the guests would be asking the Bride if she had a Photographer at the Wedding.<br>

You can do anything you want, with whatever you have if you just learn how, then practice.</p>

 

[gen]

<p><em>Photographers have been shooting Candids for Decades, without a single Zoom lens.<br /> We did it long before the first one was ever made. Shot most of them with a Prime 50mm or an 85mm and sometimes with a 135mm.</em><br>

<br /> Absolutely agreed. Zooms are "convenient" but certainly not a must, and they are by nature almost always a stop or two slower than the equivalent fastest fixed focal length lens.<br>

<br /> If you want a great candid photography camera, people might point you to a rangefinder, which is much less obtrusive than any SLR.</p>