high ISO cameras such as the D700 and D3

[steve_johnston9]

<p>

<p >When people talk about high ISO cameras such as the D700 and D3, I assume there are still situations where flash needs to be used with these cameras, such as were the light is extremely minimal. Or does flash only need to used in complete darkness with these cameras?</p>

</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>In <em>any</em> low light situation, you can choose to use flash in order to keep the sensivity at base ISO for optimal image quality.<br>

Of course, if there isn`t any light or it is extremely low to use "reasonable" shutter speeds, a bit of light from any source will help.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Sometimes flash just isn't desirable (or allowed--such as at sports events). Having an extra stop or two (or three) of usable ISO range is what sets those cameras apart.</p>

[steve_johnston9]

<p>So can they take photos in near darkness</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Well, I suppose you could say that you can always take a picture without flash with these cameras, but will it be any good? If the light is too contrasty, or comes from the wrong direction, or has the wrong colour, then you may want to change it. Flash is a compact, efficient way of adding light to a scene and changing its character. Skillful use of flash light leads to higher quality pictures. Of course, the character and atmosphere of the original place may be lost if flash is used badly.</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>Steve,<br>

Any camera can take the picture in near darkeness but with those hi-end cameras you get extra few stops of usable ISO to use higher shutter speeds.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Near darkness is very subjective... you can check it by yourself if you have a hand held meter to set at 25600ISO.<br /> To take photos in near darkness... How? Hand held? What level of image quality are you willing to have? The higher the ISO the lower image quality. And, with long exposure times you can have almost everything.<br /> Think that 25600ISO is 3 stops faster (eight times less light) than 3200ISO (the ISO you can have with almost any DSLR or fast b&w film).<br /> In the real world, what Peter says. You gain a few stops over other cameras (this could mean a big difference).</p>

[walterh]

<p>Assuming that you are not pulling our leg please define what near darkness is.</p>

<p> </p>

[mark liddell]

The situation depends very much on what you are shooting.

 

If you are shooting a near/far landscape shot in near darkness and need f/16 for dof then obviously the high iso will not save you just like if you are shooting with a slow 200mm lens you might also struggle due to needing a higher shutter speed. If you are shooting a very shallow dof portrait at f1.4 then you might be fine in near darkness.

 

To give you some idea, I had no problems shooting at 1/60 f/2.8 in reasonably bright streetlight at night (ISO 6400).

[woolly1]

<p> .o.<br>

/|\ = Tripod</p>

<p>NB - Only if your subjects aren't moving around</p>

 

[carl_becker2]

<p>It is possible to take hand held shots using only street lights at higher ISO with a fast short f2 lenses and have a usable image. The D700 has about 1 stop better performance than a D300, probably more than two stops better than my old D200. For the most part I use a tripod and base ISO for what I shoot. Sometimes I use a flash when needed. It really depends on what you are doing.</p>

[woolly1]

<p>When people talk about spending $2500 on a D700 body and still expect to get blurry, albeit less blurry images I have to wonder whether there is a better approach. Tripod, monopod, just flash away and blow the cosequences. How about spending 1/5th of the money and getting a 1 stop faster lens?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Clive, not sure I understand what you're saying, I think you're saying, "just use flash". Flash isn't always desirable. And in some cases (churches, sporting events) it's not always allowed. And in some cases, a tripod isn't practical.</p>

[woolly1]

<p>Hi Peter,</p>

<p>I'm saying there are more ways of skinning a cat than just buying a very expensive body. Namely if you want a 1 or 2 stop better access to sharper photos get for example a 80-200/2.8 af-d instead of that 70-210/4 or 70-300/4.5-5.6<br>

If you're shooting closer it's even less cost to buy a 50mm/1.8 at circa $100 than the 18-70/3.5-4.5 or 16-85/3.5-5.6 ...</p>

<p>Better value than the D700 would you say. OK, it has 2 stops higher iso than say my D300 but the grain/noise must be defeating the purpose of the investment.</p>

[pge]

<p>Steve</p>

<p>The d700 is very good in low light but it is not magic. You are still dealing with the same issues all cameras have, it is just a bit better. Sometimes that "bit better" can really make the difference, but don't expect to be shocked the first time you use a d700. It is just very very good.</p>

<p>But a flash is not something that will disappear because of high iso performance. For example it is useful to use a flash on a beach while the sun is overhead to reduce nasty shadows in the eye sockets. It is also useful to use a flash in any other situation where your artistic intention calls for it. As a camera is no more than a light catching box it is useful to be able to control that light.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I'm not knocking you here, but I am wondering if you have a good understanding of how to use light. I'll explain what I mean. First, the D700 is only a stop or two better with ISO than cameras such as D90/D300s/D5000. It's not all that much higher. Now to get the main points. Without flash, you must rely on the light you are given. With flash you have CONTROL over the light, and that's the crucial thing. With flash you control the direction, amount, color, intensity, and on and on of the most critical thing in a photo--the light! Even shooting ISO ninety-thousand won't give you that. Consider this shot of mine:<br>

<a href="http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/DINA2010A-1.jpg">http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/DINA2010A-1.jpg</a><br>

If I had shot it at a high enough ISO I would not have needed flash. But I had done that, would the sky still be black? Would it look like a night shot? No, it would not. The bottom line is I can take these kinds of shots even with a cheap D40 and lots of flash power but would not be able to with a $5,000 camera but no flash. With flash I control the light and it does what I want it to. With high ISO I have to take what is given and have dramatically less creative control over it. I certainly DO NOT see high ISO as a substitute for flash.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I'm saying there are more ways of skinning a cat than just buying a very expensive body. Namely if you want a 1 or 2 stop better access to sharper photos get for example a 80-200/2.8 af-d instead of that 70-210/4 or 70-300/4.5-5.6</em></p>

<p>Sure, but if someone is contemplating the use of an FX body for low light, they probably already have f/2 or f/1.4 lenses, or f/2.8 zooms at a minimum. I frequently run into situations where I must shoot at ISO 3200, 1/50s, f/1.4 or even dimmer. If the room has dark, coloured walls and ceiling, and is tightly packed with people, its' not possible to use remote flash (no space to mount it nor any white surfaces to reflect from except table cloths). On camera flash light without any bounce looks so bad (assuming that the subject is people) that I feel it's better to take no picture at all, out of respect for the subject. (Don't take me wrong, I like well lit portraits. Direct flash with no background lighting is not "well lit".) To use flash in this situation the minimum that is needed is a large, white ceiling or white walls or the combination of those. If there is space between the tables to put remotes in then those can be used with good results, assuming that the distraction of flashes going of is considered acceptable. Often there just isn't space. Clamping flashes to tables might be option but it might result in accidents and also people may inadvertently look directly into the flash at close range when it's going off - not cool.</p>

<p><em>OK, it has 2 stops higher iso than say my D300 but the grain/noise must be defeating the purpose of the investment.</em></p>

<p>You couldn't be more mistaken. FX completely changes the low-light photography landscape. A part of it is the higher SNR that everyone talks about and the rest is because fast lenses (f/1.4-f/2 or faster) have comparatively low MTF wide open and to get the most out of it you have to use the largest sensor the image circle of the lens will accommodate. That's FX. I compared my old D200 with the D3 when I first got it. Images taken with the D200+35/2 ZF at f/2 at ISO 200 were considerably less detailed than images taken with the D3+50/1.4 ZF at f/2 at ISO 3200. (I used a tripod for the test, of course). This gives a more realistic idea of what the difference is when photographing in low light with FX vs. DX. Really fast lenses are almost all designed for FX (or the same size of film) and need the full area to be used to render a useful image at the widest apertures. It's a completely different world. Of course, you need to be used to using primes and focusing them at wide apertures but it's easy enough to get good results at wide apertures if you're a photographer experienced in this area.</p>

<p>For me, I use the whole rated ISO range of my D3 and D700 (200 to 6400). I think up to 800 is excellent, useable in any context or subject, 1600 is somewhat noisier, 3200 starts to get softer and 6400 is not something I would like to use but sometimes out of necessity, do. With the D200 I found ISO 100-400 to be good and 800 was too high. To get acceptable definition I had to stop my lenses down to f/2.8-f/3.5 depending on lens, with FX I can shoot at f/1.4 and get quite good results (with the 50mm f/1.4G AF-S) and by f/1.8 the results are typically already very nice (50/1.4, 85/1.4). Many of my f/2 lenses are excellent even wide open on FX. From my perspective, f/2.8 is already a slow lens (when talking about people photography indoors or with artificial light / artificial light + flash). But I live in Finland where during the winter it is very dark.<em><br /></em></p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Guys, there's something else. </p>

<p>Sometimes you need the extra stop of SENSITIVITY... If you need to shoot something F4, then an f1.4 lens doesn't do you any better than an f2 lens.</p>

<p>You can't always "open up", depending on the subject matter.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Flash(es) need to be used to improve quality of light, even if there is enough ambient light.</p>

[woolly1]

<p><em>Sure, but if someone is contemplating the use of an FX body for low light, they probably already have f/2 or f/1.4 lenses, or f/2.8 zooms at a minimum</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Well we don't know that, the situation has to be judged on a case by case basis but I assume the lens limits haven't been reached or the OP would have mentioned that. What I said was that the purchase of $2500 new body wasn't a given.<br>

The OP only suggested that flash should be used only in near darkness. Depends what he's taking ..... star-trails? No flash there. What about dimly lit gatherings ...</p>

<p><em>You couldn't be more mistaken.</em><br>

Incorrect, I probably could be more mistaken :)</p>

<p><em>You couldn't be more mistaken. FX completely changes the low-light photography landscape. A part of it is the higher SNR that everyone talks about and the rest is because fast lenses (f/1.4-f/2 or faster) have comparatively low MTF wide open and to get the most out of it you have to use the largest sensor the image circle of the lens will accommodate. That's FX. I compared my old D200 with the D3 when I first got it. Images taken with the D200+35/2 ZF at f/2 at ISO 200 were considerably less detailed than images taken with the D3+50/1.4 ZF at f/2 at ISO 3200. (I used a tripod for the test, of course). This gives a more realistic idea of what the difference is when photographing in low light with FX vs. DX. Really fast lenses are almost all designed for FX (or the same size of film) and need the full area to be used to render a useful image at the widest apertures. It's a completely different world. Of course, you need to be used to using primes and focusing them at wide apertures but it's easy enough to get good results at wide apertures if you're a photographer experienced in this area.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

All very interesting but the OP only asked about shooting with or without flash in very low light. I took it that he was asking about whether these bodies have super-human/mechanical abilities. I say again that faster lenses give an equivalent result to better ISO. How good does an MTF have to be when shooting in near darkness?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Some of my favorite landscape images I've shot are fuzzy and not very clear, because they were shot at night.</p>

<p>Sometimes, "available darkness" is just loads of fun. Wouldn't do it for sports, though...</p>

<p>And flashes don't always improve the quality of light, sometimes they just look plain ugly... They always improve the quantity of light though. There's a difference.</p>

<p>This is a fun discussion, even if we're a little off the original point.</p>

[woolly1]

<p>Yeah, good thread. There wasn't really a specific OP question but I like the way it has developed.</p>

<p>Just flicking through a few of my recent book purchases ....</p>

<ul>

<li>A Day in the Life of America</li>

<li>The Family of Man</li>

<li>Robert Frank's The Americans </li>

</ul>

<p>... has revealed countless images shot in appauling quality, poor light and with gritty and grainy rendition. All are images to remember and chocked full of atmosphere. Forget the clinical quality and capture the feeling!</p>

<p> </p>

[paul_reklaitis]

<p>I have a D3. Great low light camera! I use flash in sunlight. Why? I let the sun act as a kicker light to shape the subject, and the flash fills in the shadows and adds a sparkle to the eyes. <br>

In very low light with flash, it is very easy to overexpose the subject and underexpose the background. This is where manual controls on camera and flash are important. Practice makes perfect! <br>

Here's an example of almost total darkness with lights from the stage. The D3 Sensor at 6400 ISO is amazing.</p><div></div>

[stevenseelig]

<p>I shoot 1600-2500 ISO comfortably with my D700 and am looking for a D3s equivalent in a non-dual card body. Yes, the images are not quite as sharp as ISO 100-200, but they are acceptable. Remember to push the histogram to the right a bit (over expose just a bit). In other words an ISO of 2500 a bit over exposed is likely to be better than an ISO of 1800 under exposed.<br>

As for the topic of flash, the high ISO capabilities actually extends pretty dramatically what you can do with flash, particularly if you bounce you flash off of back or side walls. Just a little bit of flash at the higher ISO's goes a long way. <br>

Not sure, rent a D700 and a strobe and play with it a bit. You would be amazed.<br>

Steven</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Steve, like Kent, I prefer the ability to modify the existing light to have the option to improve it. Just because light is low and you have high iso doesnt mean good lighting any more than it does in broad daylight. High iso is a tool that you can go to if necessary. I dont know about you, but I used to regularly find myself scratching for speed. Put a 1.4 on it and take it to 1200 iso and it will blow you away. But then I remember kodachrome 25. Not 2500, 25. Using lights, especially slow recycling speedlights, the ability to bump the iso enables the flash to fire at lower power and recycle faster as well. Less chance of missing that Kodak moment. Can you live without it. We did til recently. Will there be times when you wish you had it, you bet. Is it worth the extra cost. Only you can decide for you. </p>