Sony DSLR A200

[jania_fugate]

Hello everyone!

I am new here & I just begun my journey into photography & am loving every minute of it. I just bought the Sony

DSLR A200 and my question is how am I able to shoot in a low light setting without using the flash but capturing

sharpen images? I wanted to photograph my baby sleeping in my bed the other day as soft lights from the window

were entering the room showing the cute little curves of her chubby little face. The images were not clear at

all. Help?

 

Thanks

J<div></div>

[dschuleman]

You can increase the ISO. I do not know how do to this on your specific camera, but changing the ISO to 800 or 1600 will give you much faster shutter speeds allowing to take sharp hand-held shots (beware though, the higher the ISO, the more noise you will see in the images).

[jania_fugate]

Hi Danny,

Thanks so much for the reply. I did what you said but as you can see theres ton of noise on the image. Looks very poor. I am still trying to toy around with it see if theres another way around it. Let me know if you have any more advice on the matter. Thanks again:)

 

J

[ricardovaste]

I wouldnt go above ISO 400 if you want a nice clean sharp print in general.

 

Your shot has a lot of potential, as the light is excellent and the pose is wonderful. But as you say, its not quite happening yet.

 

I recommend you get yourself a 50/1.7 minolta lens. It will allow you to shoot in lowlight, as the lens gathers more like than the kit lens you are using (i assume you are using the 18-70 here?).

 

Put the 50/1.7 @f/2~f/2.8, put SSS on and put it at ISO400. Hold it steady. You should get very sharp results... You may even be able to shoot at ISO100 if you open up a bit more.

 

Good luck and let us know how it goes!

[jania_fugate]

Thanks Richard for your input as well. I will do as you said & try it out :) Lets hope I catch baby again sleeping like that. LOL

 

I have not set up a budget for the lens you said. Do you know about how much they run?

 

Thanks so much to you all:)

J

[dschuleman]

http://shop.ebay.com/items/?_nkw=konica+minolta+1.7&_fromfsb=&_trksid=m270

 

Sorry about the ISO levels, I did not know how much noise your camera would produce. A 50/1.7 would work great,

otherwise I would just use/get a tripod, or position the camera on a table or something which will act as a tripod.

 

Good luck with you very cute baby,

 

Danny

[ricardovaste]

A 50/1.7 can be found for as little as $35 in the US. Don't know where you're from though... They're as little as 45GBP here in the UK

[carbon_dragon]

I have the A350 not the A200, but as a previous poster said, you just increase the ISO. My limited experimentation so far is that for Landscape scenics I try to keep it to 400 but I've gotten remarkably good results from ISO 800 or even higher. Experiment and see what kind of tolerence you have for the inevitable noise. There are programs I haven't used but which are supposed to be good for reducing noise at the expense of some resolution (like Noise Ninja).

 

Between fast lenses, high ISOs, and in body image stabilization you get some amazing shots that weren't near as easy with film.

 

For a fast "portrait" lens on these APS-C sized sensors, the old 50/1.4 would work very well and it is cheap. For a more "normal" lens (which on an APS-C camera is about 30-35mm) the best choice is probably the Sigma 30/1.4 for a low light lens. Minolta AF cameras have been around a long time, so older lenses are pretty easy to find.

[jania_fugate]

Thanks so much to you all for the great help:) I will toy around some more & look into buying a tripod as my hand is not 100% steady...LOL

 

Thanks again!

 

P.S I will work on getting my info up-dated here just trying to figure out where everything is at:) I look forward in getting to know a lot of you:)

 

J

From Ohio

[aaron meyer]

The photo you posted isn't too bad as far as noise is concerned. Take it in RAW, process through Bibble, and use some subtle Noise Ninja settings and you'll get pretty decent prints probably up to 8x10 with it. Even as it is, it's acceptable for printing up to about 5x7.

 

That said, the entire image is soft, to the point at which I would suspect camera shake because nothing is in focus. Looking at the EXIF data captured in the photo reveals that you used a shutter speed of 0.4 seconds with a 70mm lens. With that lens you should be shooting no slower than 0.04 (1/25) seconds even with steady shot, and no slower than 0.01 (1/100) seconds without it. It's simply not possible to hand-hold a shot like this and not have it come out blurry. In fact, it's a small miracle that it came out as clearly as it did.

 

For a shot like this in the lighting you have, you will need to use a tripod, which will enable you to use a lower ISO (800 or below as opposed to the ISO 3200 that you used in the example photo) and still have a sharp image. Try using a tripod and let us know how that turns out.

[peterblaise]

Hello and welcome Jania,

 

I use http://www.neatimage.com/ to reduce noise in image files, and when I print to a modern printer, such as

even the el'cheapo Epson R220 with it's 5,760 x 1.440 dots (NOT pixels) and 6-color or more printer, I'm

thoroughly impressed with the smooth qualities of the final output image, and what I thought was a noisy image

on-screen really prints rather nicely. And, hey, remember the baby pictures from years ago in black and white,

all high-contrasty and film-grainy? It's a picture of your kid, in the years to come, it'll warm the cockles of

your heart no matter how noisy!

 

Also converting to black and white, and emphasizing the green channel during conversion, and other tricks to

reduce the noise content of the image - Google search [reduce image noise] - may reduce the presentation of

noise from the master image.

 

Raw - I now always shoot Raw and convert and tweak to my heart's content using any converter I find that does

what I want it to do. Raw converters allow us to plus or minus the exposure as much as two stops in either

direction, so you may find that there's tons of information in the shot you already have if you only investigate

it with a smart image manipulation program, especially any of the Raw converters getting rave reviews out there

as being able to help photographers salvage otherwise imperfect exposures. Raw converters are available from

many sources, many are free, some are free along with other imaging features such as available in free

http://www.picasa.google.com/ and free http://www.irfanview.com/ , some come with our cameras, some are

inexpensive, some are expensive, and I can't say that only one is perfect for everyone - Google search [+compare

raw image converter].

 

Oh, and try a tripod, but remember that a tripod may help keep the image sharp, but long exposures will be

noisier even at the sensor's native ISO, even with a tripod. But which of the following pictures most artfully

reminds me of my partner ... after a loooong search for the "perfect" binoculars for birding ... image 1 is

outside in freezing weather, image 2 is indoors after a warm-up shower, and image 3 is 'round midnight, my

partner snug in a warm bed, the binoculars sitting alone on the table in the moonlight. All of them are noisy

JPGs through Minolta glass onto a Sony sensor (we all learn through experience, and I will NEVER capture JPG

only, ever again!!!). The third shot is noisiest being a rather long exposure at night. But it is my keeper

and sharer.

 

Your picture is not sharp, and as a JPG (JPG is an OUTPUT standard, throwing away 90% or more of the original

capture information), recovery techniques are limited, but, with your permission, I will try NeatImage and

Photoshop sharpening and exposure adjustments anyway, and report back.<div></div>

[peterblaise]

Okay, Jania, here's three revisiting to your image, using ONLY global adjustments, no local tweaks, which would probably enhance the image further (including possible cropping suggestions?):

 

1 - original re-sized to 700x pixels in free http://www.irfanview.com/

 

2 - loaded in Photoshop v7, converted to 16-bit in, Neat Image v2.5 noise reduction on auto, Photoshop v7 auto levels, auto contrast, auto color (I know, Photoshop auto color = ecch!), saturation -15, lightness +15 to tone down auto color(!) re-sized to 700x pixels in IrfanView.

 

3 - defog sharpening 40 20 4 (popular Internet recommended starting point), re-sized to 700x pixels in Photoshop, then a second application of defog sharpening of 40 20 4 (call me crazy!)

 

All combined in IrfanView and re-saved at 75% JPG 99kb for your viewing pleasure.

 

I note a couple of things. One, the original picture is not sharp. Two, the composition or cropping could possibly be played with to enhance the subsequent viewing impact on strangers to the scene.

 

Hey, it's digital, so shoot, shoot, shoot!

 

So, Jania, what do you think? Is this stimulation for ways you can experiment in future photography sessions with your subject here? Let us know, and share some more pictures. Thanks!<div></div>

[peterblaise]

Um ... why didn't we think of this before? Here's the EXIF from Jania's original picture - any suggestions BASED ON EXIF?<br>

<br>

ImageDescription - SONY DSC<br>

Make - SONY<br>

Model - DSLR-A200<br>

Orientation - Top left<br>

XResolution - 72<br>

YResolution - 72<br>

ResolutionUnit - Inch<br>

Software - DSLR-A200 v1.00<br>

DateTime - 2008:06:28 07:47:32<br>

YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited<br>

ExifOffset - 390<br>

ExposureTime - 1/2.5 seconds<br>

FNumber - 5.60<br>

ExposureProgram - Normal program<br>

ISOSpeedRatings - 3200<br>

ExifVersion - 0221<br>

DateTimeOriginal - 2008:06:28 07:47:32<br>

DateTimeDigitized - 2008:06:28 07:47:32<br>

ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr<br>

CompressedBitsPerPixel - 8 (bits/pixel)<br>

BrightnessValue - -3.50<br>

ExposureBiasValue - 0.00<br>

MaxApertureValue - F 5.60<br>

MeteringMode - Multi-segment<br>

LightSource - Auto<br>

Flash - Flash not fired, compulsory flash mode<br>

FocalLength - 70.00 mm<br>

UserComment - <br>

FlashPixVersion - 0100<br>

ColorSpace - sRGB<br>

ExifImageWidth - 2896<br>

ExifImageHeight - 1936<br>

InteroperabilityOffset - 30564<br>

FileSource - DSC - Digital still camera<br>

SceneType - A directly photographed image<br>

CustomRendered - Normal process<br>

ExposureMode - Auto<br>

White Balance - Auto<br>

FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 105 mm<br>

SceneCaptureType - Standard<br>

Contrast - Normal<br>

Saturation - Normal<br>

Sharpness - Normal<br>

[douglas_ferling]

Jania, welcome to the forum. The above posters are correct about the 50mm 1.7 Minolta autofocus lens. The kit lenses that come with all of the entry level DSLRs, including your nice A200, are not made to handle much with low light photography, and that 50mm is the cheapest way to enter that world. Your kit lens will work well in good lighting or flash scenarios, but you need a fast prime for lowlight. Besides, buying more lenses is one of the main advantages of DSLRs in the first place. Good luck! :)

[aaron meyer]

"Um ... why didn't we think of this before? Here's the EXIF from Jania's original picture - any suggestions BASED ON EXIF?"

 

Did you read my reply? =P

 

"Looking at the EXIF data captured in the photo reveals that you used a shutter speed of 0.4 seconds with a 70mm lens. With that lens you should be shooting no slower than 0.04 (1/25) seconds even with steady shot, and no slower than 0.01 (1/100) seconds without it. It's simply not possible to hand-hold a shot like this and not have it come out blurry."

 

(I'm just giving you a hard time, don't take it wrong. I'm in a cheeky mood today.)

 

This is a shot that needs a tripod. Even with a very fast lens (f/1.4), which would give a 4 stop advantage over the f/5.6 lens used, is only going to get her to the ragged edge of a hand-holdable shot and that's assuming she's still using ISO 3200 with Super Steady Shot engaged based on the way the camera metered for the shot she posted. (Photo taken at f/5.6 and ISO 3200 with a 0.4 sec exposure, 4-stop improvement from the lens still only gets to a 0.05 or 1/20 second exposure, which, at 70mm or 105mm effective FOV equivalent, is on the edge of what Steady Shot can reasonably be expected to accommodate.)

[peterblaise]

Hey, Aron, my screen reader was down, sorry I missed your astute analysis! I noted other's immediate calls to

various ISO settings, and it wasn't until after I played with a copy of the shot that I opened the EXIF data -

already at ISO 3,200!

 

I figure the lens set at 70mm focal length asks for 1/70 seconds shutter speed for hand holding, and if

enlarging to the same final print size that a 105mm lens would have captured on full frame, then as you suggest,

1/105 seconds is a suggested minimum shutter speed - without anti shake.

 

Allow anti shake, er, Sony super steady shot, to add as much as 4 stops of stability, that's ... let's

calculate: 1/52 seconds is one stop more exposure than the called for starting point of 1/105 seconds, then 1/26

seconds is two stops, 1/13 seconds is three stops, and 1/6 seconds is 4 stops. The 1/2.5 seconds used was more

than a fifth stop - beware of uncompensatable shake.

 

But even at the 70mm setting, adding 4 stops of shutter speed opening in consideration of anti shake, for 1/70 /

4 = 1/4 seconds, still needing a faster shutter speed than the shot as taken!

 

Is the shot not "clear" due to

 

- focusing error,

 

- shake,

 

- lack of depth of field, or

 

- electrical noise?

 

I suggest that all four came into play here!

 

Fixes?

 

- Up the ISO or exposure compensation a stop or more, and apply noise reduction in post processing, that is,

FIIP Fix It In Photoshop. I use http://www.NeatImage.com/

 

- Use a wider aperture, such as may be available by reducing the focal length on the very same zoom lens, and

the wider angle of capture will also increase the depth of subject field focus, two benefits in one!

 

- A tripod!

 

What lens was used, Sony Alpha Lens SAL-1870 DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Zoom Lens? The f/3.5 at the 18mm wide angle

end of that zoom range is 1.3 stops faster than f/5.6. That helps, allowing a stop faster shutter speed. 18mm

asks for 1/18 seconds without anti shake, and as

little as 1/18 / 4 = 1/1.1 seconds shutter speed with anti shake - cool! We're making headway.

 

Combine moving closer, widening the zoom for deeper depth of field (sharper throughout the subject), opening the

aperture for a faster shutter speed (less shake) and or lower ISO (less noise).

 

Jania, I think we have a way to use what you've got and provide a significant solution. Try it. I suggest that

you try shooting a series of pictures using the entire range of each control, then compare the results and see

what matters to you. Shoot at every aperture, changing nothing else (only allow auto exposure to change the

shutter speed) and compare. Shoot at every ISO and compare. Shoot at every focal length and compare. Shoot

JPG and Raw and compare noise reduction potential. And so on. Digital is cheap, and by scientifically

comparing the results of changing each setting processionally, you may quickly teach yourself what are the

camera's settings that matter to you.

 

For instance, I often leave the camera on [P]rogram and just shoot, but immediately afterwards, I switch to the

widest aperture and take an identical shot, then dial down to the smallest aperture and take an identical shot

(using [Ps] program shift mode or [A]perture priority mode).

Then, when I get back to my computer and printer, I have three aperture recordings to compare and teach myself

what's the difference, and

decide if I care, and if I want to take that information and experience with me on my next shooting session.

 

Let us know how it goes, and share MORE pictures. Thanks!

[peterblaise]

Sorry, not Aron, but Aaron! I blame spill chick.

[aaron meyer]

"I figure the lens set at 70mm focal length asks for 1/70 seconds shutter speed for hand holding, and if enlarging to the same final print size that a 105mm lens would have captured on full frame, then as you suggest, 1/105 seconds is a suggested minimum shutter speed - without anti shake."

 

The 1/focal length rule applies only for 35mm FOV, so at 70mm on APS-C you'll need approximately 1/100 second for handholding by general rule. Remember that you're effectively always enlarging the APS-C image to the size of a full 35mm frame.

 

In general, I am only willing to count on SSS for 2 stops. I've had 4 or even 5 stop improvements, but those are less repeatable. In my experience also, the effectiveness of any anti-shake system is reduced as shutter speeds approach about 0.5 seconds. Of course, I can't prove it, so I could just be crazy. :-)

 

And Peter, no worries on the name. People can call me anything as long as they don't call me late for dinner. :-)

[douglas_ferling]

Uh, I think this thread may be at the risk of being too much information for the OP.

[peterblaise]

Earlier: "... too much information for the OP [original poster] ..."

 

I wouldn't presume to dumb down or over-simplify to the point of being inaccurate for any body's sake, not even my own, let alone someone else who has not asked me to. Beside, one way to read my contributions here is that I toss the questions back at the original poster to expand and explore their own experiences and decide for themselves what's important. Rather than just dump theory and recommendations on the original poster, I suggest that we all check and decide for ourselves what our own experiences tell us is important.

 

Also, the original poster is not the only audience now and forever, as Google brings all sorts of people here over time, and I think that if we can offer accurate reference when they visit us, why not?

 

Earlier: "... Remember that you're effectively always enlarging the APS-C image to the size of a full 35mm frame ..."

 

Not necessarily, since I've seen that almost nobody does side-by-side comparisons of two pictures for one single output presentation. Whenever I see tow pictures side by side, I do not see that the photographer depended on using source images that were captured at the same time from both 35mm full frame and APS-Classic sources. I do not see that the photographer needs to transition from one image to the next seamlessly, depth of field wise. I'm not sure I've ever seen where the photographer MUST keep the viewer's perception of the depth of field identical between two pictures displayed side by side.

 

My first discussion here at photo.net was with Philip Greenspun researching the Minolta 135mm f/2.8 STF T/4.5 lens with it's unique T/stop nomenclature. We learned that the T/stop reference is from movies (film, video) where the true transmission of a lens is important to make cuts from different takes in a film appear seamless, exposure wise. Knowing the true transmission between two lenses allows the camera operator to set the lenses to the exact same transmission regardless of internal lens construction. This keeps the cuts from each lens at the same brightness captured on film. That's for movie film. However, in still photography presentations, that output quality is almost never a decision that depends solely on the chosen lens during capture. I imagine that the same goes for apparent depth of field. How many of us look at one presentation of two pictures, and compare those two pictures next to each other for their corresponding depths of field?

 

My point is that reference to 35mm as the king of the 1/focal-length rule is as unmeasured and whimsical as any other superstition, some believing it related to the human heart-beat pumping blood through the muscles of the arm and hand that are holding the camera, and so on. PopPhoto magazine http://www.popphoto.com/ and others routinely test real life shooting and report on real-life anti shake effectiveness. Sony seems to routinely come in with as much as 4 stops advantage, while others routinely come in at 2 stops - I always compare reports from the same reviewers, by the way. Shutterbug magazine http://www.shutterbug.com/ has an article on anti shake measurement this month, August 2008, page 72, "How Slow Can You Go" by Stan Trzoniec. Conclusions? Shoot a sequential series of exposures of a chosen target subject and compare your own anti shake capabilities for yourself. That's exactly what I suggested for Jania, and for all of us:

 

Earlier: "... I suggest that you try shooting a series of pictures using the entire range of each control, then compare the results and see what matters to you ..."

 

PS - In the same Shutterbug magazine issue, August 2008, author photographer Peter K. Burian reports on the current Sony Alpha lineup of the DSLR-A200, DSLR A300, and DSLR-A350 on page 112, "A Trio Of Sony D-SLRs" - favorably praising their capabilities as not just for ol' Minolta shooters, but worthy of consideration by anyone, including shooters of competitive SLR and DSLR brands.

 

[joseph_coates]

Since your subject is not moving, a basic $35 tripod with SSS turned off, ISO 400 (depending on light conditions/weather, consider

moving baby nap area to slightly brighter room or placing a tungsten lamp nearby one day if metering indicates), patience, and

bracketing should result in a fine image.

Forget all the software and tech tricks. Back to basics and be smart.

[jbs]

What Joseph says! Try~ tripod, 3.5 feet away, focal~18 (27 film) iso 400, f3.5, shutter around a quarter second, bracket from the center. Repeat as necessary or look at your meter... ;)

[peterblaise]

Jania ... and show us what your next pictures look like after you try a few things (I keep anti shake ON when

tripod mounted, for instance - it helps counter the shake from the internal mirror flap! Try it either way,

especially with a cheap shaky tripod, though using the self timer helps allow the tripod to settle down by the

time of actual shutter release after pressing the shutter button and shaking the whole rig). Explore, shoot,

shoot, shoot ... and SHARE!

 

The post production software tips above can help salvage previous shots, before you became an experienced expert

from

our sage advice!

 

We're waiting ... !