best camera for indoor low light
Feb 12, 2015 08:26:59 #
My present camera Nikon D90 doesn't give me the quality of shots in low light that I would like to have. The shutter speed has to be so low that there can be no movement or it's blurred. I'm willing to step way up to even the Nikon 810. Is it that much better in low light? Are there any other suggestions? Thanks for any recommendations!
Feb 12, 2015 08:30:59 #
Feb 12, 2015 08:32:03 #
Feb 12, 2015 08:39:40 #
Feb 12, 2015 08:40:21 #
davidp wrote:
My present camera Nikon D90 doesn't give me the quality of shots in low light that I would like to have. The shutter speed has to be so low that there can be no movement or it's blurred. I'm willing to step way up to even the Nikon 810. Is it that much better in low light? Are there any other suggestions? Thanks for any recommendations!
Have you considered raising your ISO until you have a more useable shutter speed?
Dennis
Feb 12, 2015 09:35:37 #
davidp wrote:
My present camera Nikon D90 doesn't give me the quality of shots in low light that I would like to have. The shutter speed has to be so low that there can be no movement or it's blurred. I'm willing to step way up to even the Nikon 810. Is it that much better in low light? Are there any other suggestions? Thanks for any recommendations!
Any current model Nikon will outperform your old D90 in low light, the Df is the best from Nikon and second best overall, right behind the Sony A7s model.
Feb 12, 2015 09:58:24 #
MT Shooter wrote:
Any current model Nikon will outperform your old D90 in low light, the Df is the best from Nikon and second best overall, right behind the Sony A7s model.
To that i would add:
purchase a nikon 35mm F 1.8 DX lens.
Feb 12, 2015 10:04:45 #
oldtigger wrote:
To that i would add:
purchase a nikon 35mm F 1.8 DX lens.
purchase a nikon 35mm F 1.8 DX lens.
The 35mm 1.8 DX on a D90 is a good low light match; but will not perform like the newer cameras.
Feb 13, 2015 07:34:50 #
Feb 13, 2015 09:45:05 #
davidp wrote:
My present camera Nikon D90 doesn't give me the quality of shots in low light that I would like to have. The shutter speed has to be so low that there can be no movement or it's blurred. I'm willing to step way up to even the Nikon 810. Is it that much better in low light? Are there any other suggestions? Thanks for any recommendations!
The newer sensors are better at low light because they have improved the sensitivity, and the arrangement of sensor elements, but they lose that advantage in quality by crowding smaller and smaller elements onto the same sensor area. More pixels has a diminishing return on quality as the count goes higher and higher to improve resolution. In general the most recent iteration of camera with the largest sensor and a modest pixel count will deliver the best low light performance.
Feb 13, 2015 09:55:11 #
CatMarley wrote:
The newer sensors are better at low light ... but they lose that advantage in quality by crowding smaller and smaller elements onto the same sensor area. More pixels has a diminishing return on quality as the count goes higher and higher to improve resolution.....
I am so disappointed.
Thank you for revealing that my D7100, D800 and D810 are trash cameras.
Thank goodness i still have a D40 i can use when i want quality shots.
Feb 13, 2015 12:36:49 #
oldtigger wrote:
I am so disappointed.
Thank you for revealing that my D7100, D800 and D810 are trash cameras.
.
Thank you for revealing that my D7100, D800 and D810 are trash cameras.
.
There was no such criticism implied. It is simple physics. Everything is a compromise. If you have a smaller sensor, certain compromises are involved. The most perfect camera would have a huge sensor, a trillion pixels, and would weigh 100 lbs, but would not be useful. The 810 can use a lot more pixels effectively than one with a smaller, less sensitive sensor area. But my little Fuji Xt-1 can take photos that will be pretty hard to tell from the 810's with many fewer pixels and a sensor with only 2/3 the area. An effective compromise was reached with both these cameras to capture fairly precise images.
Feb 13, 2015 13:42:22 #
CatMarley wrote:
... But my little Fuji Xt-1 can take photos that will be pretty hard to tell from the 810's with many fewer pixels and a sensor with only 2/3 the area. ...
i would love to have a mirrorless camera because i hate shutter noise and vibration and as the man says "In a reasonably sized print, I think the Fuji jpeg will satisfy most users completely."
But would i give up even one little pixel to get it?
Not a chance.
Feb 13, 2015 14:33:49 #
Feb 13, 2015 14:39:34 #
picturesofdogs wrote:
Sony A7s, 405,000 iso. Best low light on the market.
With the A7s you do run the risk of the electronic shutter distorting the image when shooting subjects moving rapidly across the frame.
The A7S uses the E bayonet mount, but because the image sensor is so large, putting a regular E-mount lens on this camera will cause varying amounts of vignetting (which could be removed in post-processing) or an APS-C crop, which given the limited amount of megapixels on offer isn't a good idea. You can also use Sony's range of A-mount lenses by fitting the LA-E4 adapter, but that adds extra bulk and expense to the overall package.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.