Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DSLR for very low light?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 1:33:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hoping for some advice here... I want to buy a DSLR, very strong
preference for Nikon mount, for shooting in very low light situations
- underground. Long exposures under difficult/low ambient light. See:

http://www.corestore.org/GlenmoristonSurge.htm

for some fairly extreme examples of what I'm trying to shoot. (these
are dreadful as all I had on the day of the visit was an old Leica
point & shoot - wasn't expecting to be down there!) 10-20 sec.
exposures not uncommon. Bringing in more light is never an option.

I'm seriously considering a used Kodak DCS 620x or 720x - they have
full-frame, as opposed to ITF, CCDs, and were specifically designed
for low-light available-light work.

Any thoughts? They're F5-based, so built like the proverbial brick
shithouse, but a little elderly now. But I'm not aware of any more
recent DSLRs with FF CCDs, or built specifically for low-light work...
perhaps this is one situation where buying a used vs. new DSLR *does*
make sense?

I don't *need* to shoot at extremely high ISO - almost everything I
shoot underground is static, so long exposures are usually possible.
What I need is a light bucket which can give good range and colour
*with minimum noise*, on long exposures. Budget is also a factor -
under $1k, preferably closer to $500.

Thanks

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

More about : dslr low light

Anonymous
July 22, 2005 3:31:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1122039129.e68208a7c4d3a0f060d8acf5e9d72ec3@teranews>,
Mike Ross <mike@corestore.org> wrote:
>Hoping for some advice here... I want to buy a DSLR, very strong
>preference for Nikon mount, for shooting in very low light situations
>- underground. Long exposures under difficult/low ambient light. See:
>
>http://www.corestore.org/GlenmoristonSurge.htm
>
>for some fairly extreme examples of what I'm trying to shoot. (these
>are dreadful as all I had on the day of the visit was an old Leica
>point & shoot - wasn't expecting to be down there!) 10-20 sec.
>exposures not uncommon. Bringing in more light is never an option.
>
>I'm seriously considering a used Kodak DCS 620x or 720x - they have
>full-frame, as opposed to ITF, CCDs, and were specifically designed
>for low-light available-light work.
>
>Any thoughts? They're F5-based, so built like the proverbial brick
>shithouse, but a little elderly now. But I'm not aware of any more
>recent DSLRs with FF CCDs, or built specifically for low-light work...
>perhaps this is one situation where buying a used vs. new DSLR *does*
>make sense?
>
>I don't *need* to shoot at extremely high ISO - almost everything I
>shoot underground is static, so long exposures are usually possible.
>What I need is a light bucket which can give good range and colour
>*with minimum noise*, on long exposures. Budget is also a factor -
>under $1k, preferably closer to $500.
>
>Thanks


Flash ?

I find that the cheap 50mm F1.8 is nice on my dRebel and with 1600 ISO
I can get some interesting shots. Shooting RAW and tweaking in
Photoshop gives me a little more range.

You should be able to use a manual 50mm 1.4 on a nikon dSLR.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 4:36:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2005 11:31:33 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:

>In article <1122039129.e68208a7c4d3a0f060d8acf5e9d72ec3@teranews>,
>Mike Ross <mike@corestore.org> wrote:
>>Hoping for some advice here... I want to buy a DSLR, very strong
>>preference for Nikon mount, for shooting in very low light situations
>>- underground.

>Flash ?

Not really... spaces are frequently too big and surfaces too absorbant
- plus I want to capture the atmosphere of the ambient light.

>I find that the cheap 50mm F1.8 is nice on my dRebel and with 1600 ISO
>I can get some interesting shots. Shooting RAW and tweaking in
>Photoshop gives me a little more range.
>
>You should be able to use a manual 50mm 1.4 on a nikon dSLR.

The spaces I'm trying to photograph frequently require considerable
wideangle; my standard lens on these jaunts is usually a 12-24mm zoom!

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Related resources
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 4:36:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Ross wrote:

>
> The spaces I'm trying to photograph frequently require considerable
> wideangle; my standard lens on these jaunts is usually a 12-24mm zoom!

You'll need a DSLR then.. I don't think you can get anything wider than
a 28 mm equivalent with non-DSLR digicams.

If you need 12 mm then you'll have to go to a full frame camera like the
Canon 1Ds.. The 'regular' consumer DSLRs have a smaller sensor which results
in a crop. Your 12mm lens will wind up with a field of view of 18 - 19mm
(which is sill pretty wide).

Otherwise all the DSLRs are good.. They're all great at ISO 400-800
Pick a brand you like.

The lens will be the ultimate decider of quality. If I were shooting
in low light, I'd want something fast.. (f/2.8 or quicker)...
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 5:53:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1122050095.ef254de714daa0418908849e50764e39@teranews>,
Mike Ross <mike@corestore.org> wrote:
>On 22 Jul 2005 11:31:33 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>>In article <1122039129.e68208a7c4d3a0f060d8acf5e9d72ec3@teranews>,
>>Mike Ross <mike@corestore.org> wrote:
>>>Hoping for some advice here... I want to buy a DSLR, very strong
>>>preference for Nikon mount, for shooting in very low light situations
>>>- underground.
>
>>Flash ?
>
>Not really... spaces are frequently too big and surfaces too absorbant
>- plus I want to capture the atmosphere of the ambient light.
>
>>I find that the cheap 50mm F1.8 is nice on my dRebel and with 1600 ISO
>>I can get some interesting shots. Shooting RAW and tweaking in
>>Photoshop gives me a little more range.
>>
>>You should be able to use a manual 50mm 1.4 on a nikon dSLR.
>
>The spaces I'm trying to photograph frequently require considerable
>wideangle; my standard lens on these jaunts is usually a 12-24mm zoom!
>

I miss W/A on my dSLR, too.

Since you seem to be using a tripod you can take multiple shots while
rotating the camera and then stitch the frames together in the
computer.

It should work fine.

As for flash, I've seen lovely work done with a bunch of small slave
stobes placed in odd places and throwing shadows. It takes a bunch of
gear and experimentation but the effects can be great.




--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 7:27:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:02:33 -0500, Jim Townsend wrote:

>> The spaces I'm trying to photograph frequently require considerable
>> wideangle; my standard lens on these jaunts is usually a 12-24mm zoom!
>
> You'll need a DSLR then.. I don't think you can get anything wider than
> a 28 mm equivalent with non-DSLR digicams.

Most or all of the 8mp 'pro-sumer' P&S cameras have 28mm on the
low end of their zoom range, but with the manufacturer's WA adapter
lenses can get down to 21 or 22mm. You can add Nikon's lesser 5400
to this list as well as maybe a couple of Olympus's cameras. Nikon
has an even shorter focal length on its 8400, going down to 24mm on
the zoom's wide end. If that one also has a WA adapter lens, that's
one impressively wide combination.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 9:23:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Townsend wrote:
> Mike Ross wrote:
>
>>
>> The spaces I'm trying to photograph frequently require considerable
>> wideangle; my standard lens on these jaunts is usually a 12-24mm
>> zoom!
>
> You'll need a DSLR then.. I don't think you can get anything wider
> than
> a 28 mm equivalent with non-DSLR digicams.

Yes, actually, you can. The Nikon 8400 has 24mm wide-angle (at f/2.6) and
18mm with an add-on lens. My 8400 goes up to 10 minutes exposure in
"bulb" mode, 8 seconds in normal mode.

You would need a camera with a dark-frame subtraction mode, which most
high-end P&S and DSLR will have.

Is there any possibility of "painting with light" - using a tripod and
leaving the shutter open, and using a powerful torch or flashgun to make
multiple illuminations?

BTW: we have visited some of the places you mention, as my wife used to
work for (what was then) NSHEB followed by HE.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 9:23:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:23:44 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

<snip>

>You would need a camera with a dark-frame subtraction mode, which most
>high-end P&S and DSLR will have.

My D70 does that. I was just looking at possibilities for a more
specialised 'low light' sensor.

>Is there any possibility of "painting with light" - using a tripod and
>leaving the shutter open, and using a powerful torch or flashgun to make
>multiple illuminations?

Yes, I've started doing exactly that on occasions - have a Light Canon
HID scuba light. Helps in dark adits!

>BTW: we have visited some of the places you mention, as my wife used to
>work for (what was then) NSHEB followed by HE.

Excellent - my dad worked for the 'hydro' for 40 years.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 10:47:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Ross" <mike@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:1122039129.e68208a7c4d3a0f060d8acf5e9d72ec3@teranews...
> Hoping for some advice here... I want to buy a DSLR, very strong
> preference for Nikon mount, for shooting in very low light situations
> - underground. Long exposures under difficult/low ambient light. See:
>
> http://www.corestore.org/GlenmoristonSurge.htm
>


I had a look at the website. Just use a tripod and long exposures and you
can use any DSL-R
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 10:47:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:47:51 GMT, "Dave R knows who"
<kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:

>"Mike Ross" <mike@corestore.org> wrote in message
>news:1122039129.e68208a7c4d3a0f060d8acf5e9d72ec3@teranews...
>> Hoping for some advice here... I want to buy a DSLR, very strong
>> preference for Nikon mount, for shooting in very low light situations
>> - underground. Long exposures under difficult/low ambient light. See:
>>
>> http://www.corestore.org/GlenmoristonSurge.htm

>I had a look at the website. Just use a tripod and long exposures and you
>can use any DSL-R

Yes, I'm sure you can. And a lot of this is down to technique as much
as technology, I'm sure. I was still interested in what people would
think of the idea of a DCS 720x, and whether there were any more
recent DSLRs sppecialised for low/available light work, the way the
720x was...

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 11:09:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Ross wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:23:44 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You would need a camera with a dark-frame subtraction mode, which
>> most high-end P&S and DSLR will have.
>
> My D70 does that. I was just looking at possibilities for a more
> specialised 'low light' sensor.
>
>> Is there any possibility of "painting with light" - using a tripod
>> and leaving the shutter open, and using a powerful torch or flashgun
>> to make multiple illuminations?
>
> Yes, I've started doing exactly that on occasions - have a Light Canon
> HID scuba light. Helps in dark adits!

Some folks in astro-photography are experts in low-light work - tricks
like cooling the sensor to reduce noise etc. Mind you, they are talking
tens of minutes exposures, so probably a slightly different exposure
regime. In terms of sensors, some people say that the Canon is slightly
lower-noise with its CMOS sensor, but there are others who say the lower
noise is achieved through image processing in the firmware.

Fairly obviously, a large lens aperture is desirable to collect the most
light, and you are likely to get a bigger aperture in a fixed focal-length
lens than a zoom. As you have the D70, you would need Nikon-fitting
lenses. One possibility for wide-angle stuff may be a fisheye lens, which
can be reprocessed after taking to a more rectilinear projection. You may
be able to get a 3rd party fisheye which, whilst not as good as the Nikon
equivalent, would be a lens you might be happier to use in such
circumstances.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 1:04:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I took some photos in my darkened studio with no more than the light from a
few LCD displays and LEDs on the front of some equipment, plus a CRT for
illumination, with my Olympus E300. It was a 30-second exposure at ISO 100
and it looks like the room was lit by a 60W lamp, when in reality it was too
dark to make out much by the naked eye.
Olympus has a terrific 7-14mm lens that has no barrel distortion, which
would be a great kit for these tunnel shots. The lens at its wide end has
something like a 160ยบ angle of view.
Also, the Olympus E300 is a 12-bit per color channel (36-bit) image capture,
which responds well to "pushing" of shadows, should you desire to tweak.
I would use a tripod for the long shots. But the E300 will do coffee table
photo book grade images in near-zero lighting.
Optionally, they have a FL36 and FL50 flash unit options that have powerful
illumination for objects beyond 100' away. You can bounce the flash, too.
Many options. This tunnel is actually pretty well-lit, compared to some of
the things I've photographed!


--
Best Regards,

Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 1:14:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This is easy Mike, any D-SLR with multiple flash will perfectly light those
areas. Coupled the D-SLR with a couple of cheap remote flashes and away you
go. Mind you I have taken some shots in large areas with a single flash by
simply winding things up a bit and using a big single flash wound up, I use
the Pentax 400FTZ and that puts out a lot of light. You could also use a
long exposure and a single flash, the flash would need to cycle quickly and
just use the flash hand held a couple of times to light the area.

"Mike Ross" <mike@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:1122039129.e68208a7c4d3a0f060d8acf5e9d72ec3@teranews...
> Hoping for some advice here... I want to buy a DSLR, very strong
> preference for Nikon mount, for shooting in very low light situations
> - underground. Long exposures under difficult/low ambient light. See:
>
> http://www.corestore.org/GlenmoristonSurge.htm
>
> for some fairly extreme examples of what I'm trying to shoot. (these
> are dreadful as all I had on the day of the visit was an old Leica
> point & shoot - wasn't expecting to be down there!) 10-20 sec.
> exposures not uncommon. Bringing in more light is never an option.
>
> I'm seriously considering a used Kodak DCS 620x or 720x - they have
> full-frame, as opposed to ITF, CCDs, and were specifically designed
> for low-light available-light work.
>
> Any thoughts? They're F5-based, so built like the proverbial brick
> shithouse, but a little elderly now. But I'm not aware of any more
> recent DSLRs with FF CCDs, or built specifically for low-light work...
> perhaps this is one situation where buying a used vs. new DSLR *does*
> make sense?
>
> I don't *need* to shoot at extremely high ISO - almost everything I
> shoot underground is static, so long exposures are usually possible.
> What I need is a light bucket which can give good range and colour
> *with minimum noise*, on long exposures. Budget is also a factor -
> under $1k, preferably closer to $500.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
> --
> http://www.corestore.org
> 'As I walk along these shores
> I am the history within'
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 1:14:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:14:21 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>This is easy Mike, any D-SLR with multiple flash will perfectly light those
>areas. Coupled the D-SLR with a couple of cheap remote flashes and away you
>go. Mind you I have taken some shots in large areas with a single flash by
>simply winding things up a bit and using a big single flash wound up, I use
>the Pentax 400FTZ and that puts out a lot of light. You could also use a
>long exposure and a single flash, the flash would need to cycle quickly and
>just use the flash hand held a couple of times to light the area.

It's possible, but I prefer to 'paint' with the Light Cannon. Multiple
flashes aren't really practical - I don't usually have time to set
things up, it's a case of get in, get the shots, and get out before I
wear out my welcome!

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 2:29:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1122039129.e68208a7c4d3a0f060d8acf5e9d72ec3@teranews>,
Mike Ross <mike@corestore.org> wrote:

> Hoping for some advice here... I want to buy a DSLR, very strong
> preference for Nikon mount, for shooting in very low light situations
> - underground. Long exposures under difficult/low ambient light. See:
>
> http://www.corestore.org/GlenmoristonSurge.htm
>
> for some fairly extreme examples of what I'm trying to shoot. (these
> are dreadful as all I had on the day of the visit was an old Leica
> point & shoot - wasn't expecting to be down there!) 10-20 sec.
> exposures not uncommon. Bringing in more light is never an option.
>
> I'm seriously considering a used Kodak DCS 620x or 720x - they have
> full-frame, as opposed to ITF, CCDs, and were specifically designed
> for low-light available-light work.
>
> Any thoughts? They're F5-based, so built like the proverbial brick
> shithouse, but a little elderly now. But I'm not aware of any more
> recent DSLRs with FF CCDs, or built specifically for low-light work...
> perhaps this is one situation where buying a used vs. new DSLR *does*
> make sense?
>
> I don't *need* to shoot at extremely high ISO - almost everything I
> shoot underground is static, so long exposures are usually possible.
> What I need is a light bucket which can give good range and colour
> *with minimum noise*, on long exposures. Budget is also a factor -
> under $1k, preferably closer to $500.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
> --
> http://www.corestore.org
> 'As I walk along these shores
> I am the history within'

The Canon DSLR cameras work well with long exposures. Tens of minutes
isn't a problem.

Of course a lantern would help immensely. It might not seem very bright
but it could take minutes off the exposure time. Take a 40 minute @ ISO
200 photo of an unlit street. Those little blinking car alarm LEDs add
up to a whole lot of light after a while.
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 3:06:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Ross" <mike@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:1122071586.5ff8a5446e67ecfd467cc03d92d0384b@teranews...
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:14:21 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>This is easy Mike, any D-SLR with multiple flash will perfectly light
>>those
>>areas. Coupled the D-SLR with a couple of cheap remote flashes and away
>>you
>>go. Mind you I have taken some shots in large areas with a single flash by
>>simply winding things up a bit and using a big single flash wound up, I
>>use
>>the Pentax 400FTZ and that puts out a lot of light. You could also use a
>>long exposure and a single flash, the flash would need to cycle quickly
>>and
>>just use the flash hand held a couple of times to light the area.
>
> It's possible, but I prefer to 'paint' with the Light Cannon. Multiple
> flashes aren't really practical - I don't usually have time to set
> things up, it's a case of get in, get the shots, and get out before I
> wear out my welcome!

If you have time to setup a tripod for longer exposures then you have time
for multiple flashes from a single flash. If not you will continue to get
the poor quality shots that I see on your site.

Good luck.

Pete
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 3:06:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:06:44 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>"Mike Ross" <mike@corestore.org> wrote in message
>news:1122071586.5ff8a5446e67ecfd467cc03d92d0384b@teranews...

>> It's possible, but I prefer to 'paint' with the Light Cannon. Multiple
>> flashes aren't really practical - I don't usually have time to set
>> things up, it's a case of get in, get the shots, and get out before I
>> wear out my welcome!
>
>If you have time to setup a tripod for longer exposures then you have time
>for multiple flashes from a single flash. If not you will continue to get
>the poor quality shots that I see on your site.

'poor quality'... gee thanks! Actually I often don't even have time
for (or am not allowed) a tripod. I've had to hold my breath, lean
hard against a wall, use the self-timer, and make an 8 second exposure
to get some shots.

But with the D70, and some practice, and a beanbag, results are
improving a bit:

http://www.corestore.org/cullhalld70.jpg

Cheers

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 3:28:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Ross" <mike@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:1122061183.2534f9b0f946f67c0c577f35c25870de@teranews...
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:47:51 GMT, "Dave R knows who"
> <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:
>
>>"Mike Ross" <mike@corestore.org> wrote in message
>>news:1122039129.e68208a7c4d3a0f060d8acf5e9d72ec3@teranews...
>>> Hoping for some advice here... I want to buy a DSLR, very strong
>>> preference for Nikon mount, for shooting in very low light situations
>>> - underground. Long exposures under difficult/low ambient light. See:
>>>
>>> http://www.corestore.org/GlenmoristonSurge.htm
>
>>I had a look at the website. Just use a tripod and long exposures and you
>>can use any DSL-R
>
> Yes, I'm sure you can. And a lot of this is down to technique as much
> as technology, I'm sure. I was still interested in what people would
> think of the idea of a DCS 720x, and whether there were any more
> recent DSLRs sppecialised for low/available light work, the way the
> 720x was...
>

The advantage is you can change lenses and mount some seriously good glass.
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 5:11:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> But with the D70, and some practice, and a beanbag, results are
> improving a bit:
>
> http://www.corestore.org/cullhalld70.jpg

"Hoping for some advice here... I want to buy a DSLR, very strong
preference for Nikon mount."

This is a bit confusing Mike, you said in your original post that you were
thinking of getting a D-SLR but it seems you you actually have one, what
gives? And you actually own these places don't you?

Anyway, good luck.
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 5:11:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 01:11:33 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>> But with the D70, and some practice, and a beanbag, results are
>> improving a bit:
>>
>> http://www.corestore.org/cullhalld70.jpg
>
>"Hoping for some advice here... I want to buy a DSLR, very strong
>preference for Nikon mount."
>
>This is a bit confusing Mike, you said in your original post that you were
>thinking of getting a D-SLR but it seems you you actually have one, what
>gives? And you actually own these places don't you?

Just to clarify, I do own a D70, bought earlier this year - that's why
I'm looking at other Nikon mount cameras. I asked the question
originally because, since purchasing the D70, I'd read that, 3-4 years
ago, Kodak made a couple of specialist low-light DSLRs - the 620x and
720x. Since some of my work is in difficult low-light locations I
though I'd ask what people though of them, and wondered if, with their
special sensors, they were still a better bet than more modern DSLRs
for tricky low-light situations.

Didn't quite understand the last question; are you asking if I own the
power stations?!

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 11:57:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Ross wrote:
[]
> Yes, I'm sure you can. And a lot of this is down to technique as much
> as technology, I'm sure. I was still interested in what people would
> think of the idea of a DCS 720x, and whether there were any more
> recent DSLRs sppecialised for low/available light work, the way the
> 720x was...

I don't think there are any general purposed DSLRs optimised for low-light
work, but today's sensors should produce lower noise than one four years
old. A large aperture fixed lens may be the key to success. Some poeple
think Canon has slightly lower noise sensors. Canon's full-frame camera
might have a little more net sensitivity, and would allow wider-angle
lenses.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1dsmkii/

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 1:43:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1122050095.ef254de714daa0418908849e50764e39@teranews>, Mike
Ross says...

> The spaces I'm trying to photograph frequently require considerable
> wideangle; my standard lens on these jaunts is usually a 12-24mm zoom!

Even an Olympus 8080 compact camera can take noiseless 10 seconds
exposures (at ISO 50) if you turn on dark frame subtraction. I haven't
tried, but I'd guess that 20 seconds exposures should be relatively low
noise too.

The Olympus 8080 starts at 28mm (35mm equivalent) and F2.4. You can
shoot at F2.4 and still have enough DOF, because the small sensor will
give you at F2.4 the same DOF as a full frame sensor at F9.6. That's a
drawback of big sensors: you have to stop down the lens to have enough
DOF.

Alternatively, as somebody else pointed out try the E300 DSLR which has
a 7-14mm zoom (14-28mm in 35mm equivalence).

Generally speaking, the 4/3 design offers advantages compared to
standard DSLRs when shooting at wide angle, because the light rays hit
the sensor more perpendicularly than with standard DLSRs. CCDs or CMOS
sensors have problems capturing light, when the light rays arrive from
the side.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 2:58:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>>The spaces I'm trying to photograph frequently require considerable
>>>wideangle; my standard lens on these jaunts is usually a 12-24mm
>>>zoom!


With a digital camera you can get around the Wide Angle requirement by
"stitching" together several shots.
In fact you can stitch together several shots from a film camera with
Photoshop after the film has been digitized .
Gives you a lot more pixels to work with for high res images.
Your "still life" subject is ideal for stitching.



> Is there any possibility of "painting with light" - using a tripod and
> leaving the shutter open, and using a powerful torch or flashgun to make
> multiple illuminations?

Painting with an ordinary Flashgun while leaving the shutter open is a
good idea. I have made many night shots that way with my film camera.
With film, there is some guesswork involved in getting the correct
coverage but after a few sessions, you get pretty good at it. Digital
makes it all easier.
"Painting" also eliminates the need for high ISO settings with its
resultant high noise. Also very large apertures are not necessary or
even desireable. Shooting at f8 ( f16 for film or DSLR) increases the
exposure time so you can walk around the room with your flash gun and
"paint" the subject matter. Just make sure you have a decent flash...
(G.N.=100+ at ISO 100)with a fast recycle time.
Bob Williams
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 5:54:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:3MmEe.75538$G8.70847@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Mike Ross wrote:
> []
>> Yes, I'm sure you can. And a lot of this is down to technique as much
>> as technology, I'm sure. I was still interested in what people would
>> think of the idea of a DCS 720x, and whether there were any more
>> recent DSLRs sppecialised for low/available light work, the way the
>> 720x was...
>
> I don't think there are any general purposed DSLRs optimised for low-light
> work, but today's sensors should produce lower noise than one four years
> old. A large aperture fixed lens may be the key to success. Some poeple
> think Canon has slightly lower noise sensors. Canon's full-frame camera
> might have a little more net sensitivity, and would allow wider-angle
> lenses.

He has a D70 already and no money and no time.
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 5:54:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:54:04 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
>"David J Taylor"
><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
>message news:3MmEe.75538$G8.70847@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Mike Ross wrote:
>> []
>>> Yes, I'm sure you can. And a lot of this is down to technique as much
>>> as technology, I'm sure. I was still interested in what people would
>>> think of the idea of a DCS 720x, and whether there were any more
>>> recent DSLRs sppecialised for low/available light work, the way the
>>> 720x was...
>>
>> I don't think there are any general purposed DSLRs optimised for low-light
>> work, but today's sensors should produce lower noise than one four years
>> old. A large aperture fixed lens may be the key to success. Some poeple
>> think Canon has slightly lower noise sensors. Canon's full-frame camera
>> might have a little more net sensitivity, and would allow wider-angle
>> lenses.
>
>He has a D70 already and no money and no time.

I'm not sure what that comment is supposed to mean. I spotted a DCS
720x at a relatively reasonable price on ebay this morning, so bought:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7532...

Cheap enough for me to find out if it's any good or not. If I don't
like it I'll just chuck it back on ebay.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 6:14:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pete D wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote in message
> news:3MmEe.75538$G8.70847@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Mike Ross wrote:
>> []
>>> Yes, I'm sure you can. And a lot of this is down to technique as
>>> much as technology, I'm sure. I was still interested in what people
>>> would think of the idea of a DCS 720x, and whether there were any
>>> more recent DSLRs sppecialised for low/available light work, the
>>> way the 720x was...
>>
>> I don't think there are any general purposed DSLRs optimised for
>> low-light work, but today's sensors should produce lower noise than
>> one four years old. A large aperture fixed lens may be the key to
>> success. Some poeple think Canon has slightly lower noise sensors.
>> Canon's full-frame camera might have a little more net sensitivity,
>> and would allow wider-angle lenses.
>
> He has a D70 already and no money and no time.

Yes, but he is looking for information. I also have little money or time,
but it doesn't stop my interest!

David
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 8:18:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:33:51 -0400, Mike Ross wrote:

> I'm seriously considering a used Kodak DCS 620x or 720x - they have
> full-frame, as opposed to ITF, CCDs, and were specifically designed
> for low-light available-light work.

It appears that you've done your homework, and your reasoning is sound, so
you probably know more about these cameras than anyone else reading this
newsgroup. Some of the alternative suggestions that have been offered may
be helpful. If you can find a forum frequented by working
photojournalists, you might get some useful information specific to these
cameras.

Is any support still offered for these cameras? As you say, the Nikon
bodies should be nearly indestructable, but what about the sensor and
firmware? What's the expected lifetime of the sensor, and are replacements
available?

How much would you expect to pay for one of these cameras, and are you
willing to risk that much on an unsupported product? (Obviously, you can
skip this question, if it turns out that support and service are still
available.)

Finally, we all know the megapixel wars are pointless, and a noise-free 2
megapixel image has obvious advantages over a noisy 6 megapixel image.
Still, do you ever want to crop and enlarge sections of your wide-angle
shots? These cameras won't give you a lot of spare detail to work with.

Good luck!
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 8:18:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:18:38 GMT, RobbH <rh3@operamail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:33:51 -0400, Mike Ross wrote:
>
>> I'm seriously considering a used Kodak DCS 620x or 720x - they have
>> full-frame, as opposed to ITF, CCDs, and were specifically designed
>> for low-light available-light work.
>
>Is any support still offered for these cameras?

There appears to be:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/ca...

>How much would you expect to pay for one of these cameras, and are you
>willing to risk that much on an unsupported product? (Obviously, you can
>skip this question, if it turns out that support and service are still
>available.)

Well I risked $500 on one on ebay this morning :-) I'm comfortable
buying a pig in a poke on ebay if it's only $500 and the seller has
100% positive feedback...

They seem to sell regularly there for $400-600, so if I don't like it
I'll just dump it back on ebay. I'll try it out and perhaps pop back
in here to give my impressions.

>Finally, we all know the megapixel wars are pointless, and a noise-free 2
>megapixel image has obvious advantages over a noisy 6 megapixel image.

Absofrigginglutely.

>Still, do you ever want to crop and enlarge sections of your wide-angle
>shots? These cameras won't give you a lot of spare detail to work with.

Nope... if I'm cropping it's because I mucked up the composition. 98%
of my work uses the full frame as shot, and most of what I shoot with
this will be primarily for the web. Relatively high resolution by web
standards (I always link to the original image for those who want to
see more detail of a particular shot), but still the web.

Thanks

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 3:26:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Ross <mike@corestore.org> writes:

> Yes, I'm sure you can. And a lot of this is down to technique as
> much as technology, I'm sure. I was still interested in what people
> would think of the idea of a DCS 720x, and whether there were any
> more recent DSLRs sppecialised for low/available light work, the way
> the 720x was...

Good luck if you ever need any parts or anything for it though. Kodak
have given all their engineers the flick and now know nothing about
the DSLRs they sold.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 4:01:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <rvbEe.75308$G8.65044@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>In terms of sensors, some people say that the Canon is slightly
>lower-noise with its CMOS sensor, but there are others who say the lower
>noise is achieved through image processing in the firmware.

If the latter were true, there would not be sharp noise and artifacts in
the RAW data.

What is probably the case is that Canon has intelligence in the sensor
read-out that keeps track of some read-out conditions and/or sensor
anomalies that are almost 100% known, and through a game of telephone
played by skeptics, and has evolved into "Canon uses something like
Noise Ninja in its RAW files".
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!