Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 15, 2009, 10:05 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

OK, one more question before I go "shopping" to look at cameras...if I am happy with all of the lowlight photos here, does that mean I really DON'T need an ISO 3200 camera????
javacleve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2009, 10:15 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
These were taken with a Nikon D90 and a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8.
OK, I did a Google search and that setup alone would be about $1100, and wouldn't give me any way to taker wider photos Also, does it have any kind of image stabilization? It isn't mentioned in the description of the lens....
javacleve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2009, 10:16 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtclimber View Post
And, javacleve-

I also purchased a Canon XSi camera just so I could post some low light level photos taken with the Canon XSi in this new thread, of course without any post processing. I thought that might assist in your DSLR camera search.

Sarah Joyce
Sarah, you are very sweet...is this on order, or have you been able to play with it yet?
javacleve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2009, 10:41 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
OK, I did a Google search and that setup alone would be about $1100, and wouldn't give me any way to taker wider photos Also, does it have any kind of image stabilization? It isn't mentioned in the description of the lens....
No, that's a fixed focal length, or "prime" lens. I used a prime lens because I needed the large aperture that is only available with Prime lenses. Very few zoom lenses have large maximum apertures, and the ones that go to f/2.8 are much more expensive (and heavy, btw). So if you want to shoot in low light, you need a large aperture, or a show shutter speed (necessitating image stabilization) or a high ISO (necessitating significant noise reduction.) I chose a large aperture lens so I could keep the shutter speed fast and the ISO low (relatively speaking.) If you want a zoom lens, you give up some aperture, and you need to compensate for that with either or both of shutter speed or ISO.

If you want to use a smaller aperture, but keep the shutter speed fast, then you need a high ISO camera.

If you want to use a smaller aperture, but keep the ISO low, then you need image stabilization (and you still may suffer from motion blur.)

Using a large aperture means you can use a faster shutter speed and/or a lower ISO, and prime lenses have larger apertures.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Oct 15, 2009 at 10:49 AM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2009, 11:21 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
No, that's a fixed focal length, or "prime" lens. I used a prime lens because I needed the large aperture that is only available with Prime lenses. Very few zoom lenses have large maximum apertures, and the ones that go to f/2.8 are much more expensive (and heavy, btw). So if you want to shoot in low light, you need a large aperture, or a show shutter speed (necessitating image stabilization) or a high ISO (necessitating significant noise reduction.) I chose a large aperture lens so I could keep the shutter speed fast and the ISO low (relatively speaking.) If you want a zoom lens, you give up some aperture, and you need to compensate for that with either or both of shutter speed or ISO.

If you want to use a smaller aperture, but keep the shutter speed fast, then you need a high ISO camera.

If you want to use a smaller aperture, but keep the ISO low, then you need image stabilization (and you still may suffer from motion blur.)

Using a large aperture means you can use a faster shutter speed and/or a lower ISO, and prime lenses have larger apertures.
So, do prime lenses not have IS?
javacleve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2009, 11:28 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
So, do prime lenses not have IS?
Some do. Mostly, they're long lenses where stabilization is most useful, plus a few macro lenses where it's also not a bad idea.

What are you trying to do?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2009, 11:54 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Some do. Mostly, they're long lenses where stabilization is most useful, plus a few macro lenses where it's also not a bad idea.

What are you trying to do?
no matter what I do, I need IS, in my experience (other than, perhaps, sports with fast moving subjects in which case it won't really make a difference)
javacleve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2009, 1:03 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
no matter what I do, I need IS, in my experience (other than, perhaps, sports with fast moving subjects in which case it won't really make a difference)
I'm a big fan of image stabilization, but if you can keep the shutter speed fast enough, it's not necessary. The rule of thumb for 35mm film cameras was to keep the shutter speed faster than the inverse of the focal length. In other words, if the lens has a focal length of 300mm, if you keep the shutter speed faster than 1/300 second, you won't get any motion blur due to camera shake. And if the lens is 100mm, keep the shutter speed faster than 1/100 and you'll be ok. Of course, the APS-C size image sensors throw a slight wrinkle into that. You must apply the crop factor to the focal length in order to calculate a safe shutter speed. So if the focal length of a lens on a Nikon D90 is 300mm, you should keep the shutter speed faster than 1/450 second, and on a Canon XSi, you should keep it faster than 1/480 second.

If you want to shoot in low light, you need large apertures. Large aperture, stabilized lenses are very expensive. If you want to shoot in low light and you need stabilization, maybe you should look at Sony or Pentax, which put the image stabilization in the body. Then you can use large aperture primes (when you can find them), or large aperture zooms that don't require a second mortgage.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2009, 1:38 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
I'm a big fan of image stabilization, but if you can keep the shutter speed fast enough, it's not necessary. The rule of thumb for 35mm film cameras was to keep the shutter speed faster than the inverse of the focal length. In other words, if the lens has a focal length of 300mm, if you keep the shutter speed faster than 1/300 second, you won't get any motion blur due to camera shake. And if the lens is 100mm, keep the shutter speed faster than 1/100 and you'll be ok. Of course, the APS-C size image sensors throw a slight wrinkle into that. You must apply the crop factor to the focal length in order to calculate a safe shutter speed. So if the focal length of a lens on a Nikon D90 is 300mm, you should keep the shutter speed faster than 1/450 second, and on a Canon XSi, you should keep it faster than 1/480 second.

If you want to shoot in low light, you need large apertures. Large aperture, stabilized lenses are very expensive. If you want to shoot in low light and you need stabilization, maybe you should look at Sony or Pentax, which put the image stabilization in the body. Then you can use large aperture primes (when you can find them), or large aperture zooms that don't require a second mortgage.
I actually hadn't heard that inverse rule (and it IS so complicated with digital sensors), but I always try to go by 1/250 because any less than that and I seem to get blur...obviously that wouldn't be enough on a long tele lens, though, which may explain some things

But, I think you are correct about the best thing for me probably being Sony or Pentax because of that...it just throws off all of my research so far, and the idea that Canon and Nikon have more lens choices because they are the market leaders...I have liked what I have seen with Sony, though
javacleve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2009, 1:41 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

TCav-

Sony, Pentax and Olympus have in body IS.

Have a great day.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:56 AM.