Recommend DSLR for: Low light indoor movement photography

O

OldCorpse

Rockin the Boat
I am in the market for a DSLR. What I want most of all is a DSLR that'll perform well indoors with low light and some movement. Here's a typical scenario: Thanksgiving dinner, kids running, people dancing. The light is low. Parties, get-togethers. There will prolly be little "posing", most of the time candid shots in low light. I'd prefer to avoid flash.

Budget: up to $2000 for body + $1500 lenses.

Preliminarily, I've looked at Nikon D300 and Canon 40D.

I read conflicting things about these cameras. Some say the AF on the 40D is better in low light when there is movement, while others claim the opposite.

And for lenses, I was thinking of the 50mm 1.4f (for the Nikon) - any better ideas?

What do you recommend here?

TIA!
 
will you be close to them or are you looking for something more telephoto so you can be away from them and still catch the action? The 85mm 1.4 is an amazing nikon lens though fairly expensive. I would sooner shoot with better glass than a body though, i use the D200 though i have heard that the D300's ISO ratings are better for noise so you can probably shoot ISO 1600 and get good results. That will help a lot with being able to stop motion of people running around. Honestly good focus is as much practice as it is the camera. I often use manual focus lenses and simply focus on the area first.

Look at good glass first is my advice :)
 
D300 will be better in low light that the 40D. For that price range though, if you are considering Canon...you might want to look at a 5D. It is full frame, and though a little noisier than the Nikon....it is considered sharper. No arguing that (and I'm a Nikon guy).

To be honest, the like Nikons and Canons will be tit for tat over all....just get good glass like the 1.4 you mentioned and you should be fine. You'd be amazed at what you can shoot with ISO800 and f/1.4 and it still look outstanding.
 
Thanks for the feedback!

Re: close or far... mostly I would be shooting pretty close quarters - as you would at a party. Which makes me think the 85 could be a bit much.

I'm less worried about the IQ, as I suppose the differences would be pretty small for the kind of shooting I'd be doing. So, even if the 5D is FF and so a better IQ, the more key point would be the capabilities under low light conditions and a fast and accurate AF.

I'm leaning toward the D300 and the 50mm 1.4f so far.

However, keep the comments coming... this bunch here is quite knowledgeable and more ideas or lenses may occur to you :)
 
Glass will be the most important factor for shooting in low light... You can pick up a manual focus 50mm f/1.2 for $300.

That being said, why avoid flash? If you go Nikon the CLS is incredible and allows for some great off camera flash or you can always bounce it without pissing people off.

Still, look at the D200 or D300 (better at high ISO as stated) but I will echo what Dan said.

If you stretch your budget you can get the 5D which is a great high ISO camera with low noise... then again, it feels like a toy compared with the D200 or D300 from Nikon.

With your budget you can look at the 5D and the Canon 50mm 1.2 and be set up for low light...
 
Thanks Jeremy! I'm a little concerned that the 5D is long in the tooth and upgrades are prolly pretty close... for irrational reasons I hate to buy electronics just weeks before a major upgrade :)
 
i understand how you feel but when I feel that way i tend to weigh this option:
get the product now and start shooting and getting better with the camera
or
wait and get the newer one and not have any of the shots i could have gotten between then and now (which is time frame of ... ?)

if you can wait and not have it effect you then (especially considering the 5D) waiting might not be a bad idea, but if you can find a decently priced unit and start shooting yesterday....


as for low-light and lenses etc... me personally i shoot with the Tokina 16-50 f2.8 though i also have a manual 50mm 1.4 and a manual 90mm 2.5 macro.
all of these work well and i usually bring my flashes with me, i bought some cheap ebay radio flash tirggers so i can set up my lights anywhere in the room and have them go off. Very useful and fun! Nikons CLS is also an option but i bought old SB-26 flashes for $100 a piece, they are awesome!
 
Last edited:
Moonjangles, that's a perfectly valid point of view, and indeed I'm acutely conscious of this dilemma. Which is why I'm leaning toward the D300. In any case, I've dialed in a date for myself: I'll buy the camera no later than April 28, come what may.

I guess I should overcome my prejudice wrt. flash, but it's tough going :)... if I can avoid it, I'd rather do everything with fast lenses and maybe push up the ISO somewhat... the D300 gives respectable results at 1600.

If Canon comes up with an update to the 5D, I'll be more than happy to look at it.

Fortunately, I don't have any big investment in lenses which would wed me to one system or another. And it's a bit of a dilemma in that I believe in first picking your lenses and then looking to pick your bodies. Nikkor lenses are on the whole more expensive than Canon (for what you get), and Canon has a lot more choice it seems to me (though Nikon is catching up). So based on lenses I should go Canon, but I just can't find anything that really hits the spot - the 1MK3 is troubled, the 5D is old, and the 40D is outclassed by Nikon D300. In contrast Nikon has a great camera in the D300 (and I wish I could buy the D3!).

Anyhow, I'm gonna make a decision one way or another before summer.
 
for the budget minded (you seem to have a decent budget) third party lenses are quite nice if you read up on which ones are worth it. I tend to like Tokina not only for their quality optics but the build quality of the lenses are very high and older slightly slower AF lenses like the 80-200 f2.8 and 28-70 f2.8 are gems.

Basically do your research and try in store if possible but at the end of the day if you are out shooting instead of reading reviews in forums, then more power to ya :)
 
Tokina lenses seem indeed to be exceptionally good, though I've been told repeatedly that 3rd party lenses on the whole are just way inferior when compared to Nikkor and Canon glass (i.e. as applied to Nikon and Canon bodies).

I was thinking of renting the two choices and doing a "shootout" over a couple of weekends to see which camera I like best.
 
price vs. performance they are awesome.

The Nikons may be better in ways though both will shoot great photos. The nikons also happen to cost a LOT more. I own the Tokina 16-50 and 80-200 if you want some samples though personal use is always the best way to go.
 
You cannot compare the feel of the pro line cameras with the consumer cameras. For example the D40, D40x, D50, D70, D70s, D80 (all from Nikon) and the Rebel XT, XTi, and yes, even the beloved 5D all feel like consumer cameras. Once you feel the pro line from these companies, like the D200/300 they feel completely different and sturdy. That being said, I would love to have a D40 for those times when carry a D200 is just too heavy, bulky, and too much of a pain in the ass.

I really love the Nikon line and am invested up the ying yang in their glass. I love the UI and find shooting for pay (events wedding) to always deliver the exact results I want. The creative lighting system is flawless in my opinion and really just works. The D200 (the system I shoot on) delivers the results I want every single time and it has the speed to handle any task I throw at it.

That being said, for the situation you described I still feel that the best solution is the Canon 5D with the Canon 50mm f/1.2 lens. Why?

OK, first the 5D issue. Yes, it has been out for a while and it does feel cheap (this is my opinion, but I just don't like the UI on the camera and even with the vert. grip it still doesn't feel like a pro line camera) but this camera delivers the sharpest and lowest noise images all the way up to 1600 ISO in real world scenerios. I, like everyone else, has seen Rockwell's noise shootout (if you haven't go to www.kenrockwell.com and you'll find it) but in real world situations the 5D is really the lowest noise camera out of the box. It has great results and really rich blacks. Furthermore, the camera is just freaking sharp.

I know you said that it has been out for a while, but film has been out for a while too and I still shoot with F100's. There is a megapixel race and you need to constantly upgrade but the 5D is a very solid tool.

Anyone who reads my posts knows I am not a full frame person (partly because I like my 200mm glass being 300mm and also because I am invested with the best of the Dx line of glass) but the reason I suggest the 5D is because it has such low noise out of that full frame sensor and because then a 50mm lens is appropriate (on a crop camera having it be 75mm sort of makes it more of a portrait lens rather than a normal walk around lens).

Now onto the 50 1.2. This lens is expensive, heavy, and did I mention expensive and heavy? The focal plane is so narrow at 1.2 it is hard to get solid results and it is expensive and heavy. That being said, once you step down to 1.8 you are dealing with a fast sharp lens. In order to get similar results from the 50mm 1.4 or 1.2 you are needing to stop down to at least f/4. This lens is that fast and that strong and there is no substitute. At 1.2 you would be hard pressed to get good results but at 1.8 you'll have the best and sharpest lens possible. This is the ONLY lens in the Canon line up that makes me long for that system (although I like the fact that there is diversity in the lineup consisting of f/4, f/4IS, f/2.8, f/2.8IS...lots of steps for different budgets and weight restrictions).

Regarding which line to go with, that will depend upon use. I am, as I have previously stated, invested heavily into Nikon, therefore I am sticking with Nikon (although I do go to the camera store to hold the 5D every could of months and consider switching until I actually hold the camera and remember how poorly it feels in my hands). If you like the Canon line of glass, then by all means, go with that line. Personally, I like the Nikon line of glass and feel that you can have a completely professional top of the line kit for under $4000 (17-55 f/2.8 DX, 70-200 f/2.8 VR, Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6, Nikon TC x1.4 & 1.7). What is missing from this kit is of course primes, which personally I don't shoot a lot of anymore, and flashes, which are key to quality images.

Writing off flash is a poor decision because photography is capturing images of light (technically speaking of course). With flash you control the light and therefore you can actually reduce your budget on expensive glass.

At the end of the day renting both is a great solution because so much comes down to feel. Looking at images online and things like that will only get you so far... with these units you need to feel and hold the cameras.

Good luck.
 
I'm with Jeremy on the flash thing. Some of the best photos I've ever seen have been taken with flash. I'm going to assume that your lack of love of flash has to do with little knowledge of it. I only say that b/c I also used to feel the same way.

The key is to know when to use it. Being able to take pictures with and without flash and knowing when to use or not use it what can make a good photographers pictures great.
 
Re: the flash thing...

You wouldn't shoot a film without lighting... Even documentaries normally have little video lights or (PLUG!) a Vidled on board...

Same thing with flash. Bounce a flash off a ceiling and you will be AMAZED by how your colors look like you just messed with it in Photoshop for an hour. They are that accurate.

That being said... If you go Nikon you can always get the SB400 as a cheap ($100) flash head that has bounce ability.

BTW: My favorite place to use flash? Outdoor photography in bright sunlight... Why? It balances everything out and eliminates shadows.

Flash/Light is the difference between quality photography and amatuer photography (let's not hear the Ansel Adams debate here in that he didn't use flash with his landscapes, but then again, he did wait all day for the light to be just right, so that is painting with light as well).

http://strobist.blogspot.com is a great resource to learn how to use flash. There are a ton of resources for Nikon's Creative Lighting System around also.
 
And one other comment, which is going to sound completely hypocritical, especially after I ranted about why I would suggest a camera that I personally dislike and think that is overpriced... BUT

Invest in glass over cameras.

You will go through a camera with normal use in about 5 years (shutter life estimate is around 100,000 on Nikon pro lines, around 50,000 on Nikon consumer... exactly the same on Canon).

That being said, glass is good until your scratch it, drop it, sell it, or lose it.

Buy the best possible lens you can because it will always work with your system of choice.

Glass is more important than camera... this cannot be said enough and to quote one of my good friends, there is no substitute for fast glass.

Whether you buiy the cheapest cameras made (D40 or Rebel XT) or the most expensive Nikon D3 you will most likely get images that are extremely similar. Yes, one is crop, one is full frame. One costs $400 and one costs $5000.

I am willing to bet that in 9 out of 10 shooting situations no one could tell the difference between images taken from the two (if of course we compensated for crop factor since the D3 is full frame).

My point is, get an SLR because you want something that fires when you hit the shutter, because you want the ability to use a wide variety of lenses, and because you like the feel of it.

Too many people (and I have lusted after plenty of gear) believe that a certain camera will make them a better photographer or give their images that extra umph. This is simply not true...

Personally, I had a lot more keepers out of my D50 than I do out of my D200 (then again, I shoot a lot more with my D200).

Photography is not about which tool is best. It is about which tool is best for you.

-Rant over-
 
Jeremy and Dan, lots of good points. I admit, my prejudice against flash is mostly out of ignorance. The only times I use it is as fill outdoors when I want to illuminate something (like a person's face, when the stand with back against the sun). Indoors, I've always hated how flash affects skin tones - though I recognize that there are skill levels to using flash as well. The other thing is just the inconvenience of it - I read about folks who stick flash lights around the room to get results, and I feel like wow, that's like being a dp on a film project.... too much... I'd rather just deal with lenses and ISO. Yes, silly prejudice. I suppose I'll have to break down one day and look into flash.

I agree with the whole "find lenses first, then find the body". And Jeremy has again put me into a spin with his good advocacy of the 5D + 50/1.2f (I was almost set on the D300).

Well, I'll do the shootout and see. Thanks a lot for the feedback!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top