From: Floyd L. Davidson on
ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:13:36 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0800, ipy2006 wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
>>>> best DSLR for this purpose?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Yip
>>>
>>>I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
>>>film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
>>>what is available with film.
>>
>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.
>
>I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
http://photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60.shtml

The controversy seems to be whether that has only been recently
true, or whether in fact the Nikon D1 (1999) out performed film
at high ISOs.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: David Dyer-Bennet on
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:13:36 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>> ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0800, ipy2006 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
>>>>> best DSLR for this purpose?
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Yip
>>>> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
>>>> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
>>>> what is available with film.
>>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.
>> I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
> http://photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60.shtml
>
> The controversy seems to be whether that has only been recently
> true, or whether in fact the Nikon D1 (1999) out performed film
> at high ISOs.

Yeah, and I wouldn't know about that.

My Epson 850Z did *not* outperform film at ASA 400. My Fuji S2 *did*
outperform film (in subjective terms; I'm not working from a quantified
measure of picture quality that's valid across both film and digital!)
at ISO 1600 to ISO 400 at least.
From: John Sheehy on
"ipy2006" <ipyasaswi(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:1173274977.039356.148330
@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:


> I read some review that Canon Eos Digital Rebel xTi DSLR is good low
> lighting. Nikon D80 was good but the article said more as a available-
> light camera.

I agree that the XTi is "good" in low light; it's better than older Canons
like the 10D and 300D, and better than most current CCD DSLRs from other
manufacturers, but it is still a good notch below the 30D. The read noise
of the 30D is 0.6 stops lower in ADUs (RAW levels), and the XTi is 0.5 stop
less sensitive (RAW signal for a fixed illumination and exposure). The XTi
and 30D both meter for approximately 120% of the stated ISO, but the XTi
winds up with an extra 0.5 stops of headroom. So. all told, the practical
noise floor is 1.1 stops higher with the XTi, for the same real (not
metered) exposure.

The XTi seems to be a better imager at ISOs 100 and 200, though, with more
pixels and less read noise.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
From: acl on
On Mar 7, 8:03 pm, "Rutger" <nos...(a)please.com> wrote:
> "nospam" <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> schreef in berichtnews:070320070812162004%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
>
> > In article <pan.2007.03.07.15.53.05.559...(a)zianet.com>, ray
> > <r...(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>
> >> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
> >> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
> >> what is available with film.
>
> > digital is *much* better than film at high iso.
>
> That is *very much* dependand by brand.
>

Well, can you name a film that is better than the Nikon D200 at, say,
ISO 1600? (noise is not its strongest point).

Or do you mean something like "sensor/pixel size" by brand?

From: Dr. Joel M. Hoffman on
>> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
>> best DSLR for this purpose?
>
>Canon 5D and see if that and a typical "kit" lens gets you what you
>need. If not, you might need to spend about $1000 or even several

You don't need to spend $1,000 for a lens that does better in low
light than the kit lens. A good 50mm prime will do very well in low
light. And the Canon 30D does amazingly well at ISO1600.

On the other hand, if you're taking pictures in low light of things
that aren't moving, and if you can't use a tripod, then the slower IS
lenses (17-85, e.g.) may be better than the 50mm prime.

For that matter, if you you really have VERY little light, then
nothing will help.

But basically, the Canons do a bit better under low light than the
Nikons, and you want as fast a lens as you can afford.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXIF data for any image or web page: http://exif.posted-online.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------