|
how "quiet" are DSLR's for night photography?
Hi Everyone,
If I'm interested in doing night photography (mostly of distant scenery) with exposure times ranging up to 1 minute, I need to know whether a DSLR like the Nikon D70 with NR turned on will yield a much cleaner image (dark-noise-wise) than a good point/shoot digital with NR noise reduction) turned on. Is the difference profound enough to differentiate a great photo from a terrible one, or is it barely noticeable? I currently have a P/S digital that is hard to get a precise focus on (even manually) in really low light, mostly because, when I turn the manual focus ring until a distant light source is minimized in size, I'm only able to minimize it down to one LCD display pixel, which ends up being too coarse a focus when I later view the image on my PC. Or does NR cause loss of sharpness that makes it LOOK like it's out of focus? My P/S is a Panasonic FZ/30, which I've been placing into "night scenery mode" for night shots. In night scenery mode, ISO is fixed at 80, f-ratio is minimized, exposure times can be up to 8 seconds long, and NR is turned on. When a grad student in astronomy, I used liquid nitrogen cooled and thermoelectrically cooled CCD's with a 1.6 meter telescope, and the cooling, of course, dramatically reduced dark counts for long exposures (1.5 hours, typically). However, I'm not aware of any affordable, portable "cooled ccd cameras" that are good for toting around town at night, so I'm assuming that isn't an option. Thanks in advance for any thoughts, Scott Speck |
how "quiet" are DSLR's for night photography?
I don't have the info in front of me, but I remember reading in a tech
magazine that Canon was coming out with a tweeked model of one of the digital dSLR that was tweaked for astronomy. It was supposed to operate better at night, handle low light better, etc. You may want to check Cannon's site or check with a major mail order house. I have not seen it advertised other than the one magazine. That might be your best bet. |
how "quiet" are DSLR's for night photography?
A quick google turned it up.
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/astro/index-e.html I don't see why it couldn't be used for landscapes, but I don't know. That is beyond me. |
how "quiet" are DSLR's for night photography?
If you want really high quality high ISO performance you should look at
Canon full-frame (if you can afford it). At 3200 it is much better than any Nikon offering. That being said, if you are looking at long exposures at lower ISOs the Nikon D200 is supposed to be quite good. Have a look he http://www.naturfotograf.com/D200_rev04.html#top_page In answer to your question specifically: I would think that the superior circuitry and chip in a DSLR as compared to a point and shoot would result in noticeably better long-exposure images. Toby |
how "quiet" are DSLR's for night photography?
Scott Speck wrote:
Hi Everyone, If I'm interested in doing night photography (mostly of distant scenery) with exposure times ranging up to 1 minute, I need to know whether a DSLR like the Nikon D70 with NR turned on will yield a much cleaner image (dark-noise-wise) than a good point/shoot digital with NR noise reduction) turned on. Is the difference profound enough to differentiate a great photo from a terrible one, or is it barely noticeable? Scott, The main difference is in the sensor: - the pixels are much bigger, collecting more photons for a given flux - they don't have the live preview facility, and are optimised for just single-shot images, and not a continuous video feed. The comparison is that whereas P&S will go up to ISO 400/800, DSLRs will go up to ISO 3200 - for approximately the same noise level in the image. Compare the sensitive areas of the "1/1.8 inch" chip and the chips used in DSLRs. http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...r_Sizes_01.htm Not only will the DSLR have a lower noise at a given ISO, you may be able to afford faster fixed focal length lenses as well. David |
how "quiet" are DSLR's for night photography?
The Nikon D70 with NR, works very well for night photography.Vey clean,
colourful images, with little if any burnout. I have used mine often for this, and achieved some sales from the photo library they are lodged with. "Scott Speck" wrote in message ... Hi Everyone, If I'm interested in doing night photography (mostly of distant scenery) with exposure times ranging up to 1 minute, I need to know whether a DSLR like the Nikon D70 with NR turned on will yield a much cleaner image (dark-noise-wise) than a good point/shoot digital with NR noise reduction) turned on. Is the difference profound enough to differentiate a great photo from a terrible one, or is it barely noticeable? I currently have a P/S digital that is hard to get a precise focus on (even manually) in really low light, mostly because, when I turn the manual focus ring until a distant light source is minimized in size, I'm only able to minimize it down to one LCD display pixel, which ends up being too coarse a focus when I later view the image on my PC. Or does NR cause loss of sharpness that makes it LOOK like it's out of focus? My P/S is a Panasonic FZ/30, which I've been placing into "night scenery mode" for night shots. In night scenery mode, ISO is fixed at 80, f-ratio is minimized, exposure times can be up to 8 seconds long, and NR is turned on. When a grad student in astronomy, I used liquid nitrogen cooled and thermoelectrically cooled CCD's with a 1.6 meter telescope, and the cooling, of course, dramatically reduced dark counts for long exposures (1.5 hours, typically). However, I'm not aware of any affordable, portable "cooled ccd cameras" that are good for toting around town at night, so I'm assuming that isn't an option. Thanks in advance for any thoughts, Scott Speck |
how "quiet" are DSLR's for night photography?
Scott Speck wrote: Hi Everyone, If I'm interested in doing night photography (mostly of distant scenery) with exposure times ranging up to 1 minute, I need to know whether a DSLR like the Nikon D70 with NR turned on will yield a much cleaner image (dark-noise-wise) than a good point/shoot digital with NR noise reduction) turned on. Is the difference profound enough to differentiate a great photo from a terrible one, or is it barely noticeable? The difference is profound. The D70 is typical; there is no need for a 'tweaked' Canon or any other DSLR. They are very good; better than film. If you start doing exposures of 20 minutes or so you will get purple noise around the corners of the D70. This disappears with NR turned off. The trouble with NR is that it takes as long as does the original shot -- an exposure of 2 minutes means NR of two minutes. This is because NR works by taking a shot of a black mask with an exposure time equal to the photo and then it compares the two. For that reason a lot of photographers, including myself, just turn the NR off and remove the noise in Photoshop. Some of the astrophotographers here have said that DSLRs work better for that than film cameras, but I do not do astrophotography at the moment. |
how "quiet" are DSLR's for night photography?
I just re-read you posting. The focusing issue is interesting and I
don't have a quick answer to that. I would suggest you shoot something with the lense wide open and then stop it down and reshoot it and compare the results. Even at f2 or so, a lense hits "infinity" well before hitting "distant" scenery (unless you are using some sort of monster lense like a telescope attached to the camera). So focus shouldn't be too much of a problem. By setting it to a higher f-stop, you'll increase your depth of field and possibly cure the problem. If that cures it, then it is a focus problem. But it might not fix it, too. It is possible with a P/S camera that you're really taking it past it's limits and what you are seeing is not a focus problem but is a blur. That could be caused by a couple of things. One could be even the slightest of movements. You should be using a good quality tripod and probably a rf shutter release to get rid of that. On a windy day, you might even want to sand-bag your tripod. On a dSLR, locking your mirror up would also help. The other possibility is that the lense isn't performing well and you are getting some difraction. I think most good-quality SLR lenses probably have better coatings on them than P/S camera. If the small light is dead-center, you might also get some sort of internal lense reflection that is right on top of the image. I am sure that you've already ruled out dust and grime on the lense. I am a big fan of filter to protect lenses in most cases, but at night I remove them. Also, keep on your sun shade to help block out any ambient light that might be sneaking in. Finally, where are you shooting this? If it's hot out, you might be getting more noise than if you are on an Antartic adventure. If it is just after dark, you might also be getting some heat shimmers, too. Good luck. |
how "quiet" are DSLR's for night photography?
Both the Canon 20D and the Nikon D200 will provide excellent night
results. You may want to consider a separate power supply or battery pack, though, since it takes quite a bit of battery power to hold long exposures. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:19 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com