A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

how "quiet" are DSLR's for night photography?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 1st 06, 04:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #2  
Old February 1st 06, 04:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #3  
Old February 1st 06, 04:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #4  
Old February 1st 06, 05:42 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default how "quiet" are DSLR's for night photography?

Scott Speck wrote:

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 significant, though may largely be due to the inherent
much higher quality that the D70 will be giving you over a P&S camera.
I can look at my long-exposure night shots from a P&S, and then from after
I got the D70, and the difference is immediately obvious even at reduced
screen-display size. I actually went out and tried to re-do some of my
shots after getting the D70, because the difference was so great.

Note that the noise reduction (dark-frame subtraction) reduces fixed pattern
noise and hot pixels, but does not reduce random noise (and in fact might
even increase it a bit). Other kinds of in-camera noise reduction are
best avoided.

A great method of minimizing noise that is particularly suitable for this
kind of shot is: take three of the same shot in a row (full exposure,
whatever you've determined is correct) without moving the camera at all.
Load all three into Photoshop, make them into layers in the same file,
adjust the top two layers to 50% opacity, and flatten. This "averages"
the three images and (using three shots) will double the signal-to-noise
ratio. The S/N increase goes by square roots, so you would need to
average nine shots to triple it; three shots is enough for most purposes.
Obviously if the camera moves at all between shots, the whole thing goes
down in flames; using the remote control is a good idea for this. And
switch to manual focus so the camera doesn't re-focus for each shot.
They need to be identical.

If you use the above technique you will have no need for additional noise
reduction of any kind. (Keep the dark-frame subtraction NR on in-camera,
though.)

--
Jeremy |
  #5  
Old February 1st 06, 07:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #6  
Old February 1st 06, 12:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #7  
Old February 1st 06, 12:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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




  #8  
Old February 1st 06, 01:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #9  
Old February 1st 06, 03:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #10  
Old February 1st 06, 04:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CONCERT PHOTOGRAPHY - SUBMIT GUIDELINES POSTED Jett Black, Industrie Editor - SickAmongthePure.co Digital SLR Cameras 0 June 6th 05 06:04 PM
Outdoor photography resources - articles, newsletter, forum, digital editing PT Digital Photography 0 September 13th 04 07:54 PM
questions about SLR photography, nikon n5005 Pallav 35mm Photo Equipment 19 September 5th 04 11:11 PM
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash elchief In The Darkroom 3 April 7th 04 10:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.