PDA

View Full Version : Low ambient light camera



Mark
28-01-10, 01:18 PM
I am not a keen photographer as such but wish to be able to take good quality photo's of my daughters Gymnastics, which means indoor sport photography with no flash, and to be fair you are always a good 20 - 30 m away so zoom lens needed.
I have a Sony a200 with Sony lenses but it really does produce noisy images. What is the best option a low f-numbered lens zoom i.e. fairly expensive or a better camera with normal zoom lens.
Can anyone suggest the best option and if it is the camera which one I should opt for sub 1000

Hope this makes sense, many thanks. Mark

nspur
28-01-10, 04:12 PM
I think you could do worse than a good compact camera. I've recently bought a Fuji F72 EXR (Jessops) that does the business in low light. Only 169 and there was (is still?) 30 cashback from Fuji.

Mike Lowe
04-02-10, 12:51 PM
I am not a keen photographer as such but wish to be able to take good quality photo's of my daughters Gymnastics, which means indoor sport photography with no flash, and to be fair you are always a good 20 - 30 m away so zoom lens needed.
I have a Sony a200 with Sony lenses but it really does produce noisy images. What is the best option a low f-numbered lens zoom i.e. fairly expensive or a better camera with normal zoom lens.
Can anyone suggest the best option and if it is the camera which one I should opt for sub 1000

Hope this makes sense, many thanks. Mark

If you're sticking with Sony then the a200 body will actually do you proud if you invest in a fast zoom lens. The f/2.8 70-200mm G lens is incredible, if not 40% over your budget. Take a look at Sony's range and don't fret spending such much on a single lens - especially if it'll provide a consistent fast aperture and the decent zoom combination you're looking for; that'll help you keep the ISO down. Out of interest though what are your current approximate shooting settings?

The 'best ISO' cameras tend to be full frame however, which will immediately put them out of reach for your budget I'm afraid. I'd try the lens route unless there's some more cash hanging around somewhere.

Mike Lowe
04-02-10, 12:52 PM
I think you could do worse than a good compact camera. I've recently bought a Fuji F72 EXR (Jessops) that does the business in low light. Only 169 and there was (is still?) 30 cashback from Fuji.

The Fuji compact really isn't going to match up to your a200, though the EXR sensor is good for low noise.

NRoberts
04-02-10, 01:18 PM
The Fuji compact really isn't going to match up to your a200, though the EXR sensor is good for low noise.

Quite. A compact seems a very strange recommendation indeed!

Mark
04-02-10, 03:11 PM
Thanks Mike, your recommendation of good optics gives good pictures compliments other advice I have. I have tried a 50mm 1.7 with the a200 and even here the picture is noisy at high ISO.
I have been walked up the value chain somewhat, not by a salesman, to a Canon 7D with a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS USM, slightly more than I budgeted, but I fear it is in for a penny in for a pound to get the results I am seeking. I looked at the 5d MKII but a further 500 for the full sensor is not one I wish to swallow.
What are your thoughts to the 7D with lens?
Once again thanks

NRoberts
04-02-10, 03:32 PM
The WDC review is here (http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/reviews/digitalslr/127444/1/canon-eos-7d-review.html) - should be a much. much better option.

Mark
04-02-10, 03:55 PM
Many thanks, I suppose my next question might be would I get acceptable pictures if I cut a slight corner and got the Sigma 70-200 2.8, but am I then negating some of the upside in the 7D i.e. putting a lada engine in a BMW, no offence to anyone owning a Lada

NRoberts
04-02-10, 05:14 PM
WelI I use an old model of the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX, and it's a great lens - but if you're getting too much noise with an f1.7 lens, it will only be worse with an f2.8 lens - assuming you're not just blowing the picture up more to get closer.

Mark
04-02-10, 08:22 PM
Sorry the 1.7 was with the Sony not the 7D, so I am assuming with the additional processing power of the 7D and a 2.8 lens I will be able to achieve teh results I am seeking

NRoberts
05-02-10, 07:20 AM
Apologies, I misread the question and thought you were asking about the Sigma for your current camera.

Anyway, the Sigma is a very good lens indeed - as I say, mine is an older version (the first version of the EX lens), but that is pretty close to the Canon lens in performance terms. It's not as sharp at f2.8, though, which might be an issue for you. At f4, you would be hard pushed to tell the difference. The Canon lens also has IS, which might be an advantage, although it doesn't freeze subject movement, so for your requirements, not that big an advantage. For me, the Sigma is ideal, as f2.8 is not required all the time, but for you, that extra sharpness may be worth paying the difference for.

Mark
05-02-10, 09:25 AM
It looks as if I will have to bite the bullet, many thanks for your help. 2.8 is where most of the use of the lens will come from and I believe the extra stops the IS will deliver might also be worth it.

Once again many thanks

daft_biker
05-02-10, 02:07 PM
As well as being pretty good at high ISOs the 7D also has pretty good AF - even in low light I've found it will lock on and track most things (it may not be as good with lenses slower than f/2.8 though).

If you're planning on shooting wide open a lot of the time there's probably not going to be much room for focus errors. Is the AF on the Sigma lens as good as the Canon?

Mark
05-02-10, 09:37 PM
All ordered, it is a 7d with the Canon lens so it is more can I keep up with the camera than the other way around. I just hope it can deliver at nearly three times my original budget.

Thanks all for your advice!

Mike Lowe
08-02-10, 04:42 PM
The 7D has a smaller sensor so the same lens that you'd intent to use on a 5D mkII will be a longer equivalent - a benefit to your far away subjects anyway. Not to mention the price difference too.