Looking for the best SLR for Low Light shots.

[AKLforever]

My bad, got it

 

[AKLforever]

Ok, another question. When buying a lens for the Pentax k100d, would I have to buy lenses that are the pentax brand?
Seems like a dumb question, but the reason I ask is, what if theres a universal lens brand that I dont know about?
And, if there is a universal brand, would it be worth buying it over the pentax brand? Or would the quality be a lot less?
thanks again!

 

[Groucho]

You'll be able to use any Pentax K-mount lens ever made... there's, oh, 27 million or so of them out there. Pentax lenses will, by and large, be the best quality (if comparing similar price ranges, etc), but you may want to consider others if Pentax doesn't offer a lens in that range, or their lens is much more expensive, etc.

Sigma and Tamron are two of the big third-party names out there making lenses that will work on Pentax cameras. This link will take you to a page at Adorama which lists all their Pentax-mount lenses. You can also look at eBay, you'll find tons of used Pentax-mount lenses, as well as new ones... like the Russian-made Zenitar 16mm fisheye, which is a lot of fun and pretty cheap.

Generally speaking, any of the lenses will work just as well, or better, than they did on a film camera... but there are still restrictions:
Older lenses often don't have the electronics to "talk" to the camera and tell it the focal length, so your EXIF data may be incomplete. (If it's a prime lens, I have come up with an easy way to re-add the focal length to the exif data.) This is not a big deal if you don't look at your exif data.
If the lens does not have an "A" setting on the aperture ring, the camera cannot set the aperture for you. (If you do have one of these lenses, set it to "A"!) This means it cannot meter properly unless you "stop down" the lens, which just means pressing the AE-L button. So, with one of these lenses (the Zenitar is one of them), you shoot in Manual mode, press AE-L to set the exposure, and fire.
And of course, if it's a manual focus lens, you'll still have to focus manually, but the camera will still beep and give you a focus confirmation light when you're focused properly.

Oh, and you can use Pentax "screw mount" lenses too, with an adapter... those are all going to be pretty old and 100% manual, but there were some really nice lenses made for it that can still be found for fairly cheap.

 

[AKLforever]

thanks man

I do believe I have gone in over my head. Im sure I will be buying lenses like a freak

 

[AKLforever]

Oh OH! another question!

About zoom lenses, what would I be looking for if I want the farthest lens I can get, for a good price? Does the farther it goes mean more money? Or is there some other factor in price for zoom lenses? Im not even sure how to look for a zoom lens really, hehe. The one that comes with the kit, 18-55 I think, is that a zoom lens?

<----- Me, the freak.

OH OH, and wheres a good online place to find em too, hehe

 

[AKLforever]

I was just looking at a list of lense for the pentax line up and OMG, it is huge. I am so confused now. I dont see any description used like this, 20X or 50X or anything like that. Is there another way to tell what the X zoom is?
Would the 50mm prime pentax 1.4 be a good day time park lens? Im getting that one for low light shots. But now, Im thinking I might nee another one, a zoom, if the kit one is not a good zoom that is.

 

[ukcatfan]

I was just looking at a list of lense for the pentax line up and OMG, it is huge. I am so confused now. I dont see any description used like this, 20X or 50X or anything like that. Is there another way to tell what the X zoom is?
Would the 50mm prime pentax 1.4 be a good day time park lens? Im getting that one for low light shots. But now, Im thinking I might nee another one, a zoom, if the kit one is not a good zoom that is.

To get the zoom factor, divide the larger focal length by the smaller. The kit is basically about a 3X. Add the DA 50-200mm and you have around 11X total. In actual effective focal length, it would be 27-300mm b/c Pentx has a 1.5 focal length multiplier (also called crop factor). By comparison, my old S1 IS was a 10X with 38-380mm.

The 50mm would be a good daytime lens, but be sure to have the kit around b/c 50mm is not very wide. Just be sure to keep the aperture closed down some for daytime use or the shutter speed might not be able to be fast enough to deal with all of that light and the DOF would be small. Probably around f/8 would be good, but possibly a a little more open would also be fine. It would be sharper than the kit.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

The 50mm will be frustrating if you try to use it for family photos, etc, as you'll have to get back a ways to fit everyone in. When outside, the 18-55mm will probably be the lens of choice, even though it's not going to be as sharp as the 50mm.

The "X" factor is not really useful in the DSLR realm, you'll need to start thinking in terms of focal lengths. FWIW, most 12x zoom point-n-shoots work out to approximately 430mm in 35mm terms. To compare that with a DSLR, take the focal length and multiple it by the crop factor - for example, the 50-200mm is comparable to 75mm-300mm in 35mm terms. (This is simplifying it slightly, but that's OK for now!)

Any lens with more than one focal length is technically a "zoom" lens (like the 18-55mm kit lens, or the 50-200mm lens), while a lens with just one focal length (like the 50mm F1.4) is a "prime" lens.

If you want more reach, there are some cheap lenses that go to 300mm... a Pentax or Tamron 75-300mm or for $130, a Sigma 70-300mm for $140, etc, but the quality will probably be not spectacular. They'll also be a bit bigger and heavier than the 50-200mm. There are also very wide-range zoom lenses like the Sigma 28-300mm for $280 or the Tamrom 28-300mm for $400. These give you about the same range as you'll find on a long-zoom PnS camera, and will go to the equivalent of 450mm in 35mm terms, more than the PnSs.

I would still lean towards the 50-200mm and crop it down yourself later if you need even more reach. At WDW, you'll rarely use anything close to full zoom.

Because of the extra rebate money, getting the 50-200mm at the same time as the K100D only adds about $140, which is a very good deal - pretty much a no-brainer. If you decide to move on to a higher-end lens in the future, you'll probably be able to sell it for more than that.

 

[AKLforever]

Cool, thanks everyone! All this info really did help me out a ton!

 

[liberty7]

I don't normally post in forums, but am hoping to save you from the camera heartbreak I've recently experienced. I don't know whether it's the camera I bought, or SLRs in general, but I've never been so disappointed in a camera.

I, too, was looking for a good low-light camera, because I travel a lot and take lots of pictures inside in situations where a flash is undesirable or not allowed. After reading all the internet advice I could find, I thought an SLR would be just the ticket. I previously had an Olympus C4040 that took thousands of great shots in all kinds of low-light and near-dark settings - castles, cathedrals, parties, etc. However, that camera was getting old and beat up and I wanted an SLR for reduced shutter lag. Now, after 10 months with my new SLR, I am incapable of consistently decent low-light photography without a flash or a tripod (or both).

I have a Canon Rebel XT body, and the fastest lens I could get my hands on (f2.8), but it's almost useless at low light, and I still don't understand why. By low-light, I don't mean dark, either. I mean any inside shot in a well-lit room, like the lobby and conference room where I've worked and taken perfectly good photos for 13 years. I bought piles of books on this camera thinking if I could just learn it inside and out, I could fix the problem, but fully 80 to 90 percent of the shots I take inside, at any ISO, are too fuzzy to use from motion blur, sometimes camera shake, sometimes subject movement. Even with the camera's "night flash" setting I get motion blur because people are incapable of standing still enough for the length of the exposure. Even braced up against a wall, or with my elbows resting on a stable surface, I get fuzzy pics. I've tried shutter priority, aperture priority, and every auto and manual setting, but unless you've got enough light to keep the shutter speed above 1/100 (preferably well above), you might as well not take the picture. The Canon is great for action shots - really incredible. But for things standing still -- not so much.

If I brace the camera against a wall and take a picture with no living beings in it, sometimes I can just barely get a decent shot with minimal camera shake. Regular flash photos are okay, if you don't mind the snapshot look, but they're useless for inside architecture shots.

I have agonized over this problem, and done tons of internet research, and I can hardly keep from laughing when I continue to read about how much better SLRs are supposed to be at low-light photography than point-and-shoots. I've used 5 different point and shoots, and they all took better pictures at low light. I took at least 200 pictures with my old camera inside various rooms at Hearst Castle (which is really dark inside) and only had to discard about 2 or 3.

This Canon takes gorgeous pictures outside in perfect lighting, but I haven't been impressed when dealing with challenging lighting conditions (such as back-lit or high contrast situations). I just can't figure out why my old broken-down and abused Olympus still takes better pictures, in just about any light. My husband's great little Fuji f31d also takes better pics in low light. I have very steady hands, and have never had a problem with camera shake before. Is it just because the camera's so much heavier?

To be fair, I started out with an Olympus SLR and had the same problem (but with a slower lens). Another problem with the Canon is the dinky LCD, which is so useless they could have left it out altogether. You just can't tell what kind of picture you have until you get it on your computer. If you buy one, make sure you take lots and lots of pictures to compensate for the throw-away factor.

My advice is to buy a camera with image stabilization technology, or an SLR with an image stabilization lens (which will be expensive). Also, get one with a bigger and brighter LCD. Olympus is coming out with a new SLR that has image stabilization built into the camera so you don't have to buy a bunch of expensive IS lenses, but it doesn't come out until next month, and there aren't any reviews yet. That being said, I am buying the first one off the truck, because I can't take the Canon on my vacation in August. It's just too disappointing to throw away half the photos, like I had to do with my Thanksgiving pics last year.

 

[Groucho]

Hi Liberty7, welcome to the forums!

I'm sorry that you've had so many problems with your XT. Is it possible that you could put up some example photos? You can't actually post pictures here until you've gotten to 10 posts, but you should be able to put them somewhere and put a link to them. I'm not sure if this forum blocks you from posting links until you've hit 10 posts (like it does with posting pictures), but you can always fake it - cut and paste the URL and just make the beginning something like "www dot photobucket dot com", we can put it back together.

You certainly shouldn't be having those kind of issues with your XT. With some example photos, we can look at the exif data and maybe give you some help. You mention that your fastest lens is F2.8 - what's the focal length? Since you have a Canon, you'd probably do well to grab their cheap 50mm F1.8 if you want a cheap low-light lens. Even F2.8 is still pretty fast, and ISO 800 or 1600 at F2.8 should be enough to capture a good image in pretty low lighting.

As for IS SLRs, Olympus is actually pretty late to the party - Sony's had IS in the body of their DSLR for a while and Pentax followed quickly. The Pentax K100D is a tremendous bargain, currently you can get it with the kit lens and a 50-200mm lens for around $575, and since it has IS in the body, every lens you attach will be stabilized. Olympus also has a smaller sensor than the other DSLRs, which means more noise at higher ISOs, which can defeat the usefulness of IS. (My opinion is that the Olympus line-up is the least-desirable of the current crop of DSLRs, and I rather doubt that their upcoming DSLR will change that - I think the "Four Thirds system" that they use is a mistake.) Also, most current DSLRs have 2.5" LCDs, including all the Pentax DSLRs and the current Nikon and Canon offerings. As you know, the Canon XT has a 1.8" LCD and the comparable Nikon D50 has a 2" LCD. The Canon is also known for having a somewhat small and dim viewfinder compared to the others, that may be an issue for you as well, but ultimately, the camera should be very capable of producing image quality that will make you happy.

However, even without stabilization, you shouldn't be experiencing the kind of issues that you mention, certainly not so much that you're consistently getting better photos with a PnS camera, IS or not. My Pentax DSLR is an older one without IS and while there are some photos with camera shake, it's still vastly superior to my old PnS digital cameras and my wife's older and current PnS digicam. The XT should be produce approximately the same quality photos - depending on the lens, of course, but ultimately, the sensors are about the same size and the ISO noise levels are very similar.

So anyway, see if you can get a few photos to us (if you don't have anywhere to host it, you can email me - I can give you my email in a PM - and stick them up somewhere.)

 

[AKLforever]

Wow, I do feel for you. Im very sorry you had such bad experiences with DSLRs. I just got my Pentax K100D kit, and the 50mm 1.4 lens, I do see on some settings where I need to be killer still, and same with the person I taking the photo of. But after playing with all the settings, I found many ways to fix that, could just be this camera maybe?
But I hear nothing but good stuff about this k100d. And the low light shots with the 50mm lens are insane. I cant see where it gets the light for some of these. I took a shot of my wifes face in the dark while she was in front of the comupter screen, and it was perfect. The black background was all black too, hehe, something my PNS cant do , thats for sure.

 

[Master Mason]

Not sure what is going on with the XT, but I don't have those issues, I have some amazing low light pictures.

Inside, low light, no flash, moving animatronic

 

[AKLforever]

Wow, that looks really good. What settings did you use for that shot?

 

[photo_chick]

Liberty7...

Like the others said, sorry you have not had good luck getting low light shots with your DSLR. I will admitt when I was using the kit lens which is not a very fast lens, I was frustrated by the low light ability myself. Even at ISO 1600 I still had a few problems not being abl eto get the shots I want to get. However since I got the 50mm f/1.8 I have not had any.

 

[handicap18]

Sorry to hear of your issues Liberty7. I agree with Groucho. It would be nice to see some examples of what your writing about. I do know that the XT is very good in low light, very usable images at ISO1600. With my Nikon D50 at ISO1600 I've gotten handheld images that have been clear at 1/15th. A lot of it depends on your techinque and how steady your hands are.

From reading previous reviews on the Olympus dSLR's, because they have the 4/3rds sensor it is smaller than the sensors Nikon, Canon and Pentax use and produces more noise at higher ISO's.

However, that being said, everyone has their preferences. Good luck with getting the low light shots. If there is anything we can do help just ask.

 

[liberty7]

Master Mason:
Would you mind telling me what setting you used for that great shot?

I would weep for joy if I ever got a great shot like that from my camera.

Thanks.

 

[Groucho]

Liberty7, you should be able to get decent results with your F2.8 lens at ISO 800 or ISO 1600 in pretty low light.

FWIW, here's a photo that I took in Howe Caverns (very dark) with a Sigma 28mm F2.8 manual-focus lens on my Pentax *ist DL. This was shot in Program mode, ISO 1600, F2.8, 1/90th of a second. No noise reduction done, just straight from the camera, RAW to jpeg.

There's no reason that you shouldn't be able to match that with a comparable lens.

 

[photo_chick]

While not a really cool example, this is an everyday shot and one reason I put my DSLR over a p&s anyday. I don't like using a flash. This shot is in my living room, late at night. The only light are the 3 60 watt bulbs in the overhead fan. With any point and shoot that I have used, this shot would have required a flash. I used a Rebel XT, 50mm lens at f/1.8 , ISO 1600, exposure time of 1/125, no flash.

Again, I could not have gotten this shot with the kit lens becasue the aperture just did not get quite wide enough for me to be able to get a fast enough shutter speed. It came close, but not quite there.

 

[AKLforever]

Photo chick, thats a greak shot, and you said something about exposure time, is there a setting to set exposure time?
Is it labeled something other then exposure time? Maybe im not looking in the right place?