General Thoughts about basic shooting.

KellyKelly · Sep 25, 2014

Sorry for the generic title, but I didn't know how to word ..this.

I have a Nikon d3200 and after working with them for a while to get the feel of it and my shooting I got a Nikon 18-140mm lens and absolutely love it. I found it really covers what I need, mostly.

Here is the question I am posing.

In and about the house/low light situations, not in the dark, but low light. Pets, family get together, kids, candid moments, ect.

I would like to get the Nikon 35mm lens which on the D3200 would make it a 50&change mm which is where I would like it to be. An actual 35mm range would make me have to get too close for what I am wanting. I'm not a in-ya-face kinda person. I was talking with someone about the crop factor, and it progressed to suggesting to get a nice flash and learn to bounce the light using what I have. I'm trying to take a picture without using flash if I could. They also suggested if I did get the 35mm to only crank it down(or up) to f/2.2 to avoid getting someones face half in focus and half out because of it's tight focus field when cranked to it's limit. The 18-140 has f/3.5-5.6.

35mm. Would it help? Do no better that what I have? Learn to take better pictures in low light? Get the flash and light up the world saying HEY, I took a picture@! ?

Thoughts? Suggestions? Discussion?

thank you.

K.

scorrpio · Sep 25, 2014

Using a fast prime as a low light tool essentially boils down to opening as far as it can go, and dealing with the resulting shallow depth. That said, it is less an issue with wider lenses. I.e. a 35mm on APS-C camera at f/1.8, from 10ft away gives you about 1.5 feet of depth, which means the whole face will be sharp. One option you might explore is Sigma 18-35 f/1.8

Shoot RAW, get LightRoom, learn to use it.

And don't be so quick to discount the flash. While not the best option for candids, it can be an incredible tool for posed shots.

Dennis · Sep 25, 2014

Take a look some of your indoor shots with the 18-140, especially shot wide open around f/3.5 (I don't know what focal range that covers, but probably not far past 18mm). Realize that with an f/1.8 lens, you gain 2 stops. Would 2 stops be sufficient ? You could have faster shutter speed and/or higher ISO. OTOH, you lose image stabilization, so it wouldn't be better for, say, night time handheld scenics or anything like that. But for people, where you're looking to get 1/60s or faster, you do gain something.

As far as flash goes, I prefer to avoid flash myself, but while ambient lighting can sometimes be very nice, it can also sometimes be very full and off color enough to make it difficult to get pleasing colors, even shooting raw. (Black and white is always an option). Flash can be a good option.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

darklamp · Sep 25, 2014

The problem with wide aperture lenses for low light conditions is that you often end up with such a long exposure time that you get motion blur. And people sitting "still" usually are not all that still at all - there is still a lot of motion.

I know everyone wants a camera that shoots in dim light without flash, but there is a very good reason why pros use flash - it's needed.

yardcoyote · Sep 25, 2014

For heaven's sake if you've never used a prime (or just don't have one), get a prime. Primes are amazing in their own right and for a lot more than the low light performance you gain from having a larger maximum aperture! A 35mm prime on a crop sensor camera offers a very useful FOV. Study the results from you zoom lens or just take a bunch of shots with it set at 35mm to make sure you like what you are going to see, if you want extra reassurance,and then go out and buy the thing-- secondhand if you can.

Dennis · Sep 25, 2014

darklamp said:
The problem with wide aperture lenses for low light conditions is that you often end up with such a long exposure time that you get motion blur. And people sitting "still" usually are not all that still at all - there is still a lot of motion.

My experience with indoor low light shooting is:

With f/1.8 lenses on APS-C, I have enough DOF to make it worthwhile.

For general "hanging around" shots (as opposed to "running around" shots) I prefer shutter speeds of 1/60s or faster (1/60s sometimes sees motion blur). 1/30s can be worthwhile, but motion blur is common and I toss a lot. At 1/15s I put the camera away.

ISO 6400 on modern cameras is perfectly acceptable. Typically, in these situations, I'm not shooting anything I'd want to turn into a big print; these are the "memories" shots for family photo books, etc.

darklamp said:
I know everyone wants a camera that shoots in dim light without flash, but there is a very good reason why pros use flash - it's needed.

There's also a big difference in the expectations. A client wouldn't pay for a shot that's acceptable in the family album, but the family might prefer a "natural" look (and certainly would prefer someone not popping a flash off all night !) at a birthday party. The biggest issue I find in low light is quality of light. An indoor shot at ISO 6400 can look great or it can look dreadful depending on the quality of the light more than the quantity. (At least with a modern sensor; with my first DSLR definitely demanded more light).

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Dennis · Sep 25, 2014

yardcoyote said:
For heaven's sake if you've never used a prime (or just don't have one), get a prime. Primes are amazing in their own right and for a lot more than the low light performance you gain from having a larger maximum aperture! A 35mm prime on a crop sensor camera offers a very useful FOV. Study the results from you zoom lens or just take a bunch of shots with it set at 35mm to make sure you like what you are going to see, if you want extra reassurance,and then go out and buy the thing-- secondhand if you can.

Aside from low light (and reasonably shallow depth of field), and forgetting about image quality, you also end up with a nice, compact lens that's fun to take out all by itself and leave the bigger zoom behind, at times.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

yardcoyote · Sep 25, 2014

Which is one of the many awesome things about primes. (At least most of them. The current love of my photographic life, the Pentax DA* 55mm, is about the same size as my 18-55 kit zoom and is possibly fractionally heavier. And I do not care. I wish I could express to you just how much I do not care.)

The best thing about primes, though, is the way they change the way you relate to the camera and to your subjects. The cliche about "zooming with your feet" is trivial-- the difference is much, much more significant than that.

darklamp · Sep 25, 2014

Dennis said:
ISO 6400 on modern cameras is perfectly acceptable.

It's been my experience that beginners want practically no noise as well as no flash in low light. Raising to ISO 64000 might be acceptable to some people, but it's often not what beginners want ( or expect ).

What's acceptable is a very personal thing.

Personally I've shot at f1.4 and ISO 3200 in very dim bar lighting and got away with it, ( again shutter speed being the issue ) but really it's the expectation that beginners have of what the magical words "prime lens" can do that is the problem - it usually can't do what they want in the situations they want to use it in.

KellyKelly · Sep 25, 2014

Very good points, glad I took the time to ask.

Agreeing with what was said, they would be more "family album shots", not wall hangers. I was thinking Thanksgiving, Christmas, relative comes to town you haven't seen in a while.

Something "posed" I would check my lighting, add some or work with a good flash.

If I understand right, the small focus field would not play a huge issue unless I was very close to the subject.? I seen on a review somewhere how someone had taken a picture of a cherry on a cake. The cherry was in focus but the cake wasn't. I'm guessing they were all up on it to have a focus field that small.

I just would like to be able to capture the moment without everything being a blur or pure junk.

Wouldn't I set my lens to lil over 50mm to see what things would be like? Or 35mm to get the effects of the focal lengths?

K.

JBurnett · Sep 25, 2014

KellyKelly said:
Sorry for the generic title, but I didn't know how to word ..this.

I have a Nikon d3200 and after working with them for a while to get the feel of it and my shooting I got a Nikon 18-140mm lens and absolutely love it. I found it really covers what I need, mostly.

Here is the question I am posing.

In and about the house/low light situations, not in the dark, but low light. Pets, family get together, kids, candid moments, ect.

I would like to get the Nikon 35mm lens which on the D3200 would make it a 50&change mm which is where I would like it to be. An actual 35mm range would make me have to get too close for what I am wanting. I'm not a in-ya-face kinda person. I was talking with someone about the crop factor, and it progressed to suggesting to get a nice flash and learn to bounce the light using what I have. I'm trying to take a picture without using flash if I could. They also suggested if I did get the 35mm to only crank it down(or up) to f/2.2 to avoid getting someones face half in focus and half out because of it's tight focus field when cranked to it's limit. The 18-140 has f/3.5-5.6.

35mm. Would it help? Do no better that what I have? Learn to take better pictures in low light? Get the flash and light up the world saying HEY, I took a picture@! ?

Thoughts? Suggestions? Discussion?

thank you.

K.

What the 35mm prime will give you...

A slightly sharper image at f/2.0 than the 18-140 wide open at 35mm (about f/4.2?). Sharper yet at similar apertures to the 18-40 (f/4).
Shot at f/2, the prime will give you a 2-stop exposure advantage vs the 18-140 wide open. This means you can raise your shutter speed from (as an example) 1/30 sec. to 1/125. Or you could lower your ISO from (for example) 3200 to 800. Or you could raise the shutter speed one stop (1/30 to 1/60) and lower your ISO one stop (ISO 3200 to 1600). Only you can know if this might be enough help for your situation.
Shooting at f/2 would be fine for candids/individual shots. For group shots where some individuals are a body-width or more in front or behind your focal point, you'll need a smaller aperture anyway for an increased depth of field. So the prime's larger aperture doesn't offer any exposure advantage in that situation. And then the only way to increase shutter speed and/or reduce ISO is to increase the amount of light falling on the subject(s). So you're back to flash.

pavi1 · Sep 25, 2014

KellyKelly said:
I was talking with someone about the crop factor, and it progressed to suggesting to get a nice flash and learn to bounce the light using what I have. I'm trying to take a picture without using flash if I could.

Good photos come from good light. If the light is not good, the best and fastest lens will not make it good. A cheap lens, and great light is much better. A flash or reflector can make great light when the natural light is not.

Dennis · Sep 25, 2014

Here are a few photos of the type I sometimes use the 35/1.8 for. These were all shot wide open. You can see that the DOF ranges from very shallow, when focus is close, to not-so-shallow if it's farther. I just grabbed these quickly from my LR catalog after a search for f/1.8 shots, so have not taken time to correct white balance; just trying to show what you can expect in the way of DOF.

- Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Ontario Gone · Sep 25, 2014

I shoot a lot of indoor, family type stuff like you describe. For these reasons I spend $300 this summer on flash gear. I ended up getting 4x Yongnuo YN 560III speedlights, plus a radio transceiver set by Yongnuo. FYI the flashes I mention have receivers built in, so you just pop one trigger on the camera and set your flashes around the room, but they are manual only, no TTL.

As for whether this is good for you depends. I don't use them when the light would be bothersome to subjects, so it's all based on your company. I always bounce the flash from the ceiling so it's not blinding people, typically. But I also have a 35mm F1.8 and 50mm F1.8 for the times I can't use flash.

Even on APSC F1.8 can be too shallow, even the slightest focus errors or subject movement can mess the shot. This is one reason I like my flashes, I can shoot at F4 or so and get the whole face sharp. I guess you need to figure out if your subjects will mind the flashes or not, but in the end you should get both fast lenses and flashes.

Use flash when you can, and settle for F1.8 the other times.

KellyKelly · Sep 26, 2014

Dennis said:
- Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

These two are what I am going for. Especially the bottom one with the lady and kid. The light is dimmer than you would really want, not sure where the light is actually coming from?, overhead, backish light? But you still have a nice picture to keep. I do see the shallow DOF with these examples, I would have to make sure my focus was right to get the subject in focus correctly.

Sounds like getting the lens would make a see-able difference in getting the shot compared to what I have now. If anything I should be able to gain a little with shutter speed to avoid a lot of motion blur.

Thank you for all the good responses.

yardcoyote · Sep 26, 2014

Set your zoom to to 35mm to see the field of view you will get from a 35mm prime. The markings on lenses are their real, physical focal lengths. Which is good or we would all die of confusion.

StevenMajor · Sep 26, 2014

...with a sensor that will do well in low light. Your current camera just can't do it so your choices are to use a high ISO (to much noise) or a flash (not the look you want).

Get a full frame camera and a 50mm f1.8 lens (under 3K) and your camera problems are solved.

Good Luck

Dennis · Sep 26, 2014

KellyKelly said:
These two are what I am going for. Especially the bottom one with the lady and kid. The light is dimmer than you would really want, not sure where the light is actually coming from?, overhead, backish light?

It was an overhead track light.

KellyKelly said:
But you still have a nice picture to keep. I do see the shallow DOF with these examples, I would have to make sure my focus was right to get the subject in focus correctly.

I use center point, focus & recompose and usually have no problems.

KellyKelly said:
Sounds like getting the lens would make a see-able difference in getting the shot compared to what I have now. If anything I should be able to gain a little with shutter speed to avoid a lot of motion blur.

I think it's a sensible lens because the focal length is good for that type of shot (I love using an 85 for face shots, rather than getting close with the 35); f/1.8 lets you get a faster shutter speed than any zoom, other than the Sigma 18-35, and if you're looking for 1/60s or faster to avoid motion blur, then camera shake shouldn't be an issue, either (meaning it's ok that it lacks IS in these situations). As a benefit, it's compact and doesn't draw attention.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

CreeDo · Sep 26, 2014

For indoor situations, I've found there's no substitute for a fast lens.
Worry about minimum aperture, not 35 vs. 50.

A good flash and flash technique is great, but for most indoor shots, unless it's completely dim like a poorly lit bar, you can get away with an f/1.4 and no flash. And a flash is disruptive and makes it harder to get nice candid shots.

Do yourself a favor and get an f/1.4 of either flavor.
The depth of field and the light falloff is so nice.

Do yourself an even bigger favor and at least think about getting one of the really nice fast prime lenses. There are basic $400 primes and they all perform about the same... canon, nikon, sigma...and then there are very nice ones like the Sigma Art lenses, they cost about twice as much but are much sharper across the frame with much less fringing.

I was very happy with my choice to sell the old sigma 50mm EX lens in favor of the sigma 50mm art lens. If you feel 35mm is your thing, get the sigma art 35mm f/1.4 and you will do just fine with indoor photos without adding a flash. Get the flash later.

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art... shot in a pool hall, which is not as well lit as you'd think from the photo. Crazy sharpness.

KellyKelly · Sep 26, 2014

I think the general conclusion is to get the lens and I will be happy. I agree....and get a nice flash for b-day or Christmas after shooting with the lens. :-D

I think it was said here and elsewhere, but I'm going to set my current lens at 35mm and shoot some this weekend. Then put it at 50mm and shoot some and get a feel of what I'm looking at. This weekend is suppose to be nice so I shouldn't have trouble getting a feel of it.

K.

General Thoughts about basic shooting.

Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Member

Forum Pro

Active member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Member

Keyboard shortcuts