Cameras for taking really dark pictures

[Titan]

I need help finding the right features for taking night pictures. I am a crazy man who likes to take pictures with a tripod in the dark, usually with just full moon for light. (but my eyes have adjusted and I can see colors)

I've had good success with my Canon S2 SLR-Like after learning to go to the lowest possible ISO speed to reduce noise. Focus is good if I don't zoom and leave it at default since it's a fixed lens.
My S2


Since I live in VT the real gems come from full moon clear nights when there is snow everywhere, less exposure time is needed. I have some nice ones again with the S2.

So this past winter I upgraded slightly and used my GF's Canon digital rebel (like the first), 5MP, SLR. And tried the night photos deal. The problem I ran into was getting focus, as autofocus wouldn't work, just keep trying and manual focus was hard to see with the viewfinder with it being so dark. So they all came out blurry, albiet with less noise.

her Rebel

I'm thinking I may need to bring a laptop with me to view the attempts right as I take them, then futz to get focus.

I check dpreview and look at the noise graphs, but my question is a bit too extreme to figure out.

So is there a camera with features that would help me? I'm thinking fixed lens would be best, but I still want low noise.

One camera I thought might be good was the 10mp Ricoh Capillo compact model. Text

Or is there a technique that I am missing? I am experienced but not a camera master.

I should also mention good long shutter speeds help as I like to hunt lightning too, which I guess I would use a a bulb for.

EDIT: if anyone can recommend a lens with the rebel that would be cool as budget is tight now. Posted links to my cameras above.

This lens looks nice, could invest in it for the rebel then get a better canon model down the road.

 

[jpeyton]

You really need a DSLR. If your budget is limited, hunt out a used Canon XT/XTi or Nikon D50/D70s. Since you will be shooting on a tripod at base ISO, you don't need the latest/greatest DSLR.

The second thing you need is a stable tripod. Again, it doesn't have to be incredibly expensive, but look to spend around $50 at minimum for holding a consumer level DSLR/kit lens.

The third thing you need is a remote shutter release; Canon and Nikon have cheap IR shutter releases for $20 (3rd party knockoffs are even less).

 

[Titan]

I have a decent 30 dollar tripod from walmart that is solid. I avoid any shaking by doing a 2 sec timer on the exposure.

I'm wary of the focus of SLR lenses, it would rule if I could get them to work. I'd settle for fixed focus if it would work. If it was good, I'd like to find a cheap DSLR lens with a wide aperture for all the low-light.

 

[shocksyde]

Remote shutter release isn't necessary, if he's gonna get a used DSLR he can used a delayed shutter to prevent camera shake.

 

[xchangx]

Originally posted by: Titan
I have a decent 30 dollar tripod from walmart that is solid. I avoid any shaking by doing a 2 sec timer on the exposure.

I'm wary of the focus of SLR lenses, it would rule if I could get them to work. I'd settle for fixed focus if it would work. If it was good, I'd like to find a cheap DSLR lens with a wide aperture for all the low-light.

SLR lenses that have a large aperature will find focus a lot easier. The 50 1.4 you linked to should be nice, except the fact that it's a little long for Canon's crop sensor. The larger the aperature, the more light, thus easier focus.

I'd invest in a better tripod, I've got a cheapo tripod and although it seems like nothing moves, the slightest movement will cause blurring in your picture at long shutter speeds.

Also get a remote cable. DSLR's have a function called mirror lock, since the mirror slapping up and down can cause camera shake.

 

[Titan]

Originally posted by: xchangx

Originally posted by: Titan
I have a decent 30 dollar tripod from walmart that is solid. I avoid any shaking by doing a 2 sec timer on the exposure.

I'm wary of the focus of SLR lenses, it would rule if I could get them to work. I'd settle for fixed focus if it would work. If it was good, I'd like to find a cheap DSLR lens with a wide aperture for all the low-light.

SLR lenses that have a large aperature will find focus a lot easier. The 50 1.4 you linked to should be nice, except the fact that it's a little long for Canon's crop sensor. The larger the aperature, the more light, thus easier focus.

I'd invest in a better tripod, I've got a cheapo tripod and although it seems like nothing moves, the slightest movement will cause blurring in your picture at long shutter speeds.

Also get a remote cable. DSLR's have a function called mirror lock, since the mirror slapping up and down can cause camera shake.

How bad would the crop be?

Is autofocus driven by available light through the lens or a separate light meter? If it is the former sounds like a wider aperture is the way to go.

The blurriness I'm complaining about isn't minute, it looks completely smudged and out-of-focus. It would be nice if AF could take care of it for me.

I have a tripod very similar to the one jpeyton linked to, wide legs, rubber feet, quick release, bubble levels, same height, I couldn't believe it was only 30 bucks at wal-mart but trust me it's good enough.

 

[xchangx]

Canon's crop is 1.6, so a 50mm will have a field of view of a 80mm lens on a full frame camera.

You may want to find something a little wider. Or perhaps the 50mm 1.8 which is only about $100. You were probably using a lens that had a maximum aperature of 3.5 or something like that, so a 1.8 will definately help in that area. You may also want to try bringing a flashlight or light to light up the area so the camera can focus then turn the light off to take the picture.

All metering + focusing is done through the lens on a DSLR, so a lens will a larger aperature will definately help with focusing.

As far as the tripod. You can try it, but if it's windy it will probably still move. The more expensive tripods are more expensive for a reason. Unfortunately, I havn't had a chance to use one.

 

[Titan]

I think the rebel had a 3.5 app while my S2 goes down to 2.7 so that may have helped.

I may go budget and try the 1.8 for now.

I am math retarded when it comes to cameras if you can recommend a better lens size to avoid cropping and still get a wide aperture if it doesn't cost a fortune.

Thanks for the flashlight idea! It may spoil my eyes and creep out people late at night if I shoot their houses, but I didn't think of it so it is a good idea.

 

[xchangx]

Originally posted by: Titan
I think the rebel had a 3.5 app while my S2 goes down to 2.7 so that may have helped.

I may go budget and try the 1.8 for now.

I am math retarded when it comes to cameras if you can recommend a better lens size to avoid cropping and still get a wide aperture if it doesn't cost a fortune.

Thanks for the flashlight idea! It may spoil my eyes and creep out people late at night if I shoot their houses, but I didn't think of it so it is a good idea.

It's kind of hard to visualize. Canon's xxxd & xxd line has a 1.6 crop, so it's 60% the size of a full frame (35mm film) camera. Normal viewing (your eye's prospective as far as zoom goes) is around 50mm. The 50mm 1.8 lens is 80mm on a full frame camera, so it'll have a little more zoom to it than looking at your subject through your eyes.

You may want to look for a large aperature 24mm lens, I don't remember off hand which prime lenses Canon has.

 

[Titan]

Originally posted by: xchangx

You may want to look for a large aperature 24mm lens, I don't remember off hand which prime lenses Canon has.

Some EF lenses including primes
Wikipedia has a reference at the bottom

 

[xchangx]

Originally posted by: Titan

Originally posted by: xchangx

You may want to look for a large aperature 24mm lens, I don't remember off hand which prime lenses Canon has.

Some EF lenses including primes
Wikipedia has a reference at the bottom

I'd just try out the 50mm 1.8 and see how you like it. It's only $100 and should sell used for a little bit less incase you don't like it.

 

[Titan]

Originally posted by: xchangx

Originally posted by: Titan

Originally posted by: xchangx

You may want to look for a large aperature 24mm lens, I don't remember off hand which prime lenses Canon has.

Some EF lenses including primes
Wikipedia has a reference at the bottom

I'd just try out the 50mm 1.8 and see how you like it. It's only $100 and should sell used for a little bit less incase you don't like it.

That's the conclusion I was getting from all this thought and discussion. Thanks for all the help!

 

[OulOat]

I like taking long exposures at night as well. My tips are (after reading the thread):
1) Make sure your tripod is stable. Stable doesn't mean expensive. You can get plenty of stable tripods for cheap, as long as you don't mind carrying around a big and clunky tripod.
2) Although the delayed timer will work, you will find a remote shutter cord to be a worthwhile purchase. Faster shots = less time outside in the cold.
3) The 50mm will be fine. If you can't get all of your subject in frame, either recompose (ie. pick up and move back) or take multiple shots and stitch. Either way will make you a better photographer.
4) Blurry pictures from the lack of focus at night? Set your focus to infinity and your aperture to 18. Most of your shots should now be in focus (landscape photos are usually at infinity and the f18 helps with the focal distance) and sharp (smaller aperture = increase sharpness). Don't go too high on the aperture scale or you run into diffraction issues which will result in blurriness, 18-20 should be as high as you go. Do not use a low f-stop like 1.8 unless you need the small focal distance effect.
5) I don't think the 50mm f1.8 has a distance scale on it, so you can't set focus to infinity without looking through the lens. Set your camera to use one focal point (center fp is usually the best). Move your camera until that one focal point is over an edge between a bright object (moon and sky, streetlight and shadow, etc). The AF should have no problems focusing on the difference. If it does, you can make the final call. Turn AF off after focusing and recompose. The focus should remain the same throughout your shoot unless you jar the lens, but you will probably want to refocus every once in a while to be safe.
6) Since you will be taking long exposures, keep in mind that the smallest movement will show up blurry in your picture. Sometimes that's desirable (car headlights on a road). Other times it's not (moon moving a little in the sky). The only way to know is through practice, so get out there and shoot!

 

[Titan]

@OulOat: Wow, thanks for all the tips! Nice to meet a fellow night hunter.

I've had experience shooting the moon and yeah, it moves quick!

I was curious on your advice on shooting with a high aperture, like 18. I realize higher aperture can result in more crisp shots, but I was thinking without any main light source in the FOV i would want as low an F-stop as possible to get all the light I can. I can see doing that with the moon in the picture, for example, but of just say, my car on the road under moonlight.

Remember I am limited to 30 sec exposures, no bulb on the old rebel.

If you could ever get a shot of the crescent moon with the dark portion of the moon visible without the crescent being an overpowered bright smear, you are the man as far as I'm concerned. Is it possible to do without photoshopping?

 

[ElFenix]

uh, it should have bulb exposure.

try f/16, 8 minutes, and iso 400.

weigh down your tripod with something (hanging bag of rocks) and get it out of the wind

 

[xchangx]

Originally posted by: Titan
@OulOat: Wow, thanks for all the tips! Nice to meet a fellow night hunter.

I've had experience shooting the moon and yeah, it moves quick!

I was curious on your advice on shooting with a high aperture, like 18. I realize higher aperture can result in more crisp shots, but I was thinking without any main light source in the FOV i would want as low an F-stop as possible to get all the light I can. I can see doing that with the moon in the picture, for example, but of just say, my car on the road under moonlight.

Remember I am limited to 30 sec exposures, no bulb on the old rebel.

If you could ever get a shot of the crescent moon with the dark portion of the moon visible without the crescent being an overpowered bright smear, you are the man as far as I'm concerned. Is it possible to do without photoshopping?

Use a high aperture, the camera will focus at 1.8 then switch to 18 right before the mirror goes up. Compensate for the small aperature with more shutter speed.

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: Titan
I was curious on your advice on shooting with a high aperture, like 18. I realize higher aperture can result in more crisp shots, but I was thinking without any main light source in the FOV i would want as low an F-stop as possible to get all the light I can. I can see doing that with the moon in the picture, for example, but of just say, my car on the road under moonlight.

Remember I am limited to 30 sec exposures, no bulb on the old rebel.

Realistically, 30 secs should be more than enough for all your situations. Remember, you are not try to light up the entire picture, the viewer should still know he or she is looking at a picture taken at night. I have ran into probably 4 different scenarios that required different actions. I have included pictures to illustrate the results, but nothing beats personal experience. I think you should grab your camera and just experiment. Take multiple shots of the same subject at different settings, and review and analyze. Only way to learn.

The perfect scenario:
Small Aperture, Low ISO, Slow ISO, Manual setting
Monterosso al Mare, Italy - f/10, ISO 200, 30 sec
Plenty of time to compose, plenty of time to shoot. There is no reason why you can't get your shot in this scenario. Also, you should play around with the different settings, maybe a better shot would come out from your experimentation.

Not a stable surface or need to capture a "fast" (night time fast) moving object:
Smallest Aperture that is possible, Medium ISO, Medium Shutter, Manual setting
Arc de Triomphe at night from the top of the Eiffel Tower - f/14, ISO 800, 6 secs, 180mm
If I had lowered the fstop and increase the shutter speed, the picture would probably be sharper. But it's sharp enough for me considering I was freezing my ass off on top of the Eiffel.

Handheld:
Large Aperture, High ISO, Fast Shutter, VR on, Manual Setting, Continuous Shooting
Eiffel Tower - f/4.0, ISO 3600, 1/60 sec, no VR, Zoom 18mm, 3 frames per sec
Whenever I'm holding the camera day or night, I always like to turn continuous shooting on. Sure, it eats away at your shutter life, but realistically, most people (including me) will have upgraded their camera before killing the shutter. Continuous shooting lets me capture as many shots as possible in a short time frame, so I have more chances of getting a sharp shot.

Awkward position, bad angle, zoom, handheld
Biggest Aperture, Highest ISO, Fastest Shutter, VR on, Aperture Priority Setting, Continuous Shooting
Musicians on flaming Segways - f/2.8, ISO 6400, 1/160 sec, VR, AP on, 5 frames per second
Normally I would consider this a junk shot, but considering I was in the back of the crowd, holding my zoom lens way above my head, and just shooting and praying at a moving target, I'd say the result was pretty good.

For all you p&s out there, get out there and shoot as well! Experiment, your p&s can get great nighttime shots as well. A stable surface and some manual control helps.
View from the top of dome of the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore, Italy - f/5.0, ISO 100, 8 secs
Handheld from a moving boat - f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/8 sec
Across the river - f/2.8, ISO 100, 1 sec
Fountains - f/5, ISO 100, 2.5 sec

If you could ever get a shot of the crescent moon with the dark portion of the moon visible without the crescent being an overpowered bright smear, you are the man as far as I'm concerned. Is it possible to do without photoshopping?

I don't know what you are referring to. Do you have a pic as an example? In any case, I am nowhere near a professional like fuzzybabybunny is. I just enjoy taking pictures as I see the world, so everything I said here was learned through trial and error (mostly error).

 

[Fardringle]

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: Titan

If you could ever get a shot of the crescent moon with the dark portion of the moon visible without the crescent being an overpowered bright smear, you are the man as far as I'm concerned. Is it possible to do without photoshopping?

I don't know what you are referring to. Do you have a pic as an example? In any case, I am nowhere near a professional like fuzzybabybunny is. I just enjoy taking pictures as I see the world, so everything I said here was learned through trial and error (mostly error).

I think he's referring to something like this but with the lighted side of the moon not overexposed. I have some ideas how to do this, but my poor Fuji doesn't have enough reach to get a really good shot. The best I can do is a blurry (but recognizable) cropped shot.

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: Fardringle

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: Titan

If you could ever get a shot of the crescent moon with the dark portion of the moon visible without the crescent being an overpowered bright smear, you are the man as far as I'm concerned. Is it possible to do without photoshopping?

I don't know what you are referring to. Do you have a pic as an example? In any case, I am nowhere near a professional like fuzzybabybunny is. I just enjoy taking pictures as I see the world, so everything I said here was learned through trial and error (mostly error).

I think he's referring to something like this but with the lighted side of the moon not overexposed. I have some ideas how to do this, but my poor Fuji doesn't have enough reach to get a really good shot. The best I can do is a blurry (but recognizable) cropped shot.

If that is what you are looking for, then two ways come in mind.

1) Do what photographers did originally, dodge. You can dodge the image either before or after the processing the film. You can use partial neutral density filters on your lens to reduce the brightest part. You can also cut paper to the size of the crescent and use that to block the image temporarily while taking the image.
2) HDR. Take multiple exposures of the same thing and let HDR tools merge them together to bring out the details. Look at last month's contest to see examples.

 

[bobdole369]

dslr is really the way to go. Or even high iso film. The massively larger image sensor on a dslr makes things actually show up.

 

[Titan]

Sorry I was out of the thread for the weekend, some good additional discussion!

Yes, that was a good example of a crescent moon shot that I meant. It came out well, mine usually the crescent part is bigger than it should be due to higher brightness than the dark side.

@OulOat: those are some nice night shots, thanks for sharing! The big difference to keep in mind with me is I live in rural VT and intentionally hit the dirt roads in the summer on full moon nights looking for shots and there are no lights at all, except the moonlight. I'm at work and don't have them but later I will post shots of a dirt road hill that looks nice and brown because of the moonlight above. But I never take my shots with even street lights around, so I am even more challenged by the situation. Like I said earlier, snow helps with the lighting. But usually my shots are very dark, even though my eyes can see some tiny bit of color