Given my budget, which is better for low light?

[OreoCookie]

Profile your sensor under the lighting conditions you shoot in with a color chart and you'll end up with the delta being what the senor can record rather than some converter's idea of what the colors are.

I don't have access to such equipment, and to be honest, I'm happy with the way things are. I won't get rid of my dslr just yet either ... Also, if you peruse the internet, there are quite a few photographers who rave about »Fuji colors«, and I saw them on the first few photos I took.

FWIW, skin tones are a horrible metric-- none of the camera manufacturers consistently get good results for the wide range of colors people come in.

Also, one thing to note is that a preference for a color rendition is different from being color accurate. Maybe other camera manufacturers try to be more color accurate, thereby producing less liked results. Similar to the way higher-end audio equipment (headphones and speakers) have more neutral sound, and that most people don't actually want neutral-sounding equipment.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I do think there is a difference between camera manufacturers. I prefer the colors (especially the skin tones) of my Fuji X100s to my Nikon. But I don't think this is necessarily a sign that Fuji has »better image quality«. I think it's more a matter of taste, and not necessarily that one has a better sensor than the other.

Agree with you.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

FWIW, skin tones are a horrible metric-- none of the camera manufacturers consistently get good results for the wide range of colors people come in.

Paul

While that's true, a lot of photographers do speak about the beautiful color rendition of some Fuji cameras. There is another very old camera, the Canon 5Dc, that's known for the beautiful reds and gold colors, specially in daylight portraiture photography.

 

[compuwar]

While that's true, a lot of photographers do speak about the beautiful color rendition of some Fuji cameras. There is another very old camera, the Canon 5Dc, that's known for the beautiful reds and gold colors, specially in daylight portraiture photography.

Color pallets were the main reason for picking different films. In the digital age though you can't get repeatable results, and worse-yet you can't get repeatable results when you upgrade, switch to a backup, etc. without process.

However, the skin tone comment isn't about color rendition, it's about skin tone rendition, and if you were to photograph someone from the North of England, Sub-Saharan Africa, Japan and Nepal and with a straight face say "This camera renders skin tones wonderfully!" you'd be wrong. Heck, shoot a portrait of my family, and I guarantee you won't get three pleasant skin tones out of any camera without a lot of time in Photoshop.

Even within a specific vendor, different sensors have different color ranges and you'll likely get different results even if the camera's engines and any converters are somewhat normalized. Heck, different lenses and filters make it even more of a crap shoot. A slight green or magenta cast to a UV filter or lens element can totally change the tone, as does shooting under different lighting conditions.

Just like filters on an enlarger coupled with film choices and paper choices produce specific results, control of the steps in the process allow you to produce amazing prints compared to the default baseline, similar to an automatic machine print.

If you look at St. Ansel's early darkroom work compared to prints of the exact same negatives you can see the difference between a good and a great print even in B&W. The negatives certainly didn't age into better images. Control of the process steps mean being able to take images at the same event with a Fuji, Nikon and Canon camera and within the limits of the available sensor data produce equivalent results easily and automatically.

Baseline, adjust color palate to taste and adjust white balance to taste. Lather, rinse, repeat. Then you get the rendition you want every time, no matter if it's daylight, sunset, CFLs, Tungsten...

Paul

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Color pallets were the main reason for picking different films. In the digital age though you can't get repeatable results, and worse-yet you can't get repeatable results when you upgrade, switch to a backup, etc. without process.

However, the skin tone comment isn't about color rendition, it's about skin tone rendition, and if you were to photograph someone from the North of England, Sub-Saharan Africa, Japan and Nepal and with a straight face say "This camera renders skin tones wonderfully!" you'd be wrong. Heck, shoot a portrait of my family, and I guarantee you won't get three pleasant skin tones out of any camera without a lot of time in Photoshop.

Even within a specific vendor, different sensors have different color ranges and you'll likely get different results even if the camera's engines and any converters are somewhat normalized. Heck, different lenses and filters make it even more of a crap shoot. A slight green or magenta cast to a UV filter or lens element can totally change the tone, as does shooting under different lighting conditions.

Just like filters on an enlarger coupled with film choices and paper choices produce specific results, control of the steps in the process allow you to produce amazing prints compared to the default baseline, similar to an automatic machine print.

If you look at St. Ansel's early darkroom work compared to prints of the exact same negatives you can see the difference between a good and a great print even in B&W. The negatives certainly didn't age into better images. Control of the process steps mean being able to take images at the same event with a Fuji, Nikon and Canon camera and within the limits of the available sensor data produce equivalent results easily and automatically.

Baseline, adjust color palate to taste and adjust white balance to taste. Lather, rinse, repeat. Then you get the rendition you want every time, no matter if it's daylight, sunset, CFLs, Tungsten...

Paul

You may be correct, and I understand the part about different skin tones. That aside, the golden and "sort of film colors" from the very old 5Dc is something that a lot of photographers speak about. The same for the bokeh and background colors seeing on outdoors portraiture photos taken through some of the manual Helios lenses.

Unlike you, I have no idea of the technicalities involved. All I know is that a lot of people, including myself, like the looks of portrait photos taken with the 5Dc, and some of the Fuji cameras-with very little post-processing.

 

[OreoCookie]

However, the skin tone comment isn't about color rendition, it's about skin tone rendition, and if you were to photograph someone from the North of England, Sub-Saharan Africa, Japan and Nepal and with a straight face say "This camera renders skin tones wonderfully!" you'd be wrong. Heck, shoot a portrait of my family, and I guarantee you won't get three pleasant skin tones out of any camera without a lot of time in Photoshop.

I remember trying to color correct one photo in particular at a very multiethnic wedding (the groom was Caucasian, the bride of Vietnamese descent and one or two bridesmaids were of Indian descent): also »thanks« to the lighting, somebody always looked weird or sick I take your greater point on skin tones, though (Fuji's at least work for me with Caucasian and Japanese skin tones ). That's the reason I've never used Aperture's white balance on skin mode.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I remember trying to color correct one photo in particular at a very multiethnic wedding (the groom was Caucasian, the bride of Vietnamese descent and one or two bridesmaids were of Indian descent): also »thanks« to the lighting, somebody always looked weird or sick I take your greater point on skin tones, though (Fuji's at least work for me with Caucasian and Japanese skin tones ). That's the reason I've never used Aperture's white balance on skin mode.

Maybe you would have been quite happy with a 5Dc?
https://www.google.com/search?q=the...fIpXjoATTu4GACQ&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1241&bih=607

~Just kidding with you. This is an old camera that's not longer in production, and those who have it hold on to it. The sensor attracts a bunch of dust, and the screen is very difficult to see during the day (unless you provide shade for it). But the old FF sensor made this camera a classic because of the beautiful color rendition.

 

[needfx]

For statistical purposes, 6D user

 

[ssmed]

I remember being told back in my D200/D300 days that it wasn't a good idea to mount a 60s vintage non-AI Nikon lens on a newer digital body, because the mount can interfere with or even damage the connectors on a new body. I have a 55 mm micro-nikkor (and extention tube) that I'd like to mount on my D800 but without a definitive answer I'm not going to do it.

The new DF doesn't have a different mount. I have used the manual 55mm micro on D100, D200, D300, D2H, and D800 with or without Nikon's extension tubes. The functionality of the camera is variable depending on the model. The stiff focus of my lens is great for manual close focusing and is works well on a copy stand.

Look in the manual for lens compatibility at the back in the technical notes section for details.

More generally for the thread:
The D800 was mentioned as an option - this is quite slow to focus in low light with a large aperture and can hunt a little. The D610 is likely to be better in this respect from my reading.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Color pallets were the main reason for picking different films. In the digital age though you can't get repeatable results, and worse-yet you can't get repeatable results when you upgrade, switch to a backup, etc. without process.

However, the skin tone comment isn't about color rendition, it's about skin tone rendition, and if you were to photograph someone from the North of England, Sub-Saharan Africa, Japan and Nepal and with a straight face say "This camera renders skin tones wonderfully!" you'd be wrong. Heck, shoot a portrait of my family, and I guarantee you won't get three pleasant skin tones out of any camera without a lot of time in Photoshop.

Even within a specific vendor, different sensors have different color ranges and you'll likely get different results even if the camera's engines and any converters are somewhat normalized. Heck, different lenses and filters make it even more of a crap shoot. A slight green or magenta cast to a UV filter or lens element can totally change the tone, as does shooting under different lighting conditions.

Just like filters on an enlarger coupled with film choices and paper choices produce specific results, control of the steps in the process allow you to produce amazing prints compared to the default baseline, similar to an automatic machine print.

If you look at St. Ansel's early darkroom work compared to prints of the exact same negatives you can see the difference between a good and a great print even in B&W. The negatives certainly didn't age into better images. Control of the process steps mean being able to take images at the same event with a Fuji, Nikon and Canon camera and within the limits of the available sensor data produce equivalent results easily and automatically.

Baseline, adjust color palate to taste and adjust white balance to taste. Lather, rinse, repeat. Then you get the rendition you want every time, no matter if it's daylight, sunset, CFLs, Tungsten...

Paul

But if you shoot RAW doesn't the second chart in the CC passport assist with skin tones?

 

[acearchie]

To everyone talking about low light and autofocus on the 6D.

This is taken at ISO12800 (and pushed a little in post) and the autofocus is spot on where I wanted it to be.

This sort of shot is great for me as it is brighter than the scene I saw with my own eyes.

Jack & Luke by acearchie, on Flickr

 

[Meister]

To everyone talking about low light and autofocus on the 6D.
This is taken at ISO12800 (and pushed a little in post) and the autofocus is spot on where I wanted it to be.
This sort of shot is great for me as it is brighter than the scene I saw with my own eyes.
[url=https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3912/14611766296_dd4570f804_c.jpg]Image[/url]Jack & Luke by acearchie, on Flickr

Thats a very nice shot!

----------

But if you shoot RAW doesn't the second chart in the CC passport assist with skin tones?

my understandig is still that color can be adjusted as desired in post if the original is raw.

 

[needfx]

here are some more sample's following acearchie's idea of throwing some in

unfortunately no exif or lens data now other than, it's on a 6D, I can get back to you on those by Monday

--edit

added bus & bush, which were shot with the 85mm 1.2

these are compressed and dragged from my facebook page. hence the low quality and lack of exif

 

[OreoCookie]

my understandig is still that color can be adjusted as desired in post if the original is raw.

You can also adjust the color any way you want starting from a jpg. You just have a lot more leeway with a RAW file, because it contains more data. And yes, in principle you can make the picture look any way you want, but we are talking about conversions which are pretty close to using just the defaults. Also, each sensor has different characteristics, especially Fuji's unusual X-Trans sensor which does not use the standard Bayer pattern. Camera manufacturers also have different philosophies how to do default conversions in their RAW converters. E. g. Nikon's RAW converter uses in-camera RAW converter settings you have chosen. Also, there are different philosophies: Nikon's RAW conversions are a bit muted and »dull« -- on purpose, because in their mind, if you shoot RAW, you want to determine for yourself how much saturation and sharpness you want to add.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

You can also adjust the color any way you want starting from a jpg. You just have a lot more leeway with a RAW file, because it contains more data. And yes, in principle you can make the picture look any way you want, but we are talking about conversions which are pretty close to using just the defaults. Also, each sensor has different characteristics, especially Fuji's unusual X-Trans sensor which does not use the standard Bayer pattern. Camera manufacturers also have different philosophies how to do default conversions in their RAW converters. E. g. Nikon's RAW converter uses in-camera RAW converter settings you have chosen. Also, there are different philosophies: Nikon's RAW conversions are a bit muted and »dull« -- on purpose, because in their mind, if you shoot RAW, you want to determine for yourself how much saturation and sharpness you want to add.

On top of that, camera manufactures also provide several sets of parameters relating to color, sharpness and the rest, regardless if the shot is RAW or not. For example, Canon incorporates the following picture styles, each with a different default from the rest (each can also be adjusted from default in camera):

-Standard
-Portrait
-Landscape
-Neutral
-Faithful
-Monochrome

 

[mofunk]

@OP If you are gonna shoot video then look at Canon 6D or 70d and possible get paid doing it.. If not then go with Nikon D7100 or D610. Nikon you have more lenses to choose from which will give you more options since your budget is limited. Any camera will do what you need. I always looks at a gadget as an investment. How much time will I spend using it. Will it still be relevant down the road.

 

[Meister]

here are some more sample's following acearchie's idea of throwing some in

unfortunately no exif or lens data now other than, it's on a 6D, I can get back to you on those by Monday

--edit

added bus & bush, which were shot with the 85mm 1.2

these are compressed and dragged from my facebook page. hence the low quality and lack of exif

Excellent low light photography! I especially like the car and the dog.

The 85mm 1.2 is a bit costy though.

----------

@OP If you are gonna shoot video then look at Canon 6D or 70d and possible get paid doing it.. If not then go with Nikon D7100 or D610. Nikon you have more lenses to choose from which will give you more options since your budget is limited. Any camera will do what you need. I always looks at a gadget as an investment. How much time will I spend using it. Will it still be relevant down the road.

Usually you dont immediately get paid just for using a dslr
I would still see a dslr somewhat as a long term investment, since the current dslrs will never really become outdated like a computer. Like mentioned Nikon has the larger lens asortment, but other brands are very good as well.

 

[needfx]

Excellent low light photography! I especially like the car and the dog.

The 85mm 1.2 is a bit costy though.

thanks M, I was just experimenting tbh, nothing serious

1.2 is costy indeed, but a marvellous light sucker in combo with the 6d

here are some more

also, I have not come back with the exif data I promised, I will eventually for all photos. for the ones posted below, only the shoes are with the f/1.2

 

[truettray]

Maybe you would have been quite happy with a 5Dc? ... the old FF sensor made this camera a classic because of the beautiful color rendition.

There really is something special about that camera. I have a friend who still does everything on it, and I'm consistently amazed at how his photos turn out.

 

[OreoCookie]

There really is something special about that camera. I have a friend who still does everything on it, and I'm consistently amazed at how his photos turn out.

The crucial part here is that you need to know your tool's limitations as well as its strengths. Modern sensors perform much better in low light, but maybe you don't shoot in low light that often -- or you can compensate for slow speeds with a tripod.

 

[truettray]

The crucial part here is that you need to know your tool's limitations as well as its strengths. Modern sensors perform much better in low light, but maybe you don't shoot in low light that often -- or you can compensate for slow speeds with a tripod.

Absolutely. I'm not arguing that I would like to trade my 6D for the original 5D. I was just agreeing that there is some character to that body.

 

[OreoCookie]

Absolutely. I'm not arguing that I would like to trade my 6D for the original 5D. I was just agreeing that there is some character to that body.

Don't worry, I didn't understand it as such. But progress makes people forget that able people have taken wonderful shots with now obsolete camera gear. Rarely are people limited by their gear these days. Even cheaper dslr/mirrorless bodies manage ~5 fps and more, take pictures at ISO 3,200 and having powerful AF systems.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

There really is something special about that camera. I have a friend who still does everything on it, and I'm consistently amazed at how his photos turn out.

I would love to own a 5Dc, but these are very hard to come by these days since photographers don't want to get rid of it. It is quite a special camera, a classic really.