High ISO vs. bright lens . . .

[Matthias099]

As some of you might know I am going on a trip next year and are contemplating what equipment to take. I don't want to take too much and be bogged down, but I also don't want to be left stranded if a good photo opportunity comes up because I don't have the right equipment with me. The trip I am taking is an eastern Mediterranean cruise (Italy, Greek Isles etc.) with plenty of great photo opportunities that I don't want to miss.

(By the way I also am thinking about selling my camera and upgrade to the D7000 with the 18-200mm VRII Nikkor lens).

So in this process I was wondering if bright lenses, like the 50mm f1.8 that I have, are still that important as they once were. Especially considering that modern cameras like the D7000, or even the D80 I currently use, have very little noise even in higher ISO settings.

Is the low aperture of some lenses still a selling point with you, or do you rather go for other features like vibration reduction etc? Does it make a difference what you use the camera/lens for, like sports or landscape photography in your decision?

I really appreciate your input, and maybe some others might have the same thought as well.

[OsmosisStudios]

Aperture should be your second consideration, after focal length of course.

Frankly, looking at your gear list, I'd say ditch the D80, 18-55 and sigma 70-300 and get a D7000 body and look at a 10-24 or something similar, especially for the trip you have listed here. I'll be going on a similar one at the end of september and will likely have my 10-24 mounted almost permanently.

As for the 50/1.8: keep it, and carry it. It's so small, light, and useful that its almost a sin not to carry it.

[arlon]

I have the 50mm 1.4 and use it a LOT with a D700. That camera has the best high ISO performance I know of. Between the fast glass and high ISO I never have to use flash indoors in places like museums and such. The existing light in most of those places just gives better pictures than flash. I also love the added DOF control I get when I want it with the faster lens.

In short, the fast glass is to a good high ISO camera what ketchup is to a french fry.

If you ditched the fast glass with a camera like the D7000, you'd just be treading water..

[kirbinster]

D80 good high ISO???? I think not!

For travel High ISO capabilities is probably something you would get more value out of than fast lenses. For general purpose stuff the 18-200 is a good option, especially when coupled with a camera that allows you to push the ISO to say perhaps 3200 without much noise. When I got my D700 I sold my 18-200vr and got a Nikon 28-300VR which gives the same field of view on the FX camera but is a much sharper lens. I find I use that lens quite a bit on my DX bodies as well. In cases where it is not wide enough I find I just take a bunch of vertical shots and stitch them together for landscapes. The extra reach of 300mm is nice to have in the all purpose lens.

[RichardTaylor]

I'm with OsmosisStudios re fast lenses.

Whilst IS (VR) and relatively slow lenses (F4?) are ok for capturing static 'scapes (like street scenes on a vacation) etc they are not good when capturing subjects with any kind of motion, if you want to freeze that motion. I sometimes shoot classical music concerts, in available light, and my preference is for F2 lenses even though I miss the versatility of a zooom.
For landscapes fast apertures don't (ecept it may make it easier to focus in very low light (moonlight) scenes, really matter, however for sports in very low light it really does, if you want to freeeze the action..

[kirbinster]

Richard, I am not sure you can make blanket statements like that. You have to look at the entire exposure triangle. A fast lens is only one component of it. If you have a body that will give you a quality shot at ISO 6400 and f/4 then you really don't need that f/2 at ISO 1600. Further, if you are wide open at f/2 you have almost no depth of field.

The bottom line is obviously a fast lens and mega body, but money and weight and other factors all come into play in real life. For travel shooting, which is what the OP asked about, I contend he is better off with a good quality super zoom and a body where he can push the ISO when needed.

[SwissJon]

The D7000 doesn't shoot particularly high quality prints at 6400 ISO.. LoL.. I was fiddling with my camera the other day and set it on 6400 just to see what indoor shots were like, and they were ok.. Lacked a bit of colour depth and contrast, and were very noisy, but I could have used them for small B&W prints after a clean up, but then I forgot to switch back to the lowest ISO, and went out shooting landscapes in broad daylight.. Boy, you can really see the difference in quality when you put it in that kind of situation.. Grainy as hell.

I really wouldn't shoot at above 1600 ISO in the D7000 unless really pushed.. A fast lens is far more preferable.. if you can get an extra stop out of the lens at the cost of depth of field rather than image quality, then in most circumstances I'd choose that.. Additionally, with a fast lens, you can always stop down and get really good sharpness from a higher aperture.

[kirbinster]

Jon:

My experience is with the D700 rather than the DX D7000. The D700 will give you good quality at ISO 6400.

Here is one at 6400 I just dug out:




Exposure (1/30)
Aperture f/5.3
Focal Length 85 mm
ISO Speed 6400

[Matthias099]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

The D7000 doesn't shoot particularly high quality prints at 6400 ISO.. LoL.. I was fiddling with my camera the other day and set it on 6400 just to see what indoor shots were like, and they were ok.. Lacked a bit of colour depth and contrast, and were very noisy, but I could have used them for small B&W prints after a clean up, but then I forgot to switch back to the lowest ISO, and went out shooting landscapes in broad daylight.. Boy, you can really see the difference in quality when you put it in that kind of situation.. Grainy as hell.

I really wouldn't shoot at above 1600 ISO in the D7000 unless really pushed.. A fast lens is far more preferable.. if you can get an extra stop out of the lens at the cost of depth of field rather than image quality, then in most circumstances I'd choose that.. Additionally, with a fast lens, you can always stop down and get really good sharpness from a higher aperture.

Can you post some example pictures you took with the D7000 to see what you mean? I heard so much good about this camera.....Grainy above 1600 ? Really?

[Matthias099]

I guess what I gather so far is that it is really subjective of what is the right thing to do . . . it depends on each ones preference etc. and specific emphasis on type of photography you will do.

Does somebody have sample pictures with the D7000 shot in high ISO for comparison?