Digital cameras: Taking pictures in low light with a compact camera. How?
Taking pictures in low light with a compact camera. How?
by Gloria SP - 2/28/08 4:01 PMThe compact, point-and-shoot cameras as small as a deck of cards are very convenient for travel, where SLR cameras can be bit bulky to carry around.
My question is how to make compact digital camera to take reasonable pictures in low light environment without flash ( if it is possible at all).
For example. in low lit galleries/ museums/churches flash is not permitted and for night cityscapes, flash just doesn't work beyond certain small distance.
With SLR cameras, in manual mode, taking pics in these low light situations is not a problem but what to do with a compact camera, where there is no manual mode but just preset auto modes, apparently (I was told) not very helpful in low light ?
I was told also, that even if a compact camera has high ISO option, any setting above 400 ISO will produce unpleasant pixelization.
Please, could someone with hands-on experience tell me how to take reasonably good quality pictures in low light with a compact digital camera without flash . No matter what brand or model.
Thanks in advance for any practical tip!
Low Light compact camera
by snapshot2
- 2/28/08 5:39 PM
In reply to: Taking pictures in low light with a compact camera. How? by Gloria SP
Many ultra compact cameras will take good photos in low light, if you use a tripod to support the camera.
When there is not enough light and you don't use flash, the camera must slow down the shutter speed to be able to gather enough light for a proper exposure.
It helps to raise the ISO speed to get a picture, but you may not like the picture.
High ISO speeds result in a lot of noise (grain).
To take photos without flash, you MUST turn off the flash.
That means you have to get out of Auto mode.
Most cameras have a manual or program mode that will let you turn off the flash.
Then put your camera on a tripod or set it on a table, ledge, fence, etc.
Many people use a beanbag as a substitute tripod.
To keep from jostling the camera when pressing the shutter button, you can use the delay shutter feature.
That lets you get your hands off the camera before the shutter trips.
Examine the photo you just took.
If it is dark....change your ISO setting to a higher number, and try again.
You may have to go up so much that you start getting excessive noise.
But a noisy picture is better than no picture.
An interesting fact.
The less zoom you use, the more light the lens can pass along to the camera. No zoom, is your brightest lens setting.
...
..
.
RE:Taking pictures in low light with a compact camera. How?
by vSCI - 2/29/08 7:48 PM In reply to: Taking pictures in low light with a compact camera. How? by Gloria SPThe previous comments are all good ones. Support the camera, take it out of a mode which automatically flashes.
If you don't have the convenience of a tripod or beanbag, you can brace yourself against a wall. Because the digital provides instant feedback, you can evaluate shots immediately after they're taken, and make adjustments. If the photo is blurry, find something more stable. If you have the ability to change under/overexposure, that's the opportunity.
If you have a digital already, just try it out in a low light situation. You'll learn a lot from experimenting and adjusting your technique.
If you are in the market for a digital and like to do available light photography, here are some things to look for. Cameras of a more recent vintage will handle low light situations better -- you'll get better results at higher ASAs. Also, look for a lens with a large maximum aperture. The lower the number, the wider the aperture. Olympus made a camera with an f/1.8 which I used to good effect in indoor available light. The maximum usable ASA was 200, 400 was pushing it -- but I got quite good and interesting results from photos in a historic home with minimal wattage tungsten. Such lenses will tend to be shorter in their zoom range -- it's always a tradeoff. But, you should be able to get at least a 3 times optical zoom with that speed.
Another key is selecting an appropriate lighting situation. You can retain the quality of available light by subtley modifying the environment. During the day, can you move a subject towards a window? In the evening, select people who have full and flattering light.
I find available light photography and endlessly enjoyable hobby. And digitals provide a wonderful feedback loop for that.
Jay
Use fast film or time exposure
by Yeoville - 2/29/08 8:55 PM In reply to: RE:Taking pictures in low light with a compact camera. How? by vSCII agree with all that has been said before. I have taken photos with fast film, as fast as ISO 1600, for situations like graduation services and parties or at a distance where a flash does not reach. The photos <i>are</i> grainier. The more stability you have (i.e., using a tripod or resting your camera on a table or ledge) the better.
If you want to take a photo in a museum or exhibition where your subject is stationary you can even use extended time-exposure if your camera supports this mode. Try with exposure lengths of 1 second or 2 seconds. A tripod or other stationary support is essential here.
Optical Image Stabilization Helps
by larrymcg - 2/29/08 9:26 PM In reply to: Taking pictures in low light with a compact camera. How? by Gloria SPI have been amazed at how much image stabilization helps in low-light situations. I often take hand held low-light photos with no flash. However, if the exposure is going to be seconds long then you also need a tripod or bean bag or something to hold the camera steady.
I find that pushing up the ISO greatly increases noise in digital cameras. Where a film camera might do well at ISO 400 or more, digital point and shoot cameras tend to get unacceptably noisy.
low light photos
by udornthani2 - 3/1/08 2:26 AM In reply to: Taking pictures in low light with a compact camera. How? by Gloria SPI use compacts some of the time. I took handheld low light pictures in my friends restaurant. Many came out decently if you're willing to put up with some grain/noise and know how to do some processing. My camera that day? Olympus 1200 which shoots fullframe - 4000 x 3000 to 1600 asa and about 1/2 frame at 3200 and 6400. All certainly good for the net and at least 5 x 7s without objectional noise.
The answer is: a Fuji F30 or 31FD
by passionproductions - 3/1/08 4:18 AM In reply to: Taking pictures in low light with a compact camera. How? by Gloria SPThe only, really only, compact camera with acceptable high ISO quality is a Fuji. Try to get a used F30 or F31FD. Maybe you still can buy a new F31FD somewhere. The ISO 800 quality of both cameras is very good, and ISO 1600 is still usable. So low light shots without flash are possible.
Here is a review: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf31fd/
Don't buy the newer ones (from F40 onwards). Fuji increased the number of pixels and doing so lowered the quality. Although the F30 and F31FD 'only' have 6 megapixels, this is just right for a small sensor.
I own one myself, besides an EOS 350D, and I'm very happy with it.
Have fun with it!
All Good advice so far, but try this.
by mike_july17 - 3/1/08 7:00 AM In reply to: Taking pictures in low light with a compact camera. How? by Gloria SPThe advice already submitted is all good. It amounts to keeping the camera as still as possible using a tripod or bean bag or just putting the camera on a shelf or similar.
When using these techniques its a good idea to use the self-timer to avoid nudging the camera when firing the shutter,
To photograph small items, like sculpture or architectural details, use a small torch, as powerful as possible. Get a friend to hold it at the side of the item; this will give you some interesting shadows. No freind? I have held a small maglite in my mouth, holding the camera to my eye and leaning my elbows on the top of a pew! It looks odd, but who cares?
The comments about 6 megapixels is very relevant. cramming 10 or more megapixels onto these small sensors increases noise. My daughters 4 mp Hewlet Packard 812 produces A4 size prints. 6mp will print up to A3 perfectly satisfactorily.
Lastly, use the view finder, not the LCD screen. This braces the camera against your skull and saves battery power.
Good Luck
The answer is Fuji F31fd.
by martin1325 - 3/1/08 10:33 AM In reply to: All Good advice so far, but try this. by mike_july17Passionproductions has the answer although all the other comments are relevant and good practise. As a pro. photographer I never cease to be amazed at how good the F31fd is in low light, better than many cameras at ten times its price. Although 3200 is pushing it 1600 and especially 800 are perfectly acceptable. The only very minor niggle is the lack of a viewfinder. Go on ebay and join the cognoscenti trying to get hold of one - you won't be dissappointed.
Two things will help
by tech_ed - 3/3/08 11:14 PM In reply to: Taking pictures in low light with a compact camera. How? by Gloria SPThese two things will increase your ability to "get that shot"
1) make sure that your camera has DIS (Digital image stabilization) This is a *MUST* if your camera has a zoom of 5X or greater (and why purchase *any* camera that DOESN'T have at least 5X zoom (digital zoom is crap, don't use it)
2) carry a monopod. This is like a tripod, but looks more like a waking stick. I take one with me whenever I carry my camera. It really comes in handy as a walking stick when I'm hiking!
You can also use it to get those really tough shots! On the Pali highway in Hawaii, I wanted to get a shot of the highway from the valley perspective, so I mounted my camera on the monopod and swung the monopod out over the ravine...a truely awesome shot that no one else had!
Ed
web/gadget guru
Good advice.
by martin1325 - 3/4/08 2:55 AM In reply to: Two things will help by tech_edMonopods are excellent kit, as is anything that steadies the camera. As for comments about digital stabilization and 5x zooms..... The original thread was about compact cameras and my impression was that a relatively easy and inexpensive solution was needed. The two features mentioned are almost invariably found on relatively high-end compacts and nowadays, because of the manufacturers' obsession with stuffing more and more pixels onto what are of necessity small CCDs - low light shots, which was the query,are noisier than ever before. You have only to check out the reviews on the F31fd's replacements (F40fd & F50fd.) to see the results of this folly. The F31fd does have a 'picture stabilization mode' but it just increases the shutter speed which is not really the answer in low light. It does not need this as the results even on auto are way better than any comparable compact. If someone could persuade the manufacturers that compacts really do not need ever increasing pixels then we would not be having this discussion.
RE: Two things will help
by udornthani2 - 3/4/08 3:31 AM In reply to: Good advice. by martin1325It's as individual as different shooting styles and capabilities. I tried monopods and can't use them effectively. On-the-other-hand, give me a viewfinder which i can brace against my face and I'll search out a wall or lightpole to back against and I'll shoot very decent 1/2 - 1/4 sec shoots.
Recently, I shot some dark environs in a Thai restaurant designed to be dark with spotlighted painting on the wall. I remembered the shake button and used it after a few shots. There was a noticeable increase in sharpness. Some of the shots switched to 3200 and 6400 ASA and that cuts the pixel count in half. Yes they were noisy, but usable on the net and smaller prints. I printed them out in B+W on 81/2 X 11 on my HP 1200 dot laser printer. the 3200 and 6400 ASA stuff I couldn't process enough to look really decent, but the 1600ASA full frames 3000 x 4000p looked okay.
The Olympus Stylus 1000 has a 1/2.33 sensor whereas the 1200 has a larger 1/1.73in sensor. There's a bit of gain there.
my 2c worth
by jonah jones - 3/4/08 3:25 AM
In reply to: Taking pictures in low light with a compact camera. How? by Gloria SP
if a tripod is a hassle, try a bean bag... small and easy to use 
.,
beanbags
by udornthani2 - 3/4/08 3:47 AM In reply to: my 2c worth by jonah jones
I've used them on occasion, but mostly get war wounds on the bottom of my film cameras when I've been out and about. I've given serious consideration to going back to film and 4000 to 6000 dpi scanners. With a D-max of 4 or so and fast puter with good graphics card it shouldn't be a hassle. In fact, I though about going extreme (fun) and buying a used 4x5 speed graphic and scanning those transparencies. I used to love the speed graphic, especially on the enlarger
OUTRAGEOUS!
MY E-MAIL IS udorn02@optonline.net
moniker: pjk - drop me a line some time.
AAh the Speed Graphic! But a bit far from the thread
by mike_july17 - 3/4/08 6:53 AM In reply to: beanbags by udornthani2It is certainly true that film and a really good scanner will give much better resolution than even the most expensive compact digital camera. In fact, at the price level the original poster seemed to refer too there are few digital compacts to hold a candle to a cheap disposable film camera loaded with 200 ASA film.
Two previous types of cheap film camera which vanished due to low resolution, the 110 and the Kodak Disc formats both had better resolution than many of today's cheap digital compacts. Today's public require instant results, and pictures they can post on the web. Spending loadsa money on expensive sensors and good lenses is a waste of money if that is what you want a camera for.
However, if you like to print your photos and display you need a decent lens, decent resolution and some idea about composing a picture.
Image Stabilisation, high pixel count and long zoom lenses with maximum apertures above f5.6 will be no better than a cheap compact if you want to take printable images in low light.
To go back to the Speed Graphic. A transparency from a 35mm camera will make a better print than most "affordable" digital cameras but still can't hod a candle to a medium or large format film camera. That is why the top landscape photographers still prefer film.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
