Photography on bad weather days (1 Viewer)

Keith Reeder said:

To be fair, we aren't really talking about rain, we're talking about low light.

With the kind of "enthusiast" kit most of us use, shooting in low light is usually a very diappointing experience.

Click to expand...

Keith,
You're right there is a difference. Looking at your kit list though you don't have "light gathering" gear which I would have thought was essential in your part of the world. You should put an 80 mm scope ,a 70-200/2.8 and 1.4x tele and a pair of 8x42 bins on your Christmas list.
Even with the the Sw STS80 I was only getting around 1/80th second at iso 400 on Sunday in the rain. With 65 mm scope I wouldn't have been able to freeze the action. I would have liked the Pentax 100 mm or a big Televue.
Neil.

Keith Reeder said:

To be fair, we aren't really talking about rain, we're talking about low light.

With the kind of "enthusiast" kit most of us use, shooting in low light is usually a very diappointing experience.

Click to expand...

I disagree entirely, the Lapwing was shot in dreadful light and pooring rain at 1/15 sec f5.6 on a Canon EOS 20D 400iso on RAW.
The photographer is the limiting factor and not the kit.

Hi Neil,

actually, for bird watching my kit is great - that little 65mm Zeiss is as bright as a button, and I'e never really had any concerns about my little Leicas.

Even for bird photographs I do OK - the Sigma isn't fast, but I adjust my expectations accordingly.

I'm in no doubt though that - all other things being equal - I could squeeze out a bit more low light performance if I was using a camera that did a better job at high ISOs.

OK Nigel, I'll put it another way.

If your cameras or lenses die because they get waterlogged, that's just a business expense that you'll soak up, yeah?

For we "mere mortals", it's not that straightforward - these are luxuries, by and large, and it is no trivial thing to risk our kit when (as most of the contributors to this thread seem to agree) the likely outcome isn't going to be great anyway.

Oh - and much as I respect your opinions Nigel, you really need to spend some time with Nikon kit (especially the D200) before deciding that any low light photography failings are invariably down to the photographer.

When I used to shoot on film in low light I would uprate the iso (effectively under expose the film) and then overdevelop to compensate.
The same can be done with digital cameras, instead of upping the iso, underexpose then correct when post processing..... i.e instead of going to 800 iso from 400, underexpose by 1 stop, or instead of setting 1600iso stay at 400 and underexpose by 2 stops. In my oppinion this causes far less noise, particularly chroma noise (coloured speckles) than upping the iso.

Keith Reeder said:

OH - and much as I respect your opinions Nigel, you really need to spend some time with Nikon kit (especially the D200) before deciding that any low light photography failings are invariably down to the photographer.

Click to expand...

I have used all of the current range of Nikon DSLRs and it was only the D50 that I felt suffered from excessive noise at higher ISOs,
In most cases my only complaint was the Auto white balance and colour balance in general, (other than sunny conditions) was the main issue but that is easily remedied in post production with a properly calibrated monitor.

Underexpose with a Nikon D200 and you have kissed goodbye to any chance of low noise and usable captured detail, Nigel.

Honest to God, Nigel - the thing is so sensitive to exposure that even ISO 100 images can be unusable because of noise if you've underexposed - even -0.3 EV is enough to destroy any detail and replace it with the most appalling noise which no amount of PP will fix, and most owners have accepted that using the thing above ISO 400 is simply a futile exercise if you have any interest in capturing detail.

Even Nikon UK recommend staying below 400 if noise is a problem.

So - for a lot of us - there is an unquestionable relationship between the camera we use and the success we have in low light situations.

What do you make of this, for example?

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/93538/sort/1/cat/all/page/1

A pretty typical "low" light D200 picture, this.

nigelblake said:

I have used all of the current range of Nikon DSLRs and it was only the D50 that I felt suffered from excessive noise at higher ISOs

Click to expand...

Whereas everyone in the Nikon system regards the D50 as by far the best of the bunch for noise, with only the D2HS (which is in an entirely different market) as a competitor..!

Goes to show, camera use is a very personal thing.

Yes but noise above 400iso is not just a Nikon issue, I rarely if ever shoot above 400iso, the noise factors involved with deliberate underexposure really can vary depending on what software you use for RAW conversion, personally I did not find the Nikon D200 to be significantly different to the Canon 20D, an opinion that coincides with that of Phil Askew at DP review.
As for the example that you linked to, I think the noise on here is as much a result of sharpening, it looks to me as if it has been edge enhanced.
It seems to me that you have taken the comment about poor results in bad weather being down to the photographer and not the equipment a little personally, I want to make it clear that it was not meant as a personal aside in any way whatsover.
I do stand by that comment however insofar as it is down to the photographer and how he/she sees and uses the photo opportunities he/she is presented with and how they approach recording (yes I hate the word capture in this context) the image.

Cheers Nigel,

I did "react" a bit, I admit!



Of course the photographer can influence the end result, and in a given situation, with the same kit, a "good" photographer will always get better results than a "bad" photographer (it's that fact which encourages beginners like me to persevere).

Thing is, there really is a a significant body of D200 users who are deeply disappointed by the D200's noise performance, even compared with the D70 that went before.

In my direct experience the D70 is much more forgiving and usable in poor light than the D200 - the D70 gets noisy, but it does at least capture some detail.

The D200 "smears" detail away (that's the word we've coined to describe the problem) as if the picture has been subject to some seriously aggressive noise reduction: in fact, I think that clumsy in-camera NR is a big part of the problem.

The Nikon fanboys on various sites always "blame the photographer" - as if the D200 could possibly be less than perfect.

If it was just me that was having these issues, I might have to accept that the fault is mine: but there are too many of us - including some skilled professionals - and I am in no doubt that the camera itself is a significant contributor to the problem.

As a result though, I'm sensitised to accusations that I am the whole problem!



This is a 100% crop of a marsh harrier: all that's been done is to convert to jpeg in Nikon Capture, and crop to size.

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=46937

At -0.3 EV it isn't under exposed (at least as I understand the histogram - it is "exposed to the right", which should help avoid exposure-related noise), and it was a cool day so heat haze wasn't an issue.

In-camera NR was as "off" as I could get it.

In fact here's the EXIF:

ExposureTime=2/1000 sec
FNumber=F7.1
ISOSpeedRatings=100
ExposureBiasValue=-2/6
FocalLength=400.00 mm

I know that a 100% crop is never going to be up to much: but you must admit, something very odd is going on with the way the sensor has rendered the picture... it's like a pointilist painting!

I'm sure you'd agree that some detail should be available in this scene, but there's nothing except noise and blur (and I think the bird takes up enough space for the sensor to have been able to capture some detail).

It might be OOF, I admit - but that doesn't explain the look of this thing - 100 ISO, remember...

Certainly I'm confident that I would have had no concerns about the end result if I'd used my D70 to take this picture, and - to paraphrase another similarly afflicted (ex) D200 user who has moved to a Canon 30D and been delighted with the results,

"Well, it might be user error, but if it is, I'm making the same mistakes with my 30D and still getting much better results..."

I'm in the same boat when I jump from my D200 back to my D70, so there must be something about the D200...

Oh dear, there is evidence of heat haze/atmospheric issues on the Harrier but I am affraid that that camera would have been straight back in Nikons lap if I had had it, this may very likely be a fault with that unit rather than D200s in general

Ouch. That would not be cool if you were trying to capture a picture of a really rare bird.
I think I'll stick with my D50.

nigelblake said:

Oh dear, there is evidence of heat haze/atmospheric issues on the Harrier but I am affraid that that camera would have been straight back in Nikons lap if I had had it, this may very likely be a fault with that unit rather than D200s in general

Click to expand...

I think I'm right in saying that it's Keith's second D200 and both have suffered the same problem, which is why he's now planning to jump ship.

Hi All,

as Pete says, it's the second such D200 body I've had that has consistently produced results like this in a variety of entirely normal shooting conditions.

The first one was worse than this!

I know what you mean Nigel, about the picture looking like there's atmospheric disturbance, but that's the camera at work: I took over a hundred MH shots while I was down there, including some where the bird was within 20 yards or so (and as I suggest above, it wasn't warm at Strumpshaw Fen when I was there) and all of the pictures are very, very bad indeed, and all in much the same way.

Not a single one worth keeping.

Can you imagine how gutted I was when I finally got these home and onto my PC? I'd specifically gone down to Norfolk when I did (in mid April) to get some decent shots of displaying marsh harriers and got this instead...

(I've posted up a few more below, just for comedy value! Again, 100% crops with no processing except NEF - jpeg conversion and cropping in Nikon Capture).

Then have a look at this:
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/94268

That's the kind of IQ I was expecting.

Another BF member - "Puddleduck" (Andy to his friends) - is on his third D200 body, and he has had the same problems. In fact he has pretty much retired his D200 in favour of his D50 in anything other than great light, simply because in his experience the D50 kicks the D200's butt over ISO 400 (I've seen examples taken by Andy: he's right).

A search for "D200" in the BF gallery will kick up a lot of apparently OOF, noisy-as-hell, smeared, no-detail images too (which isn't a criticism of the photographers of course).

Then there's this guy, http://www.grandwebsite.com/weddings.htm, a very capable professional wedding photographer, who was so appalled by his D200 in low light (he's a wedding photographer - I guess it matters!) that he has incurred a huge amount of wrath from the Nikon fanboys by documenting his experiences.

Experiences that match mine perfectly - but he clearly knows how to take a photo, so "user error" doesn't really explain his problems - again, he has no such issues with his other Nikons.

Anyway - to get back on topic - if I could choose when I went out with my camera, I'd only ever go out in nice light.

Like most amateurs/enthusiasts though, I have to take whatever chance I get, and that means taking pot-luck with the weather.

While my personal preference is not to bother when I "know" it will be a waste of time, I would be far more inclined to take the chance if I had a camera which I felt would redress the balance a bit (a cheaper option than f/2.8 lenses!) and Canon bodies in my price range are pretty well known for their comparatively good low light performance.

And equally, there is no doubt at all in my mind that my D200 makes the chance of a decent picture in less than ideal light, far less likely.

Keith, I suspect we shall have to beg to differ. I took in what you said and began to believe you may have a point. However since I first posted on this thread, last Sunday, we have had, in Kent, about 4 hours of good light, in the afternoon when I was at work.
It was dismal again yesterday, Saturday, and I need the practice so I will carry on in the vain hope that the sun will come out eventually.

Oh yeah, it's a personal decision, John.

I'm not saying (nor is anyone else who takes the same view I do) that people shouldn't go out in poor conditions, just that it doesn't generally pay off for us and our particular combination of experience, gear, wants and expectations.

I used to though, come hell and high water, so I completely understand your perspective.

Best of luck, and I look forward to seeing the pics..!



As a matter of intrerest, what camera/lens do you use?

Keith, I use a 20D and Canon 400mm f5.6 for pictures of birds. I don`t think the lens is really long enough but, in my opinion, it is such a good lens that you can get away with fairly hefty crops and still get a very acceptable result.
In decent light, which we haven`t had for yonks, it is an absolutely stunning lens and worth every penny. Unfortunately due to the recent weather I have been shooting between ISO 400 and ISO 800 most of the time and it introduces a bit of noise to the shot. Roll on some sunshine !

Thanks John - the Canon noise advantage would probably persuade me to go out in a wider range of conditions than I'm tempted to with the Nikon - though my D70 surprised me a couple of times yesterday, giving me some surprisingly OK ISO 1600 shots.

What you really want is a camera like the ones used in stake-outs on American cop shows.
No matter what focal length lens, how many layers of blinds or net curtains or how many floors up, they still get pin sharp images at impossible magnications that look like they are taken from ground level....even in p*ssing rain.
I want one as soon as they are publicly available!

Yeah, that's the stuff!

Or the computer software the FBI and CSI have that allows them to zoom right in to crappy low res CCTV footage, "enhance" and Bingo! - an absolutely perfect, sharp, detailed picture, with all the missing detail extrapolated out of nowhere.