Camera body or lens for low light ?

[jayque]

So ... After taking pictures for a while, you found that your equipments are lacking for taking moving objects in low light conditions ...

Would you ...
a)Upgrade your camera body to shoot at a higher ISO
(assuming that better body indeed = better noise control)

b)Get better lenses (like those f2.8s around)

c)Stick with your flash unit and do nothing

hmmm so which would you choose ? Or are there any other suggestions ?

 

[android17]

Upgrade lens more worth it imo.

 

[theshooter]

depends on alot of factors. do you have the spare cash? are you earning from shooting? can it fund your new gadgets? do you really need them?

andriod is right in the sense that camera bodies depreciate way faster than a good L lens. so maybe a investment in a lens with lower fstop will sound cheaper.

then again, a rifle without a scope will not kill enemies. for me, i'd go for a good lens first, then slowly save up for a better camera.

 

[mahathir]

Hi,

I think you need a good powerful flash that recycle fast and a fast constant speed zoom lens (f/2.8 or below). Unfortunately both doesnt come cheap.

Cheers.

Mahathir

 

[Rashkae]

Depends on your camera too. If your camera body has good AF sensors and the lens is limiting, then upgrade lens. Or vice versa. Or upgrade both.

 

[yc2005]

Get a prime lens. They are cheaper than their zoom equivalents. Eg. 50mm f1.8

If you want to take moving objects in low light condition, can get a flash to "freeze" the motion or a body with better AF tracking

 

[shaoken]

Actually if you ask me, I think that the body (ISO control) is important in low light as well as the lens.

 

[madmartian]

You have to consider if taking moving objects in low light conditions is a one off thingy or once in awhile kind, i guess its better to stay with your current setup. But if you are into low light photography and that's your cup of tea, then invest in a super fast lens. Or as Rashkae said, upgrade both. If your setup is the 1st generation system or if money is of no concern to you, go get the latest in the market.

 

[Legoz]

Use the flash. Hardly anyone knows how to use the flash properly nowadays. =)

 

[smile_gerard]

I too vote for the flash. Bumping the iso to me is cheating. Sacrificing quality defeats the purpose of taking nice photos. But if you want the ambient feel, then lens is the way to go.

 

[FriedKimchi]

1)Flash.
2)Lens.
3)Body.

I'm sticking to this plan. I have a flash, now im looking at upgrading my lens. Body change? I'm happy with my current body, 500D.

 

[smile_gerard]

1)Flash.
2)Lens.
3)Body.

I'm sticking to this plan. I have a flash, now im looking at upgrading my lens. Body change? I'm happy with my current body, 500D.

Exactly what i would do too...

 

[Fotophilic]

Get all 3. Just bite the bullet and solve ur desire to upgrade (for the time being).

 

[dennisc]

Lens and body both are impt. But if given a choice I'd say body. Reason is I still could handle lowlight with f4 UWA lens on slower shutter and high iso, moreso with flashguns.

Lens are great if you're not using flash at that time.. I use f1.2 and 1.4 mostly (I'm a low light addict too)

 

[jayque]

If I ever do get the moolahs.. i'll go for the lenses first too =)

 

[Lolrence]

It depends on what you're shooting...
For portraits, definitely lens+flash, unless you already have a really good lens. Remember, a bigger aperture lens (at bigger aperture) gives you less depth of field and as a result, less room for focus errors.

For low light general shots that you need more DOF, go for a better body with clean ISO. (I used to recommend only lenses, but ever since I've seen the ISO quality at 3200,6400 from newer cams, I'll have to start recommending them :sweat

Flash is always a good to have, not always necessary, and very dependent on the style/feel/weight you wanna carry/convenience you need/budget :thumbsup:

 

[photatographer]

I would say lenses too, but as the rest catches up with the Nikon D3S. Changing body is becoming viable.