Low Light Landscape without Tripod - boost ISO or Bigger aperture?

telly0050 · 12-31-2011, 12:02 PM

In low light landscape situation (not extreme low light, but certainly can't maintain a safe shutter with f8+iso200), would you guys rather boost the ISO or use bigger aperture?

Everyone knows that lenses usually have the best DOF level and sharpness from f8-f13.
But in some situation where you can't use f8 + iso200 for safe shutter, would you rather boost the iso to 800-1600, or lower the aperture to f4?

Boosting the ISO gives a overall better DOF, while lowering aperture gives cleaner photo quality with less noise.
Because some camera has very good noise control (such as the k-x and k-5), so I would like to hear your opinion on this.

Thanks.

**jatrax** · 12-31-2011, 12:16 PM

Primarily depends on whether you have any foreground in the picture that requires the depth of field. For example with a 50mm lens f/8 means everything from 50' to infinity is in focus. Change to f/4 and you get everything from 100' to infinity is in focus. So is there anything closer than 100'? If not then f/4 is just fine. If you have foreground elements, then you will need to include those in the depth of focus range and will likely have to stop down to do so. With the 50mm lens in the example I would not want to shoot hand held at anything less than 1/100 second. That is going to be hard to achieve even at f/4 in "low light" whatever that is exactly. Shorter lenses will yield more depth of focus and can be used at slower speeds. Longer lenses the reverse.

And you need to consider the lens itself, is it sharp enough at f/4 or do you need to stop down to get it sharp enough? If you need to stop down for sharpness then the ISO must go up.

But let me also state that I would not be shooting a landscape (low light or not) without a tripod, mirror lock up and remote shutter release.

RioRico · 12-31-2011, 01:56 PM

jatrax is right. If you want a sharp 'scape, use a tripod or sandbag or other means of immobilizing the camera.. If you don't need sharpness, then anything goes. I can shoot a nice 'scape at f/44, ISO 6400, handheld at 1/80 second. Sure, it'll have a ton of noise and diffraction fuzziness, but so what?

Macario · 12-31-2011, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by telly0050

In low light landscape situation (not extreme low light, but certainly can't maintain a safe shutter with f8+iso200), would you guys rather boost the ISO or use bigger aperture?

Everyone knows that lenses usually have the best DOF level and sharpness from f8-f13.
But in some situation where you can't use f8 + iso200 for safe shutter, would you rather boost the iso to 800-1600, or lower the aperture to f4?

Boosting the ISO gives a overall better DOF, while lowering aperture gives cleaner photo quality with less noise.
Because some camera has very good noise control (such as the k-x and k-5), so I would like to hear your opinion on this.

Thanks.

actually what you are saying is wrong. Lenses do not have a best DOF. DOF is your creativity and nothing else. Sharpness you are right about, most lenses excell around f8, but with many you will not really see a difference if you will go lower.
So the question is just about what you want, a shallowere DOF or more noise, both will be nice when used correctly

telly0050 · 12-31-2011, 02:57 PM

thanks guys for your input.
never know focal length has this relationship with DOF.
gotta experiment with it next time

RioRico · 12-31-2011, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by telly0050

thanks guys for your input.
never know focal length has this relationship with DOF.
gotta experiment with it next time

Here are the basic rules of DOF:

For thicker DOF, use a shorter focal length and/or tighter aperture and/or further camera-subject distance

For thinner DOF, use a longer focal length and/or wider aperture and/or closer camera-subject distance

For sharpest pictures, use a tripod, mirror-lock-up, a remote; set f/8-f/11, lowest ISO, NR off, RAW. For least distortion, use a lens in the 28-35mm range. For a little acceptable edge stretching, use a 24mm lens. If rectilinear distortion doesn't matter, then use anything.

Most landscapes don't move around much except in seismic zones so AF isn't mandatory. My favorite 'scape lenses are all old MF primes of 21-24-28-35mm. With my 21mm at f/11 and hyperfocused to 2m, the DOF is 1m to infinity. It's great for vertical 'scapes.

dlacouture · 12-31-2011, 11:46 PM

Another possibility would be to use continuous shooting: get 10 noisy shots (or underexposed, as you want), and align then average (or, respectively, add) them...
This way you keep your aperture, and gain several ISO on the final image.

Anvh · 01-01-2012, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

Here are the basic rules of DOF:

For thicker DOF, use a shorter focal length and/or tighter aperture and/or further camera-subject distance

For thinner DOF, use a longer focal length and/or wider aperture and/or closer camera-subject distance

It's easier to replace all the other things beside aperture with magnification

So DOF depends on aperture and magnification, but that's still not the whole story though but comes close enough.

For the OP, look at hyperfocal focus distance, often with f/4 you can get a huge DOF if you place it correctly.
IF you use wide lenses, 24mm and lower you can often get everything in focus from several meters to the horizon with f/4, it's almost never needed to go down to f/16 or worst f/22.

mysticcowboy · 01-01-2012, 09:16 PM

It really depends on your camera. 2 years ago, I'd say go for bigger aperture. Now, my K-5 has the same dynamic range at 800 ISO as my K20D does at 100 ISO. There's no visible noise in 12x18 prints at 800 ISO. The Kr is almost as good. My 17-50 lens has maximum sharpness at f5.6 - f8. I'd shoot as short a focal length as possible, with as high a shutter speed as possible for the sharpest exposure at f4-5.6 and let my ISO go to at least 800. I've gotten decent deep woods in the rain photos at 1600 ISO, hand held.

12-31-2011, 12:02 PM	#1
telly0050 Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 233	Low Light Landscape without Tripod - boost ISO or Bigger aperture? In low light landscape situation (not extreme low light, but certainly can't maintain a safe shutter with f8+iso200), would you guys rather boost the ISO or use bigger aperture? Everyone knows that lenses usually have the best DOF level and sharpness from f8-f13. But in some situation where you can't use f8 + iso200 for safe shutter, would you rather boost the iso to 800-1600, or lower the aperture to f4? Boosting the ISO gives a overall better DOF, while lowering aperture gives cleaner photo quality with less noise. Because some camera has very good noise control (such as the k-x and k-5), so I would like to hear your opinion on this. Thanks.

12-31-2011, 06:49 PM	#6
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by telly0050 thanks guys for your input. never know focal length has this relationship with DOF. gotta experiment with it next time Here are the basic rules of DOF: For thicker DOF, use a shorter focal length and/or tighter aperture and/or further camera-subject distance For thinner DOF, use a longer focal length and/or wider aperture and/or closer camera-subject distance For sharpest pictures, use a tripod, mirror-lock-up, a remote; set f/8-f/11, lowest ISO, NR off, RAW. For least distortion, use a lens in the 28-35mm range. For a little acceptable edge stretching, use a 24mm lens. If rectilinear distortion doesn't matter, then use anything. Most landscapes don't move around much except in seismic zones so AF isn't mandatory. My favorite 'scape lenses are all old MF primes of 21-24-28-35mm. With my 21mm at f/11 and hyperfocused to 2m, the DOF is 1m to infinity. It's great for vertical 'scapes.

01-01-2012, 07:09 AM	#8
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by RioRico Here are the basic rules of DOF: For thicker DOF, use a shorter focal length and/or tighter aperture and/or further camera-subject distance For thinner DOF, use a longer focal length and/or wider aperture and/or closer camera-subject distance It's easier to replace all the other things beside aperture with magnification So DOF depends on aperture and magnification, but that's still not the whole story though but comes close enough. For the OP, look at hyperfocal focus distance, often with f/4 you can get a huge DOF if you place it correctly. IF you use wide lenses, 24mm and lower you can often get everything in focus from several meters to the horizon with f/4, it's almost never needed to go down to f/16 or worst f/22.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-x vs. K-5 Low light, High ISO Rating	olivemike	Pentax DSLR Discussion	38	06-16-2012 01:02 AM
K-5 low light/High ISO samples	johnmflores	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	21	04-19-2011 05:03 PM
K5 High ISO low light images please	Tommot1965	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	32	11-12-2010 05:29 PM
Help with KX, Low Light, and High ISO	dmfw	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	7	04-01-2010 11:38 PM
Pentax K-x Shutter Speed, ISO, Low Light..	jbarcus81	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	02-14-2010 07:26 AM

12-31-2011, 12:16 PM	#2
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Primarily depends on whether you have any foreground in the picture that requires the depth of field. For example with a 50mm lens f/8 means everything from 50' to infinity is in focus. Change to f/4 and you get everything from 100' to infinity is in focus. So is there anything closer than 100'? If not then f/4 is just fine. If you have foreground elements, then you will need to include those in the depth of focus range and will likely have to stop down to do so. With the 50mm lens in the example I would not want to shoot hand held at anything less than 1/100 second. That is going to be hard to achieve even at f/4 in "low light" whatever that is exactly. Shorter lenses will yield more depth of focus and can be used at slower speeds. Longer lenses the reverse. And you need to consider the lens itself, is it sharp enough at f/4 or do you need to stop down to get it sharp enough? If you need to stop down for sharpness then the ISO must go up. But let me also state that I would not be shooting a landscape (low light or not) without a tripod, mirror lock up and remote shutter release.

12-31-2011, 01:56 PM	#3
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	jatrax is right. If you want a sharp 'scape, use a tripod or sandbag or other means of immobilizing the camera.. If you don't need sharpness, then anything goes. I can shoot a nice 'scape at f/44, ISO 6400, handheld at 1/80 second. Sure, it'll have a ton of noise and diffraction fuzziness, but so what?

12-31-2011, 02:16 PM	#4
Macario Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Hoek van Holland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,393	Originally posted by telly0050 In low light landscape situation (not extreme low light, but certainly can't maintain a safe shutter with f8+iso200), would you guys rather boost the ISO or use bigger aperture? Everyone knows that lenses usually have the best DOF level and sharpness from f8-f13. But in some situation where you can't use f8 + iso200 for safe shutter, would you rather boost the iso to 800-1600, or lower the aperture to f4? Boosting the ISO gives a overall better DOF, while lowering aperture gives cleaner photo quality with less noise. Because some camera has very good noise control (such as the k-x and k-5), so I would like to hear your opinion on this. Thanks. actually what you are saying is wrong. Lenses do not have a best DOF. DOF is your creativity and nothing else. Sharpness you are right about, most lenses excell around f8, but with many you will not really see a difference if you will go lower. So the question is just about what you want, a shallowere DOF or more noise, both will be nice when used correctly

12-31-2011, 02:57 PM	#5
telly0050 Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 233 Original Poster	thanks guys for your input. never know focal length has this relationship with DOF. gotta experiment with it next time

12-31-2011, 11:46 PM	#7
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	Another possibility would be to use continuous shooting: get 10 noisy shots (or underexposed, as you want), and align then average (or, respectively, add) them... This way you keep your aperture, and gain several ISO on the final image.

01-01-2012, 09:16 PM	#9
mysticcowboy Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: port townsend, wa Photos: Albums Posts: 968	It really depends on your camera. 2 years ago, I'd say go for bigger aperture. Now, my K-5 has the same dynamic range at 800 ISO as my K20D does at 100 ISO. There's no visible noise in 12x18 prints at 800 ISO. The Kr is almost as good. My 17-50 lens has maximum sharpness at f5.6 - f8. I'd shoot as short a focal length as possible, with as high a shutter speed as possible for the sharpest exposure at f4-5.6 and let my ISO go to at least 800. I've gotten decent deep woods in the rain photos at 1600 ISO, hand held.