Best camera+flash combo for night time shots

[MGreen]

Can you guys please sum up or give your opinions on what you think the best camera and flash combination is for around £400-£500 (I don't mind second hand / refurbished).

 

I go to lots of parties and gatherings, all outside or in houses with low lighting,  and need a way to capture these events. I also like taking portraits of my friends but my setup atm needs a needed upgrade! 

 

Thanks in advance

[vanished]

You'll want the largest sensor you can get, but also look at how sensitive it is and how much noise there is since that will obviously factor in too.

 

You'll also want lenses that pass as much light as possible - ie, wide aperture (f-stop), and check T-stop as well since f-stop if often (incorrectly) assumed to indicate this but it's sometimes quite a bit off.

 

Finally, watch out when comparing cameras for a low resolution one looking much better than a high res one when both viewed at 100%.  Yes, lower MP cameras tend to do better in low light because of the larger pixels, but you can get that same effect by scaling down a higher-res shot to the MP of the smaller one, so there's no inherent advantage there, since when it comes to going the other way, the high MP camera will shine in bright light but the low MP one will never be able to get sharper.  ie, when comparing detail, scale up the smaller image to match the big one, but when comparing noise, scale down the large one to match the small one.

[AkiraDaarkst]

Nikon and Canon both make fantastic cameras and their speed lights perform very well.

[cc143]

A Canon rebel within your budget should probably do the trick, the 700d would probably be within the budget. A 50mm 1.8 would also help in low light situations and is a great beginner portrait lens. 

 

Then look on amazon for a Yongnuo flash. Their more recent stuff is very good, very close quality wise to Canon's stuff, at much lower prices, which is great for most amateurs. You also have the ability to go for off camera setups much easier in the future. 

 

On the Nikon side, probably a d3300 with a 35 or 50mm 1.8. I'm not sure about 3rd party flashes for Nikon though. 

[thekillergazebo]

I have two Yongnuo flashes I think mine are the version 4 ones. I also got their flash trigger. I think for all of it I spend $200. You can also get some cheap stands and umbrellas too. I think $15 for stand and $10 for umbrella south head.

 

as for Camera any one that has a hot shoe. I have an apsc Camera and use flashes in the dark all the time. It all depends on the look you want. But you can’t go wrong with a 35 or 50 f1.8. But remember you don’t always need 1.8. I  use a 18-105 f4 90% of the time for all my shoots.

[cc143]

Umbrellas stands etc. aren't always easy to setup in events and that sort of situation, but especially if you are going to be outdoors, you will need some sort of way to diffuse the light, since you can't shoot it directly onto the subject, its too harsh that way. You may have to experiment with different diffusing apparatuses, There's stuff that attaches to your flash and bends to direct light etc. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

52 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Umbrellas stands etc. aren't always easy to setup in events and that sort of situation, but especially if you are going to be outdoors, you will need some sort of way to diffuse the light, since you can't shoot it directly onto the subject, its too harsh that way. You may have to experiment with different diffusing apparatuses, There's stuff that attaches to your flash and bends to direct light etc. 

Even direct light from a speed light can be ok, IF you know how.  But something like a Gary Fong dome thingy can be very useful.  Or learn how to bounce the flash from a speed light off ceilings or walls.

[cc143]

Just now, AkiraDaarkst said:

Even direct light from a speed light can be ok, IF you know how.  But something like a Gary Fong dome thingy can be very useful.  Or learn how to bounce the flash from a speed light off ceilings or walls.

I find it to be way too harsh, and it generates a fill flash look I don't really like, it takes away from the image in some respects, which is why I would always either diffuse or bounse of the ceiling depending on the venue, but when shooting outdoors events that will prove to be an issue. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

7 minutes ago, cc143 said:

I find it to be way too harsh, and it generates a fill flash look I don't really like, it takes away from the image in some respects, which is why I would always either diffuse or bounse of the ceiling depending on the venue, but when shooting outdoors events that will prove to be an issue. 

Yeah but direct flash with manual mode and high speed sync can produce fantastic shots that isolate foreground and background.  As I said, learn to use the flash.  And judge how you want to expose instead of relying on automatic ttl.

[.spider.]

10 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Nikon and Canon both make fantastic cameras and their speed lights perform very well.

But they are not equally good for low light scenarios because Nikon offers the far more advanced sensors.

[cc143]

39 minutes ago, .spider. said:

But they are not equally good for low light scenarios because Nikon offers the far more advanced sensors.

That was true 10 years ago, today there might be an extra stop of useable dynamic range when comparing the d5 with the 1dx2 (and if I'm not mistaken, the 1dx2 takes it because of its dual image processors). And to be honest, how much DR do you really need? Your camera can practically see in the dark a couple of stops before you max out. Also, the assertion that Nikon offer "far more advanced sensors" is not substantiable. They offer higher resolution sensors, I will concede that, but which is technically more advanced will take a lot more than 2 people arguing in a forum to determine.  

 

Even accepting it, the sensor is not what is primarily important low light performance, but rather the image processor. sure, a better sensor will allow you a higher range of ISO, but the image processor is more important in determining the noise level and image quality at each iso stop. 

 

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. I've shot events professionally and you need to use a flash, unless there is lighting you can use, like in concerts or in some clubs which spend more than £100 on their lighting setup. therefore, you are within an ISO range easily manageable by any sensor produced in the past decade, thus making the need for the extremes of dynamic range moot. 

 

OP, just get whatever you are more comfortable with and can afford, along with a cheap wide aperture lens,like a nifty fifty and a 3rd party speedlite, and spend an hour looking through youtube for flash tutorials, everything else you will research, understand and figure out by using it. 

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. I've shot events professionally and you need to use a flash, unless there is lighting you can use, like in concerts or in some clubs which spend more than £100 on their lighting setup. therefore, you are within an ISO range easily manageable by any sensor produced in the past decade, thus making the need for the extremes of dynamic range moot. 

 

OP, just get whatever you are more comfortable with and can afford, along with a cheap wide aperture lens,like a nifty fifty and a 3rd party speedlite, and spend an hour looking through youtube for flash tutorials, everything else you will research, understand and figure out by using it. 

Very true, if you know how to use the tool properly you can get the necessary results.

 

On a side note, I do see a lot of beginners or novices being intimidated when it comes to using a flash unit.  I myself hesitated to use them in the beginning and it's really hard to judge the results on the LCD screen of the camera's back.  But I shot more with speedlights, using both TTL auto modes and manually adjusting shutter speeds, aperture and even the power output of the flash units and waited to see the results on the computer before making any judgements.  When shooting using speedlights or studio strobes:

1. Shoot RAW

2. don't determine final results using the LCD on the camera, wait till you get the files on the computer (because things may likely look worse than they are if you view the files on the camera's LCD screen which has limited capabilities compared to a proper computer screen)

 

An example of a photo I took using direct flash (no bounce, no diffuser, no reflector) and manually choosing the power output of the flash and manual camera settings. The skin doesn't look harsh at all.

 

This video is for the OP, there are more videos available online.

 

@OP

The only concern is this, even 500 GBP I think may be a bit limited budget to get a good camera + flash unit (even off-brand) + some decent lens (e.g. 50 1.8).

21 hours ago, MGreen said:

for around £400-£500

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

 

 

Oh and of course one can always spend money and buy a technologically superior camera, but if one doesn’t know how to use it properly the results will be very very inferior.

[cc143]

24 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

@OP

The only concern is this, even 500 GBP I think may be a bit limited budget to get a good camera + flash unit (even off-brand) + some decent lens (e.g. 50 1.8).

 

Its not impossible: 

Used 700d~£300

http://www.camerajungle.co.uk/products/61886/canon-eos-700d-digital-slr-camera-body

Gets the job done just fine, has some creature comforts, although tbh, I'd personally prefer something like a 750d, but still pretty good considering the budget. 

 

New EF 50mm f/1.8 for £106:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-1-8-STM-Lens/dp/B00XKSBMQA/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1509652142&sr=1-1&keywords=ef+50mm+f%2F1.8

Great little lens, good for events etc., small, quiet, quick to focus and much sharper than I would expect, well built now frankly. Not my cup of tea, but amazing for any beginner. 

 

Yongnuo YN600-RT for £94:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/YN600EX-RT-Wireless-Speedlite-EACHSHOT-Diffuser/dp/B00R29OF2G/ref=sr_1_12?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1509652172&sr=1-12&keywords=yongnuo+flash

Amazing given the price, performance is almost identical from what I can read to the Canon EX600RT(on paper), at a fraction of the price, and from what I hear it meets those specs for most of its users, many of which I heard from are actual pros. Also allows you to grow into a nice wireless flash system. 

 

That actually worked out much better than I thought price wise! 

 

Given the gear I chose, and the fact that I've only researched for 5 minutes, I think this could even be driven down a bit. 

 

For future expansion I would personally really like a more general purpose lens, better endowed on the wider end, since frankly 50mm (35mm equiv. of 80mm) is quite tele for my taste, although pretty perfect for portraiture. I would therefore look at a used 17-50mm f/2.8 from Sigma or Tamron, which is a great walkaround/general-purpose zoom range. 

 

But for the time being, the above setup is far more than most beginners will outgrow that quickly. 

[.spider.]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

That was true 10 years ago, today there might be an extra stop of useable dynamic range when comparing the d5 with the 1dx2 (and if I'm not mistaken, the 1dx2 takes it because of its dual image processors).

 

Actually it is no more true than ever since Canon is not really advancing in sensor technology.

 

Just compare the 80D to an entry level Canon https://www.dpreview.com/news/7168986570/canon-shows-dynamism-eos-80d-breaks-new-ground-for-canon-low-iso-dr

 

 

[.spider.]

47 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

 

An example of a photo I took using direct flash (no bounce, no diffuser, no reflector) and manually choosing the power output of the flash and manual camera settings. The skin doesn't look harsh at all.

 

 

I guess the image would loose its point and shoot snap shot character if it were an available light shot. 

[cc143]

1 minute ago, .spider. said:

Actually it is no more true than ever since Canon is not really advancing in sensor technology.

 

Just compare the 80D to an entry level Canon https://www.dpreview.com/news/7168986570/canon-shows-dynamism-eos-80d-breaks-new-ground-for-canon-low-iso-dr

 

 

The article you linked clearly states that there is significant difference between the 80d and 70d in terms of noise added to the image, and that is obvious on the graphic in the 1st page. Also, if you were to analyse the graphics and look logical post processing increases, like +3EV rather than 5 or 6, which is waaay too much, you'd see the Canon holds better than the nikon, and entry level nikon dslrs, like the d3400 retain much less detail in shadows at a lower iso (as  you can see in the charts linked). 

 

Do you mean to tell me that you have ever pulled out 5-6 EV of detail out of your shadows? At that point I just move on to the next RAW file. What you are talking about is a technical stunt that has no real life application! I would take better iso performance, in a reasonable range, and detail retention in a reasonable post processing range than in the extremes (sacrificing the reasonable ranges one will actually use!) any day.  

 

Analyse reasonable ISO ranges i.e. ISO 100-ISO6400, which is 7 stops, with reasonable exposure adjustments in post, like +/- 3EV instead of +/- 6EV and you will find Canon's noise pattern and performance to be on par if not better (definitely in lower ranges) than other brands. it is after ISO12800 that Canon falls apart, admittedly, but, who the hell shoots that high? 

 

I do agree, the sensor design might change, but the basic architecture remains the same. The article you linked clearly states a dramatic difference (80d vs 70d) is there because of the addition of an on chip ADC design. 

 

Also, and this is something I have never seen mentioned in any publication, but is obvious to any Canon user who tries to edit other brand RAW files, highlight detail retention is far superior in Canon RAW files, meaning that a shooter can make the required adjustments with relatively more ease, without underexposing the hell out of an image, even though, you can comfortably play with +/- 2.5 EV stops in post, even 3.5 if you have a high tolerance to noise. The actual noise pattern is widely praised for Canon cameras as well, for being more subtle than for many other brands. It makes a very big difference in shooting landscapes, and in the way you use your camera doing so. 

 

And this conversation is anyway moot as far as OP is concerned because the technology in even a 5 year old camera is more than enough for their needs. You could even use 10 year old technology, my EOS 50d for instance, and it would cover you just fine, Because, ISO 3200 at 16mp is more than enough for 85% of situations, especially if you add speedlites to the mix. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

 

<removed> There are tons of good photographers, both amateur and pros, who shoot Canon every day and produce fantastic photos just as well (if not better) as Fuji, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, etc. shooters.

Edited November 2, 2017 by SansVarnic

[cc143]

1 hour ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

<removed>  There are tons of good photographers, both amateur and pros, who shoot Canon every day and produce fantastic photos just as well (if not better) as Fuji, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, etc. shooters.

The point was valid to some extent, which is why I replied to it, although not well researched and reveals a lack of understanding of how a digital camera works, not that I'm an expert on the issue obviously. 

 

The takeaway is, there are some things that each manufacturer does better than the others, and it is normal for people to have preferences in what they shoot. Whatever it is, if the result is pleasing to you and your target audience if you have one, and you enjoy the process, what colour your camera strap is is irrelevant! 

 

Yes, if you objectively analyse every camera on the market you will probably find the objectively best one on paper, but that is irrelevant, especially since the difference will probably be minute anyway.

Edited November 2, 2017 by SansVarnic

[.spider.]

31 minutes ago, cc143 said:

The article you linked clearly states that there is significant difference between the 80d and 70d in terms of noise added to the image, and that is obvious on the graphic in the 1st page.

The 80D is not within the OPs budget every other Canon DSLR performs worse

 

Quote

Also, if you were to analyse the graphics and look logical post processing increases, like +3EV rather than 5 or 6, which is waaay too much, you'd see the Canon holds better than the nikon, and entry level nikon dslrs, like the d3400 retain much less detail in shadows at a lower iso (as  you can see in the charts linked). 

I do not think we are seeing the same images.

 

Quote

Do you mean to tell me that you have ever pulled out 5-6 EV of detail out of your shadows?

No sadly not. 2 EV at max since im mainly using Canon, but some more headroom is always useful. 

 

Quote

Analyse reasonable ISO ranges i.e. ISO 100-ISO6400, which is 7 stops, with reasonable exposure adjustments in post, like +/- 3EV instead of +/- 6EV and you will find Canon's noise pattern and performance to be on par if not better (definitely in lower ranges) than other brands. it is after ISO12800 that Canon falls apart, admittedly, but, who the hell shoots that high? 

Actually it is the other way around, Canon is worse at low iso. Because the longer signal path is adding additional noise to low iso.

 

Quote

Also, and this is something I have never seen mentioned in any publication, but is obvious to any Canon user who tries to edit other brand RAW files, highlight detail retention is far superior in Canon RAW files, meaning that a shooter can make the required adjustments with relatively more ease, without underexposing the hell out of an image, even though, you can comfortably play with +/- 2.5 EV stops in post, even 3.5 if you have a high tolerance to noise. The actual noise pattern is widely praised for Canon cameras as well, for being more subtle than for many other brands. It makes a very big difference in shooting landscapes, and in the way you use your camera doing so. 

Maybe it is nowhere mentioned because it is just your subjective impression. And it does not make sense if you know how signal processing works. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

The point was valid to some extent, which is why I replied to it, although not well researched and reveals a lack of understanding of how a digital camera works, not that I'm an expert on the issue obviously. 

 

The takeaway is, there are some things that each manufacturer does better than the others, and it is normal for people to have preferences in what they shoot. Whatever it is, if the result is pleasing to you and your target audience if you have one, and you enjoy the process, what colour your camera strap is is irrelevant! 

 

Yes, if you objectively analyse every camera on the market you will probably find the objectively best one on paper, but that is irrelevant, especially since the difference will probably be minute anyway.

I still say it’s a waste of time, your time. I’m talking about a guy who posted a photo of some landscape and claimed it was a good photo because some tiny warning sign in the foreground was in focus.

 

I have the URL to the original photo in the Rate the Photo Above You thread saved and everytime I give a lecture or seminar to beginner togs and they ask me for an example of a bad photo, I just give them that link.  Or to this copy which I have saved on my Flickr account.

 

<copyrighted material removed> 

Edited November 3, 2017 by SansVarnic
Removed copyright photo

[.spider.]

1 hour ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I still say it’s a waste of time, your time. I’m talking about a guy who posted a photo of some landscape and claimed it was a good photo because some tiny warning sign in the foreground was in focus.

 

 

Now he is pulling up that photograph again...

How desperate are you?

 

<removed>

Edited November 2, 2017 by SansVarnic

[cc143]

10 minutes ago, .spider. said:

The 80D is not within the OPs budget every other Canon DSLR performs worse

 

I do not think we are seeing the same images.

 

No sadly not. 2 EV at max since im mainly using Canon, but some more headroom is always useful. 

 

Actually it is the other way around, Canon is worse at low iso. Because the longer signal path is adding additional noise to low iso.

 

Maybe it is nowhere mentioned because it is just your subjective impression. And it does not make sense if you know how signal processing works. 

1. Well obviously they perform worse, they are previous iterations, if they performed on par or better, there would be no point in buying and therefore developing or releasing the 80d. 

 

2. Play with the listing tools to say the same images as I am. 

 

3. Well why would you have the reasonable expectation to increase exposure by more than 2 EVs in post? How bad can you expect to mess up before you realise you've underexposed? 1EV sure, I get it, it might even be intentional, but more than 2.5EVs? seriously? how hard is it to expose properly? 

 

4. We really aren't looking at the same images. 

 

I have heard it mentioned by Canon users who have tried other systems and youtubers a lot, and have observed it myself by processing Canon, Sony and Fuji files. Overexposed highlights retain much more detail in Canon Raw files. But yes, I am not a camera reviewer and don't have my own blog, so my observation obviously carries much less value. 

 

I am fairly well educated in electronics and physics, despite my actual academic background, and willing to read, learn and change my mind, please educate me. 

 

As I said, present an actual argument, backed up by fact, and I will agree and concede, snarky replies don't help your case and don't provide evidence to your expertise or intelligence.   

 

@AkiraDaarkst I understand your criticisms, but frankly I also understand they don't need artistic skill to understand the physics behind how the camera works and I am willing to be educated and concede a point if that is warranted, it will not make me sell my Canon gear or change my mind about their artistic ability. Might I add, in my subjective opinion, and assuming you edited the image with the text, the joke works better without the second sentence ;P 

[.spider.]

16 minutes ago, cc143 said:

 

3. Well why would you have the reasonable expectation to increase exposure by more than 2 EVs in post? How bad can you expect to mess up before you realise you've underexposed? 1EV sure, I get it, it might even be intentional, but more than 2.5EVs? seriously? how hard is it to expose properly? 

 

Expose properly? There are scenes which exceed the cameras range e.g. dark shadows these can be easily several EVs too dark.

 

 

Quote

No it isn't, I have heard it mentioned by Canon users who have tried other systems and youtubers a lot, and have observed it myself by processing Canon, Sony and Fuji files. Overexposed highlights retain much more detail in Canon Raw files.

 

I am fairly well educated in electronics and physics, despite my actual academic background, and willing to read, learn and change my mind, please educate me.

It makes no sense. The hard limit is the sensor saturation in the highlights, it is the same for every sensor. 

There are only differences in the shadows (noise floor)

 

It could be that the Canon cameras you have used are slightly underexposing compared to other cameras or the real ISO is a bit lower. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

28 minutes ago, cc143 said:

@AkiraDaarkst I understand your criticisms, but frankly I also understand they don't need artistic skill to understand the physics behind how the camera works and I am willing to be educated and concede a point if that is warranted, it will not make me sell my Canon gear or change my mind about their artistic ability. Might I add, in my subjective opinion, and assuming you edited the image with the text, the joke works better without the second sentence ;P 

 

I'm willing to learn also, but I'm definitely not going to learn anything by paying attention to a troll.

 

Anyway, I've been taking photos for nearly all my life with film, and digital in the past decade or so.  I know there are strengths and weaknesses of each different camera brand.  The heck, I've used Canon before.  I owned the 5D II, I've borrowed a 5D IV from a friend when I needed to, and tomorrow I'm traveling to Turkey for a week where I'll be working with someone who uses Canon cameras and I'm going to be filming with a Sony (I can't wait to see how well, a bit of sarcasm here, the color matches since he wants me to use his Canon as a second camera in a multi-cam filming setup because they don't want to pay for a second Sony).  I'm a Nikonian because my first SLR was a Nikon (my dad's) and I've had bad experience with Canon's fixed pattern noise at high ISOs or low light, BUT the 5D cameras I've used still take great photos.  I have Sony, Nikon, Canon (my lightweight underwater camera is a G16 in a housing), Fuji, and even Panasonic cameras, my cabinet at the studio is packed with camera gear.

 

But for a beginner or someone who can only afford a $500 or so entry level budget type of camera, learning how to be a good photographer is more important than trying to learn every technical detail inside a modern digital camera.  Technical knowledge can come later if the OP realizes he's very interested in the craft.  Stuff like Gear Acquisition Syndrome take root in beginners because people make them worry about the technology rather than the artistry and creativity that's involved in producing a good image.