The more I read the more I refine my needs

[JBW]

Okay one and all let me try this idea out on you: I seem to always want to shoot sans flash. From what I am reading large pixels on a large sensor are best for low light work.

In my understanding this means a pixel count in the 6 to 10 mega pixel range. Sony has their contender but it is a $2000 camera.

Does anyone know of a 'heritage' Sony with a large sensor and large pixels? It would also be nice if I could use my Tamron 90mm A-mount lens with it.

Brian

[Manfred M]

Brian - you are missing the second half of the story for pixel size for sensors. Larger pixels are more sensitive than smaller ones FOR THE SAME GENERATION OF SENSORS. That argument does NOT hold across different generations of sensors.

Get an older generation camera with a larger sensor, it will likely not be as sensitive as smaller, current ones. Your current sensor will perform better than a larger diameter pixel sensor from previous generations of cameras.

[JBW]

Brian - you are missing the second half of the story for pixel size for sensors. Larger pixels are more sensitive than smaller ones FOR THE SAME GENERATION OF SENSORS. That argument does NOT hold across different generations of sensors.

Get an older generation camera with a larger sensor, it will likely not be as sensitive as smaller, current ones. Your current sensor will perform better than a larger diameter pixel sensor from previous generations of cameras.

Which is why I always come here. Seems if I go large pixel size low pixel count i will be looking at 2 to 3T for a new Sony.

[Shadowman]

Brian,

Sans flash, what is the goal there; are you also wanting to do this without a strobe/continuous lighting?

[JBW]

Brian,

Sans flash, what is the goal there; are you also wanting to do this without a strobe/continuous lighting?

Exactly. My record is an 18 second robber fly shot.

I love the richness of detail and subtleties of colors that a long exposure shot gets me.

The Sony Alpha a58 doesn't allow me to really up the ISO. After 400 or so the noise level goes up and the detail goes down.

I'm looking for a (preferably) Sony that will allow me to take low light long exposure shots to capture as much detail and sharpness as possible.

I say Sony because I enjoy Capture One Sony Pro. Admittedly if I was to buy another brand I could go with Capture One Pro but it is 6x as expensive. Don't like to sound like a Scrooge but cost does count.
Brian

[Shadowman]

Exactly. My record is an 18 second robber fly shot.

I love the richness of detail and subtleties of colors that a long exposure shot gets me.

The Sony Alpha a58 doesn't allow me to really up the ISO. After 400 or so the noise level goes up and the detail goes down.

I'm looking for a (preferably) Sony that will allow me to take low light long exposure shots to capture as much detail and sharpness as possible.

I say Sony because I enjoy Capture One Sony Pro. Admittedly if I was to buy another brand I could go with Capture One Pro but it is 6x as expensive. Don't like to sound like a Scrooge but cost does count.
Brian

Here's the 2017 list of best cameras for lowlight shooting, there is a Sony model included and I was surprised to see the Nikon D3300 made it also. One thing I will say is even though high ISO quality is listed as one criteria; we as photographers have to take that with a grain of salt. I've seen comparative images from some of the top performers (D500, D810, and D850) and after a specific ISO range (51200) all three cameras performed the same and I wouldn't call any of the three a winner. There is mention of sensor size and 4 of the 5 were crop sensors.

https://www.tufitech.com/cameras/bes...t-photography/

[JBW]

I'm off to the link now Interesting.

[proseak]

For low light long exposure shots, have you tried dark-frame subtraction? Your camera may have this built in - something like long exposure noise reduction.

[Manfred M]

I love the richness of detail and subtleties of colors that a long exposure shot gets me.

Sorry Brian - that is not how digital sensors work. If you are looking for richness, make sure that your edits have a wide range of values from the darkest to the lightest tones. The length of exposure is totally irrelevant.

[JBW]

Sorry Brian - that is not how digital sensors work. If you are looking for richness, make sure that your edits have a wide range of values from the darkest to the lightest tones. The length of exposure is totally irrelevant.

As I understand it digital sensors collect photons. The longer your shutter is open the more photons the sensor collects.

More photons = more information = more details and richness.

If this is not true then just about every astrophotographer is wasting a lot of time taking long exposure shots.

Of course the longer the exposure the greater the chance of a wide range of values which is also needed.

[JBW]

I just got a reply from B&H and their 'expert'(?) believes that in the Sony translucent mirror series the a68 would work best for my niche.

[JBW]

For low light long exposure shots, have you tried dark-frame subtraction? Your camera may have this built in - something like long exposure noise reduction.

I do have and use long exposure noise reduction

[Manfred M]

As I understand it digital sensors collect photons. The longer your shutter is open the more photons the sensor collects.

More photons = more information = more details and richness.

If this is not true then just about every astrophotographer is wasting a lot of time taking long exposure shots.

Of course the longer the exposure the greater the chance of a wide range of values which is also needed.

I think you are missing something really basic here Brian.

Look at a sensor pixel as a bucket and one is trying to fill that bucket with photons. In astrophotography, the you are filling the bucket from a slowly dripping tap. In normal daylight photography, you are using a fire hose to fill the bucket. Both processes the bucket will eventually fill; but the difference is the speed at which it happens. Long exposure = low number of photons; short exposure = large number of photons.

[JBW]

I think you are missing something really basic here Brian.

Look at a sensor pixel as a bucket and one is trying to fill that bucket with photons. In astrophotography, the you are filling the bucket from a slowly dripping tap. In normal daylight photography, you are using a fire hose to fill the bucket. Both processes the bucket will eventually fill; but the difference is the speed at which it happens. Long exposure = low number of photons; short exposure = large number of photons.

I think you have this backwards ' Long exposure = low number of photons; short exposure = large number of photons.' 20 second exposure equals fewer photons 1/4000 exposure equals more Photons?

And please to remember I'm talking about shooting in low light. Ie heavy shade, dusk.

[Manfred M]

Not backwards at all; perhaps not stated clearly enough. Think of the bucket analogy.

When there are few photons falling into the "bucket" will take a long time to fill. If there are many photons, the "bucket" will fill more quickly. The number of photons that "fill the bucket" will be identical, so there would be no difference in "richness" as you put it. Long exposure has no impact over short exposure in the way you are looking at the situation. The quality of the light is what gives you those beautiful colours and that is different than the amount of light.

[JBW]

Not backwards at all; perhaps not stated clearly enough. Think of the bucket analogy.

When there are few photons falling into the "bucket" will take a long time to fill. If there are many photons, the "bucket" will fill more quickly. The number of photons that "fill the bucket" will be identical, so there would be no difference in "richness" as you put it. Long exposure has no impact over short exposure in the way you are looking at the situation. The quality of the light is what gives you those beautiful colours and that is different than the amount of light.

I'm going to go and think on this.

[revi]

Don't forget that there's also a big difference (usually) in the quality/character of the light:
the light in those situations is very diffuse, while flash has at least some directionality
(even with a big diffusor you'll have most of the light coming from one side)

This will have a big effect on the image. In particular, you'll probably have less dynamic range
within the scene (no hot spots, for starters), allowing you to "pull the tones apart" more.

Another difference will be the colour of the light (in shadow much bluer/colder than flash) which may have an
effect on colour differentiation

[JBW]

Don't forget that there's also a big difference (usually) in the quality/character of the light:
the light in those situations is very diffuse, while flash has at least some directionality
(even with a big diffusor you'll have most of the light coming from one side)

This will have a big effect on the image. In particular, you'll probably have less dynamic range
within the scene (no hot spots, for starters), allowing you to "pull the tones apart" more.

Another difference will be the colour of the light (in shadow much bluer/colder than flash) which may have an
effect on colour differentiation

absolutely. And I do prefer natural light. Which is why I'm looking for a (Sony) camera that works well in low light and highish ISO.

[Manfred M]

absolutely. And I do prefer natural light. Which is why I'm looking for a (Sony) camera that works well in low light and highish ISO.

The best place for that type of information is the DxO Mark website, where performance characteristics of different cameras and sensors are available. The website even has the ability to do a side-by-side comparison of different camera models.

The bad news for you, from a Sony perspective is that the highest scoring cameras are their full-frame A7R models (all three) and some of the fixed lens Sony Cybershot cameras. The crop frame sensor cameras are further down the list.

https://www.dxomark.com/category/camera-reviews/

[JBW]

The best place for that type of information is the DxO Mark website, where performance characteristics of different cameras and sensors are available. The website even has the ability to do a side-by-side comparison of different camera models.

The bad news for you, from a Sony perspective is that the highest scoring cameras are their full-frame A7R models (all three) and some of the fixed lens Sony Cybershot cameras. The crop frame sensor cameras are further down the list.

https://www.dxomark.com/category/camera-reviews/

B&H recommends the a68. I'll go see where that rates