Storm Photography Exposure Questions

[Bob Hartig]

Having gotten some good recommendations for digital SLRs in my price range ($500-$600), I've been researching both the Canon Rebel XTi and the Olympus Evolt E-510. Both have some very strong points, and both have certain weaknesses. Compared to other cameras for this price point, these two are easily out front. As could be expected, sales pros at different reputable camera stores have given me different opinions.

I haven't purchased a camera before, though I understand the essentials and have learned quite a bit. What appears to be the deciding point is the noise factor in storm conditions.

The E-510 looks like a wonderful camera and offers a great starter kit, with not just one, but two highly rated lenses. Unfortunately, noise reportedly becomes a concern at 600 ISO and above. Frankly, I've seen some great night-time and low-light photo samples taken with this camera. But I have no idea how much they've been photoshopped, and I don't know whether the lenses used were starter lenses or priced-beyond-my-means after-market lenses.

The Rebel XTi is clearly highly respected and widely use by members of this forum, and noise doesn't present the same concern as with the E-510. However, the kit lens, while an upgrade from its predecessor, is clearly not of the same caliber as the Olympus kit lenses. And since I don't have a lot of money, I'm going to have to live for a while with the lens(es) that comes with whichever camera I purchase.

With all that said, I'd really appreciate input on the following questions. I understand that lighting conditions can vary, so take these questions to mean "in general."

• What is the range of ISO you typically use in storm conditions? Can you comfortably go as low as 100 with a lens aperture that goes no lower than 3.5?
• Do you find that lighting conditions often require you to shoot at 600 ISO or above?
• Would you consider most afternoon/evening storm conditions to be low-light photography, or is the ambient light normally sufficient enough that you'd place storms more in the category of daylight landscape photography?
• What the heck is the threshold for "low light," anyway? Night time, or a darkened room as in a club or a rock concert?
• Canon Rebel XTi users: Have you been happy with the results you've gotten using the 18-55 S kit lens?
• Olympus Evolt E-510 users: Has noise been a serious factor for you in storm photography overall?

Thanks for any, um, light you can shed on this issue for me.

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

What is the range of ISO you typically use in storm conditions? Can you comfortably go as low as 100 with a lens aperture that goes no lower than 3.5?

Depends what I'm shooting. For lightning, low ISO, tripod, and long exposure is the norm. For hand-held shots (just need to make the capture) in low light, low noise at ISO1600/800 and a bright lens (f/2.8) is a great benefit. I routinely shoot at ISO400, and am not afraid to at 800 or 1600 with my 20D. As an example, almost all of these photos are shot at ISO 800/1800. I haven't even processed them for noise, so I could still improve quality to some extent. http://people.aero.und.edu/~kennedya/SNOWFLAKES/

Do you find that lighting conditions often require you to shoot at 600 ISO or above?

If i'm just trying to get a shot (not worried about DOF, lens sharpness,etc.) I typically change f-stop before ISO. Of course if I really want a nice structure shot, I'll tripod it so I can shoot at a lower shutter speed (say 1/15). Keep in mind if you're near fast moving clouds, these will blur at longer shutter speeds. Tripod/IS won't save you.

Would you consider most afternoon/evening storm conditions to be low-light photography, or is the ambient light normally sufficient enough that you'd place storms more in the category of daylight landscape photography?

Depends where you are in the storm. If you play farther out, you can often be in great light conditions until the sun starts setting. If you play near the bear's cage, then extinction of light is quite prevalent... low light performance is a must in many situations.

What the heck is the threshold for "low light," anyway? Night time, or a darkened room as in a club or a rock concert?

I'd say it depends on the equipment you are using. At what point do you see a degradation in photo quality due to the light? For P&S cameras, low light is anything indoor or near dusk. For DSLRs with decent lenses, shooting indoor isn't a problem in many cases or near sunset/sunrise.

Canon Rebel XTi users: Have you been happy with the results you've gotten using the 18-55 S kit lens?

I know some will disagree, but in my opinion, the kit lens is an absolute piece of crap that doesn't perform well in low light conditions. I recently bought the body only kit for my wife and then purchased the replacement kit lens, the 18-55mm IS. Image quality is much better, AND it has image stabilization which helps for low light. Build quality is obviously much lower than other Canon lens, but it is affordable ($170). I say this time and time again... invest as much $$$ in the lenses as the body if you truly want to get the most out of your camera. Body prices drop like cars, however, good glass often maintains its value for many years.

Olympus Evolt E-510 users: Has noise been a serious factor for you in storm photography overall?

Can't help ya there : )

 

[Bob Hartig]

Thanks much for your detailed input, Aaron. It's very helpful!

 

[Chris Fleharty]

What is the range of ISO you typically use in storm conditions?

I always shoot my lowest ISO... Always... On my Canon D30 (not 30D) lowest ISO is 100 on my Pentax it's 200. If I could, I would shoot 50. The reason I say that is I aways had my tripod with me and always got it out. Usually I didn't have to use it but once in a blue moon... For lighting shots I didn't usually use a tripod because the Lightning was the shutter speed anyways.

Can you comfortably go as low as 100 with a lens aperture that goes no lower than 3.5?

My lowest aperture was 3.5 for most of my storms that I chased and never had any problems with it.

Do you find that lighting conditions often require you to shoot at 600 ISO or above?

Never... I hate dealing with the noise (since just the slightest amount bugs the crap out of me...) I have shot long enough to compensate in low light. What I mean by that is, I can usually get rather sharp pictures down to about .4 of a sec shudder speeds. I forced myself to learn how to hold it steady long enough to get sharp pictures. Granted I'm still working on that while I have 70mph winds blowing me around but I would probably get my tripod out for that anyways.

Would you consider most afternoon/evening storm conditions to be low-light photography, or is the ambient light normally sufficient enough that you'd place storms more in the category of daylight landscape photography?

I consider anything to be normal lighting conditions if the shudder speed is higher than 1/125th of a sec at f/3.5 and ISO at 100

What the heck is the threshold for "low light," anyway? Night time, or a darkened room as in a club or a rock concert?

Not sure about that.

Canon Rebel XTi users: Have you been happy with the results you've gotten using the 18-55 S kit lens?

Can't answer that.

Olympus Evolt E-510 users: Has noise been a serious factor for you in storm photography overall?

or this...

I realize this is only my opinion so take it or leave it but hopefully will help you discide what to get.

 

[Dustin Wilcox]

• Canon Rebel XTi users: Have you been happy with the results you've gotten using the 18-55 S kit lens?

No.... After just using the soft kit lens last year due to limited funds, I just recently upgraded to the slightly better Sigma 17-70mm, though I will probably rent something even better, probably the Canon 10-22mm for at least May and maybe even parts of April and June. Honestly if your going to buy an SLR camera and just use the "kit" lens, your best of going with Non SLR IMO. I have taken photos with the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H9 and in all honesty I thought it was just as good as the XTi with kit lens, not to mention it already has a lens that covers a large range (the XTi and Kit lens only gets you to 55mm) plus these non-SLR cameras have full manual mode and most everything else a low end SLR does, except the ability to change lenses. So IMO if your going to just permanently go with an SLR and a "kit lens" your best of going non-SLR, and getting a camera that covers a wider range at a cheaper price. If you see your self wanting to upgrade lens quality in the future, then the SLR is probably the best choice, and most would recommend the Canon over the Olympus due to the quality and quantity of glass available for Canons.

 

[Bob Hartig]

No.... After just using the soft kit lens last year due to limited funds, I just recently upgraded to the slightly better Sigma 17-70mm, though I will probably rent something even better, probably the Canon 10-22mm for at least May and maybe even parts of April and June...most would recommend the Canon over the Olympus due to the quality and quantity of glass available for Canons.

Thanks for the input, Dustin. I've been coming to the conclusion that I'd be best off buying just the Canon camera body and purchasing a separate lens. Interestingly, the reviews I've read on the Rebel XTi suggest that the kit comes with the newer 18-55mm lens, which includes stabilization. The new model is supposed to be a definite improvement on the older kit lens. But in practice, the kit I'm finding at the retailers has the older lens, and you're the second person who thinks it's pretty junky. I'll look into the Sigma, and I also like your suggestion of renting. I may look into a used/refurb lens as well.

Re the Olympus, the quality and selection of glass seems to be excellent. But most of the lenses are quite pricey--moreso than Canon lenses, I think. Plus, I can't get past the noise factor in low light. With all the positive feedback I'm getting on the XTi, the Canon seems to be the way to go.

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

Rebel XTi suggest that the kit comes with the newer 18-55mm lens, which includes stabilization.

Supposedly, but like you found, every kit I saw included the old lens... hence why I bought the IS lens separately. If you are interested in any sort of shots in particular, let me know. I have the XTi and EFS 18-55 IS. I'd be happy to take some shots indoors at various settings if you want to see what it's capable of.

But most of the lenses are quite pricey--moreso than Canon lenses, I think.

Not familiar with their pricing, but expect to pay ~$400+ for a decent Canon zoom. Of course there are a wide variety of lower priced prime lenses (single focus length) for a few hundred or less. A 50mm f/1.8 can be had for sub $100 and is a great deal. Used L lenses can also be found sometimes as a good bargain. I bought a used 200 f/2.8 and 300 f/4 L. I ended up selling them for a net profit a few years later, and used that to purchase my 70-200.

 

[Dustin Wilcox]

I'll look into the Sigma, and I also like your suggestion of renting. I may look into a used/refurb lens as well.

There is a canon forum that has a TON of lenses and even bodies constantly changing hands, I just seen a XTi body for $400 obo, and I just bought my Sigma 17-70mm (Practically New and Proven Sharp) Shipped and Insured for $220, so if you do some research, you could probably find a decent used body and quality lens for $600 or so... Just watch the market, there really is an insane amount of used stuff that gets bought and sold here. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=14

 

[Jayson Prentice]

The Sigma 17-70 I think is a large upgrade from the previous kit lens and should still be a good ways better than the new IS kit lens that Canon has. I just read a review on the new IS kit lens from Canon and it is great increase from the previous one, however it still isn't quite the quality of some other lenses in that same range.

What type of lens you want will vary with what you are going to do with it. If it is going to be just storms and landscapes than a zoom lens you probably don't need. At least you don't need anything expensive, just something that'll do. I've started with landscapes so I was doing wide angle lenses, but then also wanted to do some nature and sports so I picked up a fairly cheap, but nice zoom. Now that I'm doing portraits I've picked up primes which are great for that purpose.

 

[Bob Hartig]

Thanks!

To all of you who have responded--thank you very much for your information, opinions, and advice. It's exactly what I was looking for. And Dustin, thanks for the link--very helpful.

The Sigma lens looks like a great deal. I've read a couple reviews and am impressed. I can get a good, low price on the XTi body at a local retailer who will beat, or at least match, any online price from a reputable supplier such as Circuit City or B&W. Then it looks like a used lens will be the ticket.

Again, I really appreciate everyone's helpfulness, which in some instances has been quite detailed. This is the stuff that makes Stormtrack a great forum community. Kudos to you all!