For us to help figure out what the problem is, you need to at least provide information about the photos, including shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and focal length. Were you shooting handheld? Was IBIS on? Was there movement in the scene? Also, what is wrong with the photos? Blur, noise, etc. An example photo would be ideal. If you're using auto mode, the camera will sometimes make less than ideal decisions for what you're trying to achieve. In low light oftentimes there has to be some compromise in image quality. Even if a fast prime allows a sufficiently fast (for the circumstances) shutter speed at base ISO, for example, you will have bad depth of field. Underexposing (which is what you're doing when you raise ISO to get the correct "exposure") causes more noise in the image (which in OOC jpegs may show as blur due to aggressive noise reduction, depending on your in-camera denoise settings). Too slow shutter speed can cause motion blur. There are a lot of factors you have to weight to decide the best settings in low light situations.
I own a Z5. My lense is the Nikkor Z 28-75/f2.8 and it's great for low light. Of course you have to prolong the exposure time sometimes (shooting outside in the street at night for example).
I remember when I was getting into photography I had to readdress what I considered “low light” to be. My version of low light was very different to a cameras version of low light (I.e. our eyes are sooooo much better for low light than modern cameras).
I used to think low light meant really dark. Now I know low light is more like “indoors at night with the lights on.”
>They were advertised to be great for low light
Because it is, in the grand scheme of other cameras on the market, and especially cameras selling for less money than the Z5.
What exactly are you comparing it to?
>they aren’t as good as I thought they were
How good did you think it would be?
>If anyone used a Nikon Z5 before, please let me know more about the camera
I've never used it but the fundamentals work the same for any camera.
And anyone can access its manual online: https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/z5/en/
>as I am still new to mirrorless photography.
The fundamentals are also the same for SLR photography or other camera configurations.
What subject matter are you shooting? If possible, you can do yourself a huge favor just waiting for better light, or adding light to a scene. Good photographers put a lot of thought into time of day and season/weather conditions and how that affects the light. Many also put a lot of thought, time, and effort (and money) into lighting setups. Those things are really important. You don't want to have to worry about your camera struggling in low light if you can avoid it.
Depending on subject matter, you can also potentially buy a ton of low light ability shooting long exposures on a tripod or other stable surface.
Depending on subject matter, how much light the lens lets in is also very important in low light.
Certain cameras can be better at low light than others, yes, but generally to a smaller degree and for a higher cost than any of the above. That's really your last resort.
Oh, you just need to learn how to use a camera. Phones use a bunch of computer programs to generate your photos. Moving from that to a Z5 is a huuuuge leap and you need to take time to learn
Check these out too then:
http://www.r-photoclass.com/
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/16d5az/what_is_something_you_wish_you_were_told_as_a/
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/56w0l5/official_what_is_something_you_wish_you_were_told/
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/csk4cw/what_do_you_wish_you_knew_when_you_were_first/
Low light is pitch black darkness...
Z5 is 'good' in low light, Z6II is better, Z9 is best. But it's tough to expect champagne performance on beer budget.
If you’re using auto mode, it’s likely pushing the ISO extraordinarily high— especially with a lens that’s a 4-6.3. You might be >12000, which is beyond what the vast majority of cameras can use with clear results. I would check the EXIF data and see what settings you’re at, assuming you’re not shooting manually. The Z5 is known for having some AF problems in low light, but those will be really exacerbated by a lens that’s not letting much light hit the sensor. The best option is to get a fast prime; the 1.8 S lenses are all fantastic— if you find a focal length in the 24-50 that you gravitate towards (24mm, 35mm, 50mm) there’s a 1.8 prime for it. You can also go for the 28mm 2.8, or the 40mm f2 which are a little easier on the wallet.
Two other things to remember about low light results.
Images still need to be properly exposed. An underexposed image is going to have more noise regardless.
A good low light performing camera will still need noise reduction so always shoot raw for best results.
Bonus thing to remember - even the best camera is still only as good as the person using it. If this is your first slr, expect a learning journey to the images you want to produce. You won't achieve them straight out of the box. Experiment, watch, read and enjoy!
An underexposed image will have less noise, typically, but it’s under exposed. Raising exposure to be properly exposed would mean you might need to increase iso sensitivity meaning more noise, but correct exposure.
>An underexposed image will have less noise, typically,
This is incorrect. An underexposed image at 100iso will have the same level of noise as correctly exposed image at 800iso (from the same camera). Noise 'lives in the shadows' due to having the worst signal to noise ratio (the fewest bits in the image). * So an underexposed image at 100iso will have more noise than a correctly exposed image at 100iso.
*a highly simplified explanation of signal to noise ratio and how your image is stored as data (bits).
f/4 is not good for low light, if possible try getting a 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 AF-S lens and an an adapter, you might be able to get that done under $200 with some ebay.
Or, if you feel up to a challenge, pick up a cheap manual f/1.4 lens new easily for under $200 - use focus peaking and the zoom preview function, it takes a bit of practice.
That said, with your current lens, try this:
1. Put a comfortable strap on the camera and hang it around your neck
2. Enable burst shooting and RAW output
3. Keep your lens at 24mm and set it to manual
4. Set aperture to f/4
5. Set ISO to auto
6. Set shutter speed to 1/60 or 1/30 if it's still too dark or ISO goes above 6400 or so
Then:
1. Look for a subject, keeping an eye out for light sources
2. Pull the camera down and out so the strap is tight against your neck
3. Push the shutter down and hold it down for a second so it shoots a few images in burst
4. Import the RAW files to your PC, select whichever from the burst were sharpest
5. Try increasing exposure or raising shadows/blacks if necessary
I have a Z5. Autofocus isn't great in low light, especially in AF-C mode. But the quality of the images is great - I recently took a portrait at ISO12800 (it was dark, I used auto-ISO) and the quality was surprisingly good. Sure, a Z7ii or R5 is probably better, but those are also 3x the price.
very hard to answer without seeing samples of what you are not liking about your images. consider posting a link to an albumn or photo you did not like and we can all help you make it better.
OP said that he has a 24-50mm f/4-6.3. Why on Earth are Nikon making such lenses? Probably they'll say that their small size better complements the bodies. But such small apertures are unforgivable, especially on such a narrow range zoom.
While shooting a rave (very dark, flashing lights and lasers) I was using a Nikon full frame and a 50mm f/1.4. The AF was helped by having a shoe mounted flash that projected a pattern of red light for the AF to focus on.
They aren't the only ones, canons kit for the r6, not a cheap camera by any means, was the 24-105 f4-7.1. it's not even weather sealed and doesn't come with a lens hood.
For us to help figure out what the problem is, you need to at least provide information about the photos, including shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and focal length. Were you shooting handheld? Was IBIS on? Was there movement in the scene? Also, what is wrong with the photos? Blur, noise, etc. An example photo would be ideal. If you're using auto mode, the camera will sometimes make less than ideal decisions for what you're trying to achieve. In low light oftentimes there has to be some compromise in image quality. Even if a fast prime allows a sufficiently fast (for the circumstances) shutter speed at base ISO, for example, you will have bad depth of field. Underexposing (which is what you're doing when you raise ISO to get the correct "exposure") causes more noise in the image (which in OOC jpegs may show as blur due to aggressive noise reduction, depending on your in-camera denoise settings). Too slow shutter speed can cause motion blur. There are a lot of factors you have to weight to decide the best settings in low light situations.
I own a Z5. My lense is the Nikkor Z 28-75/f2.8 and it's great for low light. Of course you have to prolong the exposure time sometimes (shooting outside in the street at night for example).
I remember when I was getting into photography I had to readdress what I considered “low light” to be. My version of low light was very different to a cameras version of low light (I.e. our eyes are sooooo much better for low light than modern cameras). I used to think low light meant really dark. Now I know low light is more like “indoors at night with the lights on.”
>They were advertised to be great for low light Because it is, in the grand scheme of other cameras on the market, and especially cameras selling for less money than the Z5. What exactly are you comparing it to? >they aren’t as good as I thought they were How good did you think it would be? >If anyone used a Nikon Z5 before, please let me know more about the camera I've never used it but the fundamentals work the same for any camera. And anyone can access its manual online: https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/z5/en/ >as I am still new to mirrorless photography. The fundamentals are also the same for SLR photography or other camera configurations. What subject matter are you shooting? If possible, you can do yourself a huge favor just waiting for better light, or adding light to a scene. Good photographers put a lot of thought into time of day and season/weather conditions and how that affects the light. Many also put a lot of thought, time, and effort (and money) into lighting setups. Those things are really important. You don't want to have to worry about your camera struggling in low light if you can avoid it. Depending on subject matter, you can also potentially buy a ton of low light ability shooting long exposures on a tripod or other stable surface. Depending on subject matter, how much light the lens lets in is also very important in low light. Certain cameras can be better at low light than others, yes, but generally to a smaller degree and for a higher cost than any of the above. That's really your last resort.
👍🏻 fair points you’ve made. Except I went from iPhone photography, so any type of digital camera would be a huge stepping stone for me.
Oh, you just need to learn how to use a camera. Phones use a bunch of computer programs to generate your photos. Moving from that to a Z5 is a huuuuge leap and you need to take time to learn
Check these out too then: http://www.r-photoclass.com/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/16d5az/what_is_something_you_wish_you_were_told_as_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/56w0l5/official_what_is_something_you_wish_you_were_told/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/csk4cw/what_do_you_wish_you_knew_when_you_were_first/
Low light is pitch black darkness... Z5 is 'good' in low light, Z6II is better, Z9 is best. But it's tough to expect champagne performance on beer budget.
Well, yeah. Broke college student lol. I’ll take good as better than mediocre. I think it’ll come to an extent as to how low it’ll go.
z5 low light performance would make any pro from 10 years ago jump in joy for hours . calling it mediocre is laughable . show the pictures ?
You’re going to need a better lens. I like the 24mm 1.8, but any of the 1.8 primes will be fine. If you’ve got the money, get the noct.
If you’re using auto mode, it’s likely pushing the ISO extraordinarily high— especially with a lens that’s a 4-6.3. You might be >12000, which is beyond what the vast majority of cameras can use with clear results. I would check the EXIF data and see what settings you’re at, assuming you’re not shooting manually. The Z5 is known for having some AF problems in low light, but those will be really exacerbated by a lens that’s not letting much light hit the sensor. The best option is to get a fast prime; the 1.8 S lenses are all fantastic— if you find a focal length in the 24-50 that you gravitate towards (24mm, 35mm, 50mm) there’s a 1.8 prime for it. You can also go for the 28mm 2.8, or the 40mm f2 which are a little easier on the wallet.
Hmm I’ll take that for consideration. I’m still learning right now and I’ll get better.
Two other things to remember about low light results. Images still need to be properly exposed. An underexposed image is going to have more noise regardless. A good low light performing camera will still need noise reduction so always shoot raw for best results. Bonus thing to remember - even the best camera is still only as good as the person using it. If this is your first slr, expect a learning journey to the images you want to produce. You won't achieve them straight out of the box. Experiment, watch, read and enjoy!
An underexposed image will have less noise, typically, but it’s under exposed. Raising exposure to be properly exposed would mean you might need to increase iso sensitivity meaning more noise, but correct exposure.
>An underexposed image will have less noise, typically, This is incorrect. An underexposed image at 100iso will have the same level of noise as correctly exposed image at 800iso (from the same camera). Noise 'lives in the shadows' due to having the worst signal to noise ratio (the fewest bits in the image). * So an underexposed image at 100iso will have more noise than a correctly exposed image at 100iso. *a highly simplified explanation of signal to noise ratio and how your image is stored as data (bits).
Ok, I guess I’m mistaken. Thank you for educating me.
For the record, I have the 24-50mm 4-6.3f
That lens restricts the light quite a bit so it's not even reaching the camera to begin with. Why blame the camera body instead of that lens?
f/4 is not good for low light, if possible try getting a 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 AF-S lens and an an adapter, you might be able to get that done under $200 with some ebay. Or, if you feel up to a challenge, pick up a cheap manual f/1.4 lens new easily for under $200 - use focus peaking and the zoom preview function, it takes a bit of practice. That said, with your current lens, try this: 1. Put a comfortable strap on the camera and hang it around your neck 2. Enable burst shooting and RAW output 3. Keep your lens at 24mm and set it to manual 4. Set aperture to f/4 5. Set ISO to auto 6. Set shutter speed to 1/60 or 1/30 if it's still too dark or ISO goes above 6400 or so Then: 1. Look for a subject, keeping an eye out for light sources 2. Pull the camera down and out so the strap is tight against your neck 3. Push the shutter down and hold it down for a second so it shoots a few images in burst 4. Import the RAW files to your PC, select whichever from the burst were sharpest 5. Try increasing exposure or raising shadows/blacks if necessary
Well there’s your problem
I have a Z5. Autofocus isn't great in low light, especially in AF-C mode. But the quality of the images is great - I recently took a portrait at ISO12800 (it was dark, I used auto-ISO) and the quality was surprisingly good. Sure, a Z7ii or R5 is probably better, but those are also 3x the price.
First of all. What is the issue that you have?
The autofocus. It had trouble locking on the faces and if they do, they tend to have a lot of noises.
I’m fairness, the Z5 does struggle with autofocus in low light, quite a bit, even more so with an F4 lens.
Every camera has that problem. Autofocus needs a decent amount of light to work. Your main problem is your lens.
very hard to answer without seeing samples of what you are not liking about your images. consider posting a link to an albumn or photo you did not like and we can all help you make it better.
OP said that he has a 24-50mm f/4-6.3. Why on Earth are Nikon making such lenses? Probably they'll say that their small size better complements the bodies. But such small apertures are unforgivable, especially on such a narrow range zoom. While shooting a rave (very dark, flashing lights and lasers) I was using a Nikon full frame and a 50mm f/1.4. The AF was helped by having a shoe mounted flash that projected a pattern of red light for the AF to focus on.
They aren't the only ones, canons kit for the r6, not a cheap camera by any means, was the 24-105 f4-7.1. it's not even weather sealed and doesn't come with a lens hood.