low light movie works better than low light still photos why?

I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
camera the exposure is good....why is that? Is there any way of
getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
without them looking too grainy.

Regards Brian

 

Give one of the free versions or trials of aftermarket noise filtering
software, such as Neat Image, Noise Ninja or Noiseware a try.

 

Thankd Fon for the useful information.

Regards Brian

 

It's sacrificing resolution for brightness.

I do similar photography, & my solution was to buy a Canon DSLR & some
fast lenses.

 

I chhose the Fujiphoto S8000 camera as it had a 18x optical zoom and a
good price tag. Still you can't have eveything in a camera.

Regards Brian

 

Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired
bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best!

 

It only goes to demonstrate the narrow dynamic range of Panasonic
sensors. Try as they might, Panasonic can't do much about with their
current (and future it world seem) technology.

 

That's very good for a compact camera, but only ISO 800. I routinely
shoot at ISO 1600, then push the RAW image another stop or two.

 

I do that myself but push my Nikon D300 files a lot more than is
possible with a DSLR Canon. The main reason for changing to Nikon.

http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/gallery/high-20,000-ISO.htm

I understand that the D3x is capable of a heck of a lot more but I don't
have one of those. I have on order a D3 so perhaps I can soon explore
the claimed ISO 125,000 of these cameras. For now, I have never seen a
P&S that can operate above ISO 1600 without producing terrible noise.

 

You find that better than using a higher ISO and not pushing? My
impression, without having carried out critical comparisons, is that
pushing an ISO 1600 image up a stop gives me the same noise and image
quality as unpushed ISO 3200.

 

If you qualified that with "for a P&S" you might have gained some
credibility. The fact is John - and one you consistently fail to
recognise - is that just the miniature sensors in P&S cameras guarantee
a noisey picture. 3 or 4 other factors work against them producing low
noise images too.

There are some things a P&S can do that a DSLR is either hard pushed to
achieve or can't achieve at all but noise control is not one of them.
The only reason your camera can take a low light picture at all is the
extremely low shutter speeds you can use. We used to use FZ50
Panasonic's at 1/15th (hand held) for low light shots. There's examples
here:
http://www.d-mac.info/previews/scott-katrina/

That doesn't mean I'd use one for action capture or critical work where
large prints are expected. Like this one. The canvas print is over six
feet wide. A totally impossible shot for a P&S.

http://www.d-mac.info/examples/HDRatdawn.htm

The whole issue is not about fanatical devotion to a particular brand
because you happen to own one but choosing the right tool for the job. I
make movies in natural light, with a D90 set at ISO 3200. Maybe a RED
camera might equal it's ability but I won't be shelling out $60,000 for
one when a D90 does just as well - *FOR MY USE*.

 

I find that shooting ISO 3200 gives me a lot more chroma noise than
pushing ISO 1600. Bear in mind that I (obviously) shoot RAW, & I also
carefully tweak the top & bottom of the tone curve.

 

In my case, I'm usually also shooting wide open with F1.4 or F1.8
primes. It's more case of available darkness than available light. ;^)

 

Got any photos to show us?

 

According to your EXIF, your 35mm equivalent FL was 200mm. On my 1Dmk2,
I could've used my EF135mm/F2L for an equivalent 175mm @ F2. Or I
could've dug out the 10D, used the same lens for an effective 216mm @
F2. ;^)

 

I think what he's trying to say Ron is that an image with 3 vertical
colour bars in it that is 1 Mp in size could be enlarged to massive size
where a same size an image with wispy hair and lots of detail (content)
might show it's jaggies at as little as a 5x7 inch print and wouldn't
enlarge (upsize) very far at all.

 

You think? - I've photographed numerous public performances with my DSLR
'bricks', because I'm smart enough to arrange permission in advance, or
have checked that I don't need permission.

PS: We're still waiting to see some of your amazing P&S shots.

 

<shrug> Each to their own.