PDA

View Full Version : 40D at ISO 1600 - f5.6



Flossmoor40D
04-27-2009, 10:00 PM
Below are a few shots taken this past weekend at my daughters first ballet recital in less than ideal lighting conditions, a darkened middle school gymnasium, no flash photography allowed.

Canon 40D at ISO 1600 using the kit 28-135 IS USM at 135mm/5.6, all shots are hand held.

I am fairly impressed with the quality of the images given the poor conditions and kit lens.

Looking for C & C

1.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3590/3481538307_76f1d487df_b.jpg

2.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3481537949_af2d447eea_b.jpg

3.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3556/3481537605_f3c0e9daa7_b.jpg

4.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3482350702_ec61dec691_b.jpg

Rooz
04-27-2009, 10:38 PM
2.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3481537949_af2d447eea_b.jpg




she is absolutely adorable, what a wonderful expression you caught ! you;re at least a stop down on shutter speed and a little down on exposure aswell. they are too blurry, overall, i dont think you got the most out of the setup to be perfectly honest.

Flossmoor40D
04-28-2009, 08:37 AM
she is absolutely adorable, what a wonderful expression you caught ! you;re at least a stop down on shutter speed and a little down on exposure aswell. they are too blurry, overall, i dont think you got the most out of the setup to be perfectly honest.

Rooz, thanks for being honest, that is what I need to learn how to get better results in this type of lighting. I am limited to f5.6 when fully zoomed to 135 on this lens in AP. This one had a shutter of 1/30. Are you suggesting I slow it down to 1/15th?


good shots. i agree on the shutter speed. slow it down a little.http://photosnag.com/img/3322/n09x0302vnsn/clear.gif

Fast1, thanks. Same as above, are you suggesting I should have shot that at 1/15th?

Flossmoor40D
04-28-2009, 08:44 AM
good shots. i agree on the shutter speed. slow it down a little.http://photosnag.com/img/3322/n09x0302vnsn/clear.gif


Thought about this a little more. When you say slow it down a little are you suggesting that instead of 1/30th that I should have used 1/60th to slow the motion of the subject down a little? Faster shutter = less movement while open/less blur/better focus. Then compensate for having less light brought in during exposure using post processing? Sorry if I am making this complicated but I really want to figure this out.

cdifoto
04-28-2009, 08:47 AM
You're in a catch-22 with that lens. It's really too slow for that kind of shooting. Slowing down to 1/15th means even more motion blur.

If it was me, I would have gone to ISO3200 and 1/60th. The exposures look fine on my monitor - any brighter and you're blowing out the skin. It's just the white balance that's off. By off I mean probably true to life - ie colored lights - but not showing skin as you'd see it normally.

GaryS
04-28-2009, 08:49 AM
You are going the wrong way... The shutter speed needs to be a bit faster to stop the motion better, I would be trying for something like 1/125th for this situation, or at least 1/80. Since f5.6 is the best you can do on this lens, you will need to bump up the ISO.

This is unfortunately one of the situations were expensive lenses really outperform their cheaper counterparts. If you could shoot at f2.8 here, you would have 2 stops more light, which would let you use 1/125th shutter without changing your ISO level (f4 is a stop faster than f5.6. F2.8 is one faster again. Which would let your shutter speed go from 1/30 up to 1/60 and then 1/125).

Did that make sense?

I just shot my son's school play with my 50 f1.8 which gave great results in the poor light. Pretty fast shutters, but I also was able to use a touch of flash to lift the shadows...

FLiPMaRC
04-28-2009, 09:11 AM
I'm with CDI ... iso3200 and 1/60s would have been better :)

Did you shoot in RAW? I find it more forgiving during PP :)

Flossmoor40D
04-28-2009, 09:26 AM
You're in a catch-22 with that lens. It's really too slow for that kind of shooting. Slowing down to 1/15th means even more motion blur.

If it was me, I would have gone to ISO3200 and 1/60th. The exposures look fine on my monitor - any brighter and you're blowing out the skin. It's just the white balance that's off. By off I mean probably true to life - ie colored lights - but not showing skin as you'd see it normally.

Thanks CDI, I figured out the 1/60th part after my first reply. I did cool the white balance down from 3750 to 2800. I need to pull the manual to see how to get to ISO3200 as hitting the ISO button and rolling the dial only took me up to 1600, where it stopped.


You are going the wrong way... The shutter speed needs to be a bit faster to stop the motion better, I would be trying for something like 1/125th for this situation, or at least 1/80. Since f5.6 is the best you can do on this lens, you will need to bump up the ISO.

This is unfortunately one of the situations were expensive lenses really outperform their cheaper counterparts. If you could shoot at f2.8 here, you would have 2 stops more light, which would let you use 1/125th shutter without changing your ISO level (f4 is a stop faster than f5.6. F2.8 is one faster again. Which would let your shutter speed go from 1/30 up to 1/60 and then 1/125).

Did that make sense?

I just shot my son's school play with my 50 f1.8 which gave great results in the poor light. Pretty fast shutters, but I also was able to use a touch of flash to lift the shadows...

Thanks Gary, makes complete sense now that I think about it more. I also have the 50 f1.8 which is what I would like to use in this situation but it was not an option from the seats. They were very strict about photography during this event, no video camera's allowed (so you have to buy the $30 DVD they produce and sell) and as such no flash photography allowed either, so it doesn't show up in the DVD and to top it all off, all photos must be taken from your seats, no getting up to get nice and close. Given the limited lenses currently in my bag, this one was my only choice. Starting to think I should have held off on the 10-22mm and gotten the 70-200 f4L instead as I am shooting more of my daughter now and not getting the chance to do the landscapes and architecture shots that I bought the 10-22mm for. As they say, hindsight is always 20/20.

Flossmoor40D
04-28-2009, 09:29 AM
I'm with CDI ... iso3200 and 1/60s would have been better :)

Did you shoot in RAW? I find it more forgiving during PP :)

Yes, these were done in RAW and PP done with Elements 7.0.

cdifoto
04-28-2009, 09:36 AM
You get to ISO3200 by enabling ISO Expansion in the Custom Functions. If it wasn't changed from the 30D it's CF 08.

adam75south
04-28-2009, 09:49 AM
i'd definitely enable ISO expansion....bust out that ISO 3200 to get the shutter speed up...and you'll be just about good to go. problem is f/5.6 is pretty tough to use indoors, so you might wanna get a nifty fifty and see if you can get closer...or possibly the 85 1.8 for future recitals.

laydros
04-28-2009, 10:05 AM
I kinda keep ISO 3200 in the "emergency use only" category, but it is usable. The results at ISO 3200 and a stop faster shutter speed would be better.

It is such a big difference after coming from a camera where ISO 800 was noisier than ISO 3200 is on the 40D.

You will need to turn on ISO expansion, as well as turn off "Highlight Tone Priority." I think I leave ISO expansion on all the time, and turn on HTP all the time, and turn it off when I need ISO 100 or 3200.

Csae
04-28-2009, 12:24 PM
Why turn off HTP when using iso 3200 ? Is it a req. or does have it a bad side effect of some sort?

faisal
04-28-2009, 01:38 PM
I agree with adam...a 85mm f1.8 is something you should look into...possibly second hand if you want to keep the cost low....cause ISO 3200 might help increase SS, but noise is going to be a problem...you're only hope is to lower the aperture....

laydros
04-28-2009, 03:03 PM
Why turn off HTP when using iso 3200 ? Is it a req. or does have it a bad side effect of some sort?

HTP limits ISO range to 200-1600.

Kinda stinks to have to turn it off. Thats why I said I typically have ISO expansion on, HTP on, and turn HTP off when I need ISO 3200.

michaelb
04-28-2009, 07:21 PM
Starting to think I should have held off on the 10-22mm and gotten the 70-200 f4L instead as I am shooting more of my daughter now...

Keep in mind that I consider the 70-200 f/4 to be an "outdoor" lens, unless I'm using flash. f/4 is still very slow for indoors without flash. I love my 70-200 f/4, but I use it outdoors 95% of the time.

For indoors without flash you want a fast prime, such as the 50 1.8 that you have, 85 1.8, 100 f/2, or the 35 f/2.

TheObiJuan
04-28-2009, 07:57 PM
For events like that, the 135 f/2 is ideal. Wide open its super sharp and on a 1.6 gives the reach that is necessary.

Rooz
04-28-2009, 10:41 PM
Rooz, thanks for being honest, that is what I need to learn how to get better results in this type of lighting. I am limited to f5.6 when fully zoomed to 135 on this lens in AP. This one had a shutter of 1/30. Are you suggesting I slow it down to 1/15th?

no, sorry. i meant the other way...1/60th. subject blur is too big a factor.

Rhys
04-29-2009, 09:47 AM
The sneaky way is - shoot in infrared with a flash covered in infrared filter gel. Nobody can see the flash (aside from all the camcorders) and you'll get good B/W images.

Mark_48
04-29-2009, 10:08 AM
The sneaky way is - shoot in infrared with a flash covered in infrared filter gel. Nobody can see the flash (aside from all the camcorders) and you'll get good B/W images.
Post some samples of some images you've done. Sounds interesting.

FLiPMaRC
04-29-2009, 10:33 AM
Infrared Filter Gel? Sounds interesting :cool:

Flossmoor40D
04-29-2009, 10:33 AM
For events like that, the 135 f/2 is ideal. Wide open its super sharp and on a 1.6 gives the reach that is necessary.


Keep in mind that I consider the 70-200 f/4 to be an "outdoor" lens, unless I'm using flash. f/4 is still very slow for indoors without flash. I love my 70-200 f/4, but I use it outdoors 95% of the time.

For indoors without flash you want a fast prime, such as the 50 1.8 that you have, 85 1.8, 100 f/2, or the 35 f/2.

Thanks for all the comments guys. Michael, I didn't mean that the 70-200 f/4 would have solved my problems last weekend, what I did mean was that I am having a little buyers remorse on the 10-22 which I love but am just not using as much I want to. I bought it with the intent to take lots of landscapes and architectural shots with, but just haven't had the time to do it. Most of my shooting lately has been of my two daughters, 4 years old and 5 months old. As this thread has turned it into a lens discussion along the way I will hi-jack my own post further.

Listed below are the activities that my oldest daughter is involved in for which I will be taking pictures. I am also listing what lens I think makes sense for the activity.

Ballet (indoors poor light) - 135 L f/2
Ice Skating (indoors avg light) - 135 L f/2 (currently using the 28-135 for it)
Soccer (outsdoors - weather pending) - 135 L f/2 or 70-200 L f/4 or 100-400 L (might be better off getting the 70-200 f/4 plus a 1.4 extender)

General Portraits/Candids - 50 f/1.8 or 135 L f/2 - either will work but I would need more room when using the 135 but it would give me more pop than the 50 f/1.8 would with regard to the wow factor for results.

Looking for comments from the gallery based on what I shoot most listed above what lenses you would consider to give me the most coverage for the money.

Elisha
04-29-2009, 11:04 AM
i liked this pic so much that i messed with it a little to see if i could make it pop out more. i hope you don't mind?

Before:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3481537949_af2d447eea_b.jpg

CS4 edit:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v701/elishajesudason/3481537949_af2d447eea_b.jpg

LR 2.3 edit based on CS4 edit:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v701/elishajesudason/3481537949_af2d447eea_b-1.jpg

laydros
04-29-2009, 11:11 AM
Elisha, I think I need some processing classes from you. Between this and some of the recent stuff in Sony POTD, your doing great work.

For better or worse, what is done PP on digital is becoming increasingly important.

Elisha
04-29-2009, 11:34 AM
Elisha, I think I need some processing classes from you. Between this and some of the recent stuff in Sony POTD, your doing great work.



thanks Jason. but most times i am working blind.....my desktop monitor is 7 years old and at max brightness it is about -2 stops and i think the colour are way off. my laptop on the other hand is a Macbook and i hate editing pics on it.
waiting for the day i get a new LCD and can actually see what i am doing better!