Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canon: Low-light action

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Low light requires higher ISO's/faster lens. Higher ISO setting usually result in more noise in your photos. Noise equates to grainy photos. Today's cameras do a wonderful job of noise reduction at the higher ISO settings. I think you are better off investing in quality lenses instead of buying cameras. Canon/Nikon etc have used the same lens mounts for decades. I have Nikor lenses that are 20 to 30 years old that I still use today. They don't go out of favor and they maintain their value.

    Digital Camera bodies are like any other electronic device. Almost obsolete the day you buy them. And they depreciate in value very fast. I purchased a Nikon D200 several years ago for $1250.00. On Ebay today they go for $125.00. The 70-200mm f2.8 lens still sells for $1200.00-$1300.00.

    The bones of the camera system are the lenses.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Sika View Post
      Here is one SOC, no processing at all. I have over 150 to process to I'm not spending too much time on each. The shadows and dust certainly make things interesting.

      [ATTACH]853335[/ATTACH]
      Yep. Dust makes it interesting for sure. The advantage that Lr has over Ps is batch processing. You can spend a little extra time on 1 photo in a series to really dial it in, and then you can apply those same settings to the rest of the series with just a couple of mouse clicks. Saves a lot of time over doing them all one at a time. Lr also has a slider called Dehaze. It works wonders with foggy/hazy/dusty situations like that.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by dagdog View Post
        Low light requires higher ISO's/faster lens. Higher ISO setting usually result in more noise in your photos. Noise equates to grainy photos. Today's cameras do a wonderful job of noise reduction at the higher ISO settings. I think you are better off investing in quality lenses instead of buying cameras. Canon/Nikon etc have used the same lens mounts for decades. I have Nikor lenses that are 20 to 30 years old that I still use today. They don't go out of favor and they maintain their value.

        Digital Camera bodies are like any other electronic device. Almost obsolete the day you buy them. And they depreciate in value very fast. I purchased a Nikon D200 several years ago for $1250.00. On Ebay today they go for $125.00. The 70-200mm f2.8 lens still sells for $1200.00-$1300.00.

        The bones of the camera system are the lenses.
        X2. Low light and action, need better lens. Cameras can only do so much. I personally don't like altered photos, so manipulation after the shot is too late. I do it if needed, but like natural.
        Last edited by crawdaddct; 05-08-2017, 10:43 AM.

        Comment


          #19
          You may get less noise by pushing the iso up to 2500 instead of 2000. I've done the tests on my 7D and do get less noise by using ISO multiples of 160. MagicLantern has a decent explanation of how this works here:

          [work in progress] Many people believe that 160, 320, 640 and so on (the so-called native ISOs) are the best choice. Not everybody agrees though. So, let's break it down. Reading through the 'net, I've noticed two theories: Theory 1: Multiples of ISO 160 are native, and all others are digitally pushed. Advocates: [1]... Theory 2: Multiples of 160 are digitally pulled by 1/3-stop (from 200, 400 etc), so they have 1/3-stop less dynamic range. Advocates: [2]... My theory: the answer is somewhere in

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by dagdog View Post
            Low light requires higher ISO's/faster lens. Higher ISO setting usually result in more noise in your photos. Noise equates to grainy photos. Today's cameras do a wonderful job of noise reduction at the higher ISO settings. I think you are better off investing in quality lenses instead of buying cameras. Canon/Nikon etc have used the same lens mounts for decades. I have Nikor lenses that are 20 to 30 years old that I still use today. They don't go out of favor and they maintain their value.

            Digital Camera bodies are like any other electronic device. Almost obsolete the day you buy them. And they depreciate in value very fast. I purchased a Nikon D200 several years ago for $1250.00. On Ebay today they go for $125.00. The 70-200mm f2.8 lens still sells for $1200.00-$1300.00.

            The bones of the camera system are the lenses.
            Not a newbie and I know all about investing in good glass. As stated, those pics were shot with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.
            This is the first shoot I've ever done where I was genuinely unhappy with the amount of noise but I'm also used to shooting in better light.

            Comment


              #21
              Thanks for the suggestion on Lightroom. I think I downloaded a trial once. I can't remember if I ever used it. I'll look in to it.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Sika View Post
                Thanks for the suggestion on Lightroom. I think I downloaded a trial once. I can't remember if I ever used it. I'll look in to it.
                If you'd like to, you can email me one of your original photos and I'll run it through Lr to see what it could do. shanejennings 'at' suddenlink.net

                Comment


                  #23
                  I went back and looked at the settings and exif data on my last bay pen shoot and I used the same settings. The Exif data is almost identical but my last batch of images were much, much clearer. I can't figure out why my results were not better.
                  Guess you guys have convinced me, it's the not the camera this time

                  Same camera and lens. The differences in quality between the last shoot and this one are crazy!

                  ƒ/4.5 175.0 mm 1/1000 ISO 1250

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	24256494963_1d38bedc7d_z.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	146.9 KB
ID:	24494515

                  ƒ/5.0 145.0 mm 1/1600 ISO 2000

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	24765440832_31d25a8a80_z.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	198.1 KB
ID:	24494516

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Your older pics look like you had the sun at your back. The more recent ones appear to be backlit. You'll have more problems with haziness in the dust when the sun is in front of you. Maybe that was the difference? The more recent shots still look like they could use more contrast, sharpening and saturation to me though.

                    One other thought... What autofocus setting were you using on each of these shoots? The first ones look sharper than the more recent ones. I wonder if you were using AI Servo in the earlier shots and One Shot auto focus in the more recent pics??

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Sort of my thinking on the lighting, Shane. I switch between AI Servo and One Shot. The only thing I did differently was play with the drive mode a little bit. I don't normally shoot in high speed continuous but I did this past weekend.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by Sika View Post
                        Sort of my thinking on the lighting, Shane. I switch between AI Servo and One Shot. The only thing I did differently was play with the drive mode a little bit. I don't normally shoot in high speed continuous but I did this past weekend.
                        Fast continuous shooting with One Shot AF and moving targets doesn't work well. Maybe that was the issue. AI Servo tracks moving subjects better. Another thing that really helps in sports photography or hog dog photography with moving critters is back button focus. That combined with AI Servo will keep focus on your subjects a lot better than other methods.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Shane View Post
                          Your older pics look like you had the sun at your back. The more recent ones appear to be backlit. You'll have more problems with haziness in the dust when the sun is in front of you. Maybe that was the difference?
                          I think that's a lot of it. Also relatively small differences in the amount of moisture content in the dirt may may make big differences in the amount of airborne dust. In the older photos, the dogs and hogs are throwing clods up into the air.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by Sika View Post
                            Here is one SOC, no processing at all. I have over 150 to process to I'm not spending too much time on each. The shadows and dust certainly make things interesting.

                            [ATTACH]853335[/ATTACH]
                            I think there are a couple issues on this one. Lighting and focus. It almost appears that the foreground is in better focus. But, it's hard to determine on this small sample. One thing is certain, Lightroom can make up for some of your less than ideal conditions.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Guess I'll put off a camera upgrade for now. It sounds like some settings adjustments would have helped this time.

                              Here is the entire set of images on Flickr if anyone is interested.




                              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                              Comment


                                #30
                                7D mkII has been good for me. Fast and good in low light.
                                I may have mine for sale soon.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X