Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

I have a wedding to film tomorrow at Mission San Miguel. Very low light so to push the gear big time.

As I was there and already know I'll be fine capturing video and thought I would snap a few pictures to just see how my 70D would perform. The reality is I'll need to buy a 5D MarkIII and some good glass before I snap a Mission wedding.

The top picture was taken outside and when I have the light the Canon 70D and the kit 18-135mm lens pull off nice snaps.

80mm
F/11
ISO 160
1/400

The bottom snap was in the church during rehearsal.

80mm
F/5 (wide open on the kit lens at 80mm)
ISO 800
1/20

Of course I was lucky to snap when there wasn't much movement.

Now a 5D MarkIII with a 85mm f/2.8 (wide open) would of bought me 3 more stops at 2400 ISO. That would of allowed me a shutter of 1/160 ;)

(Download)


(Download)

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Does the 70D allow you to set WB?

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Yes

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Suggest you set it for interior shots. If you can set color temperature, shoot between 2500 - 3000 Degrees Kelvin; for candles, drop to ~2000. Your composition looks nice. Good luck.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Color balance was not the topic, just sharing what I know about the 70D/kit lens in low light situations when you can't use flash.

The white balance wouldn't have given me 4 extra stops :lol:

But to flatter you the correct kelvin for inside the church was 2900 - 3000 :wink:

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

From my experience in shooting weddings in low light, you will have to deal with grain no matter what. I only have 2.8 and faster glass, and I still struggle with nailing sharp photos in low light, but you are correct, it does help. Thankfully, during the ceremony when you can't use flash, people do move much more slowly.

I generally have to reenact important scenes like "the kiss" after the fact, so I can get a nice clear shot. I think you did well with the equipment you have. Of course, we can always get better equipment. You have the skill of having a good eye, and I'd put the pictures of someone with an artistic eye up against someone with the best of the best equipment, with no artistic eye any day.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

I'm going to wait until I can afford a 5DIII and good glass, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8. Already have a good 50mm 1.4 and a 100mm 2.8 macro.

While I wait I'll just use the 50mm 1.4 (80mm on my 70D) and my 100mm 2.8 macro while inside a darker church. Once out side or for the reception I can use my 18-135mm (29-219mm on my 70D) 3.5/5.6 for versatility.

Suring the reception I'll use my 18-135mm, fix the fstop at 5.6 and work my flash magic as I have 3 Canon 600's using 2 of them for ambient light and then 1 on camera for fill.

You do what you got to do but I know my nifty fifty 1.4 will be just fine in the dark churches plus I'll still have them park it for 10 seconds on the walks down the isle, no focusing problems ;)

fotodon Loc: Oberlin, OH

BC, here is some food for thought concerning low light and and 70D vs 5dIII. I agree that we all would love to have a big box full of 5dIII's to shoot weddings with. Unfortunately, shooting weddings is a business with a thin bottom line for most of us.

Therefore, a few years ago, I "upgraded" our kit with 60D's when the price was too good to pass on. I considered this an upgrade because of the rave reviews of the 60D with high ISOs compared to our 5d's. Note: this is not meant to be a full vs cropped comparison. Full definitely has it's advantages. However, I immediately was impressed all to heck with the IQ up to about 2000 ISO with the 60D. The difference between the old 5d and the newer tech. 60D was very noticeable using the same lens.

So, I rented a 5dIII for one wedding at a no flash church and switched the same lens back and forth between the two cameras (5dIII/60D) for the same shot. All were shot at 2000 ISO, f2.8-4.5, 1/60-1/100. Now, this is not a situation I relish and indeed, rarely find myself in. And, the pics were not as sharp as I would like them. But, still, for wedding album use, they were plenty good enough. Pixel peepers would definitely be able to see noise but the untrained eye would not. Bottom line on this is: the difference in IQ relative to noise between the two cameras using the same lens was, IMHO, and again, only observable by the trained eye.

I must emphasize that this is only my personal opinion and observations and I am not trying to "sell" anybody on anything. I will not post any files to be analyzed by others by there own standards. Anybody can do their own research and come to their own conclusions. However, I would suggest to BC that he try shooting with the 70D and the fast lenses (assuming high quality) in low light situations using a high ISO. BTW...Since getting the 60D's I find myself shooting all the time at 800 ISO with flash. I think I am getting much better balance of flash and ambient. The results remind me of shooting with 400 Portra film. But...to each his own!.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

I think the last line in your post says it all. I've given up arguing with anyone who wants something. FF has advantages, but before it was available, unbelievable weddings were shot with crop sensors, back then, we called them....sensors.

That being said, I don't often get GAS attacks, but I can tell you that when I make my mind up that I really "NEED" something, no amount of talking will convince me otherwise. So, anyone who thinks they need to "step up" to "x", then by all means, if you can afford it, I salute you.

I made enough money last year to move to FF, but like you, I rented a couple of bodies and checked them out, and decided that I didn't see enough of a difference except in file size, to make it worth my while.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

That is the plan, use my 70D's with decent fast glass until I can afford a 5DIII

Just for fun, here is the spec comparisons on the 3 cameras, notice the 70D is slightly better than the 60D in low light, and the 5DIII is far superior to either in the low light/low noise score .......... 1 1/2 stops better, the is the difference between snapping at 1/20 and 1/60 ........ a huge number when in a low light church.

Realistically I don't want to shoot above ISO 800, can , sure but I don't want to.

fotodon Loc: Oberlin, OH

Agreed! If the CEO of a major multinational company sends me a deposit check for his daughters wedding...or...I win the lottery...(like either of those is going to happen :lol: ), I would have a couple of 5dIII's in the bag within 24hrs. I already have the purchase logistics worked out. :wink:

DXO Marks, and others, are fun and mostly reliable. Sometimes I just can't get my head around some of them. When I dig deeper I find sometimes scientifically founded reasons and sometimes not so much. Sometimes I just right it off as their inability to justify the same rating for, say, a $700 camera or lens compared to one three times the cost. Not very scientific but the reasoning lets me fall asleep at night easier. :lol:

Of course there is a principle that is worth repeating over and over. A good "eye" behind the camera trumps the best equipment every time! Who of us has not seen a great shot come out of an Iphone, although we hate to admit it. And, when it comes to the business end of wedding photography, a great personality just about trumps everything.

I don't know if anyone has put it this way so I will go off topic a little to say; there is a successful wedding photography triangle. First: good "eye" (artistic and technical). Second: good equipment (and lots of it)(and not always photographic). Third good business acumen (logistical and personality).

BTW...Maybe there will be some good deals on used 5DIII's for sale when those rich (non-wedding) :lol: photographers start getting their new 5Ds's.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

I'm keeping an eye on the release date so I can look for a good used 5DIII deal.

Totally agree with your triangle theory.

FYI, very few wedding photographers out in my neck of the words use anything less than a Canon 5DIII or the Nikon counterpart. This may be due to the face that we shoot so many weddings in the Missions, there are 7 within the area I work :shock:

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

If I were you, I would at least experiment with your 70D. I used to shoot a D-200 10.2MP Nikon with probably the worst low light reputation fairly regularly at ISO1000. Now that I am using a D-7100 and D-7000, I'm not sure, but I think they are pretty comparable to the 70D, I regularly shoot at over 1600, and need very little noise reduction. I find that I get much more noise from being underexposed, and trying to lighten, than from proper exposure with higher ISO. I guess what I'm saying is that ISO noise is the lesser of 2 evils.

The best thing that having that D-200 for so long is that it really helped me learn methods to get the best I could out of crappy situations.

It's like scuba diving. I've had dive leaders in Hawaii tell me that they think divers from the Midwest are the best, because we dive with no visibility, so we have to learn how to not kick up silt, navigate properly with compasses, and how to stick with a buddy, because if we get separated by more than 5' here, we won't see each other again until we both "hopefully" surface.

Learning how to get the absolute most out of what you have now, will make you even better when you get your dream equipment. (if that makes sense) If you constantly upgrade to stay just ahead of the curve, you are letting the technology do all the work, and you aren't really progressing.

Anyway, next time you do one of your sample shoots, if you get a chance, take a bunch of test shots, and see. You may be amazed at the quality you can get already with what you have at higher ISO's.

OK off my soapbox.