Unbelievable!
Dec 8, 2017 17:46:29 #
Don't ever think a cropped sensor can't pull off tough high ISO shots ...
Both of these shots were a stop under exposed and still was able to clean up ...
Download and check out the metadata ;)
BTW, a kit 18-135 lens ;)
Both of these shots were a stop under exposed and still was able to clean up ...
Download and check out the metadata ;)
BTW, a kit 18-135 lens ;)
Dec 9, 2017 07:57:44 #
Assume that was the 70D.
What were the settings?
The 2nd shot looked like the available light behind you (appears to be a window or door from the catchlight) was decent.
I think the first one was more challenging and there is some color noise in the background but overall, very useable pics and nice comp, shading.
I tend to shy away from the 70D for weddings indoor as ISO can range well over 1000. I find the 2 FF noise at 2400 is about the same as my as my 70D at about 800.
5Dmkiv is ISO invariant and the 70D is not. Underexposing on the 5D vs increased ISO at the moment of exposure will result in mostly equivalent noise in PP. 70D will inject noise in pp when you increase exposure that isnworse than in camera....net:i worry less with the 5D if I mess up....which is always :-)
I used to own the 18-135 but found it a little soft....i may be a bit of a pixel peeping sharpness snob as the closeup of the girl is really good. Well done.
(I may need to reconsider the flexibility of the 18-135 vs a fast prime in certain lighting).
What were the settings?
The 2nd shot looked like the available light behind you (appears to be a window or door from the catchlight) was decent.
I think the first one was more challenging and there is some color noise in the background but overall, very useable pics and nice comp, shading.
I tend to shy away from the 70D for weddings indoor as ISO can range well over 1000. I find the 2 FF noise at 2400 is about the same as my as my 70D at about 800.
5Dmkiv is ISO invariant and the 70D is not. Underexposing on the 5D vs increased ISO at the moment of exposure will result in mostly equivalent noise in PP. 70D will inject noise in pp when you increase exposure that isnworse than in camera....net:i worry less with the 5D if I mess up....which is always :-)
I used to own the 18-135 but found it a little soft....i may be a bit of a pixel peeping sharpness snob as the closeup of the girl is really good. Well done.
(I may need to reconsider the flexibility of the 18-135 vs a fast prime in certain lighting).
Dec 9, 2017 10:29:54 #
Would appear you did not download and peek at the settings ;)
I use two FF cameras but you never know when something my arise and in this case my BH's 70D had to do. Both are natural light. First one is after dark and the available light came from a light in the garden. The second one was in a badly light hotel room.
I use two FF cameras but you never know when something my arise and in this case my BH's 70D had to do. Both are natural light. First one is after dark and the available light came from a light in the garden. The second one was in a badly light hotel room.
Dec 9, 2017 12:21:24 #
Beercat wrote:
Would appear you did not download and peek at the settings ;)
I use two FF cameras but you never know when something my arise and in this case my BH's 70D had to do. Both are natural light. First one is after dark and the available light came from a light in the garden. The second one was in a badly light hotel room.
I use two FF cameras but you never know when something my arise and in this case my BH's 70D had to do. Both are natural light. First one is after dark and the available light came from a light in the garden. The second one was in a badly light hotel room.
Download yes. Peek no. (Will do that....).
Regarding cameras....
Same process. 2FF and 70D is backup.
Both of these photos are very good. I will check the settings ....curiosity is killing me :-)
Dec 9, 2017 12:42:46 #
How often do you use your 16-35mmF4Lis?
I've been thinking of buying one .... looks to be handing for the bride room and when you need light as the DOF on a wide lens at f/4 is huge.
I've been thinking of buying one .... looks to be handing for the bride room and when you need light as the DOF on a wide lens at f/4 is huge.
Dec 9, 2017 13:43:37 #
Settings for the second one below. You definitely were trusting in your ISO and it paid off for you. Interesting that you had room to go with shutter and aperture in lieu of that high of ISO, but can't argue with the results. Good job!
With pixel peeping, I think photographers should walk back from that a bit, myself included. Great images are great images regardless of how many eyelashes we can count.
With pixel peeping, I think photographers should walk back from that a bit, myself included. Great images are great images regardless of how many eyelashes we can count.
Dec 9, 2017 14:39:18 #
Beercat wrote:
How often do you use your 16-35mmF4Lis?
I've been thinking of buying one .... looks to be handing for the bride room and when you need light as the DOF on a wide lens at f/4 is huge.
I've been thinking of buying one .... looks to be handing for the bride room and when you need light as the DOF on a wide lens at f/4 is huge.
Rarely. But critical in certain circumstances.
I should use it more as there are many creative things you can do with closeups (creative distortion).
Here is a shot where it was critical. B&G both needed to be in field of view and it was the only lens that would get it (short of doing a pano or some other multishot stitching)
IN this case, the B&G are very distorted due to the effect of the ultra-width. This was AFTER lens correction and some manual distortion correction in LR. (notice the little white triangles in the upper corners...left them there to have more of the photo vs cropping which would have put both the B&G at the very edge of the photo.)
Contrary to popular belief, ultra-wides are more about creativity than getting that extra width in tight shots due to the distortion. (tilt-shift lenses dont have this issue but are more for architecture than people)
I am still learning how to use it properly (shoot centered at waist height for a model and dont have people at the extremes (violated in this pic) etc etc.
As for the bride's room, I can see needing it there too but have been fortunate that the bride has always had a big room :-)
Dec 9, 2017 14:40:39 #
jaysnave wrote:
Settings for the second one below. You definitely were trusting in your ISO and it paid off for you. Interesting that you had room to go with shutter and aperture in lieu of that high of ISO, but can't argue with the results. Good job!
With pixel peeping, I think photographers should walk back from that a bit, myself included. Great images are great images regardless of how many eyelashes we can count.
With pixel peeping, I think photographers should walk back from that a bit, myself included. Great images are great images regardless of how many eyelashes we can count.
wow. 2500 on a 70D with an 18-135.
...would not have believed it....
Dec 9, 2017 23:09:42 #
crazydaddio wrote:
wow. 2500 on a 70D with an 18-135.
...would not have believed it....
...would not have believed it....
The top one was at 6400 on a 70D
Dec 10, 2017 07:06:26 #
Beercat wrote:
The top one was at 6400 on a 70D
....Never would have even attempted to get a photo on either my FFs or the 70D at that ISO. It does have some color noise in the OOF areas that is quite noticeable but the facial areas are well controlled. Still quite useable....did you try printing it?
Dec 10, 2017 10:19:05 #
Nope .... as they say some noise and have the shot is better than no noise but no shot ;)
Dec 10, 2017 13:41:36 #
Beercat wrote:
Nope .... as they say some noise and have the shot is better than no noise but no shot ;)
I find the noise in shots never taken to be uncorrectable :-)
...and the "noise coming from the client" in those situations when we are looking at the "shots not taken" can be also uncorrectable...
Dec 12, 2017 14:17:53 #
crazydaddio wrote:
I find the noise in shots never taken to be uncorrectable :-)
...and the "noise coming from the client" in those situations when we are looking at the "shots not taken" can be also uncorrectable...
...and the "noise coming from the client" in those situations when we are looking at the "shots not taken" can be also uncorrectable...
Amen!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.