Check out Smartphone Photography section of our forum.
Canon 80 D ,Very high ISO and very low shutter speeds..no Canon repair help
Dec 31, 2017 10:39:41 #
billnikon wrote:
The D500 has an exceed 5 processor, along with the D850 and the D5. The D500 is fantastic in low light. I can little about tests, I shoot in the real world. And in the real world the D500 is excellent in low light. It does everything I could ask of it and more.
Who cares.
The issue is the 80D.
Dec 31, 2017 10:41:17 #
RWR wrote:
Indeed. This thread got hijacked from the very first response, and yours is the first intelligent comment since.
Yes, RichardTaylor's response back on page one gave the correct answer. What happened after that was just UHH going out of control, as usual.
Dec 31, 2017 10:44:11 #
Apaflo wrote:
A intelligent response would have at least some relevance to acheiving the OP's ultimate goal. Since his cropped sensor camera cannot accomplish the required task there is no point wasting time showing that it can get closer though never close enough.
The problem is not the sensor. Its the maximum aperture. You can't expect to capture a low light image at f/3.5 to f/5.6.
Dec 31, 2017 10:47:43 #
Architect1776 You're right. I am now giving up as this forum appears to have been taken over by gobshite knowalls who know very little about how digital cameras work, and the capabilities of a digital sensor. ANY digital sensor. According to them if you haven't got the latest FULL FRAME BULLSHIT camera you have no chance of ever getting images worth bothering with. It seems all the topics come down to the same bollox.
Cheers Folks.
Enjoy 2018.
Cheers Folks.
Enjoy 2018.
Dec 31, 2017 10:53:21 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
Apaflo wrote:
A intelligent response would have at least some relevance to acheiving the OP's ultimate goal. Since his cropped sensor camera cannot accomplish the required task there is no point wasting time showing that it can get closer though never close enough.
I believe an intelligent response would have addressed the question of why the camera would not manually set a higher shutter speed. That’s all the OP asked.
Dec 31, 2017 10:56:50 #
selmslie wrote:
The problem is not the sensor. Its the maximum aperture. You can't expect to capture a low light image at f/3.5 to f/5.6.
Dead wrong! That can't be done with a cropped sensor that is too noisy above ISO 1800, such as the Canon 80D. It can be done quite well with Nikon full frame sensors that can be used at much higher ISO values.
You looked at several very good examples and didn't recognize the significance.
Dec 31, 2017 10:57:56 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
selmslie wrote:
Yes, RichardTaylor's response back on page one gave the correct answer. What happened after that was just UHH going out of control, as usual.
That response answered a question that wasn’t asked.
Check out Digital Artistry section of our forum.
Dec 31, 2017 11:00:15 #
RWR wrote:
I believe an intelligent response would have addressed the question of why the camera would not manually set a higher shutter speed. That’s all the OP asked.
He needs good pictures, not a fine tuned camera that won't take them.
Dec 31, 2017 11:03:59 #
RWR wrote:
That response answered a question that wasn’t asked.
Yes it was. However the answer given doesn't work.
Dec 31, 2017 11:04:54 #
Apaflo wrote:
A intelligent response would have at least some relevance to acheiving the OP's ultimate goal. ....
No, an intelligent response would have directly addressed the OP's question. You imply that only your responses are intelligent - that you think that anyone who disagrees with you is not as intelligent as you are.
The OP seems to be puzzled about why, when setting a manual shutter speed of 1/30 to 1/60 the camera actually "it didn't respond to manual adjustment of shutter speeds upwards to faster speeds but merely reverted to original very low speeds." That sounds more like a problem with knowing how to set the camera into manual mode.
Dec 31, 2017 11:07:05 #
RWR wrote:
That response answered a question that wasn’t asked.
You are right. But it did address the situation he was facing that got him into trouble with the shutter speed settings.
Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
Dec 31, 2017 11:15:13 #
Apaflo wrote:
Dead wrong! That can't be done with a cropped sensor that is too noisy above ISO 1800, such as the Canon 80D. It can be done quite well with Nikon full frame sensors that can be used at much higher ISO values.
You looked at several very good examples and didn't recognize the significance.
You looked at several very good examples and didn't recognize the significance.
Again, implying that there is something I don't know. You are wrong as usual.
It's common knowledge that a full frame Nikon sensor is less noisy than a crop sensor, particularly at 12 MP like our D3 or my 16 MP Df.
But the OP was not asking about noise. He was asking why his "manual" settings were not being used by the camera. Once he gets that figured out he can move on to addressing the noise issue.
And the ultimate solution for noise, even in your D3, is to use a lens that lets in plenty of light. That's probably going to be an expensive prime lens, not a zoom lens like you use.
Dec 31, 2017 11:26:06 #
selmslie wrote:
No, an intelligent response would have directly addressed the OP's question. You imply that only your responses are intelligent - that you think that anyone who disagrees with you is not as intelligent as you ...
I have never stated nor implied any such thing. That type of distortion followed by Ad Hominem is your stock in trade.
You are the one who repeatedly says such things! Others do on occasion, but you rarely make posts that are not loaded with inappropriate gratituitous insults.
That is exactly why I and others commonly just ignore your posts and don't bother to comment.
Dec 31, 2017 11:40:32 #
Was the metering spot? Was some of the darker "off-stage" scene in the frame? Bad stage lighting? Stages tend to be well-enough lit for 1/15 sec or faster at ISO 1600, even at f/4 -- and evenly enough lit to go higher on ISO.
Dec 31, 2017 11:40:54 #
Apaflo wrote:
I have never stated nor implied any such thing. ...
You do is so naturally that you don'e even realize that you are doing it:
"You looked at several very good examples and didn't recognize the significance." It's someone else's fault.
"A intelligent response would have at least some relevance to acheiving the OP's ultimate goal." You imply that a response is not intelligent.
"Why not pay attention to what has already been posted... Your response in this instance is incoherent nonsense from beginning to end." Not paying attention and incoherent.
"You perhaps don't work in the real world after all." Really? Is Barrow the real world?
"Sorry that you are not observant enough to realize you were looking at ..." Someone is not observant, does not know what they are looking at.
It's just your habitually confrontational manner when responding to anyone who disagrees with you. You can't help yourself.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.