- Status
E
ew20
Guest
briansquibb said:piotr.c said:briansquibb said:
you got be kidding ;D ;D ;D have you ever been in really dark church or wedding hall? sometimes lowest possible ISO to use is 3200 @ f1.4 ...
You mean you dont use flash?????
Using flash in a church is a great way to get kicked out
It's forbidden in almost every church I've ever shot in. I rarely go below ISO 800 when shooting indoors, and that's only in the brightest buildings. I'm routinely 1600-3200 ISO.
Upvote
0
Serious Wedding photographers maxing out at iso 800, you have got to be kidding me. The ambience of a low light shot is way more valuable to me than if there is some noise.briansquibb said:
If you think I am a nobody then at least read what Jeff Ascough wrote in Feb 2010. I quote Jeff Ascough "I’ve been shooting with the EOS-1D Mark IV for about three months now. This is the time of year when there are quite a few candlelit wedding ceremonies and receptions, so I’m often shooting events that are taking place in near darkness…
The camera’s performance is really quite staggering at higher ISOs, especially 6400 and 12,800, as the image quality is just gorgeous. There is little noise, no banding and, for a crop sensor camera, the resolution is very good. I have to admit that I probably wouldn’t use the H1 setting (12,800) on the 5D Mark II but I’d happily use 12,800 on the 1D Mark IV all day long."
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/jeff_ascough_blog.do
or Brent Stirton
"I shot this Canon [EOS 5D Mark III] up to [ISO] 25,600 and it was, to my mind, at least as good as the file coming out of the EOS 5D Mark II at 1200 to 1600. So that’s a huge leap forward for me.”
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/brent_stirton_shooting_eos_5d_mark_iii.do
Upvote
0
briansquibb said:piotr.c said:briansquibb said:
you got be kidding ;D ;D ;D have you ever been in really dark church or wedding hall? sometimes lowest possible ISO to use is 3200 @ f1.4 ...
You mean you dont use flash?????
At the wedding I shot on Saturday, I never went below ISO 800. Most shots were at ISO 3200 and ISO 6400, and this was actually a relatively bright venue. I use a ton of bounce flash, which becomes a lot more viable when you have ISO 6400 sensitivity. The overall balance of the shots is much nicer than if I'd shot at, say, ISO 400 with direct flash.
I shot most of the wedding with my 24-105 f/4L IS USM.
The capabilities of the new camera look to only open up more options for me.
Upvote
0
B
briansquibb
Guest
I guess it must be a UK thing then. I always shoot in church - never an issue. Just cant do it during the service. As soon as they say I do we get the pose and flash away. Of course this is arranged before hand with the officials.
Just a gentle pop with big brellas means they get top IQ pictures at ISO 800.
When the bride and groom come down the isle I have 2 helpers with two stands (small umbrellas) as I walk backwards getting the pictures.
I have even set up two continuous lights to spotlight the bride and groom taking the vows (in the days of film)
The options are simple - good lights, good pictures or bad light, bad pictures. They have always gone for the good picture option.
I then have two more stands set up in the registry - while I am in there the helper collects the other stands ready for the group pictures. I have had to take the bride and groom on the lawn in the pitch dark - took 4 580's to get the good pictures
I guess we all have our own ways of doing things. I use light to get top IQ, guaranteed.
Just a gentle pop with big brellas means they get top IQ pictures at ISO 800.
When the bride and groom come down the isle I have 2 helpers with two stands (small umbrellas) as I walk backwards getting the pictures.
I have even set up two continuous lights to spotlight the bride and groom taking the vows (in the days of film)
The options are simple - good lights, good pictures or bad light, bad pictures. They have always gone for the good picture option.
I then have two more stands set up in the registry - while I am in there the helper collects the other stands ready for the group pictures. I have had to take the bride and groom on the lawn in the pitch dark - took 4 580's to get the good pictures
I guess we all have our own ways of doing things. I use light to get top IQ, guaranteed.
Upvote
0
Stephen Melvin said:
Hey Stephen, thanks for sharing this. It is very insightful for me because I would not have thought to use "light filler" and use higher ISO instead of the "direct light" approach with lower ISO even for my type of personal shooting. I did find though from adhoc shooting that my high ISO picture always look better when I have some form of complementary light in sufficient form as opposed to very very low light. I will keep your approach in mind next time I need more flexibility with high ISO shooting!
Jacques
Upvote
0
RuneL said:
I've had the 50 1.2 struggle to keep up with my 7D (rented it, one of the lenses that doesn't work well with it)... I have the 50 1.4 and it's faster but even at that, I have to almost remind myself to not over do the lens and let it catch up at times... The 1.2 would give false focus confirmations so it would say it was in focus when it wasn't... I have no patience with that... the 5d3 and 50 1.2 may be a doomed relationship 8) The sample images are across the board... Some better than others, but the objective ones show the technical quality (sharpness in raw files, color, etc) the rest you kinda have to take with a grain of salt for now I suppose.
Upvote
0
Z
zackck
Guest
Bosman said:
Do you really believe that a Canon Ambassador would say ANYTHING DIFFERENT than that?
Of course he is going to tell you that the Mark III is better than the Mark II.
Canon is not producing cameras because it's "fun", they want to SELL them to you!
I really encourage you to shoot with the EOS 5D Mark II at ISO 25600.
See for yourself that the results are very similar to the Mark III.
They are "usable" if you want all the noise and fix the colors in post.
Upvote
0
looks very good, but how hard of a hit do we take in dynamic range? the higher the ISO, the more the DR nosedives. having said that, the most I've shot at is ISO1600 to 3200 and anything higher never seen to be needed. Have we reached a point where the ISO values are just meaningless marketing items like a car's top speeds when in fact you don't them that fast in the real world?
Upvote
0
P
piotr.c
Guest
briansquibb said:piotr.c said:briansquibb said:
you got be kidding ;D ;D ;D have you ever been in really dark church or wedding hall? sometimes lowest possible ISO to use is 3200 @ f1.4 ...
You mean you dont use flash?????
in church? no. at wedding hall? bearly - it depends if there's low celling
http://www.piotrczechowski.pl
Upvote
0
I guess i can swallow the fact that a pro is a pro regardless of his camera setup. I dont think these guys have scripted responses for the cameras they try out. I think they are like us, excited to discover new possibilities. If they are lying their rep will be damaged. I don't have the same view as yourself. I flog the H out of my EOS cameras and respect those who do too.zackck said:
Upvote
0
I have shot the 5d3 in ISO 25,600 and while the jpeg is very useable, I cannot get the same level of clarity from the RAW using Adobe CR noise reduction. I can dial up the NR more, but then the image gets much softer than the jpeg.... OTOH, if I apply slight amounts of NR to the jpeg, it gets very clean and clear as well...
Kind of a mixed result since I love the flexibility of exposure control in RAW...
Disclaimer: I have not tried CS5, Topaz & NIK NR on the RAW's yet... Just LR4
Kind of a mixed result since I love the flexibility of exposure control in RAW...
Disclaimer: I have not tried CS5, Topaz & NIK NR on the RAW's yet... Just LR4
Upvote
0
E
ew20
Guest
K-amps said:
This is peculiar. The opposite would be expected, of course.
I wonder if it has to do with the RAW conversion into LR4? I've been impressed with the sharpening/NR since it was added in LR3, it's all I use right now as I almost always get better results than Dfine.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
