Up to what ISO are you willing to set? Aperture?

[eninja]

Thanks guys, really appreciate it.
It will save me a lot of testing, I can only shoot when weekends,
I'm new shooting RAW, I am still getting used to on my workflow.
These inputs will save me precious time and precious pictures.

Additional quick question: What aperture you normally use? when you dont intend bokeh.

Again, I am used to with my G12, I always shoot at maximum at 2.8.
So when I got the 6D, its 2nd nature to me to shoot < 2.8.

So i want to know your side guys.
My current lens is 28mm F1.8

 

[tomscott]

On my 5DMKIII I have my range set to 100-6400. 12800 is useable but im not overly keen on it.

6400 is more comfortable and cleans up nicely

 

[agierke]

eninja,

your comparison of apertures between the g12 and the 6D will be problematic. you are dealing with a lot less depth of field on your 6D.

for max apertures i will only go to 2.8 or wider if i am dealing with a single subject and it depends greatly on the lens. on the 35L i am comfortable with the IQ down to F2.0...on my 70-200 2.8L i feel better at F4 but will go to F2.8 with the understanding that i will probably be getting soft results on a percentage of shots.

for group small shots (2 to 3 people) i dont feel comfortable going wider than F5.6 but i will sometimes fudge it at F4 if i am desperate for light. for corporate head shots i try not to go wider than F8. for creative head shots i'll go to an F2 if i can.

for sports i tried to stay at 5.6 or smaller as i wanted greater depth of field to compensate for the players movement throughout the frame. if i tried to shoot at F2.8 often times the players had moved out of my depth of field in the fraction of a second that it took the camera to focus and release the shutter. this was on the 5D series cameras which of course were less than ideal for action in terms of that focusing system.

its all highly dependent upon then lens (focal length) that i am using and what the situation calls for. the full frame format is an entirely different animal in terms of Depth of Field and you should not reference your experiences on your G12 as to what apertures will work in certain situations.

 

[K3nt]

eninja,

your comparison of apertures between the g12 and the 6D will be problematic. you are dealing with a lot less depth of field on your 6D.

for max apertures i will only go to 2.8 or wider if i am dealing with a single subject and it depends greatly on the lens. on the 35L i am comfortable with the IQ down to F2.0...on my 70-200 2.8L i feel better at F4 but will go to F2.8 with the understanding that i will probably be getting soft results on a percentage of shots.

for group small shots (2 to 3 people) i dont feel comfortable going wider than F5.6 but i will sometimes fudge it at F4 if i am desperate for light. for corporate head shots i try not to go wider than F8. for creative head shots i'll go to an F2 if i can.

for sports i tried to stay at 5.6 or smaller as i wanted greater depth of field to compensate for the players movement throughout the frame. if i tried to shoot at F2.8 often times the players had moved out of my depth of field in the fraction of a second that it took the camera to focus and release the shutter. this was on the 5D series cameras which of course were less than ideal for action in terms of that focusing system.

its all highly dependent upon then lens (focal length) that i am using and what the situation calls for. the full frame format is an entirely different animal in terms of Depth of Field and you should not reference your experiences on your G12 as to what apertures will work in certain situations.

+10

 

[jeffabbyben]

My experience with the 5d iii is that i cannot go above 3200 without losing significant sharpness. Interestingly I was shooting at a high school basketball game with a guy using a nikon D4 and the pics were tack sharp at iso 8000. Will the 1dX tolerate this high of ISO? This is an honest question not a nikon vs canon comment.

 

[K3nt]

My experience with the 5d iii is that i cannot go above 3200 without losing significant sharpness. Interestingly I was shooting at a high school basketball game with a guy using a nikon D4 and the pics were tack sharp at iso 8000. Will the 1dX tolerate this high of ISO? This is an honest question not a nikon vs canon comment.

1D-X does better than that. It is unbelievable the shots they are able to pull out of that sensor.

 

[crasher8]

I see no sharpness loss until over 12800 on my 5d3, must be lens choice and PEBCAK errors.

 

[FatDaddyJones]

eninja, what lens/lenses are you shooting with on the 6D? Your questions would be better answered specifically referring to your actual equipment rather than general settings from random body and lens types.

 

[m]

Re: Up to what ISO are you willing to set?

As low as possible...as fast as necessary!

I agree.

Some (light) situations allow for higher ISO than others.

 

[rpt]

5D3: 100 to 12800. 25600 is grainy and I have not shot much so I can't comment.

300D: 100 to 400. 800 is grainy and I don't like the 1600 but one particular shot turned out ok after I cleaned it up in LR.

f-stop and shutter speed as per exposure. I don't have fast primes so my aperture is usually 4 and above...

 

[jeffabbyben]

I see no sharpness loss until over 12800 on my 5d3, must be lens choice and PEBCAK errors.

Maybe you are just special ;D

 

[bdunbar79]

I shoot at ISO 5000 and 6400 all the time with a 1DX and 5D3. There is certainly sharpness loss from 3200 to 6400. 8000 and 10,000 get even worse. The detail loss is signifcant, especially of someone's face.

 

[NormanBates]

I see no sharpness loss until over 12800 on my 5d3, must be lens choice and PEBCAK errors.

Maybe you are just special ;D

I'd bet on that ;D

These are some crops I took from dpreview when the camera was released:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/iso/5d3.html
Keep in mind that I was interested in video, so these crops are not 100%, I first resampled the stills to 1920x1080 and then cropped the area of interest. So, if you're seeing softness there it's going to be huge on 100% crops.

Anyway, this is what I wanted to post...
This is very useful for anybody wondering about this kind of things:
http://filmmakeriq.com/2012/12/reuters-best-photos-of-2012-the-cameras-and-settings-used-to-capture-them/

 

[extremeinstability]

This should be highly dependent on subject detail or lack of. I shoot a lot of clouds or fog or just something with a lot of sky and well even the base ISO can wind up annoying. Where as if I shot something with a bunch of detail the ISO could go far far higher before there's an annoying aspect to it. Doesn't take long with a digital camera to see what sucks and what doesn't for each type of scene though.

 

[jdramirez]

I have a 50mm f/1.4 that I try to shoot at f/2.8 and I have a 100mm f/2.8L IS macro that I shoot at f2.8. With both, depending upon the circumstances, I can shoot at 1250 and be pleased with the results in an indoor setting. I'm willing to go up to 2500...

this on a 60D...

 

[bycostello]

all depends on what you want.. any iso if a picture is better than no picture...

 

[eninja]

I am using EF 28mm 1.8. As per the sales guy, this is the last piece in stock from Canon.
I don't know if they mean, they stop producing this lens already.

ISO:
From given type of camera and different type of user, I want to learn how they approach in setting their
ISO and aperture. Depending on the results they want, some users (photographers) will push ISO just to capture the scene (Scene dependent). Others like me, most of the time, if pushing the ISO will turn out grainy, then find another way as much as possible.

Aperture:
I came from a G12, and I develop the habit that to shoot at wide aperture as much as possible, because thats the only available advantage using G12.
For a given lens, I want to learn how different user approach to setting their aperture.

Because I am happy to learn from user opinion than from charts.
and I want to use similar approach, from few users.

 

[nightsky87]

60D:
- I keep my shots at ISO 800 or lower if possible.
- If absolutely necessary I bring it up to ISO 1600
- ISO 3200 is too grainy for my taste

5D3:
- Normal limit is at ISO 3200 for me
- In dire situations, ISO 12800 is still usable

In your case, the 6D should be better at handling noise so the 5D3 should be a close comparison. The settings also depend on what you shoot and for me, I tend to follow certain settings depending on what I shoot.

Portrait:
- I keep ISO at 3200 or lower to make sure there's enough detail
- Aperture is usually 5.6 or wider for me depending on what I'm trying to get
- If available light isn't enough, consider using external lighting (not always possible)

Events:
- This is where I usually have to sacrifice ISO. Just get it as low as possible.
- Aperture usually stays between 2.8-4 (on my 24-70 zoom) for individuals and it can stretch to 5.6 for groups (again, the limits depend on what you're trying to do)
- Consider fill lighting if possible

Landscape/Cityscape:
- LOW ISO! I stay at ISO 100-200 for this one
- Longer exposures + tripod is usually the best solution unless you don't wan't trailing lights at night

That's me of course - and photography is just a really expensive hobby for me. Others might have other preferences.

On your 28mm, it doesn't take much to not have bokeh (assuming you don't shoot your subjects in front of their face ;D). I don't personally own one, but at 24mm, I get less bokeh starting f/4 (or even f/2.8 ) assuming I'm far enough from the subject.

 

[digital paradise]

Just curious why you choose 3200 for portraits? That is my preferred setting for my 5D3 and like you will go higher but that is for dark venues while run and gun shooting.

If I set up a couple of lights I shoot at 400. I may have misread what yo mean by portraits.

 

[nightsky87]

Just curious why you choose 3200 for portraits? That is my preferred setting for my 5D3 and like you will go higher but that is for dark venues while run and gun shooting.

If I set up a couple of lights I shoot at 400. I may have misread what yo mean by portraits.

Oh, by portrait I generally meant single subjects even if lighting isn't controlled. So that includes dark locations where 3200 might still be needed. If lighting is an option, I agree with 400. Great quality at those ISO levels!