| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/20/2011 07:16:03 AM · #26 |
| I noticed in your portfolio that nearly all of your recent shots are taken with the Tamron 18-270 lens. Could it be the lens ? Have you tried a comparison with a different lens ? Pretty obvious, I know but just trying to help. |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 07:33:23 AM · #27 |
There have been cases where my 1D mk 4 has decided to use 12000 iso in a bright sunny day. It was because I used spot metering on a dark subject. The surrounding light matter none.
The focusing issue could be a lense issue. Have you tried another lense? |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 07:39:14 AM · #28 |
I have here is the prime lens (200). Light coming in from side window and light bulb on right, well light room taken at 11.47am . This is also a good shot for what I was saying about missed focus. I had the bead on his head, and as you can see, the blanket is in focus and his head is not. ((Full size image, click on)
again, Auto 6.3 , 1/25 +33 ISO 3200
Any lower than 3200 it went kathunk it was so slow.
I believe I did use spot metering as well J
Message edited by author 2011-01-20 07:45:38. |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 07:57:05 AM · #29 |
There has to be a fault.
I have just tried mine on Auto in a room with very similar tones and amount of light.
1/40 5.6 ISO125 makes a perfect exposure.
As I say there has to be a foult with the body it can never be right. |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 08:03:09 AM · #30 |
| By the way you cannot use spot metering in auto mode. |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 08:11:37 AM · #31 |
no sorry,,, the auto was for AUTO ISO.
Sorry I wasnt clear, I work mostly in P mode, but a lot of tv and av as well, same all the way across the board
Message edited by author 2011-01-20 08:13:35. |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 09:00:02 AM · #32 |
Juliet's picture run through ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) to adjust exposure, contrast, and noise reduction:
I don't find the noise abnormal for ISO 3200, and it's easily controllable. I don't see the focus issues she is talking about, myself: I see sharpness in several zones: notably, the boots/jeans (front) and the pillow (back). The head's NOT critically sharp, I grant that, but look at the shutter speed ΓΆ€” 1/25. That's a bad speed for shooting people in poses, the least little bit of movement kills critical sharpness.
I don't know what the issue is with the claimed need to go to ISO 3200, but that image is a couple stops overexposed in my book.
for comparison, toggle with Juliet's original:
R.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2011 10:10:19 AM · #33 |
I see what you mean Bear. 2 things. I had a bead on the end of his nose, that is the only one. His head should be sharp. There was no focus points anywhere else, so all the other stuff that is tack sharp, should not be (does that make sense?) it is almost deciding that whatever I focus on, it will focus on other stuff.
The thing with the ISO in this pictures, is that it is an extremely bright room natural light, we are talking almost full sunlight from 2 bay windows, 1 bay window that high up near the ceiling. The camera and or different setting would not even take a picture below 1600 ISO, it would kathunk. Even manual was off. There was no low light at all it shoudl have been at ISO 100 but the camera can not work that low.
I wish I had kept all the test shots I had done with the missed focus and 200, but I kinda got a little upset and deleted them all. Here is an example, I beaded on the ring, it is out of focus, the the miniature hair on the right hand side is tack sharp
|
|
|
|
01/20/2011 10:50:05 AM · #34 |
| Why not take it off auto ISO and see how it does? Maybe it's a glitch there. |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 10:51:18 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I wish I had kept all the test shots I had done with the missed focus and 200, but I kinda got a little upset and deleted them all. Here is an example, I beaded on the ring, it is out of focus, the the miniature hair on the right hand side is tack sharp
|
Is that handheld or on a tripod? |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 11:13:01 AM · #36 |
| tripod with remote trigger |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 11:20:13 AM · #37 |
Juliet, time to pay another visit to Cape Cod. We'll see what happens when you shoot with Penny's 7D and yours, alternating :-)
It's impossible to tell what's going on from these strange descriptions you're giving us. There are so many variables, and your frustration may be getting in the way of any potential solutions. You say the cam's been back to Canon twice and they've passed it; it seems to me if it were having such catastrophic issues they'd have caught that...
Sigh...
R. |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 11:34:40 AM · #38 |
Sighhhh I know, I think I just a jinx.
I (gulp) have a model shoot thing on Saturday night (which will be interesting on one leg lol) so gonna get the lights out, shoot with them, then without and see what happens with the shots. But yes, I will pop up cos I could do with some good beach and oyster catching lol |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 11:56:36 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why not take it off auto ISO and see how it does? Maybe it's a glitch there. |
|
|
|
|
01/20/2011 12:07:52 PM · #40 |
| I have , but I have not used this camera in a light set up yet, so maybe it can redeem itself, if not then i am flying to the Cape lol |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 01:02:06 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I had a bead on the end of his nose, that is the only one. His head should be sharp. |
Several points...
At 1/25 shutter speed, the focus could have been perfect and you still wouldn't get a sharp face. The slightest movement, even breathing, would blur details.
The 7D has focus adjustment controls so you can set the camera to compensate if the lens is consistently off.
ISO 3200 seems very unlikely for good lighting. When that happens to me, it usually turns out to be a polarizer or ND filter I accidentally left attached. It could also be that the room wasn't as bright as you thought. I can't remember ever using f/6.3 for indoor available light. |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 01:02:22 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by ajschel:
Hi all,
Now, for the children/birds/squirrels/events i would like the 7D's superior AF and metering system. Also 8fps is nice.
But for landscape, low light and indoor situations (also events), i would love to have FF.
I would really appreciate your opinions. Thanks! |
Question back to the OP or anyone who knows... How does having a FF (Full Frame) sensor affect shooting in low light? Why is it better? Isn't it only ISO and Aperture size that affects your ability to shoot well in low light? |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 01:19:45 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
Question back to the OP or anyone who knows... How does having a FF (Full Frame) sensor affect shooting in low light? Why is it better? Isn't it only ISO and Aperture size that affects your ability to shoot well in low light? |
No, the DESIGN of the sensor is important. On larger sensors, the pixel arrays are not crowded so close together, so there is much less interference and consequently a much better signal-to-noise ratio, allowing much better noise performance at high ISOs.
R.
Message edited by author 2011-01-20 13:20:04. |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 01:22:21 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
How does having a FF (Full Frame) sensor affect shooting in low light? Why is it better? |
In a nutshell, a full frame sensor has a larger surface to soak up the light. More photons are recorded by the camera, and the signal to noise ratio is much better. |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 01:26:31 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
Question back to the OP or anyone who knows... How does having a FF (Full Frame) sensor affect shooting in low light? Why is it better? Isn't it only ISO and Aperture size that affects your ability to shoot well in low light? |
No, the DESIGN of the sensor is important. On larger sensors, the pixel arrays are not crowded so close together, so there is much less interference and consequently a much better signal-to-noise ratio, allowing much better noise performance at high ISOs.
R. |
OK gotcha. So is it true to say the FF sensor is not only bigger, but better quality in terms of collecting light?
(I am now severely tempted to take the time to research the technical aspects of what noise actually is. But I am wrestling with spending the time to read more crap and learn about the little details behind it or just accepting it and moving on!) |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 01:30:42 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
OK gotcha. So is it true to say the FF sensor is not only bigger, but better quality in terms of collecting light? |
Think of each little light sensor as a bucket. On a full frame the buckets are both larger and more spread apart. Larger collects more photons (increased signal) and more spread apart diminishes the number of photons that accidentally fall into the wrong bucket (decreased noise).
Message edited by author 2011-01-20 13:31:22. |
|
|
|
03/15/2011 03:50:58 AM · #47 |
This is a very good review on both cameras.
//www.digitalrev.com/en/canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-canon-7d-6264-article.html |
|
|
|
03/15/2011 03:57:10 AM · #48 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 07:46:33 PM EDT.
