40D + Lens + Low Light

[Milopok]

Good to see you again. Thanks for responding to my queries unseenshadows,

Hi Milopok. I'm thinking you might seriously want to consider a 50mm f/1.8, especially if you find yourself shooting at max zoom of 50mm on your tamron 17-50 f/2.8, for the simple reason of using a larger aperture. If you get a 50mm f/1.4, its another two stops of light.

I have not thoroughly tested the tamron17-50 f2.8 yet. Those first batch of shots were taken with just the FlashOff modedial.

Camera shake is rather apparent on some of the photos you have put up. Like what other CSers have mentioned, you need to find a place to steady your camera (especially since you are shooting in lowlight). If not, get a monopod or a tripod to help you with that. Or you could consider upgrading to an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.

Great, there is an option to upgrade. Will make a note of this.

Anyway, to answer your queries,

1. Like Dream Merchant mentioned, a 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2 would be good for bringing out more detail and producing sharper photos. It really seems to me that f/2.8 even isn't enough for the photography you are looking at.

Hmm... I will keep this in mind to checkup on something below f/2.8 when looking for the next lens.

2. As to your second query, I personally think this problem is a very knotty one. You mention that no flash is allowed, thus all shadows and highlights must come from the museum lighting itself. I'm not too sure how spot metering works (as Dream Merchant mentioned above), and have no clue as to how to cut shadows (am still learning myself. Hahaha).

It ok la... I will tinkle with the various metering when I take the next batch. Will post some pics then for further discussion.

3. Try changing your WB mode, instead of leaving it at Auto. You may have to custom WB to get the correct 'white-ness' that you want.

At the FlashOff modedial, both ISO & WB doesnt change at all. Now I got to try another mode and hope the Flash doesnt accidentally go off.:sweat:

Hope this helps. I do feel that you should be shooting with a prime lens with a max aperture of at least f/2 or less. 50mm f/1.4 would be very good for you IMHO. I noticed that your shots are mostly taken at 50mm. Moreover if you're looking to take close-ups, 17-50mm would be useless to you. You can consider a 85mm f/1.8 and/or a 100mm f/2. Can keep your tamron for your walkaround needs.

Noted.

 

[unseenshadows]

BTW, My suggestion would be to shoot in Av mode (and set your aperture to f/2.8 with your tamron), instead of using FlashOff mode. Advantage is you can adjust your ISO and WB settings.

To prevent camera shake, you can shoot in Tv mode and set your shutter speed to around 1/80 when shooting at 50mm and 1/20 when shooting at 17mm. Just remember the 1/effective focal length guideline.

 

[Milopok]

Helo calebk, Thanks for reading this post.

I disagree with this.

The 17-50 has a minimum focusing distance (MFD) of 0.27m, giving it a magnification ratio of around 1:4.5.

The 85mm f/1.8 has a MFD of 0.85m, giving it a magnification ratio of around 1:8.

The 100mm f/2 has a MFD of 0.9m, giving it a magnification ratio of around 1:9

Now, the closer the ratio is to 1:1, the larger the object will appear at minimum focusing distance, so the Tamron actually aces the other two in terms of close-up magnification.

Are the 85 & 100 mentioned here considered Macro lenses?
What are the lens to consider, say around 200mm? These are around $1k budget right?

I tested two Macro lens, if I am not mistaken, a 50mm & a 100mm. It went hunting and couldnt achieve focus. Please shade some light. Thanks.

 

[Milopok]

Thanks again for your comments.

BTW, My suggestion would be to shoot in Av mode (and set your aperture to f/2.8 with your tamron), instead of using FlashOff mode. Advantage is you can adjust your ISO and WB settings.

Managed to put in these settings. Will try it in low light.

To prevent camera shake, you can shoot in Tv mode and set your shutter speed to around 1/80 when shooting at 50mm and 1/20 when shooting at 17mm. Just remember the 1/effective focal length guideline.

Let me see if I got this right. For example:
At TV 1/80 at 50mm, this means shoot when I didnt zoom at all.
At TV 1/20 at 17mm, this means shoot when I zoom to the maximum.

Did a quick test in low light. The sound of the shutter is much faster than when its in AV mode. The image is clearer in 1/6 at 17mm. The images are relatively dark around 1/20-80.
Hmm...I am getting an idea now how to play with the various settings. FUN

 

[Milopok]

Interesting comment. Thanks. Tried it on several shots. I found that while I have the viewfinder pressed against my nose/eyeball, the slight rythm in my breathing also start to shake the camera. Maybe should start consider IS lenses. Wonder how much stabilization those actually reduce.

One of the observation I have with some DSLR users is the way they handle the camera for a shot.

To get a more stable shot, press the camera on your face (not camera 1/2 inch away and eye trying to peek in view finder). Don't worry about dirtying the 3 inch LCD. That you can wipe after the shot...;p

By doing that, you might be amaze how much more stable it will be...

 

[Milopok]

You mean people actually try to peek in the VF? :bsmilie:

Canon EOS 1D2N | 5D | 40D | 17-85 mm F4-5.6 IS | 70-200mm F4 IS L | 85 mm F1.8 | 24-70 mm F2.8 L ;p

Looks like you have a series of nice cameras and lenses.

Are you able to share pics taken with the 85mmF1.8 and 70-200?

 

[Milopok]

great tip. simple and effective technique but very often overlooked

Nice series of photographs you have there on Hokkaido.

 

[calebk]

Helo calebk, Thanks for reading this post.

Are the 85 & 100 mentioned here considered Macro lenses?
What are the lens to consider, say around 200mm? These are around $1k budget right?

I tested two Macro lens, if I am not mistaken, a 50mm & a 100mm. It went hunting and couldnt achieve focus. Please shade some light. Thanks.

Neither of them are macro lenses. There are two macro lenses that are within mortal reach for most of us hobbyists, in the Canon lens range: the EF-S 60mm and the EF 100mm. I'm guessing you tried both of these.

The reason why you couldn't achieve focus is either because the subject is too close, has insufficient contrast, or both. I'd recommend using Manual Focus for macro work.

 

[Milopok]

Updates: ONE

2) You mean you want to get the 'inside' of the chamber in the middle of the statue clear and bright? If yes, then you have to spot meter for the inside, but you might end up finding that your exposure may have to be very veey long and you can't hand-hold the camera. All the outside would be 'gone case', because you're metering for the interior chamber. With bad lighting, high ISO and very long exposures, the result may still be quite bad.

3) Can try manually setting to tungsten white balance, or do a custom white balance reading, or adjust the colour temp WB setting yourself (refer to manual). Check and see which one gives you the most appropriate result.

Spot meter for the interior chamber

Zoom into interior chamber

Amazing what the camera could see when we can't even standing infront of the exhibit. Thank you Dream Merchant.

 

[Milopok]

Updates: TWO

BTW, My suggestion would be to shoot in Av mode (and set your aperture to f/2.8 with your tamron), instead of using FlashOff mode. Advantage is you can adjust your ISO and WB settings.

To prevent camera shake, you can shoot in Tv mode and set your shutter speed to around 1/80 when shooting at 50mm and 1/20 when shooting at 17mm. Just remember the 1/effective focal length guideline.

Tried the f/2.8, ISO=1000 & WB=Tungsten, image is less soft

Viewing at 100% is noisy

Still trying to get a feel on the Shutter Speed thingy.

 

[Milopok]

Neither of them are macro lenses. There are two macro lenses that are within mortal reach for most of us hobbyists, in the Canon lens range: the EF-S 60mm and the EF 100mm. I'm guessing you tried both of these.

The reason why you couldn't achieve focus is either because the subject is too close, has insufficient contrast, or both. I'd recommend using Manual Focus for macro work.

It was a Sigma 105mm.
The subject was abt 2ft away.
The light source was fluorescent.
Think I had no idea how to use it properly.:bsmilie:

 

[Dream Merchant]

Interesting comment. Thanks. Tried it on several shots. I found that while I have the viewfinder pressed against my nose/eyeball, the slight rythm in my breathing also start to shake the camera. Maybe should start consider IS lenses. Wonder how much stabilization those actually reduce.

Err...you're supposed to holg your breath once you've settled down/achieved a lower heart-rate, then gently add pressure to the shutter then BOOM! Macam firing a rifle. Not breathe through the shot.

Anyways, looks like you're making lightning progress. :thumbsup:

 

[unseenshadows]

Updates: TWO



Tried the f/2.8, ISO=1000 & WB=Tungsten, image is less soft

Viewing at 100% is noisy

Still trying to get a feel on the Shutter Speed thingy.

Image is definitely sharper and the shadows have been cut. As for the noise, to me it is still acceptable. But, to each his own I guess.

 

[Milopok]

Err...you're supposed to holg your breath once you've settled down/achieved a lower heart-rate, then gently add pressure to the shutter then BOOM! Macam firing a rifle. Not breathe through the shot.

Anyways, looks like you're making lightning progress. :thumbsup:

Okie I shall try this the next time I fire off the shutter. Thank you for the tip.

 

[Milopok]

Image is definitely sharper and the shadows have been cut. As for the noise, to me it is still acceptable. But, to each his own I guess.

Yep I can live with the noise as well especially since I am not printing them. The strong indoor sportlight from above seem to be bouncing off the reflective surfaces in all directions. Pretty unpredictable when taken from different angle. Some pics were bad.
Over exposure, I think!

Tv Shutter Speed: 1/13sec
Aperture: F2.8
Metering Modes: Spot
ISO: 800
Focal Length: 23mm
Flash: Off
White Balance: Tungsten
Note: Taken thr Glass, handheld.

Still scratching my head on this one.

 

[Dream Merchant]

Research 18% grey in camera metering, and 'how to use a spot meter'.

Spot meter is not easy to use because first not many togs understand the manufacturer's 18% grey thing, and then next difficulty is how to identify exactly where to meter.

Also bear in mind that the in-built camera's spot-meter is not a 'true' 1 degree spot meter, but just a narrowed field (from avarage or matrix style metering) ranging from 3+ degrees to over 5 degrees.

Besides understanding the fundamentals of 18% grey metering involved, then knowing exactly where to meter, or how to counter-check by metering off different areas and calculating/selective avaraging, you also have to remember that the camera's 'spot meter' may get influenced (especially) by high-contrast edges or light leaking into the not so precise metering area leading to noticeable over or under exposure.

Some Canon models like the 1D series have been known to cause under-exposure when 'spot' meter is used in Manual mode.

 

[Russ]

Yep I can live with the noise as well especially since I am not printing them. The strong indoor sportlight from above seem to be bouncing off the reflective surfaces in all directions. Pretty unpredictable when taken from different angle. Some pics were bad.
Over exposure, I think!

Overexposure - yes, by quite a bit too. What happened to that shot was that all the brighter areas were burnt out, i.e. one or more of the RGB channels reach saturation point .. like trying to pour 1.5 litres into a 1 litre bottle, the bottle cannot take more than 1 litre..

In digital photography, it is best to avoid this - the way to see this is a blinking black area when you review the shot on your camera. Small areas are OK, especially if the subject is white. It is better to underexpose and correct with software than to overexpose, because you lose all the highlights if you do suffer burn outs. Unlike film, it costs nothing to take more shots and in tricky situations you may want to bracket exposure, i.e. take a shot +1 and another -1 stop and pick the one that works best.

 

[Milopok]

Updates: Three

I tried F5.6 and spot on the nose.

Much better.

Left shoulder still OOF.

Thats normal?

 

[justanut]

Normal for your aperture and distance from subject (DOF)... If you want the whole statue to be in focus, you might want to increase your aperture or stand further back, or change your angle so the shoulder isn't so far from the nose. Google "DOF Master" for an interesting calculator on DOF. :sweatsm:

 

[Milopok]

Updates: FOUR

A shot taken less than one feet away.

When viewed in 100%.

Query 1: This exhibit itself is about 10inches in height excluding the wooden stand its seated on. I should think its possible to get it in sharp focus from head to toe, instead of just having focus around the head and blurry elsewhere. What would you say can be done differently to achieve that?

Query 2: The lighting here was already fairly strong. Hence I think the 2.8 suffice. To have a better closeup shot, what would be a typical lens to explore with? I imagine having difficulties with prime lens as the glass is in the way and there is no way for me to get any nearer without a zoom. Or maybe the Sigma 20mm 1.8 even without the zoom would be sufficient? Appreciate your views.