Am i expecting to much

den

den

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,607
Name
Dennis
Edit My Images
No
Hi, i have a 100-400 is and to date i have been happy with it,however today i have been out in a somewhat cloudy day but pretty bright and at around 250mm i had to boost the iso up to 800 shooting in av at 5.6 just to get a decent shutter speed, i am so used to shooting with a iso of no more than 200 normaly , the noise at iso 800 is not acceptable to me or my eyes , the lens in good light is excellent but as i am going to be taking wildlife shots all year round i am concerened i am going to have a lot of wasted shots come the next few months , i am thinking of going for the 70-200 2.8 with a converter but then the converter is going to lose me a couple of stops,not sure what to do here ,maybe its just a one of today but i love going out in all weathers my camera , but any advice would be apreciated ,was also thinking of a fast third party lens to compliment my canon 100-400 ,ie a sigma etc,any help or advice would be apreciated.Thanks
 
yes


longer answer... you ahve a lens that shoots at f5.6 on a dull day and a camera that doesnt handle iso very well.. sorry but your not going to get loverly bright sharp pictures on a dull day with that setup
 
I take that as my camera and lens are no good for anything apart from bright sunny days,.....its all i can afford so it will have to be sunny days only then.
 
den said:
I take that as my camera and lens are no good for anything apart from bright sunny days,.....its all i can afford so it will have to be sunny days only then.
Click to expand...

a little extreme dont you think? your equipment is more than usable at any time of day in any light.. its your expectations of what will be produced in poor conditions that need a reality check not the equipment :)
 
Never had a problem shooting at 800 with the 100-400 attached.
Like you say on not so bright days you have to up the iso to get a decent shutter speed, I have to do that too.

spike
 
Or you could use a slower shutter speed and a tripod :shrug:


Les ;)
 
It's too easy to get frustrated with your results and blame the equipment. Just try some of the ideas people have given you and don't let bad results get you down. Post as much of your stuff as you can here for critique and you will learn from any mistakes.
:)
 
Maybe i am expecting to much ,my first reply seemed to sugest my equipment wasn't up to scratch.....However i will have a look at some third party fast lenses around the 70-200 2/8 at least it may give another option on dull days . I do know a lot comes down to experience and getting the most from the subject with the light you have , maybe its time to start using my monopod ....
 
If it's a 50d the op is using (as alluded in this thread, can't see as I'm on iPhone!) that handles iso 1600 superbly and 3200 iso very well if shot and processed properly.

The combo should be capable if very good results, dont be afraid to up the iso if need be, but poor conditions will never be conducive to good shooting, whatever the equipment.
 
den said:
I think i will bite the bullet and purchase lightroom 3,i believe its pretty good for helping with noise reduction.
Click to expand...

i would try some of the open source free noise reduction programmes before buying lightroom 3
 
Get to know your kit inside out Den :thumbs:. ISO 1250 on the 50D ;)

lt3_filtered_filtered.jpg
 
den said:
I think i will bite the bullet and purchase lightroom 3,i believe its pretty good for helping with noise reduction.
Click to expand...

The best for high iso images I've found, is Canon's own DPP which you should already have.

It gives very clean high iso. conversions
 
I dont understand the OPs post then.. he gives the impression the camera is poor after iso 800 thus my response.. :(

Up yer ISO fella and stop being a whimp :)
 
KIPAX said:
I dont understand the OPs post then.. he gives the impression the camera is poor after iso 800 thus my response.. :(

Up yer ISO fella and stop being a whimp :)
Click to expand...

Indeed, that's what I was trying to say in my post, but I think I was beating around the bush a little too much? 50d is fine at 800 iso, and then some!
 
den said:
I think i will bite the bullet and purchase lightroom 3,i believe its pretty good for helping with noise reduction.
Click to expand...

Good move :thumbs: Lightroom is brilliant, and does everything. Or cheaper options like Noise Ninja and Neat Image just for noise.

Like others, I'm wondering what your problem is at ISO800. It's not ideal, but should still be pretty good.

Look at your processing regime and noise reduction, and especially ensure you are not under exposing (to get that shutter speed?) which is really bad for noise.
 
Adey said:
ISO800? BAH!! I laugh in the face of ISO800.


ISO 3200 on a 400d

IMG_1056 Tavistock AFC Vs Plymouth Argyle (1 - 3) by Adrian Deans, on Flickr

Not pro quality by any means, but if i can do that on a 400d and £99 Tamron, your 50 should be just fine.

I did cheat with layer masks, but still:lol:
Click to expand...

Wasn't aware the 400D had ISO3200, I've owned one since 2007 and only managed to get it up to 1600 :lol:

I've used my 7D and 100-400mm at ISO3200 at a rugby match with perfectly acceptable results (I'm at work right now but I'm sure I've put some pictures on here using that combo).

OK, they're not as nice as when I'm using ISO100/200 but slightly less sharp/noisier images are better than nothing at all and at a fraction of the cost of say a 1DMKIII+ and 400mm EF 2.8L II ;)
 
Russ77 said:
Wasn't aware the 400D had ISO3200, I've owned one since 2007 and only managed to get it up to 1600 :lol:

I've used my 7D and 100-400mm at ISO3200 at a rugby match with perfectly acceptable results (I'm at work right now but I'm sure I've put some pictures on here using that combo).

OK, they're not as nice as when I'm using ISO100/200 but slightly less sharp/noisier images are better than nothing at all and at a fraction of the cost of say a 1DMKIII+ and 400mm EF 2.8L II ;)
Click to expand...

It doesnt it's a firmware hack. It's not true iso 3200 iirc but a pushed 1600?
 
You're worrying too much - any examples would be good to see though.

You said it's all you can afford but you're contemplating a fast 70-200... Your current setup is fine. I use s six-year-old D2x, which not on par with the 50D at ISO 1600 but I get magazine spreads from mine without any hassle. Good exposure at high ISOs is something you need to nail :)
 
u8myufo said:
Get to know your kit inside out Den :thumbs:. ISO 1250 on the 50D ;)

lt3_filtered_filtered.jpg
Click to expand...

This is a lovely shot but is it just me that sees the optical illusion - it looks like a two legged guinea pig on a branch (imagine the beak as the guinea pig's ear) :p
 
Now you come to mention it! LOL
 
Spuff said:
This is a lovely shot but is it just me that sees the optical illusion - it looks like a two legged guinea pig on a branch (imagine the beak as the guinea pig's ear) :p
Click to expand...

I wondered what you meant by a two legged Guinea Pig :thinking: but when I looked again it was there. :lol: Well spotted.
 
IIRC on the 50D IQ can be improved by switching highlight tone priority and long exposure noise reduction off - located in custom setting (I think - turned mine off ages ago and can't remember exactly where it is without having the camera in front of me)
 
Here is a test shot from my 50D (now sold) + 100-400 at 300mm, 1/160, f/5.6, 800 ISO. This is 100% crop of raw file in Lightroom 3.4 with no edits. I can't grumble about the IQ. This was in a shaded area and according to the exposure data is in lighting just over 5 stops dimmer than bright sunlight.

20110909_190607_000.jpg


Here's the whole frame, converted to JPEG in Lightroom, again without edits....

20090630_163216_0126_LR.jpg



a 70-200/2.8 with 2X TC is not going to improve on the 100-400 in terms of exposure/noise. You'll get a 140-400/5.6 lens, which at the shorter focal lengths is a step in the wrong direction.


p.s. the photo above was taken as part of a series to compare ISO/noise performance. Here's the unedited 100% crop from the shot at 3200 ISO....

20110909_192127_000.jpg


The noise is clearly more visible, but at more conventional reproduction sizes and a little sympathetic processing it would still produce a very usable image.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top