Another camera vs lense upgrade thread

[Rob Douglas]

Thanks for the detailed feedback! I was debating (camera vs lens aside) between the 28-135 and 70-200 L lenses, both are f4 as far as I remember. All 2.8s are out of my price range for now. For those, I thought since I already have a semi-decent lens that covers most of the 28-135 range, that the 70-200 would be a better choice (I was going to start a separate thread on this)

I just came across this so sorry for the late post but hope it helps. The 28-135 is a decent kit lens but is no comparison to any of the 70-200L line. The fixed aperture of the 70-200L series along with the internal focus, weather sealing, and L quality glass makes them a hands down winner. You could probably find a good condition 2.8 version I for slightly more than a new f/4.

[Equilibrium8]

I just came across this so sorry for the late post but hope it helps. The 28-135 is a decent kit lens but is no comparison to any of the 70-200L line. The fixed aperture of the 70-200L series along with the internal focus, weather sealing, and L quality glass makes them a hands down winner. You could probably find a good condition 2.8 version I for slightly more than a new f/4.

Thanks Rob. The 70-200 L is definitely on my list of upgrades. But will probably be a F4, the price difference between used ones in Taiwan are quite extreme.

[Colin Southern]

fixed aperture of the 70-200L series along with the internal focus, weather sealing, and L quality glass makes them a hands down

Just be aware that only the IS versions are weather sealed.

[Rob Douglas]

Just be aware that only the IS versions are weather sealed.

I forgot to mention that, thanks Colin.

[William W]

Image linking and uploading still not working. You can copy and paste if its not too much trouble.

Kenny's Images:


F/4.5 @ 1/200s @ ISO400

***


F/5.6 @ 1/125s @ ISO800


WW

[William W]

Both images are underexposed for correct skin tones of the main Subject(s).
This image is about 1½ to 2 stops underexposed:



***

This image is about 2 stops underexposed:


***

The final edited images here presented, are NOT meant as refined corrections, but are an indicative as what to expect SOC that would be closer to a correctly exposed image.



and



***

If you wish to use High ISO and an EOS450D and shoot people then, as a beginning guide you need to be about ½Stop OVERexposed for Skin Tones; shoot raw and correct in PP.
As noted both these images are well under that guideline.

WW

 

[Colin Southern]

If you wish to use High ISO and an EOS450D and shoot people then, as a beginning guide you need to be about ½Stop OVERexposed for Skin Tones; shoot raw and correct in PP.
As noted both these images are well under that guideline.

I'd even go so far as to say that if you're shooting high ISO modes (800+), you've probably not optimising the shot UNLESS you're getting some blinkies/highlight alert in the shot (the $6,000,000 question is exactly where though).

Think of it as being a bit like a normal drive into town -v- a trip into town with someone who is gravely ill in the back. In the case of the former, you take your time - obey the rules - and enjoy a big safety margin. In the case of the latter you push things to the limit because you can't afford the usual safety margin. High ISO shooting is like the emergency trip to the hospital!

[William W]

I'd even go so far as to say that if you're shooting high ISO modes (800+), you've probably not optimising the shot UNLESS you're getting some blinkies/highlight alert in the shot (the $6,000,000 question is exactly where though).

Gidday Colin.

Agreed.
That’s because mainly for low light work, there is usually always a wide dynamic range at the scene because we are using street lights or room lights, perhaps a spotlight will be in the shot or a very dark background or parts of the person with intense light on them and the rest of them in shadow – nothing like shooting in open shade or a nice soft cloudy scene, during the day.

I don't use the histogram all that much at all, but it was a good tool for this exercise.
If I were shooting the first frame that amplifier (or whatever) with the brushed aluminium face at background, camera right would be blinking all over the place and the specular highlights on the kick drum and the microphone and snare stands also would be blinking.
On the second frame the woman’s palm and elbow would be blown.

***

It comes with practice.
The brain “smoothes out” what our eyes see so we don’t see the blown out bits like a camera’s sensor sees them.
So it just takes practice to look and pre-think what in the scene is going to have to blow out to get the face correct, and it is usually the face which needs to be correct.

Much of the technique is “seeing” the face, exposing the face correctly (add ½ Stop over for a Canon Prosumer Cameras) and letting the rest of the scene fall where it may.
I use the Spot Meter often. Fortunately the 450D has a Spot Meter, I think that was an improvement from the 400D.

I might manual calculate and fudge the skin tone exposure to “normal” or even maybe ½ Stop underexposure, but only IF there is another important area of the scene which needs to be in acceptable exposure.

For example in this shot below (with horrible overhead streetlight) we would normally seek to get enough exposure on the face to liven the eyes and avoid the raccoon features of overhead lighting, but if we pushed the exposure to avoid much more of the shadows under the eyes we would lose the skin tone and texture of the forehead, cheekbones, neck, clavicle, shoulders and upper bust – and these skin tones and nuances of light and shade are more important than the eyes, as the rim lighting on half the mouth and a glimpse of the eye is enough to understand her emotion, I think.

So this shot was metered to make her chest skin tone dead spot on for Caucasian Skin a I allowed everything else to fall where it may and I avoided mostly all binkies save for a very tiny area on her ponytail top.


"The Lamp Post Will Not Divide Us"
EOS 5D EF135F/2L
F/2 @ 1/100s @ ISO3200 HH Available Light
(view big: - her face and eyes are actually quite OK when viewed big)

WW

[Equilibrium8]

Both images are underexposed for correct skin tones of the main Subject(s).
...
If you wish to use High ISO and an EOS450D and shoot people then, as a beginning guide you need to be about ½Stop OVERexposed for Skin Tones; shoot raw and correct in PP.
As noted both these images are well under that guideline.
 

Thanks a million William, for advice and examples. I would never have done that intuitively (nor have any of the books I've read brought up these points). And I tried exposing to capture the room ambience more than the skin tone. Realistically, is there any way to do both? As in capture the skin tone without brightening the ambient club lighting?

Also, if I went up 2 stops, that would take it to 1/80 I think. Wouldn't that be a bit slow for moving people?

[Equilibrium8]

I'd even go so far as to say that if you're shooting high ISO modes (800+), you've probably not optimising the shot UNLESS you're getting some blinkies/highlight alert in the shot (the $6,000,000 question is exactly where though).

Think of it as being a bit like a normal drive into town -v- a trip into town with someone who is gravely ill in the back. In the case of the former, you take your time - obey the rules - and enjoy a big safety margin. In the case of the latter you push things to the limit because you can't afford the usual safety margin. High ISO shooting is like the emergency trip to the hospital!

Thanks Colin. Again, I would never have thought of that. All the books I've been reading harp on about NEVER overexposing, but it makes sense in this context.

[Colin Southern]

Gidday Colin.

Agreed.
That’s because mainly for low light work, there is usually always a wide dynamic range at the scene because we are using street lights or room lights, perhaps a spotlight will be in the shot or a very dark background or parts of the person with intense light on them and the rest of them in shadow – nothing like shooting in open shade or a nice soft cloudy scene, during the day.

Hey Bill,

Hope you're well, and not tucking into too many "bottles of red -- bottles of white"!

Most of my high DR scenes are usually in a landscape context (and at base ISO), but because high ISO is still basically a DR problem, I mostly just encourage folks to concentrate on the midtones (much the same as you); the highlights are going to blow anyway, so little point in under-exposing the rest of the image to try and protect them. To be honest, I do still like to look at the histogram; it's most useful to me in indicating any degree of under-exposure (whereas the blinkies give me a feel for the degree of any areas of over-exposure), but my "secret of the pros" tip to many would still be "if the mid-tones look right on the review screen, chances are the image will be just fine (in the context of high ISO and high DR scenes). Mind you, I think I have histogram characteristics -v- high DR scenes burned into my brain in much the same way as you have DoF tables burned into yours! (ever get the feeling we're a sad bunch?!)

[Colin Southern]

Thanks Colin. Again, I would never have thought of that. All the books I've been reading harp on about NEVER overexposing, but it makes sense in this context.

No worries Kenny

When you think about it, the light "gathering" characteristics of the camera's sensor are set in silicon - so all of the magic of high ISO can only happen electronically. So if you're shooting at - say - ISO 800, all that's really happening is you're (as far as the sensor is concerned) (need to word this carefully!) only feeding it 1/8th the amount of light that it would have got at ISO 100 if the light was 8 times stronger. So to put that another way, if you have a 12 foot well with fresh water at the top - mud at the bottom - shooting at ISO 800 is like taking water 3 feet down from the top - which is also 3 feet closer to the mud. But if that pipe was ALREADY 2 feet in the water (meaning a 2 stop under-exposure) and you lowered it an additional 3 feet then the water isn't as clean and as clear as it would have been 2 feet further up. In a digital context this means you're getting closer and closer to the noise floor.

In a camera sense, it's not the under-exposure that causes the noise per se (if you want to test it, set your camera to it;s highest ISO setting - under-expose a shot by 10 stops - and you still won't see any noise - BUT - it's when you try to adjust that under-exposure out in post processing you find that the signal & the noise floor are basically one and the same, and you can't display one without revealing the other ... so the "trick" is to stay as far away from the noise floor as possible - and that means not under-exposing. Even over-exposed looking on the review screen in fine so long as important areas aren't blown. It's one of the few occasions where ETTR (Expose to the Right) is actually beneficial.

[Colin Southern]

Thanks a million William, for advice and examples. I would never have done that intuitively (nor have any of the books I've read brought up these points).

I think Bill & I should get together and write a book about some of these real-world things!

And I tried exposing to capture the room ambience more than the skin tone. Realistically, is there any way to do both? As in capture the skin tone without brightening the ambient club lighting?

You can only expose a scene evenly; if the light levels are different between different parts of the scene, then "something had to give". My "pro tip" (2nd for the night -- giving away the farm here!) is to not worry if the background is too bright compared to a foreground subject; many use flash to illuminate the foreground subject by about an extra stop, but in reality, it's easy to apply a vignette to the background afterwards, which draws the eye in to the subject beautifully (and gives the illusion of them being lit with some perfectly tergeted and controlled light) eg ...




(the feel of this shot would have been completely different if the lighting was even all the way across)

Also, if I went up 2 stops, that would take it to 1/80 I think. Wouldn't that be a bit slow for moving people?

Not ideal, unless you want some movement to add to the atmosphere. Photography is all about compromises; many people are reluctant to use high ISO modes because of the "noise" - so they stick to low ISO modes which then forces them into wide-apertures (and potentially DoF issues), or low shutter speeds (where camera shake and subject motion cause issues). Which causes the least damage to an image - high ISO "noise" (that you can't see at real-world print sizes) - camera shake/subject motion - or lack of depth of field? Having just said that, if you're maxed out ISO wise - shooting wide open - and still only at 1/80th then all you can do is either go with the flow, or under-expose and risk noise. When you're right on the edgo of the technology like that it's simply a judgement call.

[William W]

I think Bill & I should get together and write a book about some of these real-world things!

May we begin tomorrow, I am in the middle of a very nice Red ATM.

WW

[Equilibrium8]

No worries Kenny

When you think about it, the light "gathering" characteristics of the camera's sensor are set in silicon - so all of the magic of high ISO can only happen electronically. So if you're shooting at - say - ISO 800, all that's really happening is you're (as far as the sensor is concerned) (need to word this carefully!) only feeding it 1/8th the amount of light that it would have got at ISO 100 if the light was 8 times stronger. So to put that another way, if you have a 12 foot well with fresh water at the top - mud at the bottom - shooting at ISO 800 is like taking water 3 feet down from the top - which is also 3 feet closer to the mud. But if that pipe was ALREADY 2 feet in the water (meaning a 2 stop under-exposure) and you lowered it an additional 3 feet then the water isn't as clean and as clear as it would have been 2 feet further up. In a digital context this means you're getting closer and closer to the noise floor.

In a camera sense, it's not the under-exposure that causes the noise per se (if you want to test it, set your camera to it;s highest ISO setting - under-expose a shot by 10 stops - and you still won't see any noise - BUT - it's when you try to adjust that under-exposure out in post processing you find that the signal & the noise floor are basically one and the same, and you can't display one without revealing the other ... so the "trick" is to stay as far away from the noise floor as possible - and that means not under-exposing. Even over-exposed looking on the review screen in fine so long as important areas aren't blown. It's one of the few occasions where ETTR (Expose to the Right) is actually beneficial.

Great explanation Colin. I get the idea. I'm a sound engineer, so I'm thinking this is directly parallel to signal-to-noise ratios and noise floors in relation to bit depths.
I'll be sure to try this out soon.

[Glenn NK]

Hi, thanks for the replies.

I do have a tendency to underexpose. My personal preference veers towards underexposing rather than overexposing (Which may just be a stupid mistake on my part). And my photos are mainly on the Web, but since some of them may be used for commercial use soon, it would be better for me to think in terms of bigger prints just in case.

Kenny:

Hi, I just happened on this thread and your comment about under-exposing may the a large part of your problem. (EDIT: and admittedly I didn't read the last post by Colin until I posted this).

I've found that underexposing is one of the best ways to achieve noisy images. Even images that are exposed to the right very often have darker areas and these darker areas will often have quite a bit of noise.

I've found this with both my camera bodies (30D and the 5DII), so I check every image using the RGB histogram. I suspect that any camera that is set to underexpose will result in noisier images than would be obtained by exposing to the right.

Glenn

[Colin Southern]

Great explanation Colin. I get the idea. I'm a sound engineer, so I'm thinking this is directly parallel to signal-to-noise ratios and noise floors in relation to bit depths.
I'll be sure to try this out soon.

Hi Kenny,

Being a sound engineer will help a lot in understanding it - it's VERY similar, and all about signal-to-noise ratio. I guess the audio equivalent would be having a microphone 4 inches from a singer -v- 2 feet away -v- 10 ffet away -v- 40 feet away. In each case you can increase the gain, but of course, the more you increase the gain to capture the signal that's getting fainter and fainter, the more you amplify the inherant noise. For any distance, the louder the sound the better, because you're further away from the noise (up to the point of saturation of course).

[Colin Southern]

I've found that underexposing is one of the best ways to achieve noisy images.

At high ISOs, you can safely bet money on it

Even images that are exposed to the right very often have darker areas and these darker areas will often have quite a bit of noise.

One thing to keep in mind though is that prints have a much lower dynamic range than monitors (by typically a couple of stops) - so areas that appear noisy on screen may well not appear noisy at all in a print.

[Colin Southern]

May we begin tomorrow, I am in the middle of a very nice Red ATM.

Done, hick!