timob1205

Wow, what great site this is! Can't believe all the thorough responses in just two days... Man you guys really got me thinking... So first up I checked my settings for the sample pic... ISO 1250, f/3.2, 1/40, 0 ev (I don't even know what that one means), it was in AWB but the IS switch on the lens was off - amateur hour, I know. So obviously if I took advantage of the IS function on my lens much of the blur may have been eliminated although it sounds like 1/40 is still too slow. I'm guessing if I would have maybe gone to ISO 1600, f/2.8, and 1/60 or higher I might have gotten a more clear picture. White balance still seems to be a concern though as yellow as the pic came out. I'm wondering why the AWB didn't seem to work very well. Is there a manual WB setting that would have been more appropriate for my church setting (w/o going to test cards and temperature settings)? Focus: generally I always leave my focus points just set to the one center focus and then I make a point of focusing on my subject's face, repositioning the camera and then shooting. I'm wondering if that slight time lag between focusing on the face and then repositioning is problematic for a moving subject? Seems like when I turn on all the focus points and then just let the camera choose half the time it focuses on something in the background. Is there a better way? Do you guys just use the center focus or multiple points? Seems like the new cameras I am reading about are going to tons of focus points (40 - 60) and reviews make out like that's a huge improvement but I'm wondering what difference it would make to me if I only use the center focus anyway? William, you mentioned using "evaluative metering" - I don't know what that means. Is there a specific setting for that? RAW - As you probably guessed I am shooting in JPG and have for years. I have never ventured into the world of RAW mainly because with 4 kids I have zero time for post processing. Also doesn't RAW make the file size much larger? Not sure about that but it seems like the hard drive space on my iMac gets gobbled up pretty fast, I don't have a mega server or anything. The only post processing I do is in the Photos program on the iMac and I simply adjust contrast or color a little and crop. I don't have lightroom. If I took pics in RAW would I be able to do the white balance correction using iMac's Photos software or would I need to get Lightroom or Photoshop? If I shoot in RAW will my files easily import into Photos or would I still have to convert them to JPGs after any post processing? Can RAW files be uploaded to common print houses like MPix, Snapfish, or Walgreens or do I have to convert them to JPG first? And lastly, delving into your discussion of Manual mode and the lesser of two evils... I have never used the manual mode before because I have always thought it crazy to try to pick the aperture and speed yourself on the fly - I thought Manual mode was only used by Pros who are utilizing a stand-alone light meter? That said, your discussion got me thinking. For the church application I described obviously my lens limits me to f/2.8, so if I set the aperture there and let the camera pick the speed it likely would have been at 1/40 or so until I cranked up the ISO trying to get it to 1/60 or higher to eliminate blur. But this obviously introduces noise. So I'm wondering if when Michael was advocating shooting in manual mode it was because I could have set the aperture to f/2.8 then forced the speed to say 1/60 or 1/100, and get an underexposed but clear picture, then adjust the exposure by increasing the light contrast using my iMac Photos? Would that have given me a better end result? So much to think about. Oh and one more, JoChen - thanks for turning me on to DxOMark - you mentioned that the 40D rated 703 and the 80D was 1135 but your opinion was that that was not enough of an increase to merit upgrading. Does anyone else have an opinion? I have no idea what those ratings mean but that's a 61% increase - is that not good? I guess my real question is - does anyone have any experience with an 80D in low light applications and would have an opinion of how much the ISO sensitivity has improved since the 40D was released on 2007? Ok, enough for now - THANKS EVERYONE for all the feedback!

I am an amateur photographer whose pics are almost exclusively of my 4 grade-school age kids' countless activities. I shoot with a Canon 40D using either a Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens or a Canon EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM lens and almost never use a flash. I tend to have many occasions to take pics in church and undoubtedly my pics always turn out very yellow and out of focus (see attached pic if I can figure out how to insert one). I'll typically use the 17-55 f/2.8 lens, put the camera in "P" mode, set an ISO around 1000 or more and let Canon pick the rest of the settings (no flash), or put it in "Av" mode, set it at f/2.8 w/ 1000 ISO and try that. So at a recent event I shot a bunch of terrible pics and I noticed the guy sitting in front of me was shooting w/a Nikon that didn't look to be crazy expensive and was getting "normal" colored, pretty well focused shots without a flash. I also see people all the time taking pics in church with cell phones that look better than my gear does which frustrates me to no end. Someone told me that the ISO on the 40D is not that great and that a better camera body would solve my problem. I am not opposed to buying a new body if I can stay in the $800 - $1400 range, so I'm pondering the 80D or 7D Mark II - both of which I do not believe are full frame (like my 40D). Ok here's my questions: 1. Is there anything I can do with the gear I have to increase the chance of getting better hand-held, no flash, low light pictures? Am I doing something wrong? 2. If I just can't get there with my current gear will the 80D or 7D Mark II solve my problem or will I have the same problem with those? Will I see a dramatic improvement in my ability to shoot low light pics by upgrading my body to one of those two? I really don't want to spend thousands on a full frame camera like the 5D or EOS-1D (especially since I would have to replace my EF-S lens which I use most of the time)? Any advice is much appreciated!